Download Colgate`s Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Colgate’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory:
Initial steps towards carbon-neutrality
Milt Geiger, Blair Goodridge, Bill Sadlon
Environmental Studies 480
Fall 2002
Executive Summary:
For decades global warming and anthropocentric greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions have been labeled as partners in the acceleration of global climate change.
World summits and conferences have addressed issues of industrial remediation and
global air quality standards to offset the long-reaching effects of greenhouse gases. The
Kyoto Protocol, proposing an emissions reduction below 1990 levels, is the latest and
most developed international proposal focused on greenhouse gas abatement. Despite
mixed international acceptance, self-imposed compliance has begun throughout the
private sector, including top colleges and universities.
Tufts University, Middlebury and Lewis and Clark colleges have all implemented
university-specific greenhouse gas inventories to identify areas for potential “green”
improvement. These universities developed their inventories independently and in
concert with private organizations, such as Clean Air-Cool Planet (CA-CP), to develop
the most comprehensive, in-depth, and appropriate emissions investigation. Already
home to environmentally friendly technologies, including a biomass-fueled heating
system, Colgate University is primed to follow these universities in quantifying their
carbon footprint and developing strategies for future emissions-reduction initiatives.
Using a combination of the CA-CP GHG inventory, EPA guidelines and
strategies from other universities, we instituted an environmental audit to quantify
Colgate University’s bulk carbon emissions. Preliminary findings indicate that Colgate
University’s carbon footprint is small relative to peer institutions. While already
environmentally conscious, the University has the opportunity to continue improving and
to effectively offset emissions from the Colgate community. To accomplish this, we
1
proposed several long-range and immediate proposals including the creation of a
centralized Energy and Environment Database, an ENST-based Energy and Global
Warming Organization, the examination of potential outside financial and technical
assistance, further study with additional GHG calculators, Green Tag or Native Energy
purchases, vending misers, and cogeneration. In addition, issues surrounding
transportation emissions and overall campus awareness were examined. These proposals,
in addition to those made during more specific heating and electricity studies, will further
reduce Colgate University’s greenhouse gas emissions.
2
“Long before the systems of the planet buckle, democracy will disintegrate under the
stress of ecological disasters and their social consequences”.
-William Ruckelshaus, first head of the EPA and Dr. Henry Kendall, professor of physics
at MIT and winner of the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize
Introduction:
The all-too-familiar phenomenon of global climate change first emerged into the
public spotlight during the summer of 1988. Dr. James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard
Institute for Space Studies warned a U.S. congressional panel that the problem was at
hand, sparking a mass research effort that continues in earnest to the present (Gelbspan
p.16). In response to climate change concerns raised by Hansen and other scientists, the
United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to
quantify and categorize the potential impacts associated with climate change. These
2,500 scientists comprised one of the most authoritative bodies of researchers ever
assembled around a single area of focus, contributing to interdisciplinary assessments that
would allow nations to curtail their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions most effectively
(Gelbspan p.17).
The Third Assessment Report of the IPCC is the most recent scientific update
detailing new information and findings of the most current climate change research. This
assemblage of leading scientists under the umbrella UN framework is testament to the
perceived level of severity by nations around the world of climate change and its
enormous potential for disruption of the Earth’s life support systems. A look at some of
the science behind global warming is necessary to gain a firmer grasp of the currently
realized and potential widespread effects of climate change. Perhaps one of the most
contentious debates of the past few years in the scientific, political, and economic
communities has been the causes of these observed effects—namely whether they are
3
merely a component of Earth’s natural cycles or rather a product of cumulative
anthropogenic GHG inputs and activities with roots spanning to the Industrial Revolution
of the mid-19th century.
The Science Behind Global Warming
First quantified by Swedish chemist named Arrhenius in 1896, the “greenhouse
effect” is the mechanism by which global climate change operates (Green p.3). The
presence of “greenhouse gases”, the main culprits being CO2 (carbon dioxide), CH4
(methane), and N2O (nitrous oxide), trap re-radiated solar energy from the Earth’s
surface, warming the atmosphere. Warmer air is able to hold more water vapor, which
also traps radiant energy, further exacerbating the warming of the environment through
greater evaporation rates. The increasing levels of these GHGs produced through
anthropogenic activities, such as fossil fuel combustion, markedly increases the heattrapping ability of the atmosphere, as there exists a positive correlation between the
concentration of greenhouse gases and atmospheric heat retention.
The effects of climate change are diverse and widespread. The Third Assessment
Report recently put out by the IPCC synthesizes the influences that climate change has
likely had over the course of the 20th century:
●Global mean temperature has increased by 0.6°C since 1901
●Global mean sea level has increased by an average of 1-2 mm annually
●Arctic sea-ice and thickness thinned by 40% in recent decades in late summer to early
autumn and decreased in extent by 10-15% since the 1950’s in spring and summer
●Non-polar glaciers were in widespread retreat during the 20th century
●El Nino events became more frequent, persistent, and intense in the last 20-30 years
compared to the previous 100 years
4
●Growing season lengthened by 1 to 4 days per decade over the previous 40 years,
especially at higher latitudes
●Plant and animal ranges shifted poleward and to higher elevations
●Coral reef bleaching increased in frequency, especially during El Nino events
●Global inflation-adjusted losses from severe weather rose an order of magnitude over
the last 40 years, in part due to climatic factors
(IPCC Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report p.6)1
Increases in greenhouse concentrations have been determined for the three major
GHG constituents. Atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 31% since 1750. The
present concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years and likely not
during the past 20 million years (IPCC Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis p.7).
Atmospheric methane has increased by 151% since 1750, a level that has not been
exceeded for the past 420,000 years (IPCC Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
p.7). Atmospheric nitrous oxide has increased by 17% and continues to increase. The
current level has likely not been exceeded for the past 1,000 years (IPCC Climate Change
2001: The Scientific Basis p.7).
