Prischak 1
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory of Mercyhurst College Main Campus:
Data Collection and Findings for School Years of 2001/2002-2007/2008
Prepared by:
Brittany Prischak (Student)
Assisted by:
Dr. J. Michael Campbell (Faculty Advisor)
Prischak 2
Executive Summary
Mercyhurst undertook the task of conducting an inventory of its greenhouse gas
emissions as a result of a commitment made by our President, Dr. Thomas Gamble, under the
terms of the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment. Mercyhurst is
one of many colleges and universities across the United States that have voluntarily pledged to
eliminate their contribution to global warming over time. Steps to be taken that are part of the
pledge agreement included establishing an institutional structure to oversee the completion of an
emissions inventory, developing a climate neutrality action plan, taking steps to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, integrating sustainability into the college curriculum, and making
their climate action plan, inventory and progress reports publicly available.
Mercyhurst is simultaneously addressing several of those steps. The greenhouse gas
(GHG) inventory is the first step and was tackled starting in the Fall of 2008 and has just been
completed. There were many people who have aided greatly in the gathering of data for this
inventory. Whitney Paul, Stephanie Prischak, Michalle Nedley, and Shelley West all assisted
with the transportation habits survey of students, faculty, and staff sent out during Fall Term
2008. Shelia Richter helped by providing information on student, faculty, and staff populations
and aiding in our transportation habit survey. Amy Danzer also assisted with the transportation
habits survey by helping to post the survey for people to complete, and then helping to collect the
data together. Ken Stepherson helped with a majority of information collection including
electricity consumption, natural gas consumption, refrigerant chemical usage, and other
important information. The completion of the inventory has yielded estimates of the total GHG
emissions for Mercyhurst College’s Main Campus, as well as totals for specific major GHG
emissions’ sources and GHG emissions per full-time student.
Prischak 3
As the Net GHG emission results indicate, renewable energy credits in the form of wind
energy purchases have aided in decreasing total carbon emissions. Another renewable energy
credit is attributed to the solar panels on campus that were installed Fall 2007. The major source
of the GHG emissions is electricity consumption, with natural gas use and transportation also
playing major parts. These items will be the focus of future plans to help decrease our carbon
footprint. Students, faculty and staff involved in the Mercyhurst College Green Team, headed by
Dr. Chris Magoc of the History Department, hope to put together their climate neutrality plan
this coming spring. Knowing the average metric tons of GHG emissions by each student could
aid in developing a campus awareness campaign, and will help us to compare Mercyhurst
College to other institutions.
Completed by Brittany Prischak with help from Dr. J. Michael Campbell as a faculty advisor.
Intro
As global warming and climate change have become a reality, institutions have begun to
start considering how to deal with this growing problem. The first step in dealing with any
problem is considering the causes. The main cause of global warming is the release of
Greenhouse Gases (GHG) into the atmosphere due to energy use for everyday activities, such as
heating water for washing dishes, for washing clothing, for showers, or for heating buildings, or
burning fuel like gasoline for vehicles and natural gas for appliances and other uses. The
American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) is an agreement
signed by the presidents of United States’ colleges and universities pledging to inventory the
GHG emissions due to activities on their campus; Dr. Thomas Gamble, President of Mercyhurst
College, is one such president. Dr. Gamble signed this agreement in the Fall of 2007, and
although we were unable to complete the inventory in the original one year deadline, we have
Prischak 4
now completed the primary inventory for 2001-2008. As part of the commitment, now that the
GHG inventory is complete, the college must now update the inventory for each new school
year, and create a Climate Action plan.
