University of Toledo Carbon Footprint:
Scope 3 Emissions
May 6, 2010
Group Members:
Kathleen Gallagher
Neale Mahon
Josh Quinlan
Colin Serne
Joe Wcislak
Abstract
The goal of this study was to determine the carbon footprint of the University of Toledo’s
Main Campus for Scope 3 emissions. Scope 3 emissions are optional emissions that are
subjective to Universities. The University of Toledo decided to include emissions from
commuting, sports and study abroad transportation, wastewater, solid waste, and paper. These
emissions are either upstream or downstream emissions. The upstream emissions occur before
the product or service is on campus. These upstream emissions include; commuting, sports
travel, study abroad travel, and paper. The downstream emissions occur after use on campus.
These emissions occur at a plant or landfill after the university uses the product. These
downstream emissions include; wastewater and solid waste use. Scope 3 also includes offsets
that the University of Toledo would purchase. However, there were minimal offsets purchased
for the main campus.
These emissions were all converted into equivalent carbon dioxide. The amount of
carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide were found for each emission and then converted to
metric tons of equivalent carbon dioxide. The amount of equivalent carbon dioxide was used to
find the carbon footprint of scope 3 emissions for the University of Toledo.
After the footprint was figured, the results were compared to another comparable
institution’s results. Since scope 3 emissions are very subjective to each university, the
competing school’s numbers were a little different from the University of Toledo’s scope 3
emissions. Using the results we found from this study, suggestions were able to be made to
improve our main campus’s environmental impact and lower the carbon footprint of the
University of Toledo.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 5
3. Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Commuting ......................................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 University Paid Sports ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.3 Study Abroad ...................................................................................................................................... 8
3.4 Water and Wastewater ........................................................................................................................ 9
3.5 Solid Waste ....................................................................................................................................... 11
3.6 Paper ................................................................................................................................................. 12
3.7 Main Campus Offsets ....................................................................................................................... 12
4. Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 13
4.1 Commuting ....................................................................................................................................... 13
4.2 University Paid Sports ...................................................................................................................... 15
4.3 Study Abroad .................................................................................................................................... 15
4.4 Water and Wastewater ...................................................................................................................... 16
4.5 Solid Waste ....................................................................................................................................... 17
4.6 Paper ................................................................................................................................................. 18
4.7 Main Campus Offsets ....................................................................................................................... 19
5. Scope 3 Total Carbon Emissions ............................................................................................................ 19
6. University of Toledo versus Ohio University Scope 3 Comparison ....................................................... 20
7. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 20
8. Suggestions ............................................................................................................................................. 21
9. References ............................................................................................................................................... 21
10. Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... 21
11. Appendices............................................................................................................................................ 21
1. Introduction
The University of Toledo has many greenhouse gas producing components in its daily
operations. Scope 3 was responsible for only a small part of the University’s total operations;
these parts include indirect emissions resulting from commuting, sports travel, water,
wastewater, solid waste, and offsets. When reviewing carbon footprints from similar schools
such as the University of Washington these four categories combine to create nearly a quarter of
the total emissions from the school.
Commuting is a large contributor to green house gas production. The University has a large
portion of its students who drive to campus every day to attend class and a very little amount
who take public transportation. Along with students driving to class faculty and staff also
commute varying distances to come to the university to work. With all of these vehicles
traveling to and from school everyday thousands of tons of greenhouse gases are produced.
The University has many varsity sports that it sponsors. When these sports teams travel to other
schools to participate in matches and tournaments the school has to pay for their travel. This
travel reaches all over the country from the west coast to the eastern coast. This travel, whether
it is by a bus, train or airplane creates large amounts of greenhouse gases. The school also
sponsors the travel of students and faculty to study abroad. Studying abroad incorporates
