ANALYSIS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT
OF
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY KINGSVILLE
PREPARED BY
KAI WILLIAMS (EVEN)
DR. KUO-JEN LIAO (EVEN)
May 7, 2013
SUMMARY
The research presented in this report is intended to provide a baseline for future calculations of
Texas A&M University-Kingsville’s carbon footprint and to provide insight on which variables
contribute to the highest emissions of greenhouse gases. The carbon footprint was calculated
using the Clean Air-Cool Planet, Campus Carbon Calculator Version 6.8 for the years 2011 and
2012. There were seven variables used in the carbon footprint calculation: Budget, Population,
Electricity, Building Space, Commuting, Faculty Trips/Study Abroad and Other Variables. In
2011, the total GHG emissions for TAMUK were 63,499.4 Metric Tons (MT) of eCO2
(equivalent of CO2), and CO2 emissions contributed to more than 95% of the total carbon
emissions. The categories of purchased electricity and student/faculty commuting contributed to
39% and 56% of total carbon emissions, respectively, for TAMUK in 2011. The total GHG
emissions for 2012 (51,033.6 MT eCO2) were lower than 2011. The decrease was attributed to
less faculty and student commuting in 2012. However, carbon emissions from the purchased
electricity slightly increased from 2011 to 2012. Due to the decrease in carbon emissions from
student/faculty commuting and increase in the purchased electricity, the largest contributor to the
TAMUK’s carbon emissions was purchased electricity (50%) followed by student (24%) and
faculty (19%) commuting in 2012. In 2011, the per-person CO2 equivalent emission (~9MT
eCO2/person) at Texas A&M University-Kingsville was higher than emissions from the
universities chosen for the comparison in this study. The high carbon emission was attributed to
the lack of on-campus co-generation of electricity and the amount of commuting conducted by
students, faculty and staff. It is suggested that co-generation of electricity, more efficient
electricity use, promotion of mass transportation and reductions in single-occupancy vehicles
will significantly decrease the carbon emission of TAMUK.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………4
1.1 Synopsis…………………………………………………..…………………………..4
1.2 Motivational Background……………………………………..………………….…4
1.3 Scope of Current Research……………………………………..……………….…..5
Chapter 2: Carbon Calculator Description………………………………………….…….…...6
2.1 Model Overview………………………………………………………...……………6
2.2 Scopes………………………………………………………………………...……….6
2.3 Variable Descriptions…………………………………………………………...…...7
2.3.1 Budget…………………………………………………...……………….....7
2.3.1 Population………………………………………………..….………...……7
2.3.3 Electricity………………………………………………………..………….8
2.3.4 Building Space……………………………………………………..……….8
2.3.5 Commuting…………………………………………………………………9
2.3.6 Faculty/Study Abroad Trips………………………………………………9
2.3.7 Other Variables…………………………………………………………...10
Chapter 3: Methods…………………………………………………….……….…………...…11
Chapter 4: Results…………………………………………………………………..…………..13
Chapter 5: University Carbon Footprint Comparison…………….………………………....17
Chapter 6: Carbon Reduction Suggestions…………………………………………………...19
Chapter 7: Conclusions……………………………………………….…………………..……21
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………………22
References…………………………………………………………………….…………………23
3
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Synopsis
The research presented in this report is intended to provide a baseline for future calculations
of Texas A&M University-Kingsville’s carbon footprint and to provide insight on which
variables contribute to the highest emissions of greenhouse gases. The carbon footprint was
calculated using the Clean Air-Cool Planet, Campus Carbon Calculator Version 6.8
(http://cleanair-coolplanet.org/campus-carbon-calculator/) for the years 2011 and 2012. The
analysis of TAMUK’s carbon footprint will aid in creating more plans to decrease the carbon
footprint, like expanding the existing wind-powered golf carts. Included in the report is a
comparison of the carbon footprint of TAMUK with that of different schools to acknowledge
how TAMUK ranks against different universities.
