STESTON UNIVERSITY GREENHOUSE GAS AUDIT,
DELAND CAMPUS, FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007
Project Leader:
J. Anthony Abbott, Ph.D.
Director, Environmental Science Program
Authors:
Lauren Hill
Kiryssa Kasprzyk
Erin Lea
Justin Lewis
Sam Rabin
Ron Roux
Heather Stewart
Submitted September 5, 2008
to President Douglas Lee and the
Stetson University Presidential Climate Commitment Task Force
For Internal Stetson University Use Only
1 Why Stetson University Conducts a Greenhouse Gas Audit
At Stetson University our longstanding commitment to values based on ethics
compels us to act responsibly in all aspects of our institutional operations. Growing
concern for the environment is reflected in the scientific consensus on global warming,
which is documented clearly by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Global
warming is happening, and there is a significant human element driving it. With this in
mind, Stetson University is committed to reducing the greenhouse gas emissions resulting
from its ongoing operations. This report represents the initial steps in this process.
The report unfolds in four sections. This first outlines the history and motives
that justify this greenhouse gas (GHG) audit. The second section outlines the methods
used to conduct the audit and its findings. The third section presents suggestions on how
the university can streamline data collection for future GHG audits. The fourth section
discusses existing strategies and possible avenues for reducing GHG emissions at the
university.
1.1 There is Evidence of Global Warming
The “greenhouse effect” is critical for life on Earth. Without certain gases such as
carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor, which act like a blanket to prevent heat from
escaping into space, the average temperature of our planet would hover around -4ºF
instead of the 57ºF at which it stands today. Unfortunately, humans have contributed to a
rise in the concentration of greenhouse gases, a trend that began about ten millennia ago
and has accelerated rapidly since the Industrial Revolution. As the amount of greenhouse
gases has risen, the Earth’s atmosphere has gradually warmed. This increase in
temperature has caused changes in the earth’s climate system; thus, this phenomenon can
be called “global warming” or “climate change.” No matter what it is called, a large body
of evidence supports this idea. If we continue or accelerate the rate of greenhouse gas
emissions, we will induce shifts in local and global climates that will have severe impacts
on life.
In recent years, the world has seen the emergence of a vigorous debate in the
popular media about whether global climate change really is occurring, and whether that
change is a result of humanity’s emission of greenhouse gases. Regardless, the scientific
community is virtually unanimous in its affirmation of the existence of anthropogenic
climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN body composed
of scientists and policymakers from around the world, recently concluded that the trend
of a warming climate is unequivocal and that it is very likely that we are causing this
trend through greenhouse gas emissions, which in addition to carbon dioxide and water
vapor include methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
(Bernstein et al., 2007: 2, 5). Other documented changes in the Earth’s climate consist of
fewer cold days and more heat waves, increased occurrences of drought, and an increase
in the intensity of tropical storms (Bernstein et al. 2007). Living systems have also been
affected–one study found that species ranges are shifting poleward and that spring events
are occurring earlier and earlier, both of which are consistent with a warming climate
(Parmesan and Yohe, 2003).
If we fail to sufficiently reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, we could
irrevocably change the Earth’s climate in ways that will hurt us. Especially important to
1
Floridians, global warming could double annual damages from U.S. hurricanes and raise
sea levels enough to make coastal cities like Miami uninhabitable. Further, the economic
consequences of dealing with the problem of climate change will compound as time
progresses. Therefore, it is in our best interest to address the phenomenon sooner rather
than later (United Kingdom, 2007).
1.2 Presidential Commitment and Stetson Values
Stetson’s President, Dr. H. Douglas Lee, signed the American Colleges and
Universities Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) in 2007,1 making Stetson
University one of the Charter members of the Commitment. Through this initiative, over
five hundred colleges and universities promised to achieve no-net-emissions of
greenhouse gasses in the near future. As described in the Implementation Guide to the
ACUPCC, this initiative allows Stetson to make a highly visible statement about our
goals to operate sustainably and address climate change by reducing and mitigating all of
our campus greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, it strengthens our commitment to
excellence in higher education as we continue to incorporate into the curriculum and lives
of Stetson students the knowledge and tools we need to reach our goals.
This initiative is a bold and ambitious project, simple in its goal, and without
methodological precedent. Six major pledges are involved in the Commitment, which
include establishing an institutional structure to oversee the fulfillment of the ACUPCC;
completing a GHG emissions audit; formulating a climate action plan to become climate
neutral; immediately reducing GHG emissions; integrating sustainability into the
curriculum; and making all reports public.
Further, Stetson University is committed to values based education. Beyond the
transmission of objective knowledge, the University seeks to create responsible citizens
through its programs and actions. With this in mind there are seven councils made up of
administrators, faculty and students organized among the following core values:
Religious and Spiritual Life, Environmental Responsibility, Gender Equity, Ethical
Decision-Making, Diversity, Community Service, and Health and Wellness. A
commitment to addressing global warming works directly through at least three of these
themes (Environmental Responsibility, Ethical Decision-Making, Community Service).
1
(http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/index.php)
2
2. Conducting the First GHG Audit
Few institutions have a long history of auditing their greenhouse gas emissions,
and there is little consensus on the best way to do this. After reviewing several models,
we found the most straightforward and well developed methodologies for auditing GHG
emissions in the institutional setting were The Greenhouse Gas Protocol by the World
Resources Institute and World Business Council (2004) and The Campus Carbon
Calculator, Version 5 by Clean Air-Cool Planet (2006). We chose to adopt The Campus
Carbon Calculator as the framework for our study.
The campus carbon calculator is most ideal as it was specifically designed for
university settings. The calculator has grown through several iterations and one can
seamlessly integrate work from previous versions of the program into later versions. The
calculator is the predominant method used by universities and colleges around the US,
which makes comparing data among universities more simple and efficient. The
calculator is simple to modify to account for unique situations, such as specific energy
production profiles found state-to-state.
Greenhouse gases originate from many sources in any institution’s operation.
Some result directly from diverse university activities and others occur as a result of a
good or service the university purchases. Distinguishing among these is useful insofar as
it clarifies the institutional limits for emissions responsibility and the strategies for
emissions remediation.
Emissions are categorized using the concept of “scopes,” which range from one to
three. Scope One emissions are most directly a result of university operations and Scope
Three emissions are associated with university activities but are controlled by an external
institution. The following definitions from the User’s Guide frame the methods for the
Campus Carbon Calculator (CA-CP 2006b)
Scope One - includes all direct sources of GHG emissions from sources that are
owned or controlled by your institution, including (but not limited to): production
of electricity, heat, or steam; transportation or materials, products, waste, and
community members; and fugitive emissions (from unintentional leaks).
Scope Two - includes GHG emissions from imports of electricity, heat or
steam–generally those associated with the generation of imported sources of
energy.
Scope Three - includes all other indirect sources of GHG emissions that may
result from the activities of the institution but occur from sources owned or
controlled by another company, such as: business travel, outsourced activities
and contracts, emissions from waste generated by the institution when the GHG
emissions occur at a facility controlled by another company, e.g. methane
emissions from landfilled waste, and the commuting habits of community
members. The application of these categories to Stetson University operations
will be defined after a brief review of existing studies.