traveling long distances, commonly requiring traveling by flight.
Toledo uses large amounts of clean drinking water for its bathrooms, sinks and other operations;
this water is than commonly turned into waste water. Water and wastewater treatment requires
large amounts of energy. Along with this water use the university also produces large amounts
of solid waste from its dining halls and general garbage cans found throughout the campus.
Disposal and treatment of solid waste, much like the treatment of water requires large amounts of
energy and in turn creates large amounts of greenhouse gases.
Paper is a viable source in the learning process. Without paper one would not be able to write or
read as freewill as it is. Paper use at a university for printing of tests, assignments, handouts and
syllabi are just a few examples of the vast amounts of paper used. Paper production is an energy
hungry process and this energy use results in greenhouse gas emissions if energy is produced
from fossil fuels.
Finally, the University does have some processes in place to create greenhouse gas offsets.
These offsets are used to counter the amount of greenhouse gas the University creates.
2. Objectives
The goal of this study was to determine the carbon footprint of the University of Toledo’s Main
Campus for Scope 3 emissions. In order to compare Toledo’s campus to other campus’s carbon
footprints, the units of: commuting, sports travel, water, wastewater, paper, and offsets had to be
equal. The common unit used to compare the effect is carbon dioxide equivalent. This process
has been established by Clean Air – Cool Planet in order to help Universities document,
understand, project, and reduce their campus greenhouse gas footprint. Once carbon footprint
was estimated, we also made projections for the future and some recommendations in order to
reduce the carbon footprint associated with Scope 3 emissions.
3. Methods
The collection of the data seemed very daunting at first however with help from Harvey
Vershum, Director of Energy Management, many contacts were established and the process
could progress. In order to contact the necessary people the work load was divided amongst the
group: Neale Mahon and Colin Serne were responsible for commuting, the largest data
collection; Joe Wcislak was responsible for University paid sports and the study abroad program;
Kathleen Gallagher was responsible for water, wastewater, and solid waste; and Josh Quinlan
was responsible for paper and University offsets. A summary of data collected and departments
contacted in order to provide the data is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Contact Information
Type of data
Provided by
Person that provided the data
Number of parking permits
ID Card & Parking Services
Manager
David Wahr, ID Card & Parking
Services Manager for University of
Toledo
Frequency of TARTA stops
on campus & miles traveled
TARTA Marketing
Steve Atkinson, Marketing Director
for Toledo Area Regional Transit
Authority
Sports Teams miles traveled
to away events
Athletic Department
Shelly Lawniczak, Sports
Department Secretary
Study Abroad miles traveled
Study Abroad Department
Potable Water Usage
Facilities Planning/Bay View Danieal Klett, Director of Facilities
WWTP
Planning
Solid Waste Transported to
Landfill
Building Services and
Recycling
Dan Royer, Building Services and
Recycling & Arlene Fell, Director of
Environmental Resources
Pounds of paper per year
Building Services
Dan Royer, Building Services and
Recycling
Offsets
N/A
Not able to acquire data
Fran Molnar, Study Abroad
Department Secretary
In order to convert the data into equivalent values, the use of a Carbon Calculator (Clean 2008)
was used. The equations modeled in the below subsections are how the Carbon Calculator
converts the inputted data numbers into the equivalent carbon dioxide values necessary for the
Green House Gas Inventory.
3.1 Commuting
Commuting is a large player in the role of greenhouse gas production. The University of Toledo
has a large percentage of its student population that lives off of campus and commutes to class
on a daily basis. Along with this student commuting is the commuting done by the faculty and
staff of the university.
To determine this commuting it was determined that the number of commuters would need to be
known. The University distributes parking passes to all of these commuters to keep track of who
is allowed to park where and where not. The number of passes was obtained from David Wahr,
the Director of Student Affairs, Auxiliary services, (Table 2). Based on these passes it was
determined just how many students, faculty, and staff commute to the school on a given day.
Due to privacy issues the mailing locations of all parking pass holders were not permitted to be
given. Assuming a rough sample of miles driven for each parking genre and averaging these we
estimated how many miles of travel each group generates, (Table 2), (Table 3).
Table 2: Number of Passes
Fall 2009 Passes issued
Staff
Commuter
Residents
Freshmen Residents
Freshmen Commuters
Totals
1245
9096
893
1044
2010
13911
Spring 2010 Passes
issued
1273
8099
917
507
1156
11574
Totals
2518
17195
1810
1551
3166
26240
Table 3: Average Miles per Day
Average Miles round
trip
35
17
On Campus
Faculty/Staff
Commuter
Residents
Fall 2009 Registered
Drivers
2,518
20,361
On Campus
Total Miles per day
88,130
346,137
On Campus
Table 4: Miles per Year
Faculty/Staff
Commuter
Residents
Total Miles
per day
88,130
346,137
On Campus
Trips to campus
per week
5
4.5
On Campus
Weeks visiting
campus per year
40
36
On Campus
Total miles per
year
17,626,000
560,741,94
On Campus
Using the excel sheet we could plug in our values and determine how much greenhouse gas was
being generated due to the schools commuting population and the use of public transportation.
Also, included in the commuting value was the data from public transportation. The University
of Toledo has public bussing provided by the Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority (TARTA)
that transports students to and from campus. TARTA was contacted and the data provided is
displayed in Table 4.
Table 5: Public Transportation
Stops made on
campus
Average Riders
Route Miles
2007
42,100
2008
35,185
2009
23,555
4.5
23
4.5
23
4.5
23
3.2 University Paid Sports
In order to discover how many miles were traveled by the sports teams and study abroad
