As more colleges and universities attempt the goal of becoming sustainable it would be wise to evaluate if the approaches used to meet this goal are actions appropriate to attain a sustainable future or are, in reality, only actions for short-term improved environmental performance. An article from the International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education calls this “quantitative sustainability.” A brief summary of the article follows.

Quantitative sustainability includes actions that can be easily defined and defended, and colleges that meet the defined targets can truly call themselves “sustainable.”  There are five areas in which college performance can be definitely linked with sustainability: energy use, water use, use of land, purchase of products and treatment of them at the end of their useful lives, and emissions to air, water, and land. To quantify these areas, we must first ask the questions what is to be sustained, what is to be developed, and for how long? There are three core areas that have elements to be sustained: natural systems, the services that natural systems provide to humans (i.e. natural resources), and community systems such as cultures. Additionally, there are three core development areas: those centered on individuals, those centered on economics and trade, and those centered on social systems.  Three time scales can be considered: 25 years, “now and in the future,” or forever.

The goal of sustainable environmental performance is a challenge. For the university sector, there are specific actions that the referenced article’s researchers prescribe for moving towards a sustainable future.  The article further delves into measurable metrics for each of the areas to be sustained.  A summary of these five actions follows:

• “begin and maintain a transition from fossil fuel and/or biomass energy to more sustainable energy;
• develop a strategy for limiting water use to a reasonable allocation of the locally available supply;
• begin and maintain a program in which nothing is brought to the campus unless it is sustainably produced and unless an environmentally desirable final disposal option can be identified and operationally secured;
• establish a program designed to achieve near-zero discharges to the environment within 50 years or less;
• establish a program designed to achieve environmentally optimum use of university-owned or controlled land, on the campus or elsewhere.”

These actions, while seemingly difficult, would provide the type of intellectually defendable targets to be met, and a timescale should be provided relative to achieving those targets. When accurately measured and reported, the targets- and the methods used to achieve them- become the difference between a sustainable plan for the future and a pledge to be more “green.”  As universities become more responsible for their own internal operations, they further serve as examples to society as a whole.

Warning! What follows is a rather esoteric discussion of an ongoing debate centering on one early modern political theorist’s purported views on the value and function of a nation’s educational apparatus, seeing it a conduit to disseminate a specific brand of political or social dogma. Have I lost you? Trust me, this short discussion illustrates an important point—just bear with me.

On one side of this arcane debate, we have commenters who believe this unnamed political theorist seemed to see education as a social institution which can be easily politicized, and used to systematically inculcate a nation’s citizenry. Commentators on this side of the debate object to how this political theorist seems to envisage the institution of education as an arm of the state, which can be easily bent and used by the state as a means of brainwashing individual citizens. On the other side of the debate are a group of people (myself included) who see this political theorist, and the object of the theory he created, through a far less nefarious lens. That is, we see his motives as more noble than villainous. According to this lot, he sought to use the university as a means by which to bring about social accord, but not by disseminating a particular brand of political theology. Rather, by promoting and cultivating knowledge and understanding conducive to the common good—the curriculum taught by the university should transcend local politics and set its sights on creating an informed and socially aware citizenry.

Both sides seem to converge over one point in particular: that the university sits at an important crossroads and wields an inordinate amount of power because of it.

Without getting too in depth about how a university’s curriculum should look, or saying something which might inadvertently trample on academic freedom (something of which I am a staunch and unyielding proponent), I think what is important to draw from this debate is that the university, because of its function, is uniquely situated to lead the charge in the promotion of social change (for the better, I hope).

Although we may all use a different yard stick to judge political or social change, I think most of us can agree that sustainability is an inherently good thing. After all, the social virtue of moderation is as old as antiquity, and who would advocate unsustainability? Even though discussions of sustainability may touch socially and politically volatile issues—like global warming, for example—I think sustainability as such, considered without respect to what may motivate someone to act sustainability, is a rather socially and politically benign issue. So what’s my point?

Because, at least for now, there seems to be rather broad acceptance of sustainability as a universal good (even countries whose consumption rates top the chart have begun to do more to signal their full embrace of the virtue of sustainability), it is important not only to begin thinking about sustainability at the international, or national level (something we do often), but also sustainability in education. APUS has committed itself to helping lead sustainability efforts in higher education by signing the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). “But there is more to be done,” chimes a number of administrators at the helm of universities or organizations in Britain, leading the sustainability effort there.