To help compile this inventory, we have used the Campus Carbon Calculator resource
provided by Clean Air-Cool Planet, Inc. This calculator consists of a comprehensive Microsoft
Excel template of all the necessary components needed to estimate the GHG emissions due to
campus activity. The calculator was created for use by all the colleges or universities that have
signed the ACUPCC to aid in their determination of campus GHG emissions. Since the
calculator requires the same basic components from each university or college using it, the
results may be compared among institutions. The three main components to our inventory are
GHG emissions due to transportation, natural gas consumption and electricity usage. According
to Clean Air-Cool Planet, Inc., there are about 1200 campuses in the United States who are
participating in the GHG emissions inventory.
It is hoped that following the completion of the inventory a plan will be developed to
annually update the GHG emissions inventory, and to initiate projects that will help to reduce
those GHG emissions.
Prischak 5
Data Input
There are six main contributors of GHG emissions for Mercyhurst that we collected data for:
transportation, electricity consumption, solid waste, natural gas, refrigerants and fertilizers
utilized. We also considered any renewable energy sources Mercyhurst College purchases. Basic
information that was also necessary was student, faculty, and staff populations for each of the
years determined for the inventory, as well as building space in square feet.
Mercyhurst College’s student population ranged from about 2,700 full-time students to a
little over 3,200 students between the school years of 2001-2002 and 2007-2008, showing a
general increase in student enrollment. The average over those seven school years is about 3,050
students. The number of faculty employed ranged from a low of 101 to a high of 140 within
those same seven years, averaging 126. The number of staff employees showed a slight overall
increase during the seven year time interval, with an average of 243.
The physical size of Mercyhurst College Main Campus, as supplied by Mercyhurst
Maintenance department, had increased from the 2001 to 2003, and has been consistent since.
The current size of the campus is 1,362,572 square feet. This includes all office buildings,
academic buildings, student buildings, and housing buildings located on Main Campus. There
will be an increase in campus size from the end of 2008/2009 school year to the beginning of the
2009/2010 year, and another from the end of the 2009/2010 school year to the beginning of the
2010/2011 school year. These changes will be due to addition of a new residence hall and
academic buildings.
Electricity data for the years of 2002-2008 was supplied by the Mercyhurst College
Maintenance Department. The data for the school year of 2001-2002 was estimated using the
average between the 2002-2003 and the 2003-2004 school years.
Prischak 6
Consumption of Natural Gas, used mainly for heating, measured in MMBtus, was provided
by the Mercyhurst College Maintenance Department for the school years of 2001-2002 through
2007-2008. The consumption of Natural Gas on-campus ranged from 40,802 MMBtus in 2001 to
72,226 MMBtus in 2007. There was some variation over the seven school years, although a basic
increase was observed. The average over those years was about 56,146 MMBtus,. There was a
decrease from the 2006/2007 school year to the 2007/2008 school year of about 2,400 MMBtus.
The gasoline consumption of the College Fleet (Table 1) was provided by Mercyhurst
College Maintenance staff. The College Fleet consists mainly of the Police and Safety vehicles,
maintenance vehicles, and any other gasoline-powered vehicles owned and leased by the college.
Gasoline Consumption Due to College Fleet (Gallons)
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Gasoline Consumption
(Gallons)
26000
26000
27431
25160
26346
24783
26945
25337
Table 1: This is the gasoline consumption per year by the college fleet, including police and safety and/or maintenance vehicles.
Information regarding the air travel for faculty for research conferences or other school
related events is important in calculating GHG emissions due to Mercyhurst College’s campus
activities. For the faculty flight information, the miles of travel was estimated using the departing
airport and arriving airport locations to determine the roundtrip miles flown. Due to the high
amount of air travel for the Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute (MAI), miles of travel was
calculated separately for this department for the school year of 2007-2008, and used to estimate
mileage for the 2001-2002 through 2006-2007 school years. Data was unavailable for previous
years for this department, but it was determined by the MAI staff that the air travel for the 2007-
Prischak 7
2008 school year is about the same as previous years. Faculty research flight miles were
calculated based upon records for the school years of 2002-2003 up to 2007-2008. The miles
traveled for 2001-2002 was estimated by the average of the miles flown in 2002-2003 and 20032004. The miles per year for the MAI was added to miles per year for the other faculty research
annual totals to determine total miles flown per year.