program, the two departments were contacted first. The sports department informed where the
team’s schedules where located online. An excel spreadsheet could then be made of the locations
of each sports yearly schedule and destinations. This included the number of trips to each
location for the years of interest. The sports department could not give a definite answer for the
cut off between driving and flying; there are heads for each sport that make that determination,
and no definitive cutoff is used. Therefore, a 500 mile cutoff was used for the spreadsheet, over
500 miles we used flight, and under we applied to bussing. The mileage was found from Toledo
to the destination city, multiplied that number by the number of trips made to that city per year
for all sports reporting, and then multiplied that by two for the return trip. The miles were then
added together to each city for the years of interest, for both the air travel and the driving
individually, and these are the numbers we will use for the input on the carbon calculator,
modeled by the following air and bus travel equations. The conversions modeled by the
calculator are displayed in Equation 1.
𝑀𝑀𝐵𝑡𝑢
Input(miles)*0.00394𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑇𝑜𝑛𝑠 × 19.33
𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂2+ Input (miles)*
Input (miles)×
𝐶𝐻4
𝑔𝑎𝑙
𝑀𝑀𝐵𝑇𝑈
0.135
𝑔𝑎𝑙
0.000261 𝐾𝑔
0.00394 𝑀𝑀𝐵𝑇𝑈
𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑒
𝑇𝑔 𝐶 109 𝑘𝑔
𝑄𝐵𝑡𝑢
𝑄𝐵𝑡𝑢
109 𝑀𝑀𝐵𝑡𝑢
𝑇𝑔
× 99% ×
44 𝑔 𝐶𝑂2
12 𝑔 𝐶
∗ 2.8 =
𝑀𝑀𝐵𝑇𝑈
× 0.00394 𝑃𝐴𝑆𝑆.𝑀𝐼𝐿𝐸 = 𝐾𝐺 𝐶𝐻4 +
𝑔𝑎𝑙
0.0003 𝐾𝐺 𝑁2𝑂
× 0.135𝑀𝑀𝐵𝑇𝑈 ×
𝑔𝑎𝑙
= 𝐾𝐺 𝑁2𝑂]/ 1000 (Equation 1)
3.3 Study Abroad
The travel abroad department of the University was contacted several times with no return calls,
nor anyplace to find the data needed. With a little help, the travel abroad department did reply to
an e-mail, and found some data that was needed. They provided the countries to which students
travelled to for study abroad, however the specific cities were not included, therefore the capital
cities of the countries were used. With these cities the miles traveled could be found to figure the
mileage traveled per year. These are the figures used for the input on the carbon calculator. The
conversions modeled by the calculator are displayed in Equation 2.
𝑀𝑃𝐺
𝑇𝑔 𝐶
[Input(miles)*39.67 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑒 ∗ 19.95 𝑄 𝐵𝑇𝑈 ∗
𝑀𝑃𝐺
+ Input(miles)*39.67𝑃𝐴𝑆𝑆 ∗ 0.000567
𝐾𝑔 𝐶𝐻4
𝐺𝑎𝑙
109 𝑘𝑔
𝑇𝑔
𝑄 𝐵𝑇𝑈
∗ 109 𝑀𝑀 𝐵𝑇𝑈 ∗ 0.138
∗ 0.000014292
𝐾𝑔 𝐶𝐻4
𝑀𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑠
𝑀𝑀 𝐵𝑇𝑈
𝐺𝑎𝑙.
𝐾𝑔 𝐶𝑂2
∗ 72.367 𝑀𝑀 𝐵𝑇𝑈
𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑠
∗ 𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 ( 𝑀𝑃𝐺 ) = 𝐾𝑔 𝐶𝐻4
+ Input(miles)*0.000006478
𝐾𝑔 𝑁2𝑂
𝑀𝑖𝑙𝑒
𝑀𝑃𝐺
∗ 39.67 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠. ∗ 0.000275
𝐾𝑔 𝑁2𝑂
𝐺𝑎𝑙.
∗ 𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡
𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑠
𝑀𝑃𝐺
= 𝐾𝑔 𝑁2𝑂] /
1000 (Equation 2)
3.4 Water and Wastewater
In order to collect the wastewater information needed for this study of the University of Toledo’s
campus carbon footprint, Danieal Klett, Director of Facilities Planning, sent a data file of the
main campus’s usage of potable water.
The data collected for potable wastewater usage is given in cubic feet for each fiscal year. These
values need to be converted into gallons in order to use the campus carbon calculator. After
finding the total amount of potable wastewater used on the University of Toledo’s main campus,
the ratio of aerobic, anaerobic, and anaerobic digesters that the Toledo Wastewater Treatment
Plant uses to treat the wastewater was found by emailing the wastewater treatment plant. This
breakup was then used to calculate what percent of the potable water that was used by the main
campus was treated aerobically, aerobically, and by anaerobic digesters. These were then entered
into the campus carbon calculator, which used the equations discussed below to give us the
campus carbon footprint.
To calculate the campus carbon footprint the carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalence needs to be
computed from the emissions of the central treatment plant. The central treatment plant for this
study was the Toledo Wastewater Treatment Plant. This is the treatment plant where all the
potable water is transported from the university. The total amount of CH4 and N2O needs to be
calculated and totaled.
The amount of CH4 and N2O was calculated for aerobic, anaerobic, and anaerobic digesters. The
constants found in Table 4 are multiplied by the gallons of wastewater found for the data
presented to me by Danieal Klett.
Table 6: Wastewater Constants
Calculate Process
aerobic
CH4
Constant
0 kgCH4/gal
Anaerobic 0.000336
kgCH4/gal
Source
(0.0007 kg BOD/ gal ww)(% accidental
anaerobic degradation)(1 - % BOD
removed by primary treatment)(0.18 kg
CH4/kg BOD)
<www.epa.gov/climate
change/emissions/usinventoryreport.html>
Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000 (February
2008); section 8.2 pg. 8-13 – 8-14
0.007 kg BOD/ gal ww)(1 - % BOD
removed by primary treatment)(0.48 kg
Anaerobic 1.121847 x 10-6
Digestors kgCH4/gal
N2O
Aerobic
0.00000163
kgN2O/gal
Anaerobic 0.00000163
kgN2O/gal
Anaerobic 0.00000163
Digestors kgN2O/gal
CH4/kg BOD)
<www.epa.gov/climate
change/emissions/usinventoryreport.html>
Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000 (February
2008); section 8.2 pg. 8-13 – 8-14
(0.000283168 m3 gas/gal ww)(0.4303 kg
CH4/m3 gas)(99% combusted)
<www.epa.gov/climate
change/emissions/usinventoryreport.html>
Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000 (February
2008); section 8.2 pg. 8-13 – 8-14
<www.epa.gov/climate
change/emissions/usinventoryreport.html>
Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000 (February
2008); section 8.2 pg. 8-13 – 8-14
<www.epa.gov/climate
change/emissions/usinventoryreport.html>
Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000 (February
2008); section 8.2 pg. 8-13 – 8-14
<www.epa.gov/climate
change/emissions/usinventoryreport.html>
Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000 (February
2008); section 8.2 pg. 8-13 – 8-14
After both CH4 and N2O are calculated for each of the three processes, add the values together
for each emission, respectively and then use the equation:
Sum of CH  23
  Sum of N O  296