In fact, argues Harriet Kingaby, a Communications Consultant at Futerra Sustainability Communications, higher education ought to do its part to impart to students the spirit and encourage the practice of sustainability. Beyond incorporating, and bringing attention to sustainability through curriculum design, Kingaby contends there are six “themes” to which universities should tailor sustainability efforts (the first three of which I include below).

• “Understanding.” Just as the ACUPCC has brought together a large block of universities committed to sustainability, Kingaby suggests that there is a “need” for higher education “to consolidate their activities under a common banner and understand ‘why’ sustainability is relevant to them.”
• “Changing behaviours.” Although it is important for behaviors to change at the individual level, here, Kingaby is referring to how an educational institution behaves. “Often they’ve got great carbon management plans and are changing their infrastructure,” says Kingaby, “but need to change habits in order to achieve the reeducations they need.”
• “Engagement.” Although her point here is rather straightforward, she writes that there must be a “desire to engage students, staff, and the local community with what they’re doing.” This means you must do your part too, students!

As we continue our march into the 21st century it seems the preeminent question with which we must come to grips is a universal, fundamentally human question: how to create a global culture of sustainability. The university, because it sits at an intersection where theory meets practice, has an important role to play in answering this question.

To see some specific examples of what signatories to the ACUPCC are doing to promote sustainability on their campuses and across the larger educational spectrum, visit the ACUPCC’s “Reporting” page.  The ACUPCC website also offers great resources and case studies exemplifying best practices. 

To learn more about what institutions across the pond are doing to act sustainably, see The Guardian’s “How can higher education institutions become more sustainable?”

Renewable power is quickly becoming an important option to fuel the world’s electricity demands.  Nonrenewable sources, such as coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear energy, pollute our air and water and destroy natural habitats for plants and animals.  Renewable energy sources have less of a negative impact on the environment and include hydroelectric, solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and electricity from municipal solid waste.  In the United States, the majority of our electricity is powered by coal, followed by nuclear, natural gas, and oil.  Less than 9% of our electricity is generated from renewable sources.

In an effort to encourage organizations and businesses to utilize renewable energy, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the voluntary Green Power Partnership (GPP) for universities, non-profit, private, and public organizations.  Aside from the obvious benefit of environmental preservation, organizations in the GPP receive expert advice on green power, tools and resources, credibility, and publicity.  Green power percentage requirements are proportionate to the organization’s annual electricity use, with smaller organizations starting at a minimum of 20% and larger organizations beginning at 3%.  There are many participants whose energy comes from over 100% renewable sources.

The top 20 colleges and universities in the GPP have collectively purchased enough green energy to power over 120,000 homes for an entire year.  The majority of these higher education institutions use wind and solar energy.  Included in this list are the University of Pennsylvania, Carnegie Mellon University, University of Utah, Oregon State University, Drexel University, Pennsylvania State University, Northwestern University, the University of Phoenix, the University of Oklahoma, and the University of Maryland.

Top retail green power purchasers include Kohl’s, Whole Foods Market, Starbucks, Staples, Wal-Mart, Lowe’s, Best Buy, Safeway, and REI.  Most of these businesses use biogas and wind energy.  The top federal government participants in the GPP include the Department of Energy, the EPA, the Air Force, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the General Services Administration, and the Internal Revenue Service.  Solar, wind, and biogas power the majority of these organizations’ renewable energy usage.

To be sure, organizations can use renewable energies without participating in the Green Power Partnership.  The GPP can provide valuable resources to the organizations that populate its ranks but many organizations are utilizing renewable energy independent of the EPA program.  At APUS, for example, our latest addition to campus includes a 45,000-square-foot, state-of-the-art building that is currently in the LEED certification process.  The building includes 99 solar panels on the roof which will assist in generating the power needed to operate the building.  The university system is currently constructing another building which is also being built to LEED certification standards.  That building will include an entire “solar array,” a total of 1600 solar panels expected to provide nearly 60% of the building’s energy needs.

As this year’s 17th conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Durban, South Africa, resulted in yet another stand-off among today’s leading nations, there are plenty of reasons to share in the embitterment and despair shadowing the climate change community. And while the Durban discussions did lead to a few positive outcomes –the Green Climate Fund and a sustained forum for discussing the issue, for example—the conference, unsurprisingly, was another failure of the global community to come to an agreement of how to slow the heating of the planet. The conference did, however, heed a rather constructive lesson: the climate change issue exceeds the realms of the climate community. This isn’t necessarily a newsflash, of course, but it brings into focus a new question: who is equipped to handle the climate crisis?

