Download Summary report of the Climate Action Seminar Series for Clean... Submitted by: Rachael Beddoe

Summary report of the Climate Action Seminar Series for Clean Energy Fund
Submitted by: Rachael Beddoe
02/26/13
Description
This weekly seminar series featured guest speakers addressing actions that can be taken in
response to climate change. The Environmental Program, Continuing Education and the Clean
Energy Fund sponsored the Climate Action Seminar Series. Rachael Beddoe was the organizer
and instructor on record, and Professor Amy Seidl and Professor Cecilia Danks were coorganizers and sponsoring faculty. Lectures were open to all members of the UVM community
and, as such, advertised widely. Enrolled students earned one graded credit upon completion of
requirements. The series addressed climate change adaptation and mitigation, as well as the
creation of social change to address climate change. It aimed to:
1) Build vocabulary and concepts regarding climate change adaptation and mitigation and
engage students in current thinking on effective responses to climate change.
2) Educate students about how climate adaptation is unfolding, especially highlighting how
it differs from reacting to disasters and their aftermath.
3) Highlight efforts by planners, meteorologists, ecologists and community members to
collaboratively develop adaptation plans, particularly in Vermont in the wake of Tropical
Storm Irene.
4) Introduce mitigation strategies, explain offsets, and explore how offsets might
complement a strong commitment to emissions reduction.
5) Explore how institutions approach a carbon reduction goal, in part by understanding the
University of Vermont’s work on meeting its climate neutral pledge.
Speaker Outcomes
Thirteen lectures were scheduled, though only twelve occurred due to one being canceled
because of Hurricane Sandy. Six lectures involved multiple speakers, including one faculty
panel. Three involved speakers from the UVM community, three involved speakers from within
Vermont, and six involved speakers from other states, ranging from NH to CA. Twenty-one
speakers in total presented, twelve of them affiliated with organizations other than UVM.
Attendance Outcomes
Thirty-three students registered, four dropped the series during the semester (siting a full
workload), and twenty-nine completed course requirements. Degree concentrations of students
were comprised of 14 Environmental Studies majors, 5 Environmental Science, 2 Wildlife and
Fisheries Biology, 2 Political Science, 1 Biology, 1 Natural Resources, 1 English, 1 Community
and International Development, and 2 Continuing Education. Weekly audience size ranged from
50-80, roughly. Weekly audiences were comprised of students taking the series for credit,
faculty, graduate students, undergraduate students from other classes (some were attending on
their own while others were attending to receive extra credit in other classes), community
members/activists, city and state government representatives, and business community members.
Budget Outcomes
Total budget awarded to the Climate Action Seminar Series was $13,748. Total spent was
$10,797, leaving $2,951 unspent. An honorarium ranging from $500 to $750 was awarded to 8
of the 21 speakers. Travel, hotel and personal meals were covered for 7 speakers, the cost of
which ranged from $50-$1320. A dinner was hosted for 6 speakers, to which colleagues with
1
Summary report of the Climate Action Seminar Series for Clean Energy Fund
Submitted by: Rachael Beddoe
02/26/13
similar areas of interest were invited. The Environmental Program spent an additional $1600 for
the instructor’s time, so the total budget for the series was actually $12,397, which was still
under budget. $500 was reserved for filming 10 seminars, which was never spent, but should be
factored into future seminars at $50/seminar. It should be noted that the Climate Action Seminar
would not have happened without the assistance of the Clean Energy Fund and Stephanie Kaza
at the Environmental Program. Once the CEF funded the series, the proposal was brought to
Stephanie Kaza, who championed the idea, dedicated time and resources to it, and secured
funding for an instructor.
Student Learning Outcomes
Grades were assessed using weekly reflections on blackboard (150-200 words), attendance and
three 3-page synthesis papers. The final of these papers focused on a small action related to
campus sustainability and climate adaptation/mitigation.
Within the UVM community, ideas from the seminar series were used, reviewed, shared in other
classes. Curt Ventriss brought his Intro to Environmental Policy class to one seminar. About 3540 of Amy Seidl’s students attended a lecture and wrote a 2-page reflection paper to receive
extra credit in ENVS 1. Cecilia Dank often used topics from the series to open her NR 285
Community-based Natural Resource Management class, such as adapting watersheds to
increasing precipitation, GHG management and accounting, and specific carbon offset projects
proposed in lecture. Tom Hudspeth brought Susanne Moser’s ideas about creating social change
to combat climate change to his Sustainability Education (ENVS 295) class. Stephanie Kaza
organized a workshop for CEF fellows past and present with Susanne Moser. Outside of UVM,
Secretary of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Deb Markowitz asked for an audience with
Susanne Moser while she was in Vermont.
The breadth of actions taken by students for their final papers reflects some of the learning
outcomes from the seminar series. Below is a selection of actions:
-
-
-
A student conducted a survey regarding knowledge and opinions about carbon offsets.