2.1 Observations from Existing Audits
As a prelude to the Stetson University GHG audit we reviewed reports generated
from a sample of other colleges and universities that completed a GHG audit. We began
by reviewing participant activities at the Clean Air-Cool Planet website in January of
3
2008. We chose four universities prominently recognized for their efforts to quantify
their greenhouse gas emissions. These were Middlebury College, Harvard, College of
Charlestown, and Smith College. We also chose to review the report published by the
University of Central Florida (UCF) due to the institution’s geographic proximity.
The most applicable reports were produced by the UCF and Middlebury College.
The UCF report was twenty-three pages long and addressed Scope Two emissions
comprehensively with some treatment of Scope One and Scope Three emissions. The
Middlebury report was similar in its attempts but had a notable, 200-page appendix
discussing their abatement strategy. Harvard, College of Charleston, and Smith had more
limited audits with large aspects of the audit process as outlined by CA-CP method
excluded.
Generally the consensus among the best audits is that energy use (electricity and
heat) and transportation are the fundamental sources for GHG emissions, and should be
the focus of a meaningful audit. The waste stream is an important factor as well.
However, each campus emphasized different factors and attached varying levels of
concern for these issues in their audits. Scope One and Scope Two data were fairly easy
to process, and all campuses reported this information. Scope Three analyses of
transportation, particularly of commuter traffic, and waste were less often reported. The
variation among methodologies (when they were provided) was greater than expected,
indicating that GHG auditing is still in the frontier science phase of application.
2.2 Applying the Method to Stetson University
The data needed for a GHG audit are diverse and come from many different
offices. Additionally, some data are available more readily than others. For example, the
number of enrolled students for a year is available as soon as registration is completed at
the beginning of the academic year, while the energy consumption data cannot be
accessed until the end of the fiscal year. We established the following conventions for
consistent data analysis. Analysis will occur on the University’s fiscal year calendar and
will be named for the year in which the calendar begins; thus the 2006 GHG Audit spans
the period June 2006 through May 2007. The GHG Audit will be completed during the
following fiscal year, so that GHG audits will be completed nearly one year after the
emissions occur.
In our preparation to conduct the GHG audit, we found that most Scope One and
Scope Two data were more or less readily available for collection and analysis. Sam
Rabin collected Scope One data from several different campus offices; however
emissions data for fugitive refrigerants were not available. Ron Roux compiled most of
the Scope Two data by reviewing campus electrical meters and bills provided by Progress
Energy. In contrast, Scope Three data proved somewhat complex to collect. Data
associated with transportation were not centrally organized, and the emissions from
contracted services were extremely difficult to grasp. Nevertheless emissions from these
are obviously a significant source of GHG. Kiryssa Kasprzyk, Justin Lewis and Sam
Rabin collected data related to commuter activity while Lauren Hill, Erin Lea, and
Heather Stewart collected data related to business travel.
We lay out the details of data collection in the following sections of this report,
which are grouped by scope. We believe that attention to detail creates a meaningful
baseline for accurate and precise assessment of GHG emissions in future audits. The
4
culmination of these activities resulted in the tabulation of carbon dioxide equivalent
emissions that are summarized in Table 1. Figure 1 provides a graphical representation
of the contribution of each scope category to overall GHG emissions.
Table 1: Total emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents for Stetson University, organized by scope and subcategory for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. Values denoted by “*” were not generated directly by the CACP
Carbon Calculator and have been added after the fact to reflect these additional sources of GHG.
Factors for CO2 production
metric tons
metric tons
Scope Subtotal
Scope One
1,583
Natural Gas
1,468
Campus Fleet
103
Fertilizers
12
Refrigerant Leaks
data missing
Scope Two
11,352
Electricity
11,352
Scope Three
4,266
Business Travel
337
Air
209
Surface*
128
Commuting
3,847
Student
3,011
Faculty/staff
836
On-campus Driving*
11
Waste Stream
81
TOTAL CO2 Equivalent Footprint
17,211
Total Emissions in Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
12,000
11,352
10,000
Metric tons
8,000
6,000
Total Em issions
17,211 Metric tons
4,000
4,276
2,000
1,583
0
Scope One
Scope Two
Scope Three
Figure 1. All University emissions broken down by scope.
5
2.2.1 Scope One
Scope One emissions at Stetson University are limited to the use of natural gas, a
small fleet of campus vehicles and lawn maintenance equipment, fertilizers, and
refrigerant leaks. Facilities Management personnel provided the data for Scope One
analyses. Individual contributions to Scope One emissions are summarized in Figure 2.
Major Components of Scope One Emissions in
Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
1600
1400
Metric Tons
1200
1468
1000
800
600
400
103
200
12
Data
Missing
0
Natural Gas
Campus Fleet
Fertilizers
Refrigerant
Leaks
Figure 2. Scope Two emissions broken down by category.
2.2.1.1 Boilers
Natural gas usage for the past three fiscal years was provided by Ron Roux in
Facilities. These data included gas use for space heating, hot water for the dormitories,
food service operations, science labs, and the ceramics kiln. The spreadsheet gave the
data in terms of CCF (100 cubic feet), while the Carbon Calculator needed MMBtu (1
million Btu). To convert CCF to MMBtu, we divided CCF by 10. Our results:
 2004: 21803.1 MMBtu
 2005: 22972.7 MMBtu
 2006: 27720.1 MMBtu
2.2.1.2 Campus Fleet
On-campus fuel usage pertains to gasoline and diesel fuel. Data came from three
main sources: skid tanks, Fleet Fuel credit card, and the Food Services van.
The skid tanks are located in the old tennis courts at E. Minnesota and Garfield
(near Facilities), one for gasoline and another for diesel. All the grounds equipment and
all the gas-powered golf carts use the gasoline tank, while the front-end loader, the fivegang lawnmower, and the emergency generators use the diesel tank. Dave Rigsby in
Facilities stated the amount of fuel put into each of those tanks between January 2007 and
6
January 2008 was 3,854.7 gallons of gasoline and 2,995.4 gallons of diesel. (The diesel
number is underlined because it is the total number for campus diesel usage. There are
several other factors in campus gasoline usage described below.)
All Facilities vehicles (including Public Safety vehicles) use the Fleet Fuel credit
card at gas stations to fill up. Duane Knecht in Facilities said that between June 1, 2007
and February 15, 2008, that 2,637 gallons of gasoline had been charged to the card. Since
that period covers 229 days, it translates into a yearly consumption of 4,203 gallons of
gasoline (2,637 / 229 * 365).
The Food Services van data were more difficult to calculate, and somewhat
trickier, as no records had been kept about its fuel consumption. Helen Cox in Food
Services stated that the van was five years old and that it had 6,000 miles on it.
Furthermore, she said that the van had traveled to New Orleans and back after Hurricane
Katrina, a distance of approximately 1,240 miles according to Google Maps
(maps.google.com). This means, in an average year, the van travels 952 miles. Since the
combined city/highway fuel economy for a 2003 Chevy Astro van is seventeen miles per
gallon (according to fueleconomy.gov), the Food Services van uses approximately 56
gallons of gasoline per year.
Accordingly, the campus uses 8,113.7 gallons of gasoline per year (3,854.7
gallons [skid tanks] + 4,203 gallons [Fleet Fuel card] + 56 gallons [Food Services van]).
2.2.1.3 Fertilizers
We received information regarding fertilizer applied during calendar year 2007
from Dave Rigsby in Facilities. Stetson University used several different mixes of
fertilizer. We calculated the total amount of nitrogen in the fertilizer used and entered the
total in the “Synthetic – Pounds” column of the Carbon Calculator, with 100% in the
“Percent Nitrogen” column.