As one might imagine, climate change has the potential to irrevocably upset the
ecological balance of Earth through fragmentation of habitats, migration of invasive
species, transmission of disease to areas previously unaffected, and dislocation of coastal
dwelling species as a result of sea level rise to name few. Even with our abundance of
technology and scientific knowledge, humanity is ultimately dependent on the life-giving
processes of our environment. Conversely, we are vulnerable to the life-taking processes
as well. Potential impacts of climate change on human health, both direct and indirect,
are numerous:
1
The full IPCC Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/SYRspm.pdf
5
●Exposure to thermal extremes could alter rates of heat- and cold-related illness and
death
●Altered frequency and/or intensity of extreme weather events could cause death, injury,
psychological disorders, damage to public health infrastructure
●Effects on range and activity of vectors and infective parasites may change geographic
ranges and incidence of vector-borne diseases
●Altered food productivity may cause malnutrition and hunger, and subsequent
impairment of child growth and development
●Social, economic, and demographic dislocations due to effects on economy,
infrastructure, and resource supply might have wide range of public health consequences:
mental health and nutritional impairment, infectious diseases, civil strife
(Population and Development Review p.207)
Prediction of future impacts has also been addressed by the IPCC’s Third
Assessment Report. The IPCC categorizes predictions such as higher maximum
temperatures and hotter days over nearly all landmasses, higher minimum temperatures
reducing number of cold and frost days over nearly all landmasses, and more intense
precipitation events as “very likely” (IPCC Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
p.15).2
The GHG Mitigation Process: Synopsis of the Kyoto Protocol
So how is the world addressing these grave issues? In 1997, over 160 parties
came together in Kyoto, Japan to establish the first legally-binding limits for
industrialized nations of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
(Breidenich et al. p.315). Dubbed the Kyoto Protocol3, this document establishes
baseline 1990 emissions targets to be attained by the year 2012, projected to reduce
worldwide emissions levels to 5.2% below 1990 levels (American Journal of
2
The full IPCC Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis report available at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf
3
The complete Kyoto Protocol text available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf
6
International Law p.647). In addition to these binding emissions reduction targets, the
Protocol also establishes requirements for industrialized countries4 to implement or
further develop appropriate policies and measures to meet their quantified emissions
limitation and reduction objectives (QELROs), and contains several mechanisms to
provide for transboundary trading of emission allowances and credits arising from
emission reductions (American Journal of International Law p. 320).
Article 3 of the Protocol establishes QELROs or emission targets for FCCC (U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change) Annex I countries. For most parties, 1990 is
the base year, however certain parties with economies in transition may petition the
Conference of Parties (COP) to use a different base year (American Journal of
International Law p. 322). Sequestration from land use change and forestry (LUCF) is
also taken into account, but the difficulty of quantifying amounts of sequestration and
vague specification as to how the parties would take into account LUCF has led to
inconsistencies in the accounting of these factors.
The Protocol requires that parties adhere to established IPCC methodologies for
GHG inventories, measurement, and estimation. Two basic annual reporting
requirements: (1) annual inventories and accounts of GHG emission budgets, and (2)
periodic national communications that provide detailed information on all aspects of
parties’ implementation of the Protocol (American Journal of International Law p.328).
One of the main critiques of the Kyoto Protocol has been the lack of
consequences for parties that demonstrate non-compliance. The parties were ultimately
unable to agree on a set of binding, specific consequences. What recourse do compliance
parties have then should a party reveal non-compliance? Another issue is raised by the
4
A complete list of signatories to the Protocol is available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf
7
ability of industrialized nations to more fully engage developing nations in emissions
reduction efforts. With looming prospects of mass development and growth of fossil fuel
combustion rates in countries such as China, India, Brazil, and other emerging nations, a
timely and thoughtful addressing of development issues should become a high priority on
the world GHG reduction agenda.
Despite the obvious importance of issues surrounding global warming and the
tremendous strides taken through the Kyoto Protocol, the United States has chosen not to
ratify the Protocol. The US has signed the agreement, but the Senate failed to make the
Protocol law. The Clinton administration pursued a plan to eventually implement the
Protocol, but with the transition to the present Bush administration, the Protocol has
official been declared dead in the United States, which is, incidentally, the largest emitter
of GHG in the world (over 25% of the worlds total) (American Journal of International
Law 2001). The Bush administration declared the cost of implementing the Protocol
would be too great. The President has instead proposed a system based upon GHG
intensity, where GHG emissions are calculated against GDP (Bush 2002). This is a
controversial plan, that is, nonetheless, the official stance of the US government.
Although the US has deemed the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol
prohibitively expensive, colleges and universities have taken impressive strides to reduce
GHG emissions. Colleges and universities throughout the nation have chosen to adhere
to the guidelines of the Kyoto Protocol and other standards to reduce GHG emissions.5
These schools have recognized that all reductions are necessarily on the local, small-scale
level and have chosen to undertake those reductions despite the absence of a concise
5
A complete list of colleges and universities with GHG reduction programs is available at
http://www.nwf.org/campusecology/pdfs/assessmentclearinghouse.pdf, which is a report of the NWF
Campus Ecology program.
8
national policy. Many examples, and potential role models for Colgate, exist, but the
work of the Clean Air-Cool Planet, Middlebury College, Brown University, and Tufts
University are especially applicable. Through their efforts, other colleges can see the
importance and the feasibility of action in understanding, and potentially reducing, GHG
emissions.
Clean Air – Cool Planet (CA-CP)
CA-CP is a non-profit organization dedicated to the understanding and reduction
of GHG emissions by communities, business, and colleges throughout the Northeast
(CA-CP 2002). They work to provide campuses with resources and specialized
information to aid in reducing GHG emissions. Students, faculty, staff, and
administrators are all encouraged to be active players in the effort. Through this
assistance, the feasibility of GHG reduction is realized. Their offices also work to
network colleges with an interest in examining their own GHG emissions with partner
institutions, which include Tufts, Middlebury, and Bates. Indeed, two of the authors of
this paper attended a conference at Skidmore College entitled “Northeast Campuses for
Climate Action” which aimed to provide information and networking resources. Clean
Air-Cool Planet’s efforts demonstrate the commitment of outside organizations to aid
universities such as Colgate in their quest to adopt an effective and efficient GHG policy.
Middlebury College
"Middlebury College as a liberal arts institution is committed to environmental
mindfulness and stewardship in all its activities. This commitment arises from a sense of
concerned citizenship and moral duty and from a desire to teach and lead by example.”
-Adopted by Middlebury College Trustees, June 1995
Adhering to their stated mission, Middlebury has recently become a partner
institution with CA-CP. In doing so, Middlebury has committed to completing a self9
designed GHG inventory and following the standards presented in the Kyoto Protocol
(Middlebury Environmental Council 2002). The college is on pace to accomplishing its
planned reductions, and in doing so it has been rated among the “greenest” campuses in
the nation (“Not Easy being Green” and US News & World Report). The use of energy
improvements, green building designs, composting, and transportation solutions
permitted their successful adoption of the Kyoto Protocol.
Brown University
In 1990, Brown adopted the “Brown Is Green” initiative designed to “facilitate
the conservation of resources, waste reduction strategies, and increased awareness of
environmental issues on campus” (Brown Is Green 2002). The goals of the program are
not specifically tailored to GHG reduction, but the conversation of resources naturally
leads to this aim. Brown has been very active in promoting projects that further
environmental goals and provide cost savings to the university. The first GHG inventory
was completed by students in 1998, from this starting point Brown has developed a
“Global Warming and Climate Change Action Plan.” Through realizing that GHG were
being reduced through conservation programs, Brown has chosen to design a solid
implementation strategy to accomplish their goals before signing onto any specific GHG
reduction agreement, such as the one offered by CA-CP.