4 
2

100
yrs
.
100
yrs




eCO2 
1000
to find the carbon
dioxide equivalence (eCO2). This equation uses the sum of the two emissions produced from
Toledo’s wastewater treatment plant calculated and then multiplying those totals by the
characterization factor for both CH4 (23) and N2O (296), respectively. These two products are
then added together and the sum is divided by one thousand to get the global warming potential
expressed in metric tons of eCO2. This eCO2 value can then be used to determine and predict The
University of Toledo’s campus carbon footprint.
3.5 Solid Waste
In order to calculate the CO2 equivalence (eCO2) for solid waste, the amount of waste
incinerated and landfilled needs to be determined. We assume the University of Toledo does not
incinerate any waste. If incinerated waste was taken into account then it would be calculated by
summing the amount of mass burning times its corresponding constant found in Table 7 and the
amount of Refuse Derived Fuel (RFD) times is corresponding constant found in Table 7.
Table 7: Solid Waste Constants
Calculate Process
CO2
Mass
Burning
RDF
CH4
Recovery
Recovery
and
Flaring
Constant
-110 kgCO2/short
ton
-36.67 kgCO2/short
ton
47.14285714
kgCH4/ short ton
12.22222222
kgCH4/short ton
Recovery
6.984126984
and
kgCH4/short ton
Electric
Generation
Source
MTCE CO2