2.2.1.4 Refrigerant Leaks
Facilities management was unable to provide data concerning refrigerant leaks.
We advise closer monitoring and recording of refrigerant purchases from equipment
contractors and facilities staff.
2.2.2 Scope Two
Scope two data were completely comprised of electricity purchased from Progress
Energy. Most of the buildings on campus are individually metered for electrical usage.
Remaining buildings will be metered as opportunities arise to allow detailed monitoring
of energy consumption to maximize conservation opportunities.
We received a spreadsheet that included electricity consumption for the past three
fiscal years from Ron Roux in Facilities. The data were given in kilowatt hours.
 2004: 15,631,378 kWh
 2005: 15,923,950 kWh
 2006: 16,472,094 kWh
2.2.3 Scope Three
Scope Three data consisted primarily of information related to the use of vehicles
that are not directly maintained by the university. The vehicles are used for business
7
travel, commuting to/from campus, and point-to-point travel on campus. Scope Three
emissions also include the university waste stream that is directed to a landfill. Individual
contributions to Scope Three emissions are summarized in Figure 3.
Major Components of Scope Three Emissions
in Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
4,500
4,000
3,847
3,500
Metric Tons
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
81
337
Business Travel
Com m uting
Waste Stream
Figure 3. Scope Three emissions broken down by category.
2.2.3.1 Business Travel
We collected data related to Stetson University’s travel for the entire fiscal year of
2006 (July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007) through auto and air mileage traveled. No current
data log existed that allowed these figures to be conveniently obtained. The Business
Travel Team first contacted the University’s Purchasing Manager, who oversees all
financial purchases through a network of bookkeeping divisions in which travel
reimbursements, rental cars, and shuttle services can ultimately be tracked. The
University is broken down into over 200 divisions (departments, programs, etc), which
the Purchasing Manager organizes based on financial accountability, networking, and
then by their financial figures relating to travel. This provided a coherent structure from
which business travel data could be extracted. We used the following University
divisions used to organize business travel data: Presidential Office and the Board of
Trustees, Office of Admissions, College of Arts and Sciences, School of Business,
School of Music, Center for First Year Studies, Center for International Education, Office
of Special Events, HATS Program, and Athletics (Baseball, Cross Country, Men's
Basketball, Women's Basketball, Men's Soccer, Women's Soccer, Men's Golf, Men's
Tennis, Softball, Volleyball) The total carbon dioxide emissions equivalent for business
travel came to 337 metric tons (Table 1).
Presidential Office and the Board of Trustees: Business travel data regarding the
Board of Trustees and the President was compiled by the Executive Assistant of the
President’s Office for FY2006-2007. She provided figures that outlined the President’s
8
air travel and mileage from reimbursed business travel in his personal vehicle. The miles
of air travel were calculated through the use of The Great Circle Mapper
(http://gc.kls2.com).
Business travel by each trustee was determined by attendance at the six annual
board meetings. Detailed data regarding travel by trustees was not available, so we
utilized the attendance sheets from each Board of Trustee meeting, which was compiled
by the Executive Assistant of the President’s Office. In calculating the Board of Trustee
data, we assumed each trustee’s hometown as the place of origin and used Google Maps
and The Great Circle Mapper to determine the distance driven or flown to each board
meeting location. Because specific travel data was not available, we also assumed that
those trustees who reside within the state of Florida drove to board meetings, and that
trustees from out-of-state flew to the meetings.
Office of Admissions: Two team members collected travel information for the
Office of Admissions using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (called “Business Travel
Master.xls” and included on the cd that accompanies this report in Appendix B). The
spreadsheet is organized into fields that include the Department, Type of Traveler
(Faculty/Staff2, Student3, or Guest4), Date of Travel, Total of Air Miles with Origination
and Destination fields, Total of Auto Mile with Origination and Destination fields,
Shuttle Miles, and a Notes section where any additional information about each travel
event could be recorded. All data were provided through travel documents that were
collected from the Enrollment Management Office within the Office of Admissions.
Travel documents included the dates of travel, copies of airline tickets or itineraries (we
again used The Great Circle Mapper to determine mileage), copies of rental car
agreements (most rental car agreements had the auto mileage included on the agreements,
however in cases where the odometer readings were not completed, the trip was recreated
through the travel documents, supported by the receipts within each travel package),
personal mileage reimbursement figures, hotel receipts, meals receipts, fuel receipts,
and/or event registration receipts.
College of Arts and Sciences: For the College of Arts and Sciences, personal auto
mileage reimbursement figures were collected by the Associate Dean of the College in
coordination with the University’s Finance Office. This particular subcategory does not
contribute greatly to total business travel mileage, an observation supported by
documentation provided by the Purchasing Manager.
School of Business: The Dean of the School of Business provided travel data for
the entire School. Using the information provided by the Dean, we used Google Maps to
calculate auto mileage between Stetson’s campus in Gulfport, FL and Celebration, FL in
accordance with the trips and schedules provided and used exact air miles estimates from
the Dean as the air mileage.
2
Faculty/Staff is composed of all administrative staff either full or part-time and faculty, either full or parttime, who traveled to conduct business associated with the operations, functioning, or school programs.
3
Student delineation includes all travel activities associated with student programs on campus including
recruitment of prospective students prior to attendance at Stetson University.
4
Guests includes all guest speakers brought to campus to enrich student programs as well as all Board of
Trustee travel.
9
School of Music: Travel data for all student and faculty events related to the
School of Music was compiled by the Administrative Assistant to the Dean of the School
of Music. All air, car, and bus travel miles were calculated into three categories of totals.
Center for First Year Students: The Administrative Assistant to the Dean of First
Year Students provided the reimbursement files for travel for the department. Auto and
air miles were figured using same method as Office of Admissions calculations.
Center for International Education : The travel data for the Center for
International Education was provided directly by the Center.
Office for Special Events : The Office for Special Events schedules travel
arrangements for guest lecturers. The Assistant Special Events Coordinator allowed
access to travel reimbursements for each of these lecturers. Flight miles were compiled
using origin and destination records on receipts. Limousines, rental car, and taxi miles
were calculated using data recorded on reimbursement receipts.
High Achieving Talented Students (HATS) Program: High Achieving Talented
Students (HATS) is an educational program sponsored by Stetson University. During
FY2006, a roundtrip ticket from New York to St. Louis was awarded to the student
winner of the Mark Twain Young Author Workshop as part of the program. The data
given to the team by the purchasing manager informed us that HATS filed for an air
travel reimbursement.
Athletics: Travel data for all competitive athletics departments, including men’s
and women’s basketball, soccer, volleyball, cross country, tennis, softball, and golf, was
compiled by the Administrative Assistant to Director of Athletics. The data provided did
not include specifics about motor vehicles used for each individual trip. For example, bus
travel was not differentiated from car travel in the compiled data, so all travel was
calculated using the EPA average mile per gallon of gasoline for cars in the U.S. (and not
diesel, for example) for 2007. We realize that this method does not necessarily capture
total emissions, but it was the most logical method for the data we were provided.
Destinations were not provided for the men’s soccer team, so we consulted the online
soccer schedule and assumed mileage based on Deland, Fl as the place of origination and
the schedule’s listing as the final destination.