1.2 Motivation and Background
The world’s human population grew by one billion people since 2000, bringing the total
world population to approximately seven billion. This fast population growth rate led to an
increase in industries’ production, and energy industries are the main source of greenhouse gases
(GHGs). Greenhouse gases are naturally occurring gases which trap heat into the atmosphere and
causes either an increase or decrease in temperature. GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases (IPCC, 2007). CO2 emissions are the
most significant for total GHG emissions in the U.S., and account for approximately 84% of the
U.S. GHG emissions in 2011 (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html).
Each person contributes a certain amount of GHGs to the earth’s atmosphere by performing daily
activities, like taking a shower, using electricity, and driving a car. This individual contribution
of GHGs is called an individual carbon footprint. A carbon footprint includes all the GHG
emissions caused by an individual’s activities and measures it as carbon equivalents.
At Texas A&M University at Kingsville (TAMUK) there are more than 6,200 students as
well as faculty and staff contributing to the university’s carbon emissions. Due to the location of
4
the University, it is expected that students, staff and faculty commuting to the school contribute
the most to TAMUK’s carbon emissions. On-campus electricity use could also have a significant
contribution to carbon footprint attributed to purchased electricity.
1.3 Scope of Current Research
The carbon footprint of Texas A&M University Kingsville is calculated for the mostly the
years 2011 and 2012, but some data used in the CA-CP Calculator refer to 2009 and 2010. In
addition, the variables that have the highest contribution of GHGs were focused on in this
analysis, like energy consumption, commuting, and other forms of transportation.
However, the GHG emissions from other variables, like refrigerants and chemicals, were
calculated, as well. The variables used to determine the carbon footprint included the
amount of students, faculty, and staff, permitted cars, energy used, and the amount of
miles traveled by the student and faculty population among other variables that will be
described further into the report. In addition, GHG emissions derived from visitors being
on-campus are not included in this analysis since they are not a constant body
contributing to the university’s carbon footprint.
5
Chapter 2
Carbon Calculator Description
2.1 Model Overview
The Clean Air-Cool Planet (CA-CP) Campus Carbon Calculator Version 6.8 is based on
an adaptation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data to accommodate
universities and colleges. The CA-CP Campus Carbon Calculator has been used on more than
2,000 U.S. campuses to support colleges and universities controlling carbon emissions
(http://cleanair-coolplanet.org/our-mission/). The program utilizes Microsoft Excel©
spreadsheets to perform three tasks: (1) calculate carbon equivalent emissions, (2) project future
emissions, and (3) evaluate how carbon reducing projects will affect the overall carbon footprint.
The methods installed in the CA-CP Calculator are derived from the Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Protocol Initiative. The CA-CP calculator models for carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6). CO2 is the most important GHG in the world and enters the atmosphere
through burning fossil fuels, solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of certain
chemical reactions. Methane (CH4) is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted in the
from human activities followed by N2O which is emitted during agricultural and industrial
activities. HFCs are compound consisting of hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon. The PFCs are
mainly produced by textile and apparel manufacturers, and these long-chained chemicals were
found toxic for human and wildlife in laboratory results. The major sources of SF6 are electric
power systems.
2.2 Scopes
The CA-CP Calculator categorizes each GHG emission source variable into one of three
scopes according to the responsibility that the university has over that variable. The following
scopes are listed below with an abbreviated list of source variables that fit in each category.

Scope One: Direct emissions from source owned and/or controlled by the university
o Refrigerants and Chemicals
6
o On-Campus Agriculture
o Owned Buildings

Scope Two: Indirect emissions from sources that are neither owned nor operated by the
university but whose products are directly linked to on-campus energy consumption
o Purchased Electricity
o Purchased Steam
o Purchased Chilled Water

Scope Three: Other emissions directly financed by the university but are neither owned nor
operated by the university
o Commuting
o Solid Waste
o Study Abroad Travel
2.3 Variable Description
This study only used some of the available programs in the CA-CP calculator because
some variable either did not (1) apply to the Texas A&M University Kingsville Campus or (2)
represent a major emitter of GHG emissions. There were seven variables used in the CA-CP
carbon calculation: Budget, Population, Electricity, Building Space, Commuting, Faculty
Trips/Study Abroad and Other Variables. Each of the variables is described below.
