ST. OLAF COLLEGE STUDENT GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION St. Olaf Environmental Programming Report Fall 2013 The Sustainability Subcommittee, Student Government Association
John Bruer (Chair of Committee, Student Activities Committee Coordinator), Stephen Crouser (Faculty
Governance Committee Senator), Benjamin Swenson-Klatt (Thorson Hall Senator), Shane Allen (Pause CoCoordinator), Mara Stutzman (Hilleboe-Kittelsby Hall Senator), Nathan Webster (Ellingson Hall Senator),
Sonja Smerud (Environmental Senator) 1
Tasked with an objective of determining where the SustainAbilities program should
reside, our Senate Subcommittee, through examination of sustainable policies and practices in
effect here at St. Olaf, realized general continuity and community across sustainable sectors was
lacking. We broadened our research to six, small, private, liberal arts colleges similar to St. Olaf
in many aspects. We researched the following colleges due to their leadership in sustainability in
higher education across the country, comparable liberal arts structure or goals, similar
application profiles according to incoming student statistics, and proximity: Luther College,
Colorado College, Oberlin College, Dickinson College, Macalester College, Concordia College,
and Duke University. Our subcommittee feels confident that these colleges could provide
strong foundational models for sustainability at St. Olaf College.
We compiled this information into a report classified into eight major sections of college
sustainability: Residence Life, Sustainability Office, Student Government, Transportation, Food,
Student Work, Curriculum, and Land Use & Energy Consumption. Through comparison of
sustainable structures at St. Olaf and the six colleges we studied, we have developed a
preliminary set of suggestions for the college to advance sustainability. As expressed in a FirstYear student survey conducted by Jim Farrell in the fall of 2012, 94% of St. Olaf students expect
to “learn how to live sustainably in the residence halls.” As the issue of sustainable living grows
rapidly, we suggest that the college take a more prominent role in addressing sustainability in the
sections outlined in our report. To ensure accuracy, our subcommittee conducted two focus
groups with the key faculty, staff, and students who currently lead sustainable efforts on
campus. Per our discussions, this report was revised and improved to provide the most current
and relevant information on the topic. Our report’s suggestions reflect the interests of these key
members and the organizations they lead. Below is a summary of our findings, paired with
suggestions for St. Olaf’s future in an attempt to address the larger issue beyond the scope of the
SustainAbilities Program. Each section in this report includes a brief summary of what other
schools are up to, what St. Olaf is doing, and preliminary suggestions to move St. Olaf forward.
Residence Life
A common type of programming found among the eight colleges mentioned is residence
life sustainability programing. One such program is that of Eco-Reps, which can be found on
college campuses across the country. The Eco-Reps are sustainability leaders in their respective
halls on campus. The schools that we looked at do not pay these students or offer any type of
stipend; it is a volunteer position. The Eco-Reps provide programing for the halls as well as act
as a source of information or contact for residents. Examples of Eco-Rep programming: green
hall room audits, maps to recycling dumpsters, auditing the presence of dual flush toilets, taking
responsibility for the hall’s composting efforts, or planning sustainable events for the hall
residents. Eco-Reps at other colleges do receive a small amount of money with which to put on
these events and they attend meetings to share updates with each other.
At Luther College, the residence life staff is responsible for incorporating sustainable
focused events into their programming. These can include tours of local farms, apple picking,
energy tours, and outdoor events such as hiking. In the fall they hold a free plant giveaway and in
the spring they conduct a competition among the halls with the goal of lowering the energy and
water consumption of the college. We also found this type of programing at Oberlin College,
called Ecolympics. Oberlin’s contest lasts for three weeks and is part of the Campus
2
Conservation Nationals program, through which about 150 colleges and universities hold
competitions in the effort to reduce electricity by one gigawatt hour.
Several schools have dedicated sustainability halls or houses. Students who live in these
halls pledge to live sustainably. In 2010, Oberlin College built a LEED NC Silver certified first
year residence hall.
