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.”

Imagine a vending machine that pays you for your product. For those readers living in a state with a bottle deposit law Reverse Vending Machines, or RVMs, may already be commonplace at your local public spaces.  An RVM is a device that accepts empty beverage containers and returns payment – either in money or another form of currency such as coupons or gift cards – to the user.  Businesses that are looking for ways to increase their sustainability initiatives may have found one in this incarnation of recycling. What blue recycling bins lack is what RVMs offer – an interactive element for the user and the opportunity to provide immediate rewards for recycling.  RVMs also provide opportunities for businesses to develop relationships with the public and further strengthen and encourage sustainability initiatives within communities.

A variety of institutions have taken their recycling efforts to the next level with the use of RVMs.  Universities such as Sacred Heart University in Connecticut have tied in their incentives with free goods from key sponsors like BIC and FUJIFILM.  Large event venues like the Dunkin Donuts Center in Providence, Rhode Island, encouraged by eco-minded entertainers, offer prizes to their patrons in the form of event tickets.  Even hospitals have honed in on the opportunities provided by RVMs.  Hospital staff and patients generate hundreds of used beverage and meal containers daily.  The Yale New Haven Hospital in New Haven, Connecticut, decided to use the recycling of these containers to the benefit of their employees.  The proceeds from each bottle or container placed into the machine go to raise money for the hospital’s Employee Hardship Fund.  PepsiCo created, in conjunction with Waste Management RVM, the ”Dream Machine,” to offer reward points to individuals who use the machine to recycle bottles and cans or cash donations to charities.  The points accumulate to earn rewards such as travel or movie tickets and coupons for Pepsi products.

These unique endeavors demonstrate how many different ways RVMs can be used by a wide variety of industries to incentivize people to recycle.

Last year “more people were killed worldwide by natural disasters…than have been killed in terrorism attacks in the past 40 years combined.”  If 2010 was the “year the earth struck back,” what will 2011 be known as?  So far in the U.S., the year 2011 has been a year of climatic record breakers—blizzards, tornadoes, floods, droughts, and most recently, heat waves.  There are few areas throughout the nation that have not been affected by intense heat this summer.  With energy costs increasingly on the rise, how can you afford to keep your home cool on a budget?  There are ways you can save money and still stay cool in this time of recession, and one place to start is the outside of your home.

If you do not already have shade trees nearby, consider planting some, particularly on the side of your home that experiences the most midday and afternoon sunlight.  Trees will block some sunlight from reaching your windows and siding and decrease the amount of heat that will build up inside, thus reducing your cooling needs.  According to the Arbor Day Foundation website, if you have an outdoor or window air conditioning unit, consider planting a tree to shade it.  Of course, trees will not grow over night, and you will want to research tree varieties to choose which are right for your unique situation.  Some fast growing varieties can be found at the Fast-Growing-Trees website.  Also, factor in the eventual need for trimming, and do not plant trees too close to your house, as mold formation is heightened and gutters can become clogged with foliage and tree debris.  Tips for pruning trees can be found at the USDA Forest Service website.  Additionally, deciduous trees may be a good choice because they will let the sun’s rays reach your home during the winter months after their leaves have fallen.  If you are currently looking to rent or buy, add shade trees to your list of search criteria.

 
Additionally, consider adding an awning to the exterior of your home.  There are fixed awnings as well as retractable ones on the market.   They can be used to shade windows, patios, porches, as well as entire sides of homes.  According to the U.S. Department of Energy, “Window awnings can reduce solar heat gain in the summer by up to 65% on south-facing windows and 77% on west-facing windows. You can use an awning to shade one window or have an awning custom-made to shade the entire side of your house.”  Also consider that awnings can prevent heat from entering your home in the winter, so a retractable or removable one may be most beneficial for your needs.

Finally, consider the color of your home.  Dark colors can absorb up to 70% to 90% of radiant energy that hits a home’s surface and much is transferred inside the home through conduction, while light colored homes reflect most radiant heat away from the home.  The key is, the more heat you can keep from penetrating your home, the less energy you will need to consume to keep the inside of your home cool.

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

Recently, a coworker who is also an American Public University (APU) student (as many of our employees are) sent me a link to a YouTube video that her professor posted as part of that week’s assignment.  The video, produced by The Story of Stuff Project and narrated by Annie Leonard, is 20 minutes in length and provides a somewhat scathing look at the life cycle of our “stuff.” 