In a recent New York Times article, Mary D. Nichols, chairwoman for California’s Air Resources Board, poignantly stated, “Progress is going to come from the bottom up, not the top down.” The proactivity of regional climate commitments such as the Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord and the Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative which incorporate public stakeholders, private business, non-governmental organizations, and individuals have shown that bottom-up strategies are well-positioned to make meaningful contributions in combatting climate change. Additionally, industry specific agreements have been instrumental in identifying and mitigating their own contributions to the increasingly unpredictable climate. 

Let’s consider the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC).  The ACUPCC has emphasized the importance of higher education taking a new lead by preparing for and responding to impacts and implications of climate change that include unprecedented effects on infrastructure, ecosystems, energy and water supplies, food production, national security, and people’s livelihoods.  With the US Census Bureau reporting that there are 4,495 higher education institutions in the United States and with college enrollment having increased 38% between 1999 and 2009, the ACUPCC has a unique opportunity to develop cutting edge solutions and best-practices in the fight against climate change.

The opportunities of the ACUPCC also stem from its immense market (which is partly the beauty of being in the higher education sector). The ACUPCC currently has 674 signatories, representing some 5.8 million students. This means that 5.8 million individuals are being exposed to and are, willingly or unknowingly, participating in climate change fighting strategies in the form of physical projects, collaboration, or simply, attendance. These educated individuals will then (hopefully) take these practices into their workplaces and everyday lives. This is what I call serious bottom-up climate change fighting.

Real significance also lies in the reconciliatory nature of commitments and initiatives like the ACUPCC. These types of agreements are the so called “middle-men and women” between the bottom and the top. So while the annual climate talks are productive in their own right, they’re not the end-all, be-all in climate change. And as we ring in 2012, let’s not take with us the baggage of another unsuccessful international agreement, and instead recognize that those of us in higher education are equipped to make a significant impact in combatting climate change.

A recent report developed by the Higher Education Climate Adaptation Committee, convened by the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), evaluated how colleges and universities are preparing for a changing climate through a variety of components. The report, Higher Education’s Role in Adapting to a Changing Climate, released in March 2011, looked at characteristics of colleges including their curricula and education, research, operations, and community engagement activities. The report provided an overview and examples on what colleges should be doing to engage students and manage risks in their own campus communities to become more resilient in the face of current and future climate change.

While higher education leaders have taken leadership roles in climate mitigation, they must now take a stance on climate adaptation. Mitigation involves preventing climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Adaptation is for preparing for and responding to the impacts of climate change.  Changing climate conditions are already impacting campuses east and west, north and south.  At the 2011 ACUPCC Climate Leadership Summit nearly every campus representative attending reported climate change impacts to their campuses. Flooding damaged colleges in upstate New York and Vermont; roof collapses from snowfall halted college operations in Washington, D.C.; and drought concerns and erosion from sea level rise affected colleges in Atlanta and California respectively. These types of climate change- oriented impacts create real safety and health hazards for a campus and its inhabitants.

The report highlighted four different areas through which colleges and universities need to approach climate change adaptation, and offered a variety of examples of what campuses are doing to promote climate change mitigation and adaptation.  The four areas are curricula, research, operations and infrastructure, and relationships with local communities.  College campuses are unique in these efforts because they offer knowledgeable manpower with a mass of committed students willing and excited to contribute to any endeavors. The report concluded with suggestions of what campuses should consider when planning for future climate adaptation efforts.

Supply chain management is an important element of any business.  Dr. Robert Handfield, Professor of Supply Chain Management at North Carolina State University’s Poole College of Management, notes that until recently, “few businesses understood, much less managed, the entire chain of activities that ultimately delivered products to the final customer.”  It is more common in recent years, however, that businesses are paying much more attention to their supply chains.  With the increasing awareness of the importance of corporate social responsibility initiatives, supply chains are not only being “managed,” but are also becoming more environmentally friendly. 

Institutions of higher education are incredible consumers of goods.  In most cases, these “goods” – everything from toilet paper to food and from ink cartridges to dorm furniture – come from outside vendors.  The environmentally-conscious university has to consider the methods used to create these products and the environmental impact of transporting them from manufacturer to end user when evaluating its own environmental impact.  In addition, the waste created from these goods must be considered.  Many colleges and universities are addressing the entire life-cycle of goods and services in order to create more sustainable supply chains.  Rutgers University, for example, has developed a comprehensive, “holistic” approach to supply chain management that is driven by both good and effective use of university funds and the university’s stated responsibility to the environment. 