2.2.3.2 Commuters
Jason Williams of the Information Technology Department at Stetson provided us
with the necessary data for the input sections “Student Fuel Efficiency” and “Miles/ Trip”
on the Carbon Calculator. We obtained an Excel spreadsheet showing the student, staff,
and faculty make, model, and year for all registered vehicles being driven to/from and
around campus. Registration data for vehicles were divided into off campus students, on
campus students, full-time staff, part-time staff, full-time faculty, and part-time faculty.
Furthermore, we were provided mailing address ZIP codes and hometown for students,
staff, and faculty who live off-campus.
With the ZIP code and hometown data, the greenhouse gas audit team computed
the distance in miles to campus using the website (www.mapquest.com). We used the
shortest time setting from the mailing address ZIP code, usually with the +4 code, to the
same address for Stetson in the MapQuest database (421 N Woodland Blvd, #
8319, Deland, FL 32720). Not all of the provided ZIP codes were within a reasonable
distance of commuting. To account for these discrepancies, we established a cutoff to
10
only count entries within 100 miles. This probably leads us to overestimate the total
commuter miles for Stetson University. Table 2 summarizes the average one-way
distance traveled by various commuting groups.
Table 2. Average one way travel distances for commuters by type.
Category
Off-campus student
Faculty, full-time
Faculty, part-time
Staff, full-time
Staff, part-time
# Entries
740
204
81
Valid Entries
578 (78%)
202 (99%)
95%
99%
76 (94%)
Avg. One-Way Distance
21.9 miles
8.62 miles
29.02 miles
8.48 miles
11.97 miles
All commuters, including faculty, staff, and students, travel an average of 15.76
miles one-way to campus. This is the value we used in the “Miles/ Trip” entry field for
2006 in the Carbon Calculator for all three categories (faculty, staff, and students).
However, this is a conflated value due to inconsistencies in the commuter information
database because commuters’ mailing addresses are often different from their actual
residence address.
The CACP Carbon Calculator provides a figure for the fuel economy of
commuter vehicles. However, having access to make and model for each car on the
Banner Web system allowed us to calculate the average fuel economy of the vehicles
driven to by commuters and on-campus students. If vehicle information was incomplete
or incorrect, we did not use it. For example, a few people got parking stickers for Ford
Escalades. Ford does not make the Escalade, Cadillac does. On the other hand if the year
did not match the make and model, we did not immediately throw it out. We checked for
that model vehicle to years above and below the recorded year. After separating out the
data that we would not use, 1992 (92%) of vehicles with registered parking stickers we
were useable as data.
Using the website www.fueleconomy.gov, we researched the fuel economies of
registered vehicles. This web site is very detailed and provides the fuel economy for
specific versions of a given model. The fuel economy figures that we used were an
average of the city and highway fuel economies. Because only general information
(make, model, and year) is required to obtain a parking sticker for a car, the fuel
economies did not exactly match the parking sticker data. For example, the sticker
information shows that someone registered a 1997 Honda Accord, but the website
displays eight types of Accords with a combination of different engine sizes, transmission
options, and body type (sedan or station wagon). Because we do not know the details for
each car, we used the average fuel economy for every version (in this case eight different
sub-models). We did exclude some sub-models in the calculations, specifically if a
vehicle ran on alternative fuels or if the vehicle ran on electricity. Results from our
driving habits survey revealed that no one with a parking sticker used alternative fuels or
drove an electric car. The fuel economy provided in the carbon calculator was similar to
the actual fuel economy that we calculated from our extensive research.
The records of parking registration did not provide information about commuters’
driving habits – specifically, how many times per week they drove to campus. To
quantify this we designed a survey using an online web service (SurveyMonkey.com).
Among other things, we asked commuters how many times per week (including
11
weekends) they drove their personal vehicle (round trip) to campus. The choices were 15, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, and 26 or more. Under the “Days / Year” column, we
entered 224 (16 weeks/semester x 2 semesters/year x 7 days/week = 224 days/year) for
students, 38 for summer school students, and 262 for faculty and staff (224 + 38). We
used seven days per week because respondents were supposed to include weekends in
their answer for the “round trips per week” question on the survey. To find the average
number of round trips per week, we averaged the median of the increment selected for all
increments except 1-5 and 26+. (6-10 = 8, 11-15 = 13, etc.) We assigned a value of 4 to
every selection of 1-5 (see description in paragraph below) and a value of 30 to every
selection of 26+.
After reviewing the data, we realized that we should have designed the survey
slightly differently. First, we should have split 1-5 into different increments, since most
people who selected 1-5 likely drove 4 or 5 times per week. (We might have combined
this with the 6-10 increment; for example, 1-3, 4-6, and 7-10.) Furthermore, we had to
assume that commuting students, faculty, and staff had the same driving habits because
we did not ask respondents to identify themselves as such. This introduces some
inaccuracy, as it seems that students would be more likely to come to campus more than
once per day (for extracurricular activities, events, etc.).
We encountered a few problems related to the design of the carbon calculator
itself as it relates to vehicle use. One is that the carbon calculator apparently wants “%
total students driving alone” and “% total students carpooling” to be additive. We
allowed respondents to select multiple respondents in case they drove alone some days
but carpooled on other days; thus, the carbon calculator failed to take into account the
complexity our survey incorporated. Also, the carbon calculator is not clear whether it
requires round trips or one-way trips for the “Trips / Day” and “Miles / Trip” input fields
(we determined that it was asking for one-way trips and made sure that our “Miles / Trip”
field was filled with the one-way mileage.)
The total commuter contribution to Stetson’s GHG emissions for fiscal year 20062007 was 3,847 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (Table 1). This accounted for
approximately 22% of Stetson’s emissions for each respective year. Overall, commuting
students made up 78% of commuter traffic for fiscal year 2006. Dr. Kirsten Work of the
Biology Department conducted an independent survey of University driving habits that
yielded similar results to those given here.
2.2.3.3 Point-to-Point Travel on Campus
Statistics from the campus travel survey (described above) indicated that point-to-point
travel on campus by faculty staff and students totaled 714 miles per week. Using the
average 18.8 miles per gallon for vehicles recorded in campus parking permit records we
compute 37.98 gallons of fuel is used per week and a total of 1215.3 gallons per year. At
8.72 kg of carbon dioxide emitted for each gallon of gasoline, we get eleven metric tons
of carbon equivalents being released as a result of point-to-point driving on campus
(Table 1).
2.2.3.4 Waste Stream
Stetson University produced 625.67 tons of solid waste for FY2006. Eighty tons
of this waste was sent to be recycled while 555.67 tons were sent to the West Volusia
12
Transfer Station. This data was collected by contacting the University’s Manager of the
Grounds. The local landfill has methane emissions capture used for electric generation
which reduces the impact of the University’s waste stream for carbon emissions. The
total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from the Stetson University waste stream are
81 metric tons (Table 1).
2.3 Summary
Table 1 gives the complete profile of GHG emissions by Stetson University.
Figures from the CACP Carbon Calculator give the following rates GHG emissions in
carbon dioxide equivalents. Emissions equal 6.76 metric tons of carbon dioxide per
student, 5.42 metric tons per community member, and 14 metric tons per square foot of
building space. The relative significance of these figures is not entirely clear at this
point, since average emission rates are not widely available for other institutions. Indeed,
it is not clear what the best way is to compare one university to another given variable
student to faculty ratios, differing student to square foot of facility ratios, and so on.