Faculty Air Travel per year (in miles)
School Year
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
Mercyhurst Archaeological Flight distances due to
Total (miles)
Institute (MAI) Flight
other Faculty Research
Distances (miles)
Funds (miles)
26598
59421
86019
26598
59590
86188
26598
59252
85850
26598
86048
112646
26598
89564
116162
26598
59630
86228
26598
103150
129748
Table 2: Displaying miles of air travel per year due to MAI, other faculty research, and total.
The necessary information to calculate the GHG emissions due to transportation to and
from the campus included number of commuters, the percentage of those who drove alone and
those who carpool out of the total population, the number of trips to campus per day, the number
of days per year traveled to campus and the number of miles per trip to campus. Each of those
values were needed for the student, faculty, and staff populations, in addition to information
about how many people commuted by personal vehicle, bus, or train. For our student, faculty,
and staff population, no one commuted by train, so these values were left incomplete. None of
our staff or faculty claimed to have commuted by bus and although there were 3 students who
stated that they commuted by bus, this was less than 1.5% of the student commuting population
that replied to our survey. Therefore, the values concerning bus commuting were omitted. In the
Prischak 8
end, we calculated emissions due to commuter transportation using only personal vehicle
transportation data by students, faculty, and staff.
To gather this information, we conducted a survey of the commuting students, faculty,
and staff. The survey asked questions concerning the distance people live from campus, their
method of transportation, how often they traveled to campus in a week, if their method of travel
or number of trips changed depending on weather, and whether they were student, faculty, or
staff. This survey was conducted in the Fall of 2008, by students in Dr. Campbell’s Field
Ecology class (Whitney Paul, Shelley West, Michalle Nedley, Stephanie Prischak, and Brittany
Prischak). The same survey was sent to all commuting students, and then to faculty and staff who
had been employed since 2001. The restriction on the faculty surveyed was due to the need to
estimate values for transportation as far back as the 2001-2002 school year, and if people had
been employed since then, it was believed that the values would be more accurate. We received a
25.8% response rate overall, 20.6% for commuting students, and 56.1% for the faculty/staff
employees. We evaluated responses from the survey statistically to determine whether it would
be reasonable to assume that the sample population represented the larger population in similar
proportions (relative to zipcode). We performed a statistical Chi Goodness-of-Fit Test comparing
the number of respondents for the separate groups of students, faculty, and staff per zipcode to
the known overall population breakdown per zip code. It was found that there was adequate
evidence to support our claim that the survey sample population matched the overall population.
Due to the large number of different zip codes from which people commute to campus,
zip codes were separated into groups according to the distance from campus, and an average
number of roundtrip miles were calculated per zip code group (Table 3).
Prischak 9
Zip code Groupings
Zip code
Group
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Average, Roundtrip Miles
Driven
1.5
5.5
9
13
22
37
57
8
9
10
90
128
175
Zip codes
16504, 16546
16501, 16502, 16503, 16507, 16508
16509, 16510, 16511
16505, 16506, 16421
16442, 16441, 16426, 16415
16412, 16428, 16417, 16423, 16438, 14736
16411, 16443, 16401, 16407, 16403, 16433, 16436, 14781, 14787,
14724
16335, 16316, 16345, 16420, 16350, 16341, 16354, 44004, 14701
16365, 16314, 16323, 16301, 44041
44077, 16214
Table 3: The zipcodes were group according to roundtrip mile distance from campus and used to determine the miles
driven by commuters, faculty, and staff.
Using data received from the survey, the average miles driven roundtrip per day for each
student, faculty, and staff was calculated. The Campus Carbon Calculator called for separate
values for the average number of miles/trip to campus and the average trips/day to campus.