Tufts University
Tufts is a recognized leader in the field of campus involvement with climate
change issues. The Tufts Climate Initiative (TCI) was founded specifically to address
Tufts’ contribution to global warming. TCI has committed to meeting or beating the
goals of the Kyoto Protocol by 2007. Through the program’s two full-time faculty and
10
three staff members, the TCI has undertaken many projects in various fields. Tufts has
examined energy use and adopted many reduction strategies, from technologic
improvements to behavior modification programs. Tufts has committed itself to green
building and renovation technology, including a new solar powered dormitory.
Alternative energy sources beyond solar have also been explored (TCI 2002). Tufts
provides an extraordinary example of what campuses can do to combat global warming.
The effectiveness of GHG reduction measures undertaken at Brown, Middlebury,
and Tufts provide Colgate with valuable models of successful GHG mitigation strategies.
The completion of a GHG inventory supplies Colgate with the information necessary to
formulate an effective climate change policy. The inventory permits an understanding of
Colgate’s role in an international problem. It also allows Colgate to bring its
environmental policy to the level of other progressive peer-institutions. With the
information provided by the calculator, Colgate can efficiently allocate its efforts and
resources to address a looming global crisis. Finally, the harms brought about by global
warming are uniquely disposed to the application of the liberal arts education that
Colgate champions. The effects of global warming will present not only environmental
challenges, but social, economic, and ethical challenges as well. These are the very interdisciplinary issues that Colgate educates its students to examine. Colgate has an
academic and moral obligation to address the issue of global warming with strong action.
This inventory of GHG yields vital initial information to aid in Colgate’s duty to examine
our contribution to global warming.
11
Greenhouse Gas Calculator:
Colgate’s first GHG inventory was completed using the Clean Air – Cool Planet
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Calculator v4.0 developed by Adam Wilson of CA-CP.6 The
calculator is comprised of an input, summary, and calculation module, which allows for
data entry to be separate from calculations and summation, thereby preserving the
integrity of the program for future use. Through this format, universities and businesses
can enter important consumption and waste factors into the modules and receive estimate
of GHG emissions as specified by the Kyoto Protocol (CO2, CH4, NO2, HFC and PFC,
and SF6). The calculator provides all the necessary coefficients to determine the GHG
from the inputs. It also provides various summary methods that breakdown display
energy use and GHG.
The coefficients in the CA-CP calculator relating consumption of such materials
as #5 Residual Oil and gallons of diesel fuel were primarily taken from the Inventory of
US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1998 and from similar state projects.
The US Inventory provides the basis of US GHG estimates used in drafting the Kyoto
Protocol, and fulfills the US obligation under the ratified United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (EPA Inventory ES-1). The US Inventory was in turn
primarily based upon the recommendations of the IPCC. The US Inventory’s overall
objective was to present the amount, trend, and composition of GHG in the US. In
formulating the emission coefficients the Inventory considered atmospheric life span of
GHG and the warming potential of each gas (EPA Inventory Annex A & V). This was
applied directly to non-energy carbon sources and non-carbon based emission sources
(ex. methane gas from landfills and refrigerant leakage). The same principles were
6
The calculator is available from Ned Raynolds ([email protected]) at CA-CP.
12
applied to carbon-based energy sources, but the fuel-specific carbon content was also
considered. This permitted the different CO2 emissions of different fuels, such as natural
gas versus coal, to be considered. The specific coefficients used in this project are listed
in Table 1.
Table 1. Emissions factors for various inputs
Input
Emissions Factor
Biomass
0
Diesel
72449
Distillate Oil (#2)
0.0255
Electricity*
1.036 (NY), 1.459 (MA)
Gas
70473
Landfill (solid waste)
13.12
Propane
0.01951
Residual Oil (#6)
0.0255
* Emissions factors were taken from EPA (Climate Wise)
The full list of coefficients and explanations is also available from the CA-CP calculator.
The calculator used several coefficients that are worth additional discussion,
especially the coefficient for biomass (wood burning heating plant) and hydroelectric
power. First, the coefficient for biomass is recorded as a renewable in the CA-CP
calculator, which leads to an emission coefficient of zero. Carbon-neutrality is assumed
because the GHGs released from biomass combustion are part of the natural carbon
cycle, for the growth of new forest absorbs similar amounts of CO2 compared to what
was released through combustion.7 The GHG would be released through decomposition
and/or natural burning if they were not used at the heating facility. Regardless, when
wood is burned it releases 3814 lbs of CO2/ton. A comparison can be made to fossil fuels
through using pounds of CO2/million Btu, which reveals that wood produces more CO2
per Btu than any fossil fuel (Figure 1, Appendix A) (EPA Climate Wise 53). Therefore,
7
See Wigley and Schimel’s The Carbon Cycle for a more in-depth discussion.
13
Colgate is using a high GHG producing fuel, but as it is renewable, its net GHG
production is zero.
The electricity Colgate receives is also from a renewable source, hydroelectric
power. Likewise, the CA-CP calculator assumes the emission coefficient to zero, which
means that Colgate receives GHG-free electricity. This assumption is slightly
misleading, for the power Colgate receives could effectively be distributed elsewhere in
the state or beyond. New York’s overall electricity CO2 emission factor is 1.036
lbs/kWh, which is slightly below the national average of 1.291 lbs/kWh (EPA Climate
Wise 56). Therefore, the electricity coefficient could be raised for Colgate if the average
for the state was used instead of source specific records.
Two other campus GHG calculators were examined to aid in the understanding of
the CA-CP calculator. First, the calculator designed by Lewis and Clark College was
analyzed (2002).8 This calculator has many more input categories, such as air travel,
fertilizer application, and wastewater treatment, and was deemed unfeasible for one
semester’s data collection. The calculator does provide insight into the electricity
coefficient, for here the state coefficient is used which accounts for the statewide power
grid capabilities. Also, the calculator omitted the combustion of biomass as a GHG
source, further justifying its carbon-neutrality. The Lewis and Clark calculator does not
provide as many analysis options, but it does expose some of the inadequacies of the CACP calculator.
8
Received from Lewis and Clark via e-mail, but information is available at
<http://www.lclark.edu/~esm/>.
14
Likewise, an analysis Tufts calculator yielded beneficial insight into the CA-CP
calculator (2002).9 The Tufts calculator also included more categories, such as recycled
goods, total degree heating days, and total square footage of campus buildings. The Tufts
calculator also used the state GHG emissions coefficient for electricity use and did not
include biomass-generated energy as GHG emitting sources. The actual data for Tufts
was supplied with the calculator, enabling a comparison to Colgate. In addition, the
Tufts calculator was accompanied with an inventory methods guide, which provided
helpful suggestions for data collection and explained some of the variables better than the
CA-CP calculator. Overall, the two calculators exposed some of the strengths (data
presentation) and weaknesses (variables included and definition) of the CA-CP
calculator.