2.3.1 Budget
Operating budget, research budget, and energy budget data was obtained to provide an
annual representation of the amount of money spent by the university and how much money can
be saved if energy reduction projects are established. In addition, there is a probability that the
annual energy budget will increase to implement energy reduction projects since TAMUK does
not produce electricity or steam for the entire campus.
2.3.2 Population
The student, faculty, and staff population allow the CA-CP calculator to estimate the
amount of GHGs emitted per person. The student population was separated into three groups:
7
full-time, part-time, and summer students since they may have different carbon footprints.
Students, living on campus, contribute the highest amount of Scope 2 emissions (i.e., indirect
emissions of GHGs) via electricity usage. The faculty and staff population include unduplicated
records of those faculty and staff that worked throughout the school year.
2.3.3 Electricity
Texas A&M University-Kingsville purchases electricity from Champion Energy Services.
The electricity is composed of 57% Natural Gas, 23% Coal, 13% Wind, 7% Nuclear, and <1%
Water/Other. The highest carbon footprint energy source is coal because carbon dioxide, sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury compounds are released when coal is burned. In addition,
natural gas also emits nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide, but these emissions are lower than
experienced in the coal industry. Wind and nuclear energy is cleaner than coal or natural gas
sources because nuclear plants and wind energy farms do not emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide,
or nitrogen oxides. Therefore, coal and natural gas will have more impacts on TAMUK’s carbon
footprint.
2.3.4 Building Space
The total building space and the total research building space for any building owned by
TAMUK was included in the report to analyze the kilograms (kg) of CO2 equivalents (CO2e)
emitted per square foot on campus. The research building space includes only rooms on campus
which are registered with the research room codes 250, 255, 21, or 22. A map of the buildings on
campus is shown below in Figure 1.
8
Figure 1. Texas A&M University Kingsville Main Campus Map (http://www.tamuk.edu/map/).
2.3.5 Commuting
The miles traveled by students, faculty, and staff while commuting to the TAMUK
campus were used to calculate GHG emissions from their vehicles. Only vehicles and
motorcycles which are permitted by TAMUK are included in this report. Other motor vehicles
which either temporarily come to campus or are not permitted are not included because they are
not any records on those vehicles. Those commuting to campus usually travel from Corpus
Christi, Bishop, and other nearby towns within a 45 minute drive. However, the vehicles driven
by students are usually trucks, some which are diesel trucks, so the amount of GHG emissions
will be more than average four door cars.
2.3.6 Faculty Trips/Study Abroad
The distance in miles traveled by students, faculty, and staff involved in study abroad
programs, conferences, or out of state meetings were incorporated into this study. Study abroad
9
programs and out of state meeting and conferences are traveled to less often, but this does
represent a scope three GHG source for the university. In addition, the amount of fuel required
by car, bus, or airplane could be significant in regards to the amount of GHG emitted for each
one of these trips depending on the amount of people participating.
2.3.7 Other Variables
Other variables accounted for in the calculation of TAMUK’s carbon footprint are
refrigerants, chemicals, animal husbandry, and septic waste. Refrigerants and chemicals are used
on campus for refrigeration, air conditioning, and other applications. These refrigerants and
chemicals could include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) or perfluorocarbons (PFCs) which are
organic compound consisting of fluorine that leads to ozone depletion, global warming, and
bioaccumulation of toxins. HFCs and PFCs are not naturally occurring but are derived from the
industrial processes and human-related activities. These compounds have long atmospheric
lifetimes and are well-mixed into the atmosphere.
Animal husbandry on campus includes, on average, two hundred animals consisting of
beef cows, swine, goats, and sheep. The methane derived from agricultural sources (including
emissions from animals) accounts for 8% of methane emissions in the United States, as stated by
the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/agriculture.html).
