BlogU

  • An inconvenient inventory

    By G. Rendell April 14, 2010 8:04 pm

    Greenback U, like a lot of other schools I'm sure, is in for a rude awakening.

    Under terms of the Presidents Climate Commitment, we filed our first greenhouse gas inventory in 2008, covering 2007.

    In 2009, we published our Climate Action Plan -- our road map (OK, our rough sketch of one possible route) for getting to carbon neutrality by a date certain.

    But now it's 2010. And we have to do another GHG inventory -- this time, for 2009. And (while the numbers aren't final yet), I know for a fact that it will show higher emissions than we had in 2007.

    How could it not? We're bigger than we were in 2007. We educate more students and -- more important -- we've added new built space. Some entirely new buildings, and some additions to older buildings.

    True, the new space we've added is more efficient to heat, to cool, to light, to ventilate than our older buildings were, but that's not the point. The point is that we've added new space and not retired any of the old, so the old building emissions (about 60% of our total) are still there and the new building emissions come on top.

    The simple fact of the matter is that you can't grow your way to zero. Just doesn't work. Never has. Not likely to start now.

    The more complex fact is that this is going to be a political problem. The suits (I don't call them "hats" any more) at Greenback feel like they've been doing right things for the last couple of years (in part at my urging), and the new inventory numbers are going to feel to them like a punch in the gut. They've been warned in the past that something like this would happen, but warnings aren't reality. Reality hits harder.

    So, somehow, I now need to inoculate my management structure against the numbers they're going to see. I've got to get them comfortable with the explanation for the bad news before that news actually becomes available. In fact, I've got to get them sufficiently comfortable that they can not only acknowledge the numbers and justify them as an intermediate stage on the road to carbon neutrality, but that they can also see their way clear to publishing those numbers to the world.

    It's going to take a certain amount of footwork. Or creativity. Or something.

Go to comments (3) »
Advertisement
On the Job Market Together?

Comments on An inconvenient inventory

  • Or you could just tell the truth
  • Posted by Bonn on April 15, 2010 at 9:15am EDT

  • Why not just lie? Its not like anybody can track the real amount of emissions. I'm sure your not taking into consideration things like the energy use for the publishers to produce text books or the students driving to school.

    Just admit the whole "carbon footprint" is a pointless exercise in green self-righteousness.

  • Timeliness and truth
  • Posted by sanjoaquin , Admin at SLAC on April 15, 2010 at 10:00am EDT

  • Does your unit strategic plan acknowledge this likely trajectory? If not, it's a good thing to build in for the next cycle. Modeling the trend in emissions over time and projecting what it might look like in service to the growth mission can set an expectation ahead of the news.

    But that won't solve the current dilemma. I do know that administrators don't always like surprises, but they do appreciate getting the news in sufficient time to contextualize the information before they have to present it elsewhere. A private meeting with key stakeholders to present your findings might be in order, to allow them to ask their questions and digest the implications of this report.

    You might show the overall numbers with growth statistics and compare them to a per-building average figure that is declining over time as you add more efficient structures and processes. That would help you capture and convey the competing trends you are measuring.

  • Nobody Said it Would Be Easy, But This Hard?
  • Posted by Robert , Director Facilities Management at SIUE on April 15, 2010 at 12:30pm EDT

  • It is my belief that most institutions who signed the President's Climate Commitment hadn't a clue what was going to be required to meet the commitment. Some became aware when the action plan was developed, but my sense is that the Commitment is still a feel good action on most campuses. It amazes me to see campuses approve an action plan with no real discussion (or commitment) to the hard decisions and pain involved in honoring the President's Commitment and implementing the approved plan.

    Outside the facilities operations, few have realized that "You can't grow your way to zero." I have seen very few campuses (actually none come to mind) that have made a true commitment to managing institutional growth with zero net campus GSF growth. This impacts the very core of the institution. Space has to be actively and centrally managed. Hard decisions have to be made on the institutions core mission(s). Class scheduling has to be reviewed and modified. There is a new parameter to be considered before accepting research commitments and funding. Fiefdom walls have to be obliterated. Innovative thinking on how space is used and shared will be required.

    The next few years will be interesting.

Print
© Copyright 2010 Inside Higher Ed