The data gathering for this project required the assistance of many Colgate
departments and outside organizations. Electricity information was gathered from the
Accounting Office. Information on student numbers was received from the Registrar.
Birnie Bus was able to provide approximate miles traveled by the shuttle service, but not
the actual amount of fuel usage. The Madison County Landfill was able to provide
information on the present collection and flaring of methane gas and the installation of an
electricity generation facility in the near future. Building and Grounds supplied
information regarding gasoline and diesel consumption, refrigerant use, and landfill waste
and recyclables generated. Purchasing provided information on total propane
consumption. Through these many departments, a broad picture of Colgate’s GHG
emissions footprint was uncovered.
9
Received from Anja Kollmuss at Tufts, but a summary is available at
<http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/pdf/Tufts%20Emissions%20inventory.pdf>.
15
Throughout this project it must be stressed that the research presented in this
paper must be regarded as incomplete but ongoing. Several variables in the calculator,
especially those relating to transportation require further examination. The fuel usage by
Colgate’s shuttle system is incomplete and no attempt has been made to estimate the
GHG from commuter sources, such as faculty, staff and student driving. Also, the
contribution of air travel, which could prove substantial with jet fuels high emission
coefficient, has not been factored into the calculator.10 Overall, the calculator includes
most of the important variable and provides sufficient information to begin addressing
most major emission sources.
Results:
Although complete data sets were only available from 1999 through 2001, the
Clean Air-Cool Planet greenhouse gas inventory indicated four areas currently impacting
greenhouse gas emissions on the Colgate University campus. On-campus stationary
sources, electricity, transportation and solid waste contributed to Colgate’s bulk carbon
emissions. Depending upon which electricity emissions factor was used, there was a shift
in the relative contribution each area made to the carbon footprint (Table 2).
Table 2. Contributions of specific areas to overall carbon emissions.
On-campus
stationary*
Electricity
Transportation** Solid Waste
CA-CP
EPA
CA-CP
EPA
CA-CP
EPA
CA-CP
EPA
1999
86%
24%
0%
72%
10%
3%
4%
1%
2000
87%
28%
0%
68%
9%
3%
4%
1%
2001
83%
24%
0%
71%
12%
4%
4%
1%
* Includes residual (#6) and distillate (#2) oil, propane and biomass
** University fleet only, does not include commuter information
10
Jet fuel produces 21.439 pounds of CO2 per gallon, or stated differently, 159.690 pounds of CO2 per
million Btu (EPA Climate Wise 53).
16
Using the Clean Air-Cool Planet emissions factor for hydroelectricity, on-station
sources (gasoline and propane) made the most significant contribution accounting for
over 80% of the carbon released (Figure 2, Appendix A). Using the same model with the
statewide New York EPA emissions factor, electricity became the dominant contributor
generating approximately 70% of all greenhouse gas emissions annually. Transportation
and solid waste generated very little of the overall emissions regardless of the
hydroelectric emissions factor. The breakdown of point sources recognizes a small
contribution from these two areas (Figure 3, Appendix A). This is slightly misleading
due to the incomplete transportation data set. Commuter (student, staff, and faculty)
information was not available at the time of this analysis and shifted our results away
from the importance of personal vehicles. Solid waste includes recycled goods that
detract from the solid waste carbon emissions.
With the increased influence of electricity utilizing the EPA emissions factor,
statewide power generation contributed nearly half the total carbon emissions of an
entirely coal-dominated system (Figure 4, Appendix A). The same pattern holds when
Colgate University is compared to a peer institution, Tufts University. Information from
the Tufts environmental audit was converted to the Clean Air-Cool Planet inventory to
standardize emissions comparisons. The EPA-recommended emissions factor (1.459 lbs
CO2 per kWh) was used rather than the Clean Air-Cool Planet factor for a more complete
model (56). Tufts University’s total carbon emissions were in excess of seven times
Colgate’s annual rate (Figure 5, Appendix A). This data is slightly misleading as well
because Tufts and Colgate are not in the same size class, but when emissions rates were
17
standardized to present emissions per student, Tufts students averaged three to four times
the annual pollution of Colgate students (Figure 6, Appendix A).
In summary, Colgate University’s carbon footprint is small relative to other
institutions; there is also no trend over the 1999-2001 data indicating that this assertion
will change. Our biomass facility and hydroelectric power generation are both excellent
steps toward carbon-neutrality with respect to emissions. While this is a good indicator
of the success Colgate has in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, it does not justify
ignoring GHG emission reducing measures. It is a solid base from which Colgate can
further enhance its green reputation.
Discussion:
Colgate’s Relatively Low GHG Emissions…
Colgate’s per capita GHG emissions when compared with a similar institution’s,
Tufts University, appear to be on the low side (as seen in Figure 5). Tufts University
calculates a GHG per capita emission of approximately 23.45 metric tons of carbon
equivalent per full-time student for 2001 (TCI 2002). Looking at a wider range of
college per capita emissions may prove useful in future comparison of Colgate’s GHG
emissions to similar institutions.
While one may be inclined to congratulate Colgate on its impressive per capita
emissions statistics, a more detailed picture of why Colgate emissions are lower may
indicate these characteristics to be more a result of fortuity than diligent and focused
environmental and energy initiatives. Two reasons that immediately present
themselves—hydroelectric power generation and a biomass heating facility—will be
explained in subsequent paragraphs.
18
First, the inability of our research group to effectively examine GHG
contributions at Colgate from student, faculty, and staff transportation given time and
resource limitations may contribute to the observed perhaps artificially low estimate of
Colgate per capita emissions when compared to the Tufts average. Any observer of life
at Colgate would easily identify the high rates of personal automobile usage and gasguzzling sport utility vehicle ownership. Although, Tufts has estimated that commuter
values contribute no more than 6% of total GHG emissions (TCI 2002). Still, future
elaboration of a Colgate emissions profile must take into account the significant GHG
contribution of automobiles both on and off campus.
As previously discussed, the biomass generation facility is considered effectively
carbon neutral. The carbon dioxide emitted is part of the natural carbon cycle, and
therefore not considered an anthropogenic contribution. The Lewis and Clark and Tufts
calculators confirmed this assumption, so the biomass energy considered is an important
limiting factor of Colgate’s GHG emission footprint.11
Colgate’s energy needs are met primarily through hydroelectric power, with peak
loads occasionally being supplied by nuclear generation facilities. Hydroelectric power
generation has proven to be a remarkably clean, efficient energy source, capturing the
natural kinetic energy of falling and moving water and converting it to electric energy.
The U.S. currently generates about 9-12% of its energy through hydroelectric dams, with
only about 3% of extant dams equipped with hydroelectric capability (Oak Ridge
National Laboratory 2002). The National Hydropower Association estimates that
hydroelectric generation avoided 77 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, 1.6 million
11
Refer to ENST Heating Plant paper by Hornung et al 2002 for more information regarding the function
and history of the biomass heating plant.