Further, carbon emission footprint calculations for individuals usually include
commuting habits, so it is not clear that these should be included in campus estimates of
carbon footprint. Figures ranging from eleven metric tons to twenty metric tons per
person have been given for personal carbon emissions, but institutional emission rates are
difficult to find. For this reason it is difficult to know where Stetson University stands
relative to other colleges and universities in terms of its GHG emission rate.
13
3 How to Streamline Future GHG Audits
This first GHG audit was not intended to be the authoritative statement on Stetson
University GHG emissions, but as a pilot program for determining how we might best
approach this task in the future. The CACP campus carbon calculator certainly has
limitations, but nevertheless appears to be an adequate tool to gauge the status of Stetson
University relative to similar institutions. With this in mind we suggest implementing the
procedures outlined in the flowing sections to streamline data collection for the future.
See Table 3 for a list of variables with units of measurement and office responsible for
data management.
3.1 Automobiles on Campus
In general, the University needs to collect the required data for the commuter
section of the GHG Audit more accurately and comprehensively. The commuter
information in Stetson’s database, BannerWeb, is incomplete and has inaccurate data.
For example, there are students registered as commuting from ZIP codes in
Massachusetts and the Ukraine. There are students who live off campus, but do not
provide the address where they live while attending Stetson. Instead, students provide
other home or mailing addresses that are not representative of the actual distance from the
University.
Since Stetson requires all students to live on campus until their senior year (90
credits), with few exceptions, many students do not provide accurate residence
information so that they can live off-campus before their senior year. Only students who
are married, over 22 years of age, or residing with immediate family may move off
campus early. For those students who do not meet the requirements for living off campus,
and move off campus, they are fined the average cost of living on campus (for 2008 this
amount was $4776). Many students who have family living within sixty miles of campus
claim residency at that address, but actually live at another residence closer to campus.
As students attempt to evade housing rules, errors occur in the parking registration data.
Furthermore, students with registered vehicles on campus often provide
inaccurate data about their vehicles’ make, model, and year, making it difficult to
compute an accurate value for fuel economy. A solution to this problem would be to
have each person present a valid registration and license when registering a vehicle with
Public Safety. After an individual completes the form, the Public Safety officer assisting
3.3 Campus Energy Usage
For natural gas and electricity, facilities management should maintain a
spreadsheet with monthly campus-wide energy demand. The energy data should pertain
to all buildings associated with the normal operation of the University including offices,
classes, recreational facilities, and dormitories. Stand alone structures owned by the
university but rented to private users for non campus based activities (e.g. faculty
housing) should not be included in the summations for electricity and natural gas usage.
While individual metering of each building is desirable to identify conservation priorities,
such detailed information is not required for GHG auditing.
14
Table 3. This is the Greenhouse Gas Audit - Master Variable List. The offices responsible for each data
source should create the appropriate forms to collect and maintain spreadsheets for the following variables.
DATA TO BE COLLECTED EACH AUDIT PERIOD FROM INSTITUTIONAL RECORDS
Data Source
Budget Element
Variable Unit
Institutional Research
Operating Budget
Dollars
Institutional Research
Research Dollars
Dollars
Institutional Research
Energy Budget
Dollars
Institutional Research
Full Time Student Population
#
Institutional Research
Part-Time Student Population
#
Institutional Research
Summer School Student Population
#
Institutional Research
Faculty Population
#
Institutional Research
Staff Population
#
Finance Office
Air Travel Faculty / Staff Business
Miles
Finance Office
Air Travel Student Programs
Miles
Finance Office
Surface Travel Faculty / Staff Business
Miles
Finance Office
Surface Travel Student Programs
Miles
Facilities Management
Total Building Space
Square feet
Facilities Management
Electric produced off-campus
Kilowatt hours
Facilities Management
Natural Gas
MMBtu
Facilities Management
Gasoline Fleet
Gallons
Facilities Management
Diesel Fleet
Gallons
Facilities Management
Synthetic Fertilizer
Pounds and NPK ratio
Facilities Management
Organic Fertilizer
Pounds and NPK ratio
Facilities Management
Landfilled Waste
Short Tons
Facilities Management
Refrigerant: HFC-134a
Pounds
Facilities Management
Refrigerant: HFC-404a
Pounds
Facilities Management
Refrigerant: HCFC-22
Pounds
Facilities Management
Refrigerant: HCFE-235da2
Pounds
Facilities Management
Refrigerant: HG-10
Pounds
Facilities Management
Refrigerant: Other
Pounds
CARBON OFFSET DATA
Facilities Management
Composting
Short Tons
To be determined
Renewable Energy Credits
Kilowatt hours
To be determined
Forest Preservation
Metric Tonnes CO2
DATA TO BE COLLECTED EACH AUDIT PERIOD BY SURVEY
Distinct Survey Groups
Variables Collected for All Groups
Students
% Commuting
% Commuter Rail
Faculty
% Driving alone
Trips per Day
Staff
% Carpooling
Days with Trips per Year
% Bus
Miles per Trip
% Walk/bike
We were unable to obtain skid tank data (on-campus gasoline and diesel use) for
more than the most recent calendar year (2007) because the company that supplied the
University previously went out of business. In order to remove this dependence on
outside sources for information, we recommend recording the data about our skid tank
fuel consumption with data on gallons of fuel purchased each time we receive a bill,
15
whether that be monthly, quarterly, etc. An Excel file, stored on the campus server, with
the date and amount of fuel billed would be sufficient.
For campus vehicles, fueling is done using a credit account. The campus fleet fuel
credit card data should be recorded in gallons of fuel in a database.
3.4 Waste Stream
For future campus GHG studies, it is recommended that a spreadsheet be created
to track monthly waste dumping totals by the Manager of the Grounds. This can be
accomplished by making copies of waste disposal receipts each month for the GHG
study.
3. 5 Fertilizer
We had no trouble getting information about fertilizer use, including bag labels
(which included product information) and amounts applied, for the 2007 calendar year.
However, it seems there were no records for previous years. If an audit is performed
every year, this will not be a problem. However, we do recommend that information
about each fertilizer application (N-P-K percentages, synthetic vs. organic, and amount)
be stored in an Excel file on the campus server.
3.6 Refrigerant Leaks
Facilities management could not provide data on refrigerants leaked by the
university. We advocate collecting and saving data on refrigerants (HFC-134a, HFC404a, HCFC-22, HCFE-235da2, HG-10, and others) purchased outright and provided by
contractors for maintenance of university equipment. Gases captured as part of
maintenance do not count as leaks for the GHG audit. Information on the refrigerants
should be logged in an Excel spreadsheet in pound quantities. Given the intense power of
refrigerants as greenhouse gases, it is imperative that we begin to collect these data in
order to make accurate GHG audits.
16
4 GHG Amelioration Strategies
GHG amelioration can take two forms. First is the outright elimination of GHG
emissions. This is challenging over the short term and may be ultimately impossible.
Second is the purchase or creation of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets can be purchased
from a third party, but it may be possible for the Stetson University to sequester carbon
dioxide through campus or affiliated programs.
4.1 On-Campus Amelioration
A multifaceted approach is needed to eliminate GHG emissions created by the
operation of Stetson University. Energy conservation and revision of campus community
driving habits will provide the most fruitful avenues for reducing our carbon footprint.