  0.03
44
short
ton


121000


MTCE CO2

44 
  0.27
short
ton



121000






21


MTCE CO2

44 
  0.07
short
ton






12
1000






21
<http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/nonhw/muncpl/ghg/greengas.pdf>
EPA, 2002


MTCE CO2


44

  0.04
short ton 


121000






21
The CH4 emitted by the landfilled waste produces some downstream emissions. The amount of
CH4 recovery and flaring is multiplied by its corresponding constant found in Table 2. The
amount of CH4 recovery and electric generation is then multiplied by its corresponding constant
found in Table 2. The emissions occurring then use the following equation to calculate the eCO2
Sum of CH  23


Constnat I )   Sum of N 2 O  296
Cons tan t J 
4 

100
yrs
.
100
yrs




eCO2 
1000
.
This equation uses the sum of each emission found previously and then multiplied by the global
warming potential (GWP) and then divided by one thousand. This eCO2 can then be used to
calculate The University of Toledo’s carbon footprint and predict The University of Toledo’s
emissions.
3.6 Paper
Universities use paper for nearly every aspect of the learning process, and the University of
Toledo is no exception. In order to convert the inputted pounds of paper with their respected
percent recycled into the equivalent carbon dioxide there are two steps that need to be taken, as
shown in Equation 5 below. Where (lbs) is the inputted pounds of paper used by the University
of Toledo with its corresponding recycled content are multiplied by the corresponding equivalent
carbon dioxide emission factor. The (emission factor) is calculated from a table of constants
supplied by the Environmental Defense Fund Paper Calculator (EDFPC) (Paper 2007). The table
lists every type of paper, from uncoated freesheet to paperboard coated recycled. The pounds of
paper are converted to metric tons and multiplied by the correct emission factor and Equation 5
can be formed.
eCO2 
lbs  * emmissionfactor  * (1ton)
2000lbs
(Equation 5)
Where,
lbs = input of pounds of paper used by University
emission factor = constant provided by EDFPC
The pounds of paper was found by contacting the accounts payable department and the only
types of paper that the University uses are corrugated unbleached and uncoated freesheat, which
are cardboard and copypaper respectively.
3.7 Main Campus Offsets
University offsets also play a big role in the greenhouse gas inventory, but in a different way,
they give back to the environment. The University of Toledo currently is implementing many
offsets; however, these offsets are not on main campus and therefore will not be included in the
greenhouse gas inventory. The conversion of the offsets is very straightforward due to the input
already being in equivalent carbon dioxide. There are only two offsets that need to be converted
including composting and green electric certificates. These two offsets, labeled as (MTeCO2),
only need to be multiplied by a constant, labeled as (emissionfactor) in the below equation.
These emission factors are provided by the EPA (Solid 2007).
eCO2  (MTeCO2) * (emissionfactor) (Equation 6)
Where,
MTeCO2 = Composting or Green Electric Certificates provided by University
Emission factor = constant provided by EPA (Solid 2007)
The constant within the file is provided by the Solid Waste Management And Greenhouse Gases:
A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks published by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) (Solid 2010).
4. Results and Discussion
The results of Scope 3 include the raw data that was collected from the four different aspects as well as
the equivalent carbon dioxide calculated by using the Carbon Calculator (Clean 2008).
4.1 Commuting
To determine the greenhouse gases produced by the commuting of students, faculty and staff to
and from the campus in their personal cars, carpooling or on a TARTA bus, a lot of broad
information needed to be collected. This information collection began with contacting the
department in charge of distributing parking passes. This department was Student Affairs, and
David Wahr was the Director who helped with supplying some of the needed information.
Student Affairs keeps track of how many parking passes are issued, who they are issued to, and
what relation they have with the school, (Table 2). Due to privacy issues names and home
addresses were not permitted to be supplied, if this information was supplied the average
distance from the home to the university could have been calculated for a much more accurate
distance. Instead of using this exact average of miles traveled, a rough estimate was assigned to
the different categories of parking passes, (Table 3).
The current populations of active full time students, active part time students, faculty and staff
can be found in Table 8.
Table 8
Active Full Time Students
Active Part Time
Faculty
Staff
Enrolled
25280
7214
1679
4900