However, it was observed that the average distance a person lived from campus had an effect on
the number of trips they made to campus, so the two values were calculated dependently to find
the average number of miles/day traveled to campus. This calculated value was found separately
for students, faculty, and staff, and then placed in the average trips/day cell in the calculator. A
“1” was placed in the miles/trip cell to show that the two values were determined as one
dependent value rather than as two independent values. The days/year values were also
determined separately; for the students it was based on the number of days/term and the number
of terms/year, which is ten weeks/term, seven days/week and three terms/year equaling about
two-hundred and ten days/year. For the faculty, the value was calculated in the same way, but by
estimating about ten more days that faculty are expected to be on campus before and after the
Prischak 10
school year. Staff is on campus more than either students or faculty, so an estimate of about twohundred and fifty days per year was used for that group.
The data was entered into the Campus Carbon Calculator to estimate back to 2001. For
the students, the values for percentage of those driving alone and carpooling out of the total
population, average trips per day, days per year, and average miles per trip traveled to campus
were assumed to be the same from the school years of 2001 through to the current year of 2008.
The same assumptions were made for faculty and staff. The total population size of students,
faculty and staff for the school years of 2001 through 2008 were obtained from records kept by
the Student Financial Aid Office on campus. The percentage of commuter students was
estimated per year based on the total population of students on campus each year, and the
number of those that were known to live in on-campus housing. For the faculty and staff, it was
assumed that they were all commuting to campus.
After the known student, faculty, and staff population were entered for the years 20012008, as well as the other calculated necessary data, the total miles commuted and the
corresponding Gasoline consumption was determined for the students and then for faculty and
staff (Table 4).
Gasoline Consumption per year (Gallons)
School
Year
Total Student
value (Gal)
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
67,703
71,951
72,680
74,241
74,217
74,547
75,935
Per Per Student
Student Commuter
(Gal)
(Gal)
24.7
65.6
24.9
68.9
24.5
68.4
23.5
64.3
23.5
67.6
23.5
66.3
23.5
61.8
Total Faculty
value (Gal)
10,002
11,479
11,410
9,064
10,079
10,236
7,892
Per
Faculty
(Gal)
82.0
82.6
81.5
78.1
78.1
78.1
78.1
Total Staff
value (Gal.)
24,460
25,295
25,829
24,865
24,658
25,279
28,802
Table 4: Gasoline consumption in gallons determined for students, faculty, and staff using the Campus Carbon Calculator
“Input_Commuter” worksheet.
Per
Staff
(Gal)
108.7
109.5
108.1
103.6
103.6
103.6
103.6
Prischak 11
The fertilizer used by Mercyhurst College’s Maintenance staff is the product Lesco:46-00, which is a synthetic Urea compound. The Nitrogen percentage is 46% and the assumed mix
ratio is one pound of fertilizer to three gallons of water. With this ratio it was estimated that
2,175 pounds of the fertilizer are applied per year, specifically based on the amount of gallons
reported used during the 2008 school year. The 6,524 gallons of fertilizer mixture used in 2008
was judged by the Maintenance staff to be a reasonable estimate for the amount used each year
from 2001 through 2007.
Mercyhurst College’s solid waste is landfilled waste with CH4 recovery and electric
generation. Estimations of short tons of solid waste produced per year were generated by
Maintenance staff of the college. This estimate was 949 short tons for 2008 and an eight percent
decrease each year was applied to approximate annual landfilled waste back to the 2001/2002
school year.