19
tons of sulfur dioxide, and 1 million tons of nitrogen oxide emission in 1999 (National
Hydropower Association website). Colgate’s reliance on mainly hydroelectric generation
in the fulfillment of energy requirements, as opposed to fossil fuel dependent power
plants, markedly reduces the amount of upstream emissions that would otherwise be
reflected in the university emissions output.
Although the CA-CP calculator has shown that Colgate’s electricity related
GHG emissions are zero due to the 100% use of hydroelectric power, measures to reduce
electricity consumption at Colgate should still receive serious consideration for their
GHG emission reducing potential. Colgate’s fortuitous placement permits the use of
solely hydropower, but this clean power could be transmitted elsewhere on the electrical
grid. The production of hydropower will not be lessened if users reduce power
consumption, for the initial capital inputs are high for hydropower but thereafter the
generation of electricity is very cheap (Johansson 76). Therefore existing hydropower
would replace higher cost fuels on the Northeast Power Cooperation Council (NPCC)
grid, which includes 54 million people in New York, the six New England States,
Quebec, and the Maritime Provinces (NPCC 2002). Even in New York alone, the power
could be used to reduce GHG emissions throughout the state and reduce the NY EPA
coefficient of 1.036 lbs CO2/kWh. Further amplifying the benefits, the power that is
most likely “dropped” from service is older, higher-cost, generally more GHG-intensive
power generation facilities. Colgate needs to pay special attention to its peak power
usage (daytime), as this is when low-efficiency plants supply the excess demand
(“Glossary” 2002). Although, Colgate lacks the strong financial incentives to reduce
electricity use, as the Hamilton Municipal Utilities Commission price is very low at
20
$.03/kWh. Still, with reductions in electricity use, Colgate could be improving the
overall GHG emission levels of NY. For example, if Colgate reduced it electricity
consumption by 10% from 2001 levels (24,139,352 kWh), using the EPA NY state
emissions coefficient, approximately 1250 tons of GHG would stay out of our
atmosphere. Therefore, Colgate needs to closely examine its electricity consumption.
Potential GHG Emissions Reduction Strategies:
The following recommendations are designed to provide immediate and longterm reductions to Colgate’s GHG emissions. The broad range of recommendations
reflects the many factors that influence Colgate’s GHG emissions. With that in mind,
many recommendations require further intensive study beyond the scope of this project
before implementation is attempted. In its quest to reduce GHG emissions, Colgate
needs to address heating plant emissions, energy use, and transportation issues. There are
also general recommendations to provide more information and improve awareness
surrounding GHG emissions. The recommendations consider the economic costs,
environmental benefits, educational enrichment, and the enhancement of Colgate’s
reputation. Also, with a 183-year tradition, Colgate has the great advantage of being able
to think in the “long-run” regarding the benefits and costs of recommendations. Overall,
despite the need for further improvements to this GHG calculator, we feel confident in
proposing measures these measures to reduce Colgate’s GHG emissions.12
General Recommendations:
Improved Energy and Environmental Record Keeping:
12
Please see Appendix B for a summary of recommendations and proposed time frames.
21
As this GHG emissions calculator required the gathering of much data from many
departments, we encountered great difficulty (despite the generous help of all the
departments) in gathering the data, and despite our best efforts, all the necessary data
could not be obtained. Thus, we recommend that environmental and energy information
is organized into a central data bank available through the ENST department, and that
departments strive to maintain more accurate and thorough records.
ENST Based Energy and Global Warming Organization:
Through examining other schools, such as Brown, Middlebury, and Tufts, it
became obvious that Colgate is lacking a formal structure to address issues surrounding
global warming. In this deficiency, we see an opportunity for Colgate’s Environmental
Studies program to become an active part of Colgate’s environmental policymaking.
Groups such as Campus Ecology already fulfill part of this aim informally, but a more
structured framework would provide a more productive venue. We envision an
organization involving administrators, faculty, staff, and students that work together to
reduce Colgate’s energy use and GHG emissions. This organization is viewed as the
successor to the now defunct Office of Energy Conservation. Through the establishment
of this organization, Colgate stands to improve environmental conditions, reduce certain
energy bills, and promote educational opportunities for students. We recommend that
this organization be formed in the near future to continue the momentum of the upcoming
inaugural Green Summit and the ENST 480 campus environmental audit.
Examination of Potential for Outside Financial and Technical Assistance:
Through our examination of potential GHG emission mitigation measures, we
discovered that many outside sources provide grants and subsidized loans to universities
22
to encourage environmental and energy efficiency improvements. Other universities
have received sizeable grants (Tufts recently received $500,000 to build a solar-powered
dormitory), so funds exist for educational institutions (TCI 2002). Specific programs,
such as the vending miser, have existing, easily accessible grants available. Colgate
should focus on grants from NYSERDA, but federal programs under the DOE and EPA
also allocate funds.13 Non-governmental institutions, such as the Energy Foundation and
other NGOs should also be explored.14 We recommend immediate action so funds can
potentially be received to offset the financial costs and amplify environmental and social
benefits.
Further Study with Additional GHG Emissions Calculators:
As previously stated, this calculator lacks certain key transportation information
that could increase Colgate’s GHG emissions, although transportation normally accounts
for less than 10% of inventory totals. Also, the CA-CP calculator, especially the
electricity coefficient requires further evaluation. Additional study will allow Colgate to
present a complete GHG emissions inventory and guide its plan to reduce GHG
emissions in the future. Similarly, the GHG inventory should be completed annually to
monitor progress over time.
Heating/Cooling:
Cogeneration:
13
Further information about NYSERDA’s Energy $mart program can be obtained at
<http://www.getenergysmart.org/nyserda_home.asp>.
14
Further information on the Energy Foundation can be obtained at <http://www.ef.org/>.
23
Cogeneration at Colgate would be the simultaneous production of steam for
heating and electric power. The facility could combine the already existent boilers with
steam turbines. There would be no additional fuel inputs, but there would be a
substantial initial capital outlay for the steam turbines, which cost between $600-$1000
per kWh (EPA Climate Wise 19-21). The EPA estimates that a cogeneration facility has
total average annual energy savings of 9.4% and an average annual payback of 34 months
(EPA Climate Wise 2). It could also raise the overall efficiency of the system (heating
and electricity generation), as cogeneration facilities typically exceeds 80% efficiency,
compared to around 66% solely with a boiler system (Romm 119-121). The facility
would reduce Colgate’s purchase of electricity, thereby allowing other sources to use the
clean hydroelectric power. There is also the advantage of the cogeneration facility being
a reliable back-up power supply. This recommendation merits further study and
exploration of funding options.