In calculating of total students driving, freshmen residents were not included in student
population because they are not permitted to park on campus, (Table 9). The percentage of
Students, Staff and Faculty carpooling can be found in Table 10. These numbers were used from
research done by other campuses similar to Toledo who have already completed their Carbon
Footprints.
Table 9: Total number of students and students driving
Total Students Driving, non Freshmen residents
Total Students
12,018
25,280
Table 10: Percentages of students and Staff/Faculty carpooling
% Students Carpooling
%Staff/Faculty Carpooling
5%
3%
The number of trips to the campus per week, how many weeks per year, and how many miles per
trip all needed to be known to calculate the total miles driven to campus per year, they can all be
found in Table 11. An estimate of the average miles driven to the campus by students was
calculated as 17 miles round trip. The estimate for faculty and staff miles driven was 35.
Table 11
Total Miles
Trips to campus
Weeks visiting
Total miles per
per day
per week
campus per year
year
Faculty/Staff
88,130
5
40
17,626,000
Commuter
346,137
4.5
36
560,741,94
Residents
On Campus
On Campus
On Campus
On Campus
Along with private travel to and from the school there is public bussing that stops at the
university to drop off and pick up people. This travel was also considered in the data. To find
out about this travel the bussing company TARTA was contacted and asked about how many and
how often busses stop at the school, and with a rough estimate of how many passengers were
entering and exiting the busses at these stops. Trips per week were calculated by dividing the
stops recorded by TARTA by the number of weeks in a year. Miles per year was calculated by
multiplying the trips per week by the number of school weeks by the miles per round trip.
(Table 12)
Table 12: Bussing miles
2006
2007
2008
2009
Stops
made on
Campus
46,280
42,100
35,185
23,555
% Riding
Bus
Trips per
week
Weeks per
year
Miles per
trip
Miles per
year
3%
3%
3%
3%
890
810
677
453
36
36
36
36
23
23
23
23
736,920
670,680
560,556
375,084
4.2 University Paid Sports
The paid sports travel numbers were separated by a 500 mile barrier. Over 500 miles was
considered air travel by the team, and less than 500 miles was considered to be ground
transportation. These numbers were applied to the appropriate column in the excel spreadsheet to
find the carbon content portion of the university footprint. These numbers can be found in Table
14.
Table 13: Students Sports Travel
2007
2008
2009
Air Travel Miles
78,360
70,640
57,356
Bus Travel Miles
58,520
55,028
55,100
4.3 Study Abroad
To determine the greenhouse gases produced by travel that is either directly or indirectly funded
by the University of Toledo information was collected from Fran Molnar in the study abroad
department. These numbers were separated into two categories, air travel and ground travel. All
miles produced by the travel abroad program were indirectly funded by the University, and were
applied to the air travel category. These miles were paid for by the student themselves. (Table
13)
Table 14: Study Abroad Air miles
Air miles
1,435,112
1,298,408
353,078
2007
2008
2009
The information for the year 2009 was incomplete, only accounting for half of the year at time of
publication.
4.4 Water and Wastewater
The amount of wastewater used in a fiscal year by the main campus is shown in Table 15. Each
process represents a portion of the total wastewater used by The University of Toledo main
campus. These numbers represent the ratio of each process that is used at Toledo’s Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The amount of aerobic treatment is twenty percent of the process, the amount of
anaerobic processes is sixty percent, and anaerobic digestion is the last twenty percent.
Table 15: Results for Wastewater in cubic feet per a fiscal year
Summary Potable Water Utility Usages for Main Campus
Building Description
MAIN CAMPUS TOTAL
Aerobic
Anaerobic
Anaerobic Digestion
CCF Usage
FY 2007
194,918
38,983
116,950
38,983
CCF Usage
FY 2008
180,200
36,040
108,120
36,040
CCF Usage
FY 2009
183,063
36,612
109,837
36,612
The units for wastewater used in the campus carbon calculator are gallons. So, Table 16 shows
the results is gallons per a fiscal year.
Table 16: Results for Wastewater in gallons per a fiscal year
Summary Potable Water Utility Usages for Main Campus
Gallons
Usage FY
2007
1,458,100
291,610
874,850
291,610
MAIN CAMPUS
Aerobic
Anaerobic
Anaerobic Digestion
Gallons
Usage FY
2008
1,347,900
269,580
808,740
269,580
Gallons
Usage FY
2009
1,369,400
273,880
821,640
273,880
Table 17: Water and Wastewater Results
Equivalent Carbon Dioxide (eCO2)
2007
2008
2009
7.5
6.9
7.0
4.5 Solid Waste
The amount of solid waste produced by The University of Toledo’s main campus was found only
as an average in the volume produced for a year, found on the website