10
Chapter 3
Methods
The boundary of this study is the TAMUK main campus including the college farm
which is located off-campus. The total coverage of this boundary is 795 acres, which is shown in
Figure 1. The study accounts for the time period 2009 through 2012, and the majority of the data
collection was conducted during the fall semester of 2012. Data collected was obtained mostly
from staff personnel and databases and include the most up to date information during the data
collection period. Further updated information was included in the CA-CP calculator as it was
presented.
Some information entered into the CA-CP was estimations based on references and
background of the TAMUK campus. The average miles-per-gallon (MPG) was decreased to
account for the numerous trucks, including a percentage of diesel trucks, which are driven by
students. Also, the mileage driven by commuting students was calculated by using the top three,
most-likely cities commuters would travel from in a 50 miles radius from campus. The cities
were chosen from the address listed on permit registration forms, but Corpus Christi was
automatically chosen because it is the closest major city. In addition to the assumption already
listed, the amount of refrigerants and chemicals were acquired for the fiscal year 2012 but used
for annual estimates for 2009 through 2012. Also, the air travel by faculty and students were
from 2011 but were used for 2009 through 2012.
The university does not generate electricity or water on campus, and most of the utilities
are purchased from commercial utility companies. TAMUK saves on building space by allowing
multiple majors to use the same rooms for instructional and collaborative purposes. GHG
emissions created from social events on campus are included in this calculation.
After the data was obtained, the CA-CP calculator automatically calculated the amount of
GHG emissions for each variable. The GHG emissions were converted by the CA-CP to metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent for the direct comparison of GHG data between different
institutions. The emission factors included in the program as constants and are sourced from the
11
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Department of Energy (DOE), and other governmental agencies. Therefore, no emission
factors were changed during the calculation process, and raw data was converted into the units
used by the program’s emission factors.
The non-carbon GHG emissions are converted into carbon dioxide equivalents for each
energy source by multiplying the mass of the gas by its Global Warming Potential (GWP). The
GWP value of CO2 is assumed to be 1, and GWPs for other GHGs are listed below in Table 1.
Table 1. Global Warming Potential (IPCC, 2007)
Chemical
Formula
CO2
CH4
N2O
CHF3
Global Warming
Potential (100 yr.)
1
25
298
14,800
HFC-32
CH2F2
675
HFC-125
CHF2CF3
3,500
HFC-134a
CH2FCF3
1,430
HFC-143a
CH3CF3
4,470
HFC-152a
CH3CHF2
124
HFC-227ea
CF3CHFCF3
3,220
HFC-236fa
CF3CH2CF3
9,810
HFC-245fa
CHF2CH2CF3
HFC-365mfc
CH3CF2CH2C
Name
Carbon dioxide
Methane
Nitrous oxide
HFC-23
F3
HFC-43-10mee
CF3CHFCHF
CF2CF3
12
1030
794
1,640
Chapter 4
Results
In 2011, the total GHG emissions for TAMUK were 63,499.4 Metric Tons (MT) of eCO2
(equivalent of CO2) (Table 2). The majority of these emissions comprised of CO2 emissions
from Scope 2 (i.e., indirect emissions) and Scope 3 (i.e., commuting and study abroad) activities.
CO2 emissions contributed to more than 95% of the total carbon emissions at TAMUK. The
variable with the largest carbon footprint was student, faculty, and staff commuting which
accounted for approximately 55% of TAMUK’s CO2 equivalent emissions in 2011. The 55%
contribution of commuting to total CO2 equivalent emissions was because most faculties live
outside the Kingsville area, and about 35% of students commuted to campus. In addition, most
commuters traveled 40 miles to and from campus every day, assuming they commuted from
Corpus Christi. The second variable with the largest carbon footprint was purchased electricity
because all electricity used on campus was purchased and the energy sources used to produce the
electricity is 23% coal and 57% natural gas. One kilowatt-hour (kWh) of energy produced by a
coal power plant emits almost one kilogram of CO2. Also, natural gas, a cleaner burning energy
source, emits 0.51 kg CO2 per kWh. Other electricity sources used in the fuel mix include
renewable energy and nuclear which do not produce CO2 during the process of converting the
source to electricity. Renewable and nuclear energy account for 20% of the electricity fuel mix.