There are two main refrigeration chemicals used by the college, R-12 and R-22. R-12 is
Dichlorodifluoromethane, a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), which has a Global Warming Potential
(GWP) of 8,100. This chemical is not listed on the calculator so the chemical C4F10 (which has a
GWP of 8,600) was used as the closest approximation to determine our GHG emissions. R-22 is
Chlorodifluoromethane, a hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC), and has a GWP of 1,700. The
chemical from the list is the HCFC-22. The amounts of each chemical used per year are based on
the amounts recorded still in storage at the end of each school year. The amount of R-12 used
over the course of seven years from 2001/2002 through 2007/2008 was 2.75 pounds and the
amount of R-22 used was 24 pounds. The average amount of R-12 used from 2002/2003 through
2007/2008 (ignoring the initial two pounds used in 2001/2002) was 0.125 pounds. The average
amount of R-22 used from 2002/2003 through 2007/2008 (there was no R-22 used in 2001/2002)
Prischak 12
was about 4 pounds, but there was a lot of variation with a range of values from 1 pound to 8
pounds over that six year period.
In the summer of 2007, prior to the start of the 2007-2008 school year, Mercyhurst
College installed solar panels on campus. The college had also started to purchase wind energy
starting in 2003 (Table 4). The purchased amount was 10% of our electricity consumption per
year, but it was increased to 30% of our electricity consumption per year in 2008. The solar
panels and the wind energy purchases count as renewable energy offsets, so the college has
started to offset electricity consumption by the use of renewable energy sources. The change
from 10% to 30% wind purchase will make a dramatic change in the amount of kWh offset for
2008.
Renewable Energy Offsets
Year
Energy (kWh)
2001
0
2002
0
2003
1034032.8
2004
1336710.7
2005
1375329.6
2006
1427387.5
2007
1420132.6
Table 5: This is the Renewable Energy (kWh) due to the Solar Panels on campus, and Purchased Wind Energy.
Prischak 13
Results and Discussion
After all of the data was input into the calculator, the total amount of carbon dioxide
emissions was able to be determined. There was also a “net” value calculated due to the
renewable energy offsets, so Mercyhurst College can see the difference made in emissions just
by using renewable energy sources. Starting in 2003 with the wind energy purchases, the net
carbon dioxide emissions shows a decrease from the total emissions, with the biggest drop of
about 2,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2007 (Table 6). This is great news and
definitely shows how important renewable energy is to aid in decreasing GHG emissions. Since
the college has increased its wind energy purchase from 10% to 30% prior to the 2008 school
year, we should see a much larger decrease in the “net” emissions due to this offset.
Metric Tons of eCO2 per year
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Total Emissions
9108
8978
9915
11048
12608
13142
13047
Net Emissions
9108
8978
9320
10318
11857
12361
12271
Table 6: This is the data table of GHG emissions (above) and the line graph comparing the total emissions to the net
emissions (below).
Prischak 14
2001-2007 Total v. Net eCO2
Net Emissions
Total Emissions
Metric Tons eCO 2
14000
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Year
The calculator also gave a break-down of the major contributors to GHG emissions
on campus, and ranked them. In the 2007-2008 school year, the biggest contributor to our GHG
emissions were electricity consumption (not counting the renewable energy offsets), followed by
natural gas, and then transportation (Table 7). This information will greatly aid in determining a
plan on how to start decreasing our GHG emissions on campus. Electricity is the biggest cause,
so it would seem to be the mostly likely first target to start talking to students about decreasing
the amount of electricity they use. Also, the wind purchase is by percentage of electricity
consumption, so if we decrease our electricity consumption and increase our percentage of wind
energy purchase, we would be well on our way to offsetting this major contributor.
Prischak 15
Percentage of eCO2/Contributor (2007)
Contributor eCO2(Metric Tons)
Electricity
Natural Gas
Transportation
Solid Waste
Refrigerants
Fertilizers
7736
3824
1126
128
7
4
Table 7: This is the data table of the major contributors to the total GHG emissions (above) and the pie graph
showing the comparison (below).