At St. Olaf
St. Olaf College has SustainAbilities Representatives, which are similar to Eco-Reps at
many other liberal arts institutions. SustainAbilities attempts to integrate sustainability into St.
Olaf life and teach practical steps leading toward a more sustainable society. There are 10
SustainAbility Reps, one for each hall, and one SustainAbilities Coordinator. The team added a
few more positions this year - a Campus Events Coordinator, Marketing & Communications
position, and an Information Development position. SustainAbilities meets weekly with Pamela
McDowell, the Associate Dean of Students & Director of Residence Life. Most campus
sustainability programs end with individual action, but St. Olaf’s SustainAbilities goes the extra
step, helping students to practice the systems thinking that allows for institutional action as well.
By getting to know the St. Olaf campus and the staff who make it work so well, students learn
how one particular institution converts ideals to action. This is concretely accomplished through
at least one event in each residence hall per month, varying campus events about once every two
months, and the upkeep of a website which includes a master calendar for environmentallyrelated events. Many of SustainAbilities’ events are similar to programming at other schools.
SustainAbilities is funded by a grant from the Margaret A Cargill Foundation, which St. Olaf
“for environmental studies at St. Olaf College,” meant to mean more than just the Environmental
Studies Department. The grant funding runs out at the end of the year. Through the grant,
SustainAbility Representatives receive a small stipend of approximately $350 for the year, varied
this year and last, and are given additional programming money of approximately $1000 for the
year. A paid residence hall position addressing sustainability is unique among comparable
institutions. Despite being impressed by the performance of St. Olaf’s faculty and students, the
Foundation did not invite St. Olaf to apply for additional funding in the past year due to the
limited enthusiasm received from some sectors of administration. Other colleges were awarded
up to an additional one million dollars for future environmental and sustainability related efforts.
This is also the pilot year of St. Olaf’s Green hall program. Hilleboe Hall is the
designated ‘green hall’ on campus; however, not all residents in Hilleboe this year have pledged
to live sustainably. There is also a Green Honor House at St. Olaf, similar to the past three years,
which works closely with the Green Hall Project. Kittelsby Hall, connected to Hilleboe, is the
home of the first-year Environmental Conservation program, which is being piloted this year.
This conversation program is unique from others on campus in that it focuses specifically on
community living, engaging residence hall programming in addition to academic engagements.
In a couple years, Kittelsby will undergo renovations. The Environmental Conversations classes
will incorporate planning and suggestions for these renovations into their curriculum over the
next few years. The program encourages students to start thinking about environmentallyfriendly living early on in their college experience; it was purposely placed in Kittelsby because
of the hall’s proximity to Hilleboe, the Green House, and their environmentally-focused
programs. The three form a “green corner” of sorts.
3
Our Suggestions
We believe if and when new halls are built on campus, they should be built as close to
carbon neutral as possible and learning communities that strive for sustainable living should
continue to exist. The steering committee for the Cargill Grant’s foundation was comprised of
Environmental Coalition, the primary student environmental organization on campus, and SGA’s
Environmental Senator, among others. The SustainAbilities program was distinctly designed by
students, and housed in Residence Life on purpose. This student focus is important, but also
limits work by SustainAbilities due to time constraints and knowledge. Since its conception, we
believe a disconnect between sustainability programming and SGA has arisen, and a stronger
link between the two organizations should be formally established, especially with regards to
creative event planning and finances. This may include the Environmental Senator sitting in on
SustainAbility meetings in the future. However, we do not necessarily believe SustainAbilities
should be funded through SGA. After speaking with Pamela McDowell, we understand that
Residence Life is willing to absorb the SustainAbilities program and fund it through a $3000
allotment currently dedicated to organization and leadership training. The program will look
different in the coming years. Residence Life would like to lessen the number of representatives
on campus to around 5-8. The Reps will focus on multifaceted programing in all halls. Fewer
representatives will allow the SustainAbilities staff to better feed off each other and allow more
money for programming. We additionally believe the SustainAbilities Rep position should be a
reformatted, staffed position, which already exists with the Residence Life structure, rather than
an entirely new programming position. We originally suggested restructuring the Building
Assistant position, however after speaking with Pamela McDowell and considering the specific
skills needed for each position we now believe a JC or RA would be a better option. This would
also be beneficial in that we suggest the SustainAbilities Representatives be present at all
Residence Life meetings for their halls and be trained in the same way as other Residence Life
staff. We believe this position should be funded, as funding a position creates more warrant for
expectations.