She received 376 responses through paper copies, email, and Facebook. She asked
subjects how they felt about the University of Vermont investing in offset programs, and
if they had other suggestions for UVM as we try to lower our carbon footprint.
A student conducted a survey of student transportation choices. She received 25
responses. She asked students what modes of transportation they used and why, and what
would change their choice to drive.
A student used Susanne Moser’s “seven pillars of cultural change” to outline a
presentation to the Davis Center Professional Staff, primarily Brian Wichert, the
Technical Services Coordinator, and Allen Josey, Director of Operations and Event
Services, to discuss ways the technical staff can reduce their energy use and ways to
mitigate carbon emissions at the Davis Center.
A student wrote a letter to President Sullivan encouraging him to ensure that the
University has a climate change adaptation plan. Sullivan wrote back asking for more
information about what such a plan would entail.
Several students wrote about their involvement with a larger student action movement to
2
Summary report of the Climate Action Seminar Series for Clean Energy Fund
Submitted by: Rachael Beddoe
02/26/13
-
divest from large oil companies.
Students took personal actions such as walking to the food co-op, purchasing only local
and unpackaged food, and buying timers and remote control sockets to reduce energy
consumption.
Students spoke to faculty, staff and other students about careers in sustainability, a
University-wide mandatory sustainability class, opinions about sustainability on campus,
and the need to bring more classes like the Climate Action Seminar Series to UVM.
Students researched topics such as rice production in Vermont, biomass for UVM, and
Sodexo’s sourcing policies for seafood and fish.
A survey of seminar audience members was conducted for the last seminar. The seminar
presented 5 carbon offset projects: Reforesting Vermont’s Riverbanks, Clear Water Carbon Fund
($40/ ton), Reforesting Vermont’s Riverbanks with ACR registration & approved third party
verifier ($80/ ton), Kenya Water Project, Native Energy (approx. $10-$15/ton), Vermont Farm
Project, Native Energy (approx. $10-$15/ton) and Two Worlds-One Bird (approx. $12-$17/ton).
The survey asked audience members to choose from these projects, if any, which UVM should
invest in. The survey also probed for opinions about the usefulness of carbon offsets and what
characteristics were most important when choosing a carbon offset. Thirty-seven surveys were
returned. Outcomes from the this survey are as follows:
-
-
-
Respondents were asked to rank their top three projects.
o The highest ranking projects were Reforesting Vermont’s Riverbanks, Clear
Water Carbon Fund without verification (11 first place votes), Vermont Farm
Project, Native Energy (13 second place votes), and Two Worlds-One Bird (10
third place votes).
o Two Worlds-One Bird received the greatest number of total votes (27), with
Reforesting Vermont’s Riverbanks without verification receiving the second
highest number (25) and the Vermont Farm Project receiving the third highest
number (24).
o Nine respondents chose “UVM shouldn’t use offsets to meet part of its climate
commitment” (though they may have also given a lower ranking to one of the
projects). Seven ranked it as their first choice, one ranked it as their third choice,
and one chose this option with no rank.
When asked why they chose what the chose, open-ended responses were grouped around
the following themes:
o Local is better, as it provides opportunity for ecological benefits, financial
benefits, and educational opportunities to UVM and surrounding communities.
o UVM shouldn’t use carbon offsets. Rather, UVM should invest in energy
efficiency and conservation, renewable energy, and other types of mitigation
projects.
o UVM should choose projects that have an educational component
o Ecological impacts are important
o Low cost is important
Respondents were asked how important certain characteristics were in choosing an offset
project. Ecological values received the highest ranking (21 = extremely important, 9 =
3
Summary report of the Climate Action Seminar Series for Clean Energy Fund
Submitted by: Rachael Beddoe
02/26/13
-
-
very important). Positive social benefits received the second highest ranking (18 =
extremely important, 11 = very important). Endorsed by an entity you trust received the
third highest ranking (15 = extremely important, 13= very important)
Respondents were asked which location they preferred. ‘In Vermont’ received the highest
number of first place ranks (16). ‘Near UVM’ and ‘In New England/Northern US’ tied
for the highest number of second place rankings (9 each). ‘In New England/Northern US’
received the highest number of third place ranks (10). ‘In Vermont” received the highest
number of total votes (26), followed by ‘In New England/Northern US’ (24) and ‘Near
UVM’ (17).
Respondents were asked to provide their own recommendations for mitigation project
development with community partners. Open-ended responses included: more projects
besides carbon offsets; weatherization, research + education, renewable energy grants;
local farmers; local forests and conservation; ensure multiple co-benefits; local industry,
transportation; wind turbines and solar panels; grant based funding for community
organizers and activists working on the local and state levels to advance progressive
energy and climate policies and programs; getting the most from renewable energy before
turning to offsets; watershed management and restoration in the Lake Champlain area;
incorporating it into a course at UVM or internship; focus efforts locally; reducing energy
use, improving building efficiency; develop program to tie offsets with study abroad
travel program; develop criteria and principals based on our mission and environmental
goals, test projects against those principals; and projects that benefit local people in need.
4