<http://www.environmentalistseveryday.org/publications-solid-waste-industryresearch/faq/municipal-solid-waste.php> that one cubic yd (yd3) of solid waste is between one
hundred and 200 hundred pounds before compacted. So, to convert the volume of solid waste
produced by main campus to weight, 150 pounds per an yd3 of waste as an estimate for the total
solid waste weight. From, Toledo’s Waste Management Landfill, the amount of waste going
through one of the three processes was found by using the ratio of each process and finding the
total amount of the university’s waste that goes through one of these processes. The amount of
CH4 recovery is about sixty percent of the gas emitted by the landfill. The amount of CH4
Recovery and Flaring is about thirty percent of the gas recovered and about ten percent of that is
recovered for electric generation.
Table 18: Annual Volume of Major Solid Wastes
Volume of Solid Wastes
Total
Yd3/year
Weight (lbs)/year
1123.1
168,465
Table 19: Solid Waste Results
Weight (short tons)/
year
84.2
Equivalent Carbon Dioxide (eCO2)
2007
2008
2009
1,217.2
1,217.2
1,217.2
4.6 Paper
The data needed for the paper’s effects on the Universities Green House Gases was daunting.
There were thirteen different types of papers and also the percent recycled for each of the types
that the Campus Carbon Calculator (Clean 2008) uses in order to calculate the green house gases.
In order to contact the correct person for the data needed, I first contacted the secretary of the
Civil Engineering Department and she forwarded the information to the accounts payable
department. Within the accounts payable department there are many contacts and with the help
from Aaron Baker, I was put in contact with the Director of Purchasing, Jennifer Pastorek.
Jennifer was finally able to put me in contact with Dan Royer, Manager of Building Services and
Recycling. Dan was able to acquire the data needed and forwarded the paper weights to me. The
data received is displayed in Table 12.
Table 12
Paper
Uncoated Freesheet
Percent Recycled
2007 Weight (lbs)
2008 Weight (lbs)
2009 Weight (lbs)
50
509760
573772
654852
Corrugated Unbleached
50
182978
299142
438778
The data in Table 12 was the raw data collected from the Universities usuage of uncoated
freesheet, copy paper, and corrugated unbleached, cardboard. The values were collected for the
2007, 2008, and 2009 fiscal years. The values in Table 12 were inputted into the Carbon
Calculator (Clean 2008) and then the equivalent carbon dioxide values could be calculated. The
equivalent carbon dioxide values are shown in Table 13.
Table 13
Equivalent Carbon Dioxide (eCO2)
2007
2008
2009
723.1
909.2
1137.2
4.7 Main Campus Offsets
The University offsets were handled a little differently. Harvey Vershum, Director of Energy
Management, was able to inform me of the Energy Manager that is in charge of the offsets at the
University. After many attempts to contact the Energy Manager, the data was deemed not as
important as the other data. The main reason this information was deemed not as important was
the University has many offsets that have been implemented within the last year; however, these
offsets are not located on main campus.
5. Scope 3 Total Carbon Emissions
The total equivalent carbon dioxide was calculated using the Carbon Calculator. The totals were
taking and made into a graph to be easily displayed in Graph 1.
Graph 1: Scope 3 Total Equivalent Carbon Dioxide
As the graph displays, over the three fiscal years the Scope 3 emissions remained relatively the
same. Also, as expected with the University of Toledo being a large commuter based campus, the
commuting totals are the greatest equivalent carbon dioxide emissions.
6. University of Toledo versus Ohio University Scope 3 Comparison
In order to ensure accuracy of the data collected, the final data numbers were compared to a
comparable school, for this study Ohio University was chosen. The 2009 fiscal year was the only
year compared and the results are shown in Graph 2.
Graph 2: Comparison to Ohio University
25,000
Paper
20,000
Wastewater
Solid Waste
MTeCO2
15,000
Air Travel
Sports Travel
(Bus)
Commuting
10,000
5,000
0
Ohio University
University of Toledo
Graph 2 shows the comparison between the two Universities. OU and UT are very comparable
with the total equivalent carbon dioxide values. However, this data is very subjective. The data
included in our Scope 3 included paper, wasterwater, and sports travel by bus, whereas Ohio
University did not include this data in their Scope 3. Comparing the two totals, UT has a very
high commuting emission as opposed to OU. This higher commuting value is to be expected
with Toledo being a very large commuter base. The air travel from Ohio is also very high, which
is unknown to the root of this high emission.
7. Conclusions
There are many theories of how to reduce greenhouse gases in the future. There are some ideas
that are not very convincing and others that are being implanted already today. However, in