While we find residence life integration an important part of making sustainable practices
accessible to all students, and sustainable communities a vital aspect of student life, confining
our approach to sustainability at this college merely within the realm of Residence Life will
result in a loss of other sustainability opportunities at the college. We believe that while we
should continue our sustainability programming in the halls, we should look towards more
systemic avenues as well to make St. Olaf a more environmentally-friendly campus.
Sustainability Office
Many colleges have some sort of sustainability office to strategically address
sustainability on campus. At Dickinson, the Center for Sustainability Education is a department
that oversees most of the programs on campus with the exception of student
organizations. Some schools use their sustainability office to track emissions data and energy
usage in accordance with target goals outlined under their climate action plans. Other schools
have strong support of sustainability in the form of staff members working to identify and
implement sustainable practices on campus. A full-time staff member would need an office.
Lewis and Clark’s staff member in charge of their sustainability office proved to be an excellent
resource and sustainable investment almost immediately: “I bet she saved the school enough
money to pay her salary during her first year”. A staff member has worked proven effective at
4
other schools as well, and could play a number of roles, ranging from working closely with the
students, to working with the administration to pursue large-scale sustainable practices, allowing
students to focus on keeping residential life sustainable, etc.
Lewis and Clark also has a Sustainability Council made up of staff, faculty and
students. This council helps several facets of the community discuss sustainability on
campus. This council has a chair that is appointed by the president, and while there is no specific
designated power in the council, it gets a modest fund and has a critical mass of students
supporting it, allowing the council to have great influence over key debates on campus.
Concordia College has a similar Sustainability Council, which meets with the president monthly
to suggest sustainable projects other students put forward. While the model at Lewis and Clark
has had much success, this does not mean that we should necessarily try to model it at St.
Olaf. What we should try to emulate is the basic foundation on which Lewis and Clark has
created its system: an organization with representation from all aspects of campus life that is
visible to the campus and is well-organized in the manner it approaches sustainability.
At St. Olaf
Although SustainAbilities is strongly supported by the college, SustainAbilities currently
does not have a legitimized, physical space in which to address sustainability from a
programming perspective. Notably, the Environmental Studies Department also does not have a
designated office space. There is one faculty member who is supposed to serve as the
“Environmental Catalyst” at St. Olaf College. This position is subsidized by the Cargill Grant,
and as such will no longer exist following this year. From what we have been able to discover,
we do not know of a college employee beyond this grant-funded position with sustainability
explicitly in its job responsibilities. Current student organizations, including SustainAbilities,
also have no formal means of contact with Administration such as the Sustainability Council at
other schools. With high student turnover, this creates a haphazard approach to sustainable
action. Additionally, although St. Olaf has an overall fairly successful sustainability program, the
lack of a paid staff member has prevented the college from achieving top awards for
sustainability ratings due to a nonexistent communication structure. As a result we are no longer
a leader in the field of sustainability programming in higher education.
Our Suggestions
We believe sustainability efforts should be orchestrated through a legitimized office
space with a paid staff or faculty member. We received an overall positive response on creating a
Sustainability Office during the focus groups. We believe that an office is important for three
main reasons: Continuity, Organization and Accountability. We recognize many sectors of
college administration have been an innovative force in this area in the past, pushing sustainable
spaces and programming forward. Yet, we believe a more strategically administered space
should be planned for within the college. We recognize this requires placing this as a high
priority in the context of many other competing interests, yet believe it will help provide
continuity, organization, and accountability to the campus’ sustainability movement.