4.1.1 Energy Conservation
Conservation is the fastest and most economically efficient means of achieving
lower GHG emissions. Stetson University has initiated several programs in past years to
achieve greater energy efficiency. Among these is a light fixture replacement program
that installs high-efficiency fluorescent lamps wherever feasible on campus. Additionally,
Emily Hall was renovated with new high-efficiency windows in the summer of 2007; the
renovation is expected to significantly reduced space conditioning expenses for this
dormitory. Notwithstanding these advances, there are still many ways that energy
conservation may be increased. Improved efficiencies in space conditioning and lowered
electrical waste from unused lights and computers will reduce demand from utilities. We
can also work to reduce energy fuel use on campus for fleet vehicles and petroleum
powered tools.
4.1.1.1 Space Conditioning
Stetson University uses space conditioning systems in all of its buildings in order
to offer a comfortable microclimate to students, staff, and faculty on campus. In 2003, a
chilled water loop system was constructed to alleviate the need for a large number of
individual conditioning units for every building. The system is gradually recouping costs
on the initial investment through increased energy efficiency. Considering that space
conditioning in Florida equates to nearly 50% of the energy load demands on buildings
(EPA & DOE 2008), this was an advantageous endeavor.
While the chilled-water loop system has been helpful in reducing the overall
energy demand by concentrating the temperature changes through one central location
versus a number of individual units around campus, another wise investment would be to
test and diagnose air movement from the interior of conditioned buildings to the exterior
(defined as leakage). This air loss from the conditioned interior through leaks in the
building envelope (roof, floor, walls, widows, fireplace, etc.) or through duct leakage can
drastically increase energy demands. It is common, though not desirable, that
approximately 20% of the conditioned air moved through a ventilation duct system is lost
(EPA & DOE 2008). This loss of conditioned air is an energy waste and a financial
waste.
Recent research on renovated single-family homes (RSFH) used as offices at
Stetson University documents building envelope air leakage and duct system air leakage.
17
The amount of loss was significant and consistent for each test site. For these structures, a
“tightening” of both the building envelope and ductwork located outside the envelope
could increase energy efficiency by a 17% or more (Energy Conservatory 2007).
According to Facilities Management, building leakage such as this has not been
thoroughly addressed as a solution to energy load reduction. Given that RSFH
consistently “failed” building envelope and duct seal tests, the University should develop
a master plan in order to tackle this particular type of energy conservation as part of
ongoing maintenance and renovation.
4.1.1.2 Lights Out and Other Voluntary Energy Conservation Programs
Energy use on campus is largely defined by the daily habits of the campus
community. Lights and computer terminals are often left on when rooms and machines
are not occupied. A concerted effort to create conservation habits among members of the
campus community will lead to lower demand for utility power and reduced GHG
emissions from indirect sources. Education programs are the most appealing means of
changing such habits, and these can be encouraged through offices that deal directly with
student life and by instituting a campus wide conservation policy for faculty and staff.
4.1.1.3 LEED Certification
Stetson University’s Lynn Business Center is the first LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design) certified building in Florida. LEED principles
emphasize environmentally responsible renovation, construction, and operation of
buildings. All future buildings should be built to LEED standards or achieve LEED
certification (preferably at the gold or platinum level).
4.1.1.4. Geothermal Heat Pump at Rinker Environmental Learning Center
The new Rinker Environmental Learning Center will help Stetson educate the
community about environmental issues. The building itself will be a teaching tool,
incorporating a number of design elements that allow for increased energy efficiency and
reduced greenhouse gas emissions that meet LEED platinum standards. One such element
is a geothermal heat exchange system. This device will assist with air conditioning by
using the naturally low temperatures found underground to cool the building, instead of
using an energy-intensive traditional system that exchanges heat with the air. Stetson has
entered into a partnership with Progress Energy to install the pump. Progress benefits
because this will serve as a test case; if it proves successful at reducing energy demand,
they can recommend it to other customers in the interest of reducing peak load.
4.1.1.5 Biodiesel
Facilities Management has initiated an on-campus waste grease reclamation
program. Food oil from the campus food services is gathered, filtered, and mixed with
diesel fuel to power lawn maintenance vehicles and tools. The grease gathered is enough
to offset diesel fuel demand for the summer landscaping months. This program is to be
expanded to encompass biodiesel production in the coming year.
18
4.1.1.6 Fleet
Stetson University emphasizes small electric and gasoline driven carts, rather than
full-size vehicles, for on-campus transport of staff and their tools. A continued move to
electric vehicles is encouraged insofar as full size vehicles can be retired.
4.1.1.7 Solar
Stetson has limited solar energy technologies deployed on campus. The campus
chiller plant lights are powered by a small photovoltaic array (though we would
recommend trimming the tree that shades the array in the morning hours.) Smith, Gordis,
and Nemec Hall dormitories are connected to a solar water heating system that helps
defray the energy demand for student hot water needs. Unfortunately, the non-profit
status of Stetson University prevents it from taking advantage of generous tax incentives
for the installation of new solar technologies; nonetheless the university should consider
their incorporation into new construction. Ultimately, long-term financial benefits should
offset short-term capital outlays. As much as possible, the administration should seek
partnerships to bring these technologies to campus at reduced cost.
4.1.2 On-Campus Travel
From the driving habits survey we conducted, on-campus travel contributes
relatively little to our greenhouse gas emissions. However, we can reduce point-to-point
travel by using some simple strategies to encourage walking and biking around campus.
In addition to Stetson’s Green Bikes program, which offers free use of campus bicycles,
we must ensure the construction and maintenance of adequate bike paths and bike racks
to accommodate bicycle traffic. Stetson should provide incentives for students who own
bikes, such as free or discounted maintenance. Walking around Stetson’s small campus
can be encouraged by improving walking paths, for example by planting trees for shade
and ensuring pedestrian safety. Furthermore, we can advertise how walking and/or
biking are faster and less costly alternatives to driving on campus.
Parking is already an issue at Stetson. Yet, through our proposed changes to the
parking system, we can help eliminate point-to-point travel. Instead of parking zones, it
has been proposed that students with parking passes have an assigned space on campus
(with dedicated loading zones near each dormitory). This would preclude point-to-point
driving on campus. The current strategy to reduce on-campus travel is to move all
parking to the periphery of campus, which does eliminate cross campus commuting.
Building a parking garage for the campus would help concentrate parking, reducing the
overall land footprint. However, on campus transportation alternatives should be
enhanced, such as escort from Public Safety for guest speakers, those with mobility
issues and students leaving campus late at night. This option, therefore, would require
changes in the campus fleet, which might include more golf carts or other small electric
vehicles.
Stetson is known as a walking campus, and with a few changes and targeted
campaigns for students, staff, and faculty, we can foster this character. Improved
walkways—that focus on safe road crossings and wide and well-lit paths—when
combined with conservative parking policy can decrease GHG emissions and improve
the aesthetic experience at Stetson University.
19
4.1.3 Commuting
Stetson can reduce the amount of GHG emissions from commuter traffic through
incentive and disincentive programs. The vehicle sticker program provides many options
for modifying the driving habits of the Stetson community. First, the current price of a
parking sticker is very low when compared to similar institutions. Many schools charge
$100 per semester for parking privileges to all, including students, faculty, and staff. The
higher cost of parking stickers can be used to fund programs and facilities that encourage
reduced driving. Stetson could also offer financial incentives for those who carpool or
register a hybrid/ alternative fuel vehicle (i.e. biofuel or electricity). Numerous studies on
campus have demonstrated the need to rethink parking on campus. The benefit of
reducing GHG emissions is simply another argument for this. We recommend the
immediate formation of a University task force to consider parking issues with special
attention to the potential of attenuating single-driver commuting as well as point-to-point
travel on campus.