order to determine the difference that can be made in the future of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, the current effect must be measured. The greenhouse gas inventory is a starting block
for companies, universities, or even towns or cities to measure their carbon footprint and make a
plan to reduce their impact on future generations.
8. Suggestions
In order to reduce carbon emissions, there are many suggestions that could be utilized in order to
reduce the emissions. There are many emissions specifically for Scope 3 emissions that can be
reduced as well. Some suggestions that could reduce emissions are to: create incentives for
carpooling and good gas mileage when commuting; time classes closer together, therefore
commuters do not need to go back and forth throughout the day; have more advertisement for
recycling throughout campus or incentives for recycling; have more opportunities for public
transportation like a rail system; group sports teams to travel to the same site, for example have
boy’s and girl’s double headers so they can travel together; the University can look into
harvesting rainwater and using it for toilets; and paper can be reduced by posting more things
online and not have students print them out or just using laptops to take notes or follow
presentations instead of writing everything down or printing power point slides.
9. References
Clean Air, Cool Planet. Campus Carbon Calculator. Rep. Clean Air Cool Planet Inc, 2008. Print.
"Paper Calculator." Environmental Defense Fund. 2007. Web. 7 Apr. 2010.
<http://www.edf.org/papercalculator/>.
"Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases." Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse
Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. 22 Mar. 2010. Web. 7 Apr. 2010.
10. Acknowledgements
We acknowledge all of the people contacted, listed in the Scope 3 journal, for the intense work
associated with collecting the data.
11. Appendices
Scope 3 Journal: Date - Contact Person - Information obtained
1-26-10 -- Phone call to Shelly Lawniczak, Sports Dept Secretary and received where to find
sports schedules for traveling teams (Joe)
2-3-10 -- Email sent to Parking asking for a return of who to contact in the department and/or
any information (Colin)
2-5-10 -- Email sent to Steve wise, Transportation asking for TARTA buss information. (Neale)
2-8-10 -- Email sent to Michael Green, Mech Eng/Energy Manager, about only Main Offsets
(Josh)
2-8-10 -- Email sent to Arlene Fell, Director of Environmental Resources, asked for any
information on solid waste data from her or someone she knew (Kathleen)
2-8-10 -- Email sent to Diana Raider, Analyst, asked for water and wastewater flowrate data
(Kathleen)
2-10-10 -- Diana Raider, Financial Analyst, sent email back promising data for potable water
usage and impervious surface area on main (Kathleen)
2-15-10 -- Danieal Klett, Director of Facilities Planning, gave data for potable water utility usage
for main campus, uploaded into data files page (Kathleen)
2-17-10 -- Email sent to Katherine Powell, Civil Secretary, to determine contact in Accounts
Payable for paper usage (Josh)
2-17-10 -- Email sent to Arlene Fell, Director of Environmental Resources, asking for
information on solid waste (Kathleen)
2-17-10 -- Another email sent to Michael Green asking for Offsets (Josh)
2-17-10 -- Sent an email to studyabroad@utoledo.edo to ask if they could help, spent 4.5 hours
on finding and colating the sports teams destinations (Joe)
2-18-10 -- Went to the parking offices and asked who I should talk to about getting information
about how many passes are issued, received a name but he is not in today (Colin)
2-19-10 -- Emailed David Wahr, Director of student affairs asking for parking pass information
(Colin)
2-22-10 -- Spoke to Tarta office on phone and emailed them for imformation. about how many
Tarta buses come into Toledo every day (Neale)
3-2-10 -- Spoke to David Wahr, was given rough estimates of how many parking passes are
issued, asked that I come back later this week, hopes to have ran reports with information I need
(Colin)
3-02-10 -- Had a meeting with Dan Royer and Arlene Fell, have data on all recycling and waste
generated by the university, however this information might be for all campuses, so still need to
find just main campus (Kathleen)
3-25-10 -- Called Jennifer Pastorek, Director of Purchasing, on lead from Aaron Baker, she was
out of the office today, left a voicemail (Josh)
3-29-10 -- Received information from David Wahr on parking passes issued this semester.
3-29-10 -- Received call from Jennifer Pastorek, Director of Purchasing, and sent an email of the
paper data needed (Josh)
4-1-10 -- Received call from Dan Royer, Building Services and Recycling, for clarification of
data available and data needed (Josh)
4-2-10 -- Received paper data from Dan Royer (Josh)