Table 2. Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions of TAMUK for 2011
2011
Co-gen Electricity
Refrigerants & Chemicals
Agriculture
Purchased Electricity
Faculty / Staff Commuting
Student Commuting
Directly Financed Air T ravel
Study Abroad Air T ravel
Scope 2 T &D Losses
Additional
Non-Additional
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
All Scopes
All Offsets
Energy
Consumption
MMBtu
CO 2
CH 4
N2 O
eCO 2
kg
kg
kg
Metric T onnes
328,640.6
207,885.8
278,475.1
664.0
4,374.8
32,502.9
24,468,789.6
14,675,098.8
19,684,556.7
132,854.5
875,377.2
2,419,990.2
5,551.7
281.6
3,120.4
4,067.9
1.3
8.5
27.9
30.4
379.6
1,043.5
1,365.4
1.5
9.7
37.5
328,640.6
523,902.6
852,543.2
24,468,789.6
37,787,877.4
62,256,667.0
5,551.7
281.6
7,225.9
13,059.3
30.4
379.6
2,457.6
2,867.7
Net Emissions:
13
61.7
147.9
24,588.9
15,064.1
20,193.1
133.3
878.5
2,431.9
209.6
24,588.9
38,700.9
63,499.4
63,499.4
The total GHG emissions for 2012 were 51,033.6 Metric Tons eCO2 (Table 3). Contrary
to 2011, the purchased electricity was the largest contributor of GHGs accounting for 50% of the
total carbon emissions. The student, faculty, and staff commuting decreased by 13,750 MT eCO2,
and this was attributed to the number of registered vehicle permits decreased from 2011 to 2012.
The number of registered vehicles was 3,227 from the school year of 2010-2011, and the number
of registered vehicles was 1,826 for 2011-2012. The decrease in student commuters could be
attributable to more students living on campus. For example, Mesquite Village West, a
dormitory opened in 2011, housed 300 beds and allowed more students to live on campus instead
of commuting from neighboring cities. The contributions of carbon emissions from different
sources to total campus carbon emissions are in Figures 2 and 3.
Table 3. Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions of TAMUK for 2012
2012
Co-gen Electricity
Refrigerants & Chemicals
Agriculture
Purchased Electricity
Faculty / Staff Commuting
Student Commuting
Directly Financed Air T ravel
Study Abroad Air T ravel
Scope 2 T &D Losses
Additional
Non-Additional
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
All Scopes
All Offsets
Energy
Consumption
MMBtu
CO 2
CH 4
N2 O
eCO 2
kg
kg
kg
Metric T onnes
340,818.8
131,940.9
169,091.2
664.0
4,374.8
33,707.4
25,375,517.8
9,313,983.1
11,952,543.9
132,854.5
875,377.2
2,509,666.6
4,310.9
292.1
1,980.4
2,470.1
1.3
8.5
28.9
26.8
393.7
662.3
829.1
1.5
9.7
38.9
340,818.8
339,778.2
680,597.0
25,375,517.8
24,784,425.3
50,159,943.0
4,310.9
292.1
4,489.1
9,092.1
26.8
393.7
1,541.5
1,961.9
Net Emissions:
61.7
115.7
25,500.1
9,560.9
12,261.4
133.3
878.5
2,522.0
177.4
25,500.1
25,356.0
51,033.6
51,033.6
Overall, Scope 2 and Scope 3 contributed the most to TAMUK’s carbon footprint in 2011
and 2012 because they comprise of all the GHGs included in the CA-CP calculator (Figure 4 and
Figure 5). Scope 1 only includes methane and nitrogen oxide emissions which are only produced
by TAMUK owned agriculture. Agriculture, compared to other variables in Scope 2 and Scope 3,
represents a small percentage of the total carbon footprint (Figure 2 and Figure 3). For 2011 and
2012, The GHG emissions associated with students and faculty travel off-campus contributes to
2% of the total carbon emissions. Off-campus travel, whether global or local, involves few
14
students or faculty to participate, and international faculty trips are conducted by few faculty
members during the semester.