Percentage of eCO2/ Contributor (2007)
Electricity
Natural Gas
Transportation
Fertilizers
Solid Waste
Refrigerants
Electricity
59.29%
Natural Gas
29.31%
Refrigerants
0.05%
Solid Waste
Fertilizers
0.98%
0.03%
Transportation
10.33%
Now that the inventory of Mercyhurst College’s GHG emissions has been completed, our
next step is to create a Climate Action Plan. The Climate Action Plan is a timeline of actions that
Mercyhurst College plans to take in order to make our campus carbon neutral. Carbon neutral
means that our “net” emissions would be equal to 0 MT CO2, either due to decreases in the
sources of GHG emissions, by renewable energy offsets, or by other sustainable energy plans.
There many ideas for potential plans. One plan is to create an awareness campaign throughout
campus to show students the amount of GHG emissions released by electricity and what they can
Prischak 16
do to help. The goal is to get students involved in the carbon neutral plan in a very simple way;
turning off lights, computers, or TVs when they are not in use is something everyone can do, and
will have an impact. Another plan is to initiate communication between commuting students
since transportation is the 3rd largest contributor. Many commuting students live close to campus,
yet they drive alone; if students would car-pool, there would be a major impact on the number of
cars that have to be driven to campus per week if each student would ride with at least one other
student. A third plan is compare our inventory results to other campuses’ and perhaps use some
of their Climate Action plans as models. Although there are other campuses that have much
higher GHG emissions than Mercyhurst College, but there are also a few that have far fewer due
to offsets by renewable energy credits or sustainability options.
Since electricity consumption was our major contributor for the 2007 total emissions
calculated, we decided to look at how our electricity consumption has changed each year over
the seven year period by comparing the GHG emissions due just to electricity. We determined
that our electricity consumption has increased since 2001; it seemed that the consumption
amounts from 2006 and 2007 are about even (Table 8). Perhaps we have reached a point where
we will not increase, though with at least one new residence hall being opened in 2008, and
another academic building being opened soon, we may have another increase in electricity
consumption due to expansion.
Prischak 17
GHG Emissons Due to Electricity per Year
Electricity eCO2 (Metric Tons)
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Year
Table 8: This is the GHG emissions due to electricity (Metric Tons) per year over the course of 2001-2007.
Natural gas use is our second leading contributor of our greenhouse gas emissions. Most
likely large parts of this use it due to heating in the on-campus student housing. Most of the
apartments and townhouses are poorly insulated, and since Erie has a long, cold winter, students
have the heat on longer and at higher temperatures than may be necessary if the windows were
insulated. One potential solution is to replace the single pane glass in the windows with double
pane glass to prevent high heat loss. Along with changing the window glass, the windows and
doors should are be better insulated.
Transportation is the third top source of GHG emissions, and 41% of which is due to
commuting students (Table 9). One of the things we can consider to aid in lowering our GHG
emissions is by trying to decrease our emissions due to commuter transportation. Over half of the
commuting student population lives within 6 miles, roundtrip, of campus. If we target these
Prischak 18
students for a carpooling campaign, we could decrease the number of students who drive to
school alone. Almost 80% of the commuting students drive alone, so if we were to provide
contact between commuting students who live close, we may be able to decrease the amount of
cars on campus and therefore the amount of GHG emissions due to commuters. About half of the
total miles driven to campus is driven by those who live within 9 miles roundtrip. If we were to
have each of these students ride with at least one other student, we could cut our total miles
driven to campus by commuting students by 25% (Table 10).
Transportation Sources (2007/2008)
Commuting Students
Commuting Faculty/Staff
College Fleet
Air travel
Commuting
Commuting
Faculty/Staff
Students
24%
51%
Air travel
7%
College Fleet
18%
Table 9: Distribution of the GHG emissions due to transportation by campus population (above).
Breakdown of Percentage of Students Who Live Different Mile Distances from Campus
Number of roundtrip miles to
Percentage of students
Percentage of contributing miles
campus (miles)
driven to campus per week
1.5
34.2%
7.3%
5.5
20.7%
13.7%
9
22.1%
26.1%
13
9.9%
9.7%
22
4.1%
21.1%
37
5.4
2.2%
57
0.9%
3.4%
90
2.3%
1.2%
Table 10: This is the percentage of students who live the different distances from campus and the percentage of the
total miles driven to campus per week associated with that distance (above).