Rutgers’ approach to sustainable supply chain management has been a part of that institution’s practices for many years.  The university has developed an integrated approach to this aspect of its operations that employs life cycle and cost analysis to achieve the most sustainable supply chain possible.  The Rutgers model addresses not only materials brought into the university but also materials going out of the university in the form of waste (in materials as well as food).  Through comprehensive waste reduction initiatives, Rutgers is able to address the supply chain from both ends.  The Rutgers model is so effective that it has been implemented within several government, public and private sector agencies and institutions in the United States, Europe, the Caribbean, and South America.

The Rutgers’ Sustainability website offers in depth information on how that university has been able to achieve significant results in greening its supply chain.  The United Nations Global Compact recently released “Supply Chain Sustainability: A Practical Guide for Continuous Improvement,” which offers another valuable resource for colleges and universities interested in addressing the carbon emissions associated with its supply chain.  Though the document is geared toward businesses, institutions of higher education can benefit from the logical and flexible framework provided.  The framework provides six steps which provide a comprehensive approach to the supply chain. 

To implement a sustainable supply chain, a business (or university) must first make the commitment to do so.  From there, the organization must assess the current state of the supply chain. This may take significant research and analysis as the organization must complete a thorough evaluation of current vendor processes and practices and how those add to the overall carbon emissions of the end user.  Once the organization understands the current situation and establishes some goal (ie: reduce carbon emissions from the supply chain by 25 percent over 2005 levels by 2025), the leadership of the organization must define the initiative very clearly and implement practices that address the mission.  The organization may re-negotiate existing contracts to meet these goals or consider bids from “green” vendors when contracts are up for renewal.  On a continuous basis, the organization must measure its progress.  At the same time, it must be sure to communicate mission, goals, and progress to stakeholders. 

For the almost 700 colleges and universities that have signed the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) and the many more who have not signed but are nonetheless committed to sustainability, supply chain management is a process that cannot be overlooked.  In calculating its carbon footprint, any organization must consider the emissions associated with goods and services that the organization uses in its daily processes.  Considering that some colleges and universities have populations the size of small towns, it should not be surprising that their consumption of materials is so high.  If a school is dedicated to reducing its carbon emissions, it will likely find significant savings in implementing a more sustainable supply chain. 

For a more detailed explanation of the life cycle of goods and why it is important to be mindful of our consumption and waste practices, take a look at our blog article, “The Story of Stuff Project.”

To read more about the First Annual APUS Sustainability Summit, visit Dr. Boston’s blog and read his article about the event.

In April 2011, The Princeton Review partnered with the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) to publish the Princeton Review’s Guide to 311 Green Colleges.  The Review evaluated colleges and universities on their environmentally-related policies, practices and academic offerings.  The rating, on a scale of 60-99, demonstrates whether students have a healthy, sustainable campus life; how a school is preparing students for employment in a clean energy economy; and how environmentally responsible a school’s policies are. The Review asked 703 voluntary school participants to answer questions created in consultation with ecoAmerica, a non-profit consumer research group.  Questions covered ranged from “What is the percentage of food expenditures that go toward local, organic or otherwise environmentally preferable food?” to “Does the school have an environmental literacy requirement?”  The 311 schools chosen for the book received scores of 80 or above in the assessment. 

College applicants using the guide will find a wealth of information about each of the schools.  In addition to the standard application, admission and financial aid information, each school profile contains “green highlights” and “green facts” detailing campus environmental and sustainability initiatives, as well as availability of environmental studies programs and green job career guidance.  Also included are a glossary of 40+ “green” terms and acronyms and a listing of schools with “green” distinctions such as LEED-certified buildings. To learn more, or to download the free guide, visit http://www.princetonreview.com/green-guide.aspx.

As colleges and universities have taken up the cause of environmentalism and sustainability on their campuses, many are using green building as a means toward achieving reduced carbon emissions.  In November 2010, American Public University System (APUS) completed construction of a 45,000 square foot state-of-the-art Academic Center which is anticipated to achieve the US Green Building Council’s (USGBC) LEED Gold certification.  (To see a video from the ribbon cutting ceremony for the building, click here.)  While it is too soon to know for sure how much of an impact the newest building on APUS’ campus will have on the school’s carbon emissions, there is great hope (and precedent) that it will have a positive impact.

Green buildings and buildings that are LEED certified are becoming increasingly prevalent on college and university campuses.  In September 2010, The Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations received LEED Silver certification, becoming the thirty-fifth LEED certified project at Harvard.  The University of Washington is home to thirteen LEED certified building projects, including The Benjamin D. Hall Interdisciplinary Research Building which is the first on the West Coast, second in higher education, and eleventh in the country to receive the USGBC’s Gold CS Pilot Certification.  Arizona State University has just completed its SkySong Center which received LEED Silver Certification and was also awarded an Award of Merit from the Valley Forward Association for its green building standards.  Emory University boasts nearly 2 million square feet of LEED-certified building space.