Recommendations of ENST 480 Heating Plant Analysis:
A review of boiler efficiency, stack-heat loss, and waste heat recovery could also
yield benefits with more study. Any improvements to boiler efficiency would reduce the
use of residual oil, as it is the higher cost heat source. Also, the recommendations of the
heating group will improve overall efficiency, hence reducing the use of #6 fuel oil and
GHG emissions.15
Promotional and Awareness Campaigns:
Attitudes and behaviors are perhaps one of the more difficult areas to address
when dealing with GHG emissions. We have all heard of global warming and climate
change, yet we often feel as if it is such a tremendous and intangible issue that there is no
15
For an in-depth review of Colgate’s heating plant, please examine Hornung et al.
24
real direct connection between our actions and the exacerbation of the problem. Perhaps
one of the fundamental drawbacks of environmental awareness campaigns today is lack
of creativity and aesthetic appeal. For decades, the advertising world has been
capitalizing on fundamental human reliance on visual information in promoting new
product lines. They create a perceived need. You may not need that flashy new sports
car, or a whole new wardrobe of the latest and coolest clothes, but the ads will certainly
make you feel as if these items were necessities. We certainly need clean air to breathe,
and an atmosphere free of greenhouse gases to maintain climatic stability. Humans are a
visual species—we rely heavily on our sense of sight in the gathering of information
about our world. Environmental promotion and awareness campaigns must recognize
this important element to effectively convey information and stimulate alteration of
values and behavior.
The student-run Tufts Environmental Consciousness Outreach, with support and
sponsorship from the Tufts Climate Initiative, recently devised a catchy campaign called
“Do It In The Dark” that challenges residence halls to reduce energy consumption.16
This competition rewards the winning dorm, with the greatest reduction in energy
consumption with a pizza party, entertainment, and prizes. The contest is publicized
using posters, spots in the student newspaper, and flyers with energy-saving tips.
Promotional materials such as stickers with the “Do It In The Dark” slogan were also
widely distributed among the student body.
These types of campaigns are highly visible and appealing to the primary targets
of the awareness-raising efforts and programs, the students. If effective “environmental
marketing” campaigns can convey the perceived need as other advertising campaigns do,
16
“Do It In The Dark” information available at: http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/DoItInTheDark.html
25
students will tend to value these environmental “commodities” more, such as clean air
and potable water. Connections between student actions and GHG emissions can be
elucidated through creative, aesthetically-captivating marketing campaigns that in
essence “sell” the preservation of the environment as the main product.
Colgate efforts to reduce electricity consumption and reduce amount of driving by
students for example would be greatly enhanced by effective promotional and awareness
campaigns that utilize catchy slogans or logos, as these techniques tend to convey a
certain level of professionalism and credibility. Collaborative projects and campaigns
that build upon present Student Environmental Action program must take advantage of
information provided by environmental studies and science majors packaged in a
visually-appealing form by graphic arts students might be highly effective.
Energy:
Recommendations of Colgate Electricity Analysis:
The audit of campus electricity use provides several methods to reduce Colgate’s
overall electricity use. As previously described, using the EPA NY state coefficient, a 1
kWh reduction will reduce GHG emissions by 1.036 lbs. Therefore, any cost effective
reductions should be vigorously pursued.
Exploration of the Feasibility of On-Campus Renewable Energy Sources:
Any move towards on-campus renewable energy sources will reduce Colgate’s
GHG emissions, reduce energy purchases, increase environmental awareness, and
provide a focus of study for numerous departments. Two potential projects have
significant potential: the installation of a small-scale wind generator and the purchase of a
photovoltaic cell array. The potential for wind power in Madison County is beginning to
26
be recognized, with two commercial facilities in operation. A small 20kWh system with
tower and utility connections costs approximately $30,000 dollars (American Wind
Energy Association [AWEA] 2002). Financial returns would therefore be in the longrun. A suitable site has yet to be determined, but the placement should be designed to
heighten awareness of renewable energy sources.
Photovoltaic technology is also a rapidly progressing field that several
universities, such as Tufts and Georgetown Universities, have chosen to test. Although a
large photovoltaic array is prohibitively expensive, a 128-Watt system would cost
approximately $850 and could provide a unique study topic, while providing limited
power (Real Goods 2002). Grant money should be sought before any project is
undertaken. Both recommendations require further study, but could prove well-worth
university expenditure.
Vending Miser:
This recommendation is a relatively simple upgrade that should immediately be
undertaken at Colgate. The vending-miser is a device that reduces the electricity use of
vending machines by turning of the lights and compressor when no potential customers
are present. The device still allows beverages to stay cold through the use of a
temperature sensor. The device is installed into the wall circuit and the vending machine
is plugged into the device. The use of electricity by vending machines is surprisingly
substantial; Tufts measured the use of electricity to be approximately 3500 kWh per year
(Tufts University Vending Miser Handout 2002). Using the New York emissions
coefficient, this translates into approximately 3625 pounds of GHG emissions per year.
With a vending-miser installed, Tufts measured a use of approximately 1700 kWh per
27
year and 1760 pounds of GHG emissions. The devices cost $165 (Available from
Bayview Technology), leading to a payback period (using $.03/kWh) of 38 months.
However, a NYCERDA grant can be attained that reduces the cost to $85 and a payback
period of 20 months (“Smart Equipment” 2002). Additionally, the savings could actually
be greater as the time students are off-campus has not been factored into the average
savings. We recommend a trial of these devices in at least 10 locations across campus,
and advise the ENST 480 class to analyze the merit of further purchase.17
Green Tags:
The purchase of Green Tags (also called renewable energy certificates) effectively
reduces GHG emissions by fossil fuel burning power plants by substituting wind, solar,
and other renewable energy generation supplied to the power grid. Green Tags support
new renewable electricity generation projects, helping to shift the overall energy mix
away from coal, gas, and other fossil fuels to cleaner renewable sources. One Green Tag
costs $20, and is the equivalent of 1,000 kilowatts of electricity, offsetting 1,400 pounds
of carbon dioxide annually (Bonneville Environmental Foundation 2002). The Green
Tag certified supplier contracts with one or more renewable electricity generators to
generate a specified amount of electricity that will be delivered into the regional power
pool on the purchaser’s behalf. This influx of renewable electricity generation displaces
fossil fuel electricity contributions to the pool. Essentially, for every kilowatt hour of
Green Tags that are purchased, there is one less kilowatt hour of conventional generation
that is occurring. A summary of costs to offset Colgate’s GHG emissions appears in
17
The Tufts Climate Initiative website should be examined before acquisition, as it provides information on
the lessons Tufts has learned from installing vending misers. Also the NYCEDA Smart Equipment
Choices Program should be examined.
28
Table 3, which also includes Native Energy costs. Colgate should further study these
tags, in preparation of purchasing a source of green power in the near future.