Figure 2. Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions Categorized by Variable for 2011
Figure 3. Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions Categorized by Variable for 2012
15
Figure 4. Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions categorized by Scope 2011
Figure 5. Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions Categorized by Scope for 2012
16
Chapter 5
University Carbon Footprint Comparison
Seven universities were chosen for comparing carbon footprints with TAMUK. The
abbreviations for the universities mentioned in Figure 6 are as follows: Texas Tech University
(TTU), Arizona State University (ASU), Brown University-Main Campus (Brown), University
of Viginia (UVA), University of Oklahoma (UO), Viginia Tech (VA Tech), and University of
California in Los Angeles (UCLA). Universities were compared to TAMUK only if their data
was registered on the EPA GHG Emissions Registry (http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do).
Major Texas universities, like Texas A&M University College Station and University of Texas at
Austin, were not included in this report because their emissions data was not registered on the
EPA’s GHG Emissions registry. The amount of carbon emissions (MT eCO2) per person at the
different universities included in this report were calculated by dividing total amount of carbon
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
2.5E+05
MTeCO2/Person
2.0E+05
MT eCO2
1.5E+05
1.0E+05
eCO2 (million tons)
eCO2/person (million tons)
emitted in 2011 by the population of students, staff and faculty at that university in 2011.
5.0E+04
0.0E+00
TAMUK TTU
ASU
Brown UVA
UO
VA UCLA*
Tech
Figure 6. University Comparison of total eCO2 emissions (Metric Tons) and eCO2 Per Person
(Metric Tons/person) in 2011
The MT eCO2 per person for TAMUK (~9 MT eCO2 /person) was the highest among all
the universities included in this study. The total carbon emission of TTU was slightly higher than
17
the TAMUK’s carbon emission in 2011. However, the per person carbon emission of TTU was
much lower than TAMUK since TTU had more than 35,000 population (students, staff plus
faculty). UCLA had very high carbon emissions (~3.2 times the TAMUK emissions) in 2011.
However, the per person carbon emission for UCLA was only half of TAMUK since UCLA had
~35,000 more students than TAMUK. At Brown University, there are approximately 8,000
students (http://www.brown.edu/about/facts/enrollment), and their total metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) were 31,070.Therefore, the amount of metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent per person was 3.64 in 2011. These values were much lower than the data
calculated for TAMUK. Most universities registered on EPA’s annual GHG Emissions Inventory
had per person carbon emissions range between 1.5 and 4 MT eCO2 per person. The major
difference between TAMUK and other universities was on-campus generation of electricity and
the distance that students, faculty, and staff commuted to the campus. Commuting to TAMUK
can be 80 miles to and from the campus.
18
Chapter 6
Carbon Emission Reduction Suggestions
Efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of TAMUK have already taken place on campus.
These projects created by students, faculty, and staff include using a wind turbine to charge gocart batteries and using shuttles to transport faculty and staff from Corpus Christi to TAMUK
main campus. In order to suggest carbon reduction strategies that could be applied to the
TAMUK campus, the carbon reduction programs of ASU, Brown, UCLA and UO were
researched in this work
ASU, Brown, and UCLA have on-campus generation that produces electricity and/or
steam for their campus. TAMUK does not have a co-generation plant on campus but purchases
the utilities from different third-party providers. In addition, UCLA invested $16.65 Million for
an energy conservation project over a four year period (2008-2012)
(http://sustain.ucla.edu/campus/article.asp?parentid=39). TAMUK’s energy budget in 2012 was
about $4.6 Million, so the difference in budget is a contributing factor to the green projects
which TAMUK is able to enforce. Brown has implemented a strict, strategic goal of decreasing
GHG emissions in existing facilities by 42% below 2007 levels by 2020 and reducing the GHG
emissions in constructed and acquired facilities by 50%
(http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2008/01/carbon-reduction). Projects at Brown University
which are most applicable to TAMUK include involving students in environmentally friendly
student organizations and competitions, like a solar car club. Another plan implemented at
Brown is requiring that newly constructed buildings meet standards set by the Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). Arizona State University’s calculated MTCO2e per
person is 0.71. ASU’s plans to reduce GHG emissions incorporate retrofitting buildings and
parking structures with low-energy lamps, adding electricity generators to the exercise
equipment in the student recreation center, and composting waste. Composting waste is an
innovative way of decreasing the amount of waste that goes to compost and, simultaneously,
creating a chemical-free fertilizer. The population at the University of Oklahoma, on average,
produced 1.5 MTCO2e per person, which is a very low value compared to other state universities.
