May 21, 2009
Broad strategies, student input key to new UW Climate Action Plan
The first draft of the UW’s Climate Action Plan, which charts a strategic vision for the UW’s commitment in achieving climate neutrality, is now available for comment.
Click here to view the plan online.
In January 2009, under the auspices of the Environmental Stewardship Advisory Committee, a Climate Action Planning Oversight Team formed to coordinate the drafting of a Climate Action Plan.The plan, which is the product of four months’ work by teams of faculty, staff and students from all three campuses, is an important step in fulfilling the pledge made when President Emmert signed the American College University Presidents Climate Commitment for achieving no net greenhouse gas emissions.
The UW’s approach to drafting the Climate Action Plan is to set out broad strategies — i.e. a “plan to plan,” that will guide the University to the goal of climate neutrality.”We’re not ready to set a target date for achieving carbon neutrality until we do further analysis,” says Ruth Johnston, associate vice president for finance and facilities, who also heads the administratively focused Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability Office. “We face many challenges, including significant financing issues. But there are also major opportunities for energy conservation strategies, and we want to allow for new technologies that are coming on line.”
Johnston singled out for praise the role that students have played in developing the plan. “It’s extremely valuable for them to be part of this. They have passion, and they look at these issues from a fresh perspective. As we move to decision making and later implementation, they will play a key role.”
Faculty members from Seattle, Tacoma and Bothell led the creation of the academic part of the plan, focusing on curriculum, research and outreach. They collaborated to identify a variety of strategies that can be used in the classroom, laboratory and in working with the community.
“The curriculum team learned that the University has 500 classes that deal with environmental issues, “Johnston says, “but right now they’re not easy for students to locate.” Additionally, the research team suggested developing a Web site to consolidate opportunities for undergraduates to participate in research on environmental topics. The new College of the Environment, the plan suggests, should be a focal point for developing environmental literacy in students as part of their general education requirements. The college also could develop courses that explore the relationships among disciplines on environmental issues.
To address the need for mitigating emissions the University produces, the draft sets out a vision which anticipates that 20 percent of the University’s goal for greenhouse gas reduction can be met through behavior change — through individual actions around commuting, recycling and equipment purchases, for example.
The largest share of the goal, perhaps 60 percent, can be met through working on issues of energy supply and demand for the University’s buildings. The Power Plant on the Seattle campus uses fossil fuels to provide heating, steam and electricity to many buildings. It is the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions. There are a variety of measures, many of which would require significant capital investments that could make the plant more efficient. The plan notes that the buildings now on campus are likely to represent about 70 percent of the buildings that will exist in 40 years, so energy conservation in existing buildings needs to play an important role. Metering of individual buildings for energy and water consumption could make long-term energy savings easier to measure.
Finally, after achieving mitigation with behavioral change and reductions to energy supply and demand, what remains, perhaps 20 percent of the ultimate goal, may be met by purchasing offsets. These are payments to a fund that is used to assist other organizations in reducing their carbon footprint. But there is still considerable debate about the long term value of some offset strategies that are available on the market, and the overall offset market is relatively new.
There is also a suggestion in the plan that the University explore the feasibility of adopting a “cap-and-tax” plan for carbon emissions. Under this plan, the parties responsible for emissions would be taxed based on their greenhouse gas emissions, with the revenues directed to a fund that would support climate action projects. Other ideas for funding the plan include a fee modeled on the Student Technology Fee, an “opt-in” fee such as students have with WashPIRG, a voluntary donation system modeled on the Combined Fund, and a revolving loan fund for specific projects.
One challenge the University faces in implementing the plan is that, over the years, it has been implementing many of the easier and more cost-effective measures. Some of the things that remain, such as changing individual attitudes and behavior in the workplace, have predictable and simple strategies. Other ideas will require extensive research, analysis, and possible searches for revenue sources.
Comments on the plan should be submitted by May 29. After that, the Environmental Stewardship Advisory Council will review the plan. Over the summer, the plan will be reviewed by the university’s senior leadership, with the report submission due Sept. 15. That’s when the real work begins, Johnston says. Determining which strategies to pursue, prioritizing them, and developing implementation strategies will require broad involvement from all segments of the university community.