Through the use of basic yet effective animations, Leonard describes in accessible terms how all of our stuff comes to be and what happens when we are finished with it.  Through the five steps of the materials economy (extraction, production, distribution, consumption, and disposal), our stuff requires tremendous resources, natural and human.  Along the way, the process harms many of the parties involved.  During the extraction process, for example, people living in the places where the first resources are culled often lose the lands and natural materials on which they have relied for generations.  Because their resources are lost, some 200,000 people a day (worldwide) move from environments that had previously sustained them for generations to cities in search of work, often finding it in the factories that are making stuff from the resources taken from their lands.  During the production process, workers are subjected to many harmful chemicals that are used to create the stuff.  At the same time, working conditions in many of the factories producing our stuff leave much to be desired. 

Even the consumer, who is the driving force behind the manufacturing of this stuff is harmed.  The toxins that go into making the stuff impact those who buy and use these items.  Leonard uses the phrase, “toxins in, toxics out” to make the point that many of our products are actually toxic to us.  Through all of this, the environment takes the most consistent abuse, however.  The loss of vast quantities of natural resources, toxins emitted into the environment, and the irresponsible disposal of most items leaves our planet quite vulnerable, according to Leonard.

During the linear process of the materials economy, we are “bumping up against limits” all along the way.  According to Leonard, “in the last decade alone, one-third of the world’s natural resources have been depleted.”  In the United States, only 4 percent of our forests are left.  Though Americans account for only 5 percent of the world’s population, we consume more than 30 percent of the world’s resources.  In only one day, the average American creates 4.5 pounds of trash – due largely in part to the fact that we also consume twice as much stuff as Americans did 50 years ago.  Leonard explains that the consumerist economy for which the United States is known is not accidental but instead was designed by American government, big business, and economists in the 1950s who sought to bulk up the American economy.  She notes that we have since become a nation of consumers – that in fact, consumerism is the characteristic for which Americans are best known.  The “golden arrow” within the materials economy that represents consumption is the key to the entire system.  Without that consumption, none of the rest of the system would be able to proceed and would become obsolete.

In relation to her discussion about consumerism in America, Leonard explains the concepts of planned obsolescence and perceived obsolescence.  Planned obsolescence is quite scandalous, really: manufacturers design and make stuff that will be obsolete quickly but last long enough to give the consumer enough faith in the product that he or she returns to the distribution center (store) to purchase another, perpetuating the cycle.  Perceived obsolescence is more of a societal and psychological problem.  This is the notion that what we already have is not good enough and often is discussed in terms of fashion.  Leonard points out that in a single day, Americans see more than 3,000 advertisements, each essentially telling the consumer that he or she is not good enough, does not have the best stuff, and urges him or her to quickly run out to purchase the newest, “best” of what is available. 

In the end of the discussion about the materials economy, Leonard explains that this is a system in crisis.  The limits that we are “bumping up against” will soon give way to no resources whatsoever.  She points out to the viewer, however, that it was people who created this system (namely the economists, government officials, and big businessmen of the 1950s).  Because people created this system, people can also dismantle it.  Leonard suggests removing the disposal component of the system altogether and moving from a finite linear model to a circular one in which consumed goods are reused for the creation of more goods.  She encourages this type of recycling as a means toward improving the system but cautions the viewer against believing that recycling is all that is needed.  She adamantly states that recycling is not enough; according to Leonard, a behavioral change is required that will not only assist in conservation efforts but could also promote greater happiness for all parties involved in the process. 

The content of this video is quite eye-opening and interesting.  To some degree, most of us know in general terms that we live in a consumer society and that our “stuff” requires tremendous resources to make.  By connecting the entire system from start to finish, however, and explaining several consumerist norms that many may not know, The Story of Stuff Project changes the way the viewer looks at his or her stuff.  While I was impressed with the content of the video, I was equally as impressed that this video was assigned in my colleague’s class, a sociology course.  Many universities have struggled with how to integrate sustainability across their curriculums.  Doing so is a requirement of the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) of which APUS is a charter signatory.  The use of this video in a sociology class is a great example of a creative way to incorporate topics of sustainability into academic curriculums where it may not otherwise be present. 

If you are interested in learning more about the “story of stuff,” check out Annie Leonard’s book of the same title.