A green event conducted at the University of Oklahoma is a farmer’s market on campus where
19
local farmers from around the area bring fresh produce and goods for students to buy. This idea
is great for supporting the local farms and for students to have access to local, nutritional
produce. Also, obtaining local food as opposed to food transported from long distance will
decrease our carbon dioxide emissions related to Scope 3 emissions. Overall, potential carbon
reduction strategies that can be applied to TAMUK are:

Improvement of electricity use efficiencies, e.g., more efficient lighting and air conditioning
control systems throughout the existing buildings on campus

Promotion of mass transportation and the reduction of single-occupancy vehicles. e.g.,
cheaper parking permits for carpooling, more frequent shuttle services between Corpus
Christi and Kingsville

Establishment of higher fuel-efficiency standards for university fleet vehicles

Installation of electrical co-generation systems

Enhancement of recycling programs for paper, plastic and glass as well as alkaline batteries,
fluorescent light bulbs and print cartridges from business operations and home use

Development of more effective use of building space and higher energy standards for new
construction
20
Chapter 7
Conclusions
The Clean Air-Cool Planet Carbon Calculator Version 6.8 was used to calculate Texas
A&M University-Kingsville’s carbon footprint for the years 2011 and 2012 to provide a baseline
for future carbon footprint research. The greenhouse gases accounted for in the carbon calculator
include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gas
emissions which are categorized by scopes. The MT eCO2 of TAMUK in 2011 and 2012 were
63,499.4 MT eCO2 and 51,033.6 MT eCO2, respectively. Purchased electricity and student,
faculty, and staff commuting contributed to 94% and 92% of the carbon footprint in 2011 and
2012, respectively. The lack of on-campus cogeneration of electricity and the amount of
commuting conducted by students and staff, alike, are the reason TAMUK had a relatively high
MT eCO2 per person compared to other universities chosen for the comparison in this study.
Most universities who submit their emission reports to the EPA’s GHG Emissions Inventory
have public transportation and co-generation available.
However, universities around the nation, like the University of Oklahoma, have
implemented sustainability plans to decrease their carbon footprint. These plans include
constructing new buildings under LEED standards, upgrading insulation, and installing motion
detecting lighting systems. Some of the sustainability projects that are most applicable in
Kingsville involve promoting carpooling for faculty and students lived in Corpus Christi, getting
students involved in green projects, adding generators to student recreation equipment, and
upgrading air conditioning systems to be more efficient. The energy budget will have to be
increased to accommodate such plans, but sustainable designs have the ability to save TAMUK
money over time.
21
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dr. Rex Gandy, Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs
Laura Prange, Campus Sustainability Coordinator
Pamela Trant, Senior Assistant to the Provost
Christopher Vera, Associate Director of Facilities Planning and Construction
Brittany Cord, Assistant Director of Facilities Administration
Roberto Ramirez, Physical Plant Director
Marilu Ybanez, Business Services Technical Coordinator
Silvestre Chapa, Superintendent of Utilities
Miao Zhuang, Director of Office of Information and Research
Danielle Rios, Administrative Technical Assistant (OIR)
Jennifer Alexander, Interim Director of Budgets
Kyle McManus, University Farm Manager
Marilu Salazaar, Director of International Studies
22
REFERENCES
1. IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.
Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp.
23