Table 3: Cost Comparison of Green Tags and Native Energy Using the CA-CP and EPA
Coefficients
Vendor
NativeEnergy*
BEF
NativeEnergy*
BEF
Emissions
Factor**
CA-CP
CA-CP
EPA
EPA
Amount of CO2
to offset
5,092
5,092
17596
17596
Cost/ton
$
$
$
$
10.00
26.00
10.00
26.00
Total Cost/year
$ 50,918.66
$ 132,388.52
$ 175,960.00
$ 457,496.00
* - NativeEnergy offers discounts for offsetting volumes over 100 tons per year. Discounts are on sliding
scale
** - EPA Emissions factor is 1.036 lbs CO2/kWh; CA-CP Emissions factor is 0 lbs CO2/kWh
NativeEnergy:
NativeEnergy is a private company that seeks to fund the construction of new
wind farm facilities. The focus is primarily on smaller scale projects that benefit Native
American communities and normally wouldn’t get off the ground due to high start-up
costs. NativeEnergy calculates the output to be produced throughout the lifetime of a
wind farm, selling incremental portions of the total output as Green Tags to the potential
buyer. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe Wind Turbine Project is the current focus of
NativeEnergy’s funding efforts, which will be the first large-scale wind farm wholly
owned by Native Americans and will be connected to the highest GHG emitting power
grid in the United States. The price per ton of carbon dioxide reductions is $10 per ton
for 6 to 100 tons, with volume discounts available for larger purchases (NativeEnergy
2002). Once purchased, the Native Energy green tags are donated to CA-CP, which
permanently removes the green tags from the market and reduces overall GHG
emissions. NativeEnergy provides a Carbon Dioxide Footprint Data Form, allowing the
purchaser to observe the quantity of carbon dioxide emissions emitted by their operations
29
each year. Upon retrieval of the necessary Colgate transportation emissions data, it is
recommended that the University submit this completed Footprint Data Form to obtain an
estimate of the cost of offsetting campus-generated emissions.18 Colgate must compare
the feasibility and benefits of this more progressive option with Green Tags (as seen in
Table 3), allowing the University to make an informed acquisition of green power.
Transportation:
Limits to Daytime Driving on Campus:
The contribution of student driving to Colgate’s GHG was not examined in this
inventory, but the contribution has the potential to be substantial (approximately 6% at
Tufts [TCI 2002]). The goal should be to reduce unnecessary student driving. One
potential action is to reduce the amount of vehicle trips up ‘the hill’ during class periods.
The shuttle contributes increased GHG emissions and could fulfill the role of getting
those students who did not wish to walk or ride a bike to class. The elimination of
student vehicles on campus during class days would have other benefits besides a
reduction in GHG emissions, for example pedestrian safety would be improved, traffic
congestion eliminated, and the aesthetic beauty of the campus increased. This proposal
requires further study on the contribution of student vehicles, the viability of the shuttle
as a mass people mover, and the total benefits, beyond environmental, from such a ban.
Parking Fee:
Continuing the theme of reducing transportation impacts, a Colgate parking fee
could be instituted. The true costs of maintaining a parking and vehicle infrastructure
could be partially passed on to those who use it. A marginal fee, perhaps $50 per
semester, could be charged for those who bring vehicles onto campus. The money raised
18
Carbon Dioxide Footprint Data Form available at: http://www.nativeenergy.com/WBbuspart.pdf
30
from such a tax could be used to offset the vehicle infrastructure costs; therefore, this
would not be a fee increase, only a transfer of cost. Similar, pay for parking systems are
in-use at nearly all urban universities and many liberal arts colleges, such as Bates
College and Hamilton College.19 Overall, the tax could reduce the number of cars on
campus and provide a more equitable allocation of cost. The potential benefits of this
proposal require further economic and environmental study.
Alternatively Fueled Vehicles:
Colgate’s current service fleet vehicles operate on gasoline and diesel fuel.
Roughly 30,000 gallons of gasoline and 8,000 gallons of diesel are burned each year by
the fleet, resulting in GHG emissions that might otherwise be avoided. Middlebury
College recently implemented an alternative vehicle leasing program with EVermont, a
public-private partnership of groups devoted to the demonstration of alternative vehicle
technologies. The college has recently acquired a one year lease on a Solectria E-10
pick-up truck and an electric car. In April 2000, the college borrowed an electric bus
from EVermont that ran on the campus shuttle route to demonstrate the possibilities of
electric buses on the Middlebury campus. An annual lease is $4,500 under the EVLease
program for electric vehicles (NWF 2002). This includes complete technical support and
all maintenance (EVermont 2002).
The benefits of initially leasing alternatively fueled vehicles as opposed to
purchasing are rather apparent, as alternative technologies are relatively new and the
questions of reliability of the vehicles, service and maintenance, and cost-effectiveness
are always a central concern of decision-makers for companies and institutions. Ford
19
More information on the respective college’s parking policies is available at
http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/scs/parkpoli.html and
http://www.hamilton.edu/college/safety/parking.html
31
Motor Company has instituted a GreenLease program that serves fleet, commercial, and
municipal customers, and allows the leasing of vans, pick-ups, medium-duty trucks, and
passenger cars. The lessee may choose the type of alternative fuel vehicle—electricity,
ethanol, natural gas, or propane. Potential tax subsidies, credits, and reduced payments
may apply but vary from state to state (Fordcredit 2002). Colgate could institute a pilot
program to assess the viability of substituting traditional gas and diesel powered vehicles
with cleaner alternatively fueled vehicles. Leasing eliminates most of the risks associated
with an outright purchase of an alternatively fueled vehicle, such as reliability, longevity,
and cost of service and maintenance.
Possibility for implementation of an alternatively fueled shuttle bus exists as well.
Georgetown University, receiving support from the Federal Transit Administration and
U.S. Department of Transportation, has developed three 30-foot long hydrogen fuel cell
buses that are used around their campus20. The primary objectives of Georgetown’s
Advanced Vehicle program are to support the development of fuel cell technology and
assist industry in commercialization of fuel cells for transit purposes
(Georgetown 2002). The potential exists for employment of alternative fuel technologies
in Colgate’s offered shuttle service. Research remains to determine the viability and
effectiveness of these alternative technologies, should they be implemented.
Conclusion:
The threat of unalterable global climate change demands immediate action on the
part of governments, businesses, communities, and universities of the world. The Kyoto
Protocol is a step in the right direction in motivating cooperative international efforts to
reduce GHG emissions. However, the burden of GHG mitigation must be placed upon
20
Complete information available at: http://fuelcellbus.georgetown.edu
32
not only national governments, but all parties that have a hand in GHG emissions.
Institutions of higher education, such as Tufts, Brown, Middlebury, Lewis and Clark, and
a variety of other colleges, have responded to the threat of global climate change by
enacting effective policies, adopting cleaner and more efficient technologies, and
devising successful issue awareness campaigns in minimizing their collective impacts
and contributions to further GHG emissions and consequent effects on the world’s
climate system.