Prischak 19
A third consideration is to follow what some other institutions have started to initiate
themselves in order to become carbon neutral. First, we wanted to compare ourselves to a few
other institutions just to know where we stand. I choose thirteen other institutions in
Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio with similar student populations or building space size.
Syracuse University was chose so we could compare ourselves to a larger campus and although
Warren Wilson College is much smaller than Mercyhurst College, it is a more sustainable
college, so it would be helpful for comparison. Noted was the location of each institution, date of
completion of the GHG emission inventory, total building space in square feet, and the full-time
student population (Table 11). Mercyhurst College yielded the sixth lowest Net CO2 emissions,
third lowest CO2 emissions per full-time student, and the fifth lowest CO2 emissions per square
feet of campus among the institutions considered (Table 12, 13).
Comparison of CO2 Emissions among Institutions
Institution
Location
Mount Union College
Syracuse University
Oberlin College
Ithaca College
Dickinson College
Gettysburg College
Franklin & Marshall College
Mercyhurst College
Allegheny College
Juniata College
Warren Wilson College
Wilson College
Penn State Berks
Keystone College
Alliance, OH
Syracuse, NY
Oberlin, OH
Ithaca, NY
Carlisle, PA
Gettysburg, PA
Lancaster, PA
Erie, PA
Meadville, PA
Huntington, PA
Asheville, NC
Chambersburg, PA
Reading, PA
La Plume, PA
Date of
Completion
2008
2007
2007
2007
2008
2007
2007
2007
2007
2008
2007
2008
2008
2007
Building Space (sq ft)
10,690,725.0
7,706,905.0
2,640,040.0
2,300,000.0
1,952,569.0
1,559,676.0
1,405,834.0
1,362,572.0
1,194,175.0
800,000.0
680,748.0
600,000.0
373,882.0
316,919.0
Full-time Student
Population
2,101.0
17,577.0
2,744.0
6,660.0
2,346.0
2,600.0
2,006.0
3,072.0
2,151.0
1,453.0
832.0
734.0
2,560.0
1,530.0
Table 11: Data table comparison of different institutions showing the date of completion for the GHG emissions
Inventory, total building space in square feet, and total full-time student population.
Prischak 20
Comparison of Net Emissions
U
ni
O
be ver
Fr
si
rl
ty
an
in
kl
C
Ith
ol
in
le
ac
&
ge
a
M
C
ar
ol
sh
le
al
ge
G
lC
et
ty
o
sb
lle
ur
ge
g
Al
Co
le
gh
M
lle
en
ou
ge
y
nt
C
U
ol
ni
eg
on
D
e
ic
C
ki
ol
ns
M
o n le g
er
e
C
cy
ol
hu
le
ge
rs
Ju t C
o
ni
lle
a
ge
Ke ta C
ys
ol
l
to
ne ege
C
W
ol
ils
le
ge
o
Pe
n
C
nn
W
ol
ar
le
St
re
ge
at
n
e
W
B
ils
er
ks
on
C
ol
le
ge
Sy
ra
c
us
e
Metric Tons eCO2
120,000.0
110,000.0
100,000.0
90,000.0
80,000.0
70,000.0
60,000.0
50,000.0
40,000.0
30,000.0
20,000.0
10,000.0
0.0
Institution
Table 12: Comparison of several different institutions based on the Net GHG emissions recorded for the year their
inventory was submitted to the ACUPCC.