Continuity is difficult to achieve in a student organization. Students have limited time at St. Olaf
even if they are involved as first-years. Most members of organizations are upper-class students,
and the turnover rate of people in charge means more time spent training the next group of
leaders, and less time solving problems. A faculty member would be a more efficient solution to
the lack of continuity in sustainable action on campus, and would help the retain continuity
5
within SustainAbilities. Sustainability projects, such as going Carbon Neutral, take many years,
and therefore a sustainability position that could plan projects for years in advance is necessary.
Organization of sustainability initiatives under a sustainability office would also help to
connect with the administration, making long-term projects more plausible. The weight of the
issues that student sustainability organizations tackle are large enough to require more
administrative involvement. Faculty and students should also be a part of the process, but a
connection to the administration is absolutely key. A centralized institution dedicated to
sustainability efforts would have many benefits: it would legitimize student organizations and
individuals who do such great work, provide a common place of contact for leaders on campus to
coordinate with each other, centralize resources and decision-making, provide a location to track
energy-use and research on SustainAbilities, would help maintain continuity (as discussed
above), and would take accountability for sustainability issues.
Accountability for sustainability is currently vague. Students and faculty are taking on
most of the visible work-load. Students, however, are not fully qualified to be working on
important sustainability projects such as carbon neutrality, as we lack the education, amongst
other requirements. Faculty are better, but faculty are hired to teach the student body, not
manage the college’s environmental impact. Both students and faculty have other obligations,
and neither can dedicate the necessary time to head a sustainability office without detracting
from their own obligations. A sustainability office would therefore need a hired staff position to
head operations, one with sufficient education (graduate degree) to spear-head sustainable
projects.
In order to go about creating this office, a physical office space would clearly be needed,
but there are also several other questions, the most prevalent of which is what the model for such
an office would look like. We have a couple of ideas with advantages and disadvantages of each
model listed below.
The Piper Center: the main advantage of the Piper Center model is that the Piper Center
is everywhere. They find their way into classrooms, meetings and week one activities. Almost
everywhere you turn, you see the Piper Center. This advertisement makes the Piper Center very
visible around campus, which is a huge advantage. The disadvantage, however, is that the Piper
Center was created off of a large donation, and is staffed by several positions, which would be a
very expensive operation.
The Wellness Center: the Wellness Center has one staff member, which would be
feasible for a sustainability office to provide, especially since most staff positions pay for
themselves with regards to sustainable initiatives. The wellness center also has events they put
on that are requirements for certain classes, and a similar model for SustainAbilities could help
to educate students about environmental issues. The disadvantage to the wellness center is they
are not as visible to campus as the other alternatives on this list.
The Student Activities Office: The OSA is a middle-ground between the Piper Center
and the Wellness Center, having a few staff positions, and good visibility amongst the student
body at St. Olaf, although SGA does not reach out to students through classes or faculty.
These are a few ideas for a model of a sustainability office, but other ideas are
encouraged. A sustainability office could also serve as an office for the Environmental Studies
Department, which currently has no reserved office space. This would help to incorporate
faculty into the model, and could help pertinent information from the sustainability office find its
way into the classroom. Other ideas include collaborating with Carleton to hire a staff member.
6
Student Government
Of the various colleges we examined, there were several unique approaches to connecting
student government with sustainability. Virtually all had some degree of student participation,
although the question of student government was less uniform. Luther and Carleton take an
approach similar to St. Olaf with an Environmental Senator representing the environmental
constituencies and the Environmental Advisory Committee, respectively, in the student senate.
Oberlin has a slightly different approach: their student senate appoints two students to the
Committee on Environmental Sustainability, which is responsible for overseeing the
implementation of the Oberlin College Environmental Policy. Dickinson’s sustainability work is
primarily accomplished through their sustainability office, although some larger student
organizations did have ties to the SGA. Colorado College likewise does not have a sustainability
representative to the SGA, however two student representatives sit on the Campus Sustainability
Council. Macalester took a more comprehensive