Colgate is a relatively low emitter of greenhouse gases, but this fact does not
excuse, and should not preclude, the university from adopting more efficient and
effective technologies, practices, and policies that have potential to further mitigate GHG
emission. Colgate’s use of a biomass heating facility and connection to a predominantly
hydroelectric power grid are two apparent reasons for such low observed emission
values. Transportation, an issue deemed infeasible given time and resource limitations,
would undoubtedly increase Colgate’s GHG emissions profile, and deserves further
attention and research in the near future.
The impressive GHG mitigation programs established by other members of the
U.S. college community is a call to action for the Colgate administration, faculty, and
students in the establishment of our own policies and initiatives for the reduction of
campus GHG emissions. The richness and diversity of Colgate’s liberal arts curriculum
and the interdisciplinary environmental studies program, are unique strengths that the
University can utilize in developing an effective, multi-faceted approach to GHG
emission mitigation strategies in the present and near future.
33
Works Cited:
American Wind Energy Association. “Small Wind Systems.” 2002,
<http://www.awea.org/smallwind.html> (10 December 2002).
Bonneville Environmental Foundation. “Green Tags”. 2002,
< https://www.b-e-f.org/GreenTags/index.cfm> (11 December 2002)
Breidenich, C, Magraw, D, Rowley, A, and Rubin, JW. 1998. The
Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change. The American Journal of International Law 92: 315-331.
Brown University. Brown Is Green. 2002,
<http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Brown_Is_Green/> (10 December 2002).
Bush, George W. Executive Summary: U.S. Climate Change: A New Strategy.
Washington: GPO, 2002.
Climate Change and Human Health. 1997. Population and Development Review 23: 205208.
Clean Air – Cool Planet. About CA-CP. 2002, <http://www.cleanaircoolplanet.org/about/?PHPSESSID=628011c47602070e744246cea6495488> (10
December 2002).
Dartmouth University. Not Easy Being Green: An Environmental Audit of Five New
England Schools. 1997 < http://community.middlebury.edu/~enviroc/dart.html>
(10 December, 2002).
Eagan, David and Julian Keniry. Green Investment, Green Return. National Wildlife
Federation Campus Ecology Program, 1998.
EVermont. “Leases”. 2002, < http://www.evermont.org/> (11 December 2002)
Fordcredit. Ford Motor Company. “GreenLease”. 2002,
<http://www.fordcredit.com/comlend/alternative.jhtml> (11 December 2002)
Gelbspan, Ross. The Heat Is On. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1997.
Georgetown University Advanced Vehicle Development. 2002,
< http://fuelcellbus.georgetown.edu/> (11 December 2002)
Green, Kenneth. A Plain English Guide to the Science of Climate Change. Los Angeles:
Reason Public Policy Institute, 1997.
34
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report.
2002, <http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/SYRspm.pdf> (11 December 2002)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.
2002, <http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf> (11 December 2002)
Johansson, Thomas B. ed. Renewable Energy : Sources for Fuels and Electricity.
Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1993.
Middlebury College. Middlebury College Environmental Council. 2002.
<http://community.middlebury.edu/~enviroc/> (10 December 2002).
National Hydropower Association. “Hydro Facts”. 2002,
< http://www.hydro.org/hydrofacts/future.asp> (11 December 2002)
National Wildlife Foundation. “Middlebury College Alternative Vehicles Program”.
2002,
< http://www.nwf.org/campusecology/pdfs/middlebury_transportation.pdf> (11
December 2002)
Native Energy. “Fighting Global Warming With Renewable Energy”. 2002,
< http://www.nativeenergy.com/WBbuspart.pdf> (11 December 2002)
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Smart Equipment
Choices Program: Program Opportunity Notice 693-02. Aug 2002,
<http://www.nyserda.org/693pon.pdf> (December 10, 2002).
Northeast Power Coordinating Council. “About NPCC.” 2002,
<http://www.npcc.org/about_npcc.asp> (December 10, 2002).
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. “Hydropower”. 2002,
< http://www.ornl.gov/ORNL/Energy_Eff/power-hydro.html> (11 December
2002)
Real Goods. “Photovoltaics and Accessories.” 2002,
<http://www.realgoods.com/renew/shop/list.cfm?dp=1000> (10 December 2002).
Romm, Joseph J. Cool Companies. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1999.
Tufts University. Tufts Climate Initiative. 2002,
<http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/TCIMenu.html> (10 December 2002).
Tufts University. Tufts Climate Initiative. 2002,
<http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/Inventory.html> (11 December 2002)
35
Tufts University. Tufts Climate Initiative. Vending Miser Handout. 2001,
< http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/VendingMisers.html> (10 December 2002).
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Wise. Wise Rules for
Industrial Efficiency. Washington DC: GPO, July 1998.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of Greenhouse Gases and
Sinks: 1990-2000. Washington, D.C. 2002,
<http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublic
ationsGHGEmissionsUSEmissionsInventory2002.html>.
United States Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. “Glossary of
Electricity Terms.” 2002, <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/
electricity/page/glossary.html#op> (December 10 2002).
U.S. Rejection of Kyoto Protocol Process. 2001. The American Journal of International
Law 95: 647-650.
Wigley, T.M.L. and D.S. Schimel. The Carbon Cycle. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2000.
36
Appendix A: Figures
37
APPENDIX B: Table of Proposals and Suggestions
38
Proposal
General
Centralized Energy and
Environment Database
ENST-based Energy and
Global Warming Organization
Outside Financial and
Technical Assistance
Further studies with different
GHG calculators
Personal Awareness
Campaigns
More immediate suggestions
Cogeneration
ENST 480 Heating Plant
Analysis
Electricity Analysis
On-Campus Renewable
Energy Sources
Vending Miser
Green Tags or Native Energy
Limits to Daytime Driving on
Campus
Parking Fee
Alternatively Fueled Vehicles
Brief Description
Computerized database which
will make future inventories
easier to compile.
We lack formal forum on global
warming. ENST becomes active
participants in Colgate policy
Explore government-subsidized
loans and grants for “green”
initiatives
Using a variety of calculators,
develop a site-specific Colgate
calculator to monitor emissions
reductions
Break from traditional education
to excite people and increase
public awareness
Simultaneous production of heat
and electricity using steam.
Increases system efficiency and
reduces energy purchasing
Any improvements will continue
to minimize emissions and
increase overall efficiency
Further research into costeffective, energy-saving devices
Potential for small-scale wind
generation or a photovoltaic cell
Immediate solution that creates
“sleep mode” for vending
machines to conserve power
Investing in long-term,
renewable resources to off-set
consumption
Revision and greater efficiency
in Colgate Shuttle will reduce
traffic and auto emissions on
campus
Use parking fee to subsidize
infrastructure repairs and
improvements
Electric automobiles are more
mileage efficient and less “dirty”
Area Impacted
Transportation/Energy/
Heating and Cooling
Heating/Cooling
Heating/Cooling
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
39