4.2 Carbon Offsets
There are two broad approaches to offsetting the GHG emissions produced through
campus operation. The first is investing in carbon offsets. The second is to achieve zero
net emissions through campus activities.
4.2.1 Purchasing Offsets
Carbon offsets allow an institution to pay a fee to negate the carbon that it
produces. Organizations such as Carbon Fund and Terrapass take the fees from the sale
of carbon offsets and invest them in reforestation, development of carbon free energy
production facilities, and research in carbon amelioration. Ostensibly, the fee for a one
metric ton carbon offset will fund the technology needed to remove one metric ton of
carbon from the atmosphere. While the cap-and-trade model for carbon trading in Europe
demonstrates the feasibility of the approach, the carbon-offset market is relatively
unregulated in the US, meaning that oversight is voluntary at best.
The prices of carbon offsets in the United States vary from four to thirty dollars,
depending on provider. The mean price is seventeen dollars. At this rate, the cost for
offsetting the 17,211 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from Stetson
University would be $292,587 for 2006-2007 year. While we could certainly find a
reputable offset provider, the GHG audit committee feels that Stetson can make better
progress towards zero GHG emissions by investing close to home. This is to say, we
recommend annual investment of the capital needed to purchase carbon offsets,
equivalent to campus emissions, into a fund that develops GHG neutralizing technologies
and programs here on campus.
4.2.2 On-Campus Offsets (Reforestation)
It is possible that Stetson may be able to offset its operational GHG footprint in
house through reforestation and other programs that work to sequester carbon dioxide.
At Stetson we are affiliated with a non-profit organization called AIR.
The Alliance for International Reforestation, Inc. or AIR, is a nonprofit organization working to make a difference for the people of Guatemala
and Nicaragua. AIR plants trees, establishes tree nurseries, provides
20
environmental education for teachers and farmers, digs wells, builds fuelefficient brick ovens, and helps to educate everyone about the environmental
challenges facing Central America. (AIR 2008)
This group has worked for sixteen years with over thirty rural Guatemalan
communities on reforestation and forest conservation projects. The University’s cash and
in-kind donations conservatively equate to the planting of 10,000 trees per year. Because
of the diverse species planted at varying densities, it is difficult to estimate precise a
carbon offset figure. For the purpose of crediting carbon offsets, we must decide how to
count trees for carbon sequestration. On an annual basis, should we count the
incremental accumulation of carbon by each the tree (which varies with the age and
species of each tree) in each year or count the total carbon that a tree would accumulate
over a lifetime? The second method is the least accurate, but most simple to apply.
Assuming this approach, at 0.3 metric tons per tree over its lifetime, Stetson offsets ~
3,000 metric tons of carbon each year through the tree plantings associated with AIR.
In order to apply as an offset to the Stetson University GHG footprint, AIR must
establish some form of carbon oversight that prevents reforestation projects from being
double counted. This is to say that if Stetson University applies the planting of these
trees to the reduction of its GHG footprint that they may not be used by another
institution (such as a farmers’ cooperative or the Guatemalan government) for GHG
offset credits. The concern for equitable remuneration associated with the purchase of
offset rights is a growing debate within development studies.
We must now characterize the global trade of pollution credits in terms of
negative-carbon economics. The Kyoto Protocol has spawned a new commodity,
negative carbon, represented by carbon sequestration or the promise to reduce emissions.
This new commodity may well perpetuate uneven development. Less developed
countries, on the political economic fringes of global trade, continue their struggles to
industrialize and conserve local ecosystems. If developed nations snap up negativecarbon, also known as carbon offsets, on a global scale while they are still cheap, less
developed nations will be left without affordable GHG offset possibilities.
21
5 Discussion
The recent florescence of concern for GHG accounting is often portrayed as a
panacea for global pollution problems. Certainly, it is in our best interest to monitor and
manage human impacts on the global environment as a result of GHG emissions, but
there is a great deal that is not well understood. The GHG calculator gives only an
incomplete picture, and GHG remediation programs will prove to be problematic on the
global scale.
The Campus Carbon Calculator is a tool that measures operational GHG
emissions, not overall GHG emissions. The carbon cycle is an extremely complex
process, and accurately tracking the gross or net release of carbon dioxide for the campus
is difficult to standardize. Emissions resulting from the construction of new facilities and
from clearing the extant forest where campus now stands, as well as the GHG footprint
for the food consumed on campus, are not included in this study. This is to say that
carbon is not being accounted using the principles of life-cycle analysis, so the footprint
representation is incomplete. GHG auditing as practiced today focuses on only some
aspects of GHG emissions.
22
Works Cited
AIR (Alliance for International Reforestation). 2008. Alliance for International
Reforestation <http://www2.stetson.edu/air/>
Bernstein, L., et al. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. (2007). Retrieved April 4,
2008, from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Web site:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf.
Clean Air-Cool Planet (2006a) Campus Carbon Calculator, v5.
Clean Air-Cool Planet (2006b) Campus Carbon Calculator, v5: User’s Guide.
Energy Conservatory, The. 2007. Minneapolis Duct Blaster® Operation Manual (Series
B Systems). Minneapolis, MN: The Energy Conservatory.
US Environmental Protection Agency & US Department of Energy (EPA & DOE). 2008.
Energy Star Program: Duct Sealing.
Parmesan, Camille, and Gary Yohe. “A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change
impacts across natural systems.” Nature 421.6918 (2003): 37..
United Kingdom. HM Treasury. “Executive Summary.” The Economics of Climate
Change. By Nicholas Stern. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
i-xxvii. Stern Review Index Page. 14 Apr. 2007 <http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/media/8AC/F7/Executive_Summary.pdf>.
World Resources Institute and World Business Council (2004) The Greenhouse Gas
Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, Revised Edition.
ISBN 1-56973-568-9
23
APPENDIX A
Aspects of Campus Operation Not Captured by the GHG Audit
Electricity Consumption –
Facility Metering:
Most campus buildings and major facilities (such as athletic fields) are
individually metered. Additional electric meters have been and will continue to be added
over time to eliminate remaining facilities. While there are sound financial reasons for
metering buildings, metering has enabled us to perform on-going reviews and analysis of
our consumption for the purpose of considering potential energy-conservation methods
and programs, and then measuring the effectiveness of those methods and programs
implemented.
Auxiliary Properties:
Properties owned by the University but not occupied or operated by the
University are not included in the electricity consumption data. These properties include
single family dwellings and commercial properties which are rented or leased, occupied
and operated by tenants and commercial entities (e.g., Greyhound Bus Station). The
Ruggles House is included, however, since users are not long-term tenants and stay as
guests of the institution (e.g., visiting speakers, guest professors, etc.)
Indirect electricity consumed by the City of Deland? The City consumes
electricity in processing and pumping potable water to campus and reclaimed water for
irrigation. This electricity has not been included.
Building Occupation by Summer Campers:
While travel associated with those traveling to attend summer camps has not been
captured, the electricity consumption by camps is included in our electricity totals, and
consumption varies summer to summer and building to building depending on the
number of summer camps registered and the camper occupancy rates.