Colleges and universities are not the only institutions of learning that are beginning to understand the importance of green facilities, however.  K-12 schools are also beginning to consider green options when building new schools.  The Texas State Energy Conservation Office (SECO), for example, is assisting Texas schools in specific districts to develop sustainable school buildings.  SECO identified the fastest growing Independent School Districts (ISDs) within Texas (McKinney ISD and Austin ISD) and provided each with $200,000 to update existing buildings and construct new buildings to meet green standards.  Roy Lee Walker Elementary School in McKinney is the product of SECO’s efforts.  The school was completed in 2000 and includes a windmill, eco-pond, weather station, and rainwater collection system as well as significant amounts of daylighting, outdoor teaching spaces, and low or non-toxic building materials. 

APUS’ home state of West Virginia is very close to completing its first green public school.  Spring Mills Primary School in Berkeley County is anticipated to receive LEED Silver certification.  The Mother Nature Network reported on the school during its construction noting that “in its current state, the Spring Mills Primary School hardly appears green” but looks can be deceiving.  The school was built to sit from east to west so that maximum natural heat can be brought in through the windows and boasts a three inch insulated white roof to reflect sunlight.  A garden is included on the school grounds and rainwater is collected from the roof to water the school’s garden.  The article in Mother Nature Network concludes by stating that the school is not just important because of its construction but also “because of the message it sends to the rest of the Berkeley County community, and the state of West Virginia in general.”  In a state plagued with criticisms of its coal economy, Spring Mills Primary School is a beacon of hope for environmentally conscious West Virginians.

Scott Carlson notes quite poignantly in a September 2010 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Wars in the past have been fought over oil.  Wars in the future, experts say, will be fought over water.”  Carlson goes on to explore the ways in which the battle over water, in its bottled form, is already being waged on college campuses. 

In 2006, Americans spent $15 billion on bottled water.  According to the organization Back2Tap, nearly 50 billion plastic water bottles end up in landfills every year, noting that not only does that equal 140 million bottles every day but also that it is enough bottles to line up end to end and reach China and back every day.  Aside from the discarded bottles, bottled water’s carbon footprint is much larger than is perhaps immediately obvious.  In 2007, a blogger for TreeHugger.com estimated that to create and transport 1 bottle of Fiji water required 7.1 gallons of water, .26 gallons of fossil fuel, and emitted 1.2 pounds of greenhouse gases.  Largely driven by environmentally conscious student groups, college campuses are beginning to address the issue of bottled water and are taking dramatic measures to do so.

According to Carlson’s article, the University of Vermont, Washington University in St. Louis, and Muhlenberg College are only a few of the growing number of colleges that have banned the sale of bottled water.  At Muhlenberg College, students took bottled water off of the meal plan and managed to decrease total consumption by 95 percent.  Christopher O’Brien, Sustainability Director at American University, points out to Carlson that “’We have been working for 10,000 years in human civilization to create great, safe drinking water for the public, and we have succeeded, and now we are throwing it out.’” 

It is this main issue that student groups and campus administrators are seeking to remedy by hindering or altogether banning the sale of bottled water on their campuses.  Colleges are outfitting campus buildings with bottle-filling stations and providing staff with reusable cups.  Depending on geographic location, however, some colleges are finding the battle against bottled water complex.  At Arizona State University, well-known for its sustainability efforts, the tap water is rife with minerals which cause the water to have a distinct taste.  ASU is exploring efficient carbon-filtration units that can provide more appealing drinking water to students and staff.  In the meantime, ASU’s Office of Sustainability posted fliers detailing the environmental problems associated with bottled drinking water.

According to Carlson, administrators at Pennsylvania State University also ran into a problem when they attempted to reduce bottled water consumption on campus.  After installing drinking fountains and bottle filling stations around campus, administrators found that the design of the structures allowed bacteria to be transmitted between users.  The school is working with manufacturers to find a better design to reduce the incidence of bacterial transmission. 

While Muhlenberg College has already seen great success with its strategy for reducing bottled water on their campus, other colleges and universities are still working through the intricate issues (not the least of which can be contractual) associated with getting rid of bottled water on campus.  Regardless of current status in this initiative, however, what is noteworthy is that a growing number of colleges and universities are beginning to address the issue of waste associated with the consumption of bottled water.