Prischak 21
Comparison of CO2 Emissions
Metric Tons eCO2
Emissions/ Student (MT)
Emissions/ 1000 sq ft (MT)
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
er
ks
B
St
at
e
C
Pe
nn
ar
r
en
W
ils
on
rs
t
C
ol
le
ol
le
ge
ge
ge
Co
lle
W
M
er
cy
hu
ol
le
ge
on
e
on
Ke
ys
t
ils
W
ac
a
Ith
C
ol
le
ge
ge
ol
le
C
so
n
C
ty
si
ve
r
ki
n
D
ic
Sy
ra
c
us
e
U
ni
ta
C
ol
le
ge
ge
Co
lle
ni
a
Ju
ge
G
et
ty
sb
ur
g
C
ol
le
ge
tU
ni
o
en
y
M
ou
n
le
gh
Al
n
C
ol
le
ge
ol
le
C
sh
al
l
Fr
a
nk
lin
&
M
ar
O
be
r
lin
C
ol
le
ge
0.0
Institution
Table 13: Comparison of several different institutions based on the GHG emissions per full-time student and per
1000 square feet of building space.
Although Warren Wilson College has not completed their Climate Action Plan, as of yet,
we can consider how much of their GHG emissions was decreased by their renewable energy
credit purchase. The college was able to completely offset their electricity purchase each year
with renewable energy credits of solar and wind energy. This purchase amount is 4,403,183
kWh; Mercyhurst College consumed 14,162,556 kWh of electricity during the 2007 school year
and offset that amount by 1,420,132 kWh with renewable energy offsets. Although Mercyhurst
College has exceeded the amount of renewable energy credits of Warren Wilson College,
increasing our credit purchase would help to decrease our emissions due to electricity.
Some other actions taken by many of the institutions Mercyhurst College was compared
to above. One of the most common actions was the use of composting in all dining halls on the
different campuses, along with composting of leaves and other waste. The composting saves
money from decreasing the amount of waste that needs to be transported off campus, and the
Prischak 22
composting can be used as a fertilizer replacing the need to buy fertilizers. Many schools
performed energy efficiency upgrades including installing motion sensors on the lights in the
academic buildings and motion sensors on the sinks in the restrooms to decrease the amount of
waste. I found a lot of possible alternative transportation options that can be considered for
commuters or on-campus students to decrease the number of cars on campus. Some institutions
have begun a bicycle rental program and a car rental program for students to get around campus
or off campus. A few of the institutions have begun to integrate hybrid vehicles into their Fleet.
A major concern in initiating any plan is student involvement. We can look at how other
institutions are involving their students in energy conservation and sustainability efforts. This is
one area in which we need to maintain lots of focus to aid in starting or planning any
conservation program on campus.
Another method of decreasing the GHG emissions, Mercyhurst College could consider
composting the waste produced by food facilities on campus, similar to Allegheny College, or
considering land sequestration. Mercyhurst College has two main food facilities and a restaurant
maintained by the Hotel and Restaurant management students on main campus, all three of
which could implement composting. Mercyhurst College also owns 405 acres of land, part of
which is currently being leased to a farmer. This land could be used for a small amount of carbon
sequestration to aid in carbon emissions offset.
There are many options for Mercyhurst College to consider that will aid in becoming
carbon neutral. These options must be weighed to determine which will be beneficial for the
college in terms of amount of carbon emission offsets and the amount of time the option would
take to either initiate or that will show emission offsets. Students, faculty and staff involved in
the Mercyhurst College Green Team, headed by Dr. Chris Magoc of the History Department,
Prischak 23
hope to put together their climate neutrality plan this coming spring. They will have the task of
creating the Climate Action plan, and turning the plan into action.
Reference List
“ACUPCC Reporting System”. American College & University Presidents Climate
Commitment. 2009. < http://acupcc.aashe.org>
“Report Card 2009”. The College Sustainability Report Card. 2009.
<http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2009>
“Sustainability: Current Initiatives.” Dickenson College. 2009
<http://www.dickinson.edu/departments/sustainability/initiatives.html#policies
“American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment”. Presidents Climate
Commitment. 2008. <http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org>