Travel – Commuters
Commuters are comprised from our college-level undergraduate and graduate student
population, whether they be residents on-campus or non-residents (living off-campus),
typically between 17 and 30 years of age, with the majority between 18 and 25 years of
age. We chose not to include commuter travel of [typically non-traditional] “students”
enrolled or participating in certain University programs because of the difficulty of
capturing the data related to their travel habits. These programs are:
Elderhostels –
Stetson University offers between 80 and 85 Elderhostel programs a year at
several different locations around Florida, including on our campus in DeLand. For
example, the program offers golf enhancement and tennis enhancement instruction in
Daytona Beach, while there are two programs held in St. Augustine focusing on the
history of Florida's First Coast. In Orlando, two Chinese Cultural programs offer
hostellers the opportunity to visit a Buddhist Temple, Ming Court and several Chinese
cultural events, and a baseball program allows hostellers to visit Dodgertown, Atlanta
Braves’ preseason training camp and Disney’s Wide World of Sports. New programs
are being opened in Cocoa Beach which will include trips to Kennedy Space Center,
Brevard Zoo, Mosquito Lagoon and the St. John’s River, among other sites. Each
program is attended by approximately 25-30 registrants that come largely from outside
24
the State of Florida. Most travel to the program site location via personal vehicle (usually
as couples) from New England and the Mid-Atlantic States (e.g., New York and New
Jersey).
Continuing Education –
The University’s Department of Continuing Education sponsors business
development workshops (e.g., effective communication held at Webster University in
Merritt Island and at Dale Carnegie Training Facility in Birmingham, Alabama),
computer training (corporate sites in the Southeast U.S. and military bases such as
McDill AFB in Tampa, and Herbert Field and Eglin AFB in the Florida Panhandle),
preparatory courses for LSAT, MCAT, GRE and GMAT, and Leadership programs. The
largest program is the Pastor’s School held on the DeLand campus that is attended by
over 200 clergy persons from across the nation.
Summer Campers –
There are 45 to 50 summer camps that occupy our facilities during the summer
(Mid-May to August 1). These camps entail nearly 8,000 campers of all ages who stay in
our residence halls and use our academic for their program and dining facilities for meals.
Programs range from MADD, Josten’s Yearbook Training and the Double Reed Music
Workshop to Soccer Camps, Religious Student Life Camps and Cheerleading. The
number and type of camps using our facilities varies from year to year, and occupancy
rates vary building to building on a weekly basis. While more than half of the campers
travel from other cities in Florida, there are large [typically church] groups that travel via
passenger vans or chartered buses from as far away as Virginia, and other southeastern
states. Some camps using our facilities have included participants that travel from all over
the United States and the world.
Community School of the Arts –
Since 1985, the Community School has provided music and dance instruction to
the residents of Central Florida, and includes orchestral and band instrument lessons,
dance lessons, Youth String program and Children’s Choir program. Each semester, the
Community School serves more than 400 people throughout Central Florida. The faculty
of approximately 35 includes university professors, practicing artists, experienced
teachers and university students. The Children's Choirs have performed at regional and
national conferences of the American Choral Directors Association, the Music Educators
National Conference and the National Orff-Schulwerk Association. The Young Singers
have been the young artists in residence at Choral Music Experience Institutes for
Teacher Education in St. Andrews, Scotland, and Toronto, Canada.
The HATS (High Achieving Talented Students) Program –
Established to serve gifted and high achieving Florida students in grades 4
through 9, the program offers Saturday activities (e.g., rocket science, folklore, weather,
and creative writing) as well as summer programs (e.g. forensic science, environmental
studies and chemistry) at several locations around the state that include DeLand,
Melbourne, Orlando, Ponte Vedra Beach, St. Augustine, Tampa, and Vero Beach.
ELS Language Center Students –
Stetson University’s Deland Campus is one of four host sites in Florida to the
ELS Language Center. The ELS program is structured to accelerate international
students in learning English as a second language and fully prepare them for university
25
study in the USA. Although ELS is held on campus, the program is a wholly
independent tenant.
Travel – Other Travel NOT included:
- Prospective students (and their families) who visit campus prior to enrollment for
the purpose of general discovery, even if their visit is to attend an “official”
Stetson Open House, and regardless if their visit ultimately converts into
enrollment at Stetson University.
- Parents and Stetson students who travel from and to home or other location for
Check-in Weekend (start of Fall Semester), Fall Break, Winter Break (between
Fall and Spring Semesters), Spring Break, Summer and weekends, and parents
and family that travel to campus for Family Weekend.
- Stetson Alumni who visit campus for special events such as Homecoming and
other alumni activities (e.g., speed networking gatherings).
- Stetson Faculty, staff, students, parents, alumni, guests (including booster club
members) and so on that travel to University sponsored sports venues (e.g.,
Baseball, softball, volleyball, tennis and basketball games or scrimmages) if they
are spectators of the event. Only travel that is conducted by University employees
employed for the purpose of directing, coaching or managing the sports event
(e.g., coaching and athletic department marketing staff) is captured under official
business travel.
- Vendors, visiting teams and/or umpires who travel in support of our sports venues
(home or away).
- General guests who use our library, or attend concerts, lectures, forums/debates,
art shows, theater productions, Career Expos, banquets, and other activities held
on campus, whether open to the general public or reserved for private parties.
- Retired Stetson University employees who travel to campus, whether it is to use
facilities (e.g., swimming pool and fitness center) for personal recreation, or to
visit the Human Resources Office to discuss retirement benefits.
- Other university students traveling to Stetson University to participate as
members of the annual college-level Floyd M. Riddick Model United States
Senate held at Stetson University.
- Stetson students traveling overseas or overseas students traveling to Stetson for
International semester abroad, summer abroad, service learning and internship, or
University Partnership programs, including but not limited to the Freiburg
Summer Program (held at the University of Education, Pädagogische Hochschule,
PH, in Freiburg, Germany), Institute for Biodiversity Law and Policy,
International Environmental Moot Court Competition (worldwide with
International finals held in Gulfport, Florida), International Wildlife Law
Conference (The Tenth IWLC will be held at the University of Granada in
Granada, Spain), Alliance for International Reforestation (Guatemala and
Nicaragua), International Business Law Discussion Group, Union Iberoamericana
de Municipalistas Program (Spanish and Latin nations), Mayans Visitors Program
(Mexico), Florida-Columbia Partners Program (Columbia), Law Student
Exchange Program, Fulbright Foreign Language Teaching Assistants Program
and Stetson American Studies International Program (held in Deland, Florida).
26
-
-
Stetson students traveling as a participant in a Department of Student Activities
sponsored off-campus activity (e.g., day at Disney, Universal Studios, Cirque du
Soleil, Daytona Beach, Blue Springs State Park, etc.).
Stetson Fraternity and Sorority members traveling to Fraternity and Sorority
sponsored events (e.g., socials, national conferences).
Members of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), the
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), or other
accreditation bodies that travel to Stetson campuses to conduct evaluations as part
of their accreditation process.
27
APPENDIX B
Supporting Electronic Files
- This document.
- Carbon Calculator with input fields filled.
- Business Travel Totals Excel worksheet.
- GHG Audit Master Variable list (Table 3.)
- Natural gas consumption Excel spreadsheets
- GHG PowerPoint Report
Note: Document Modification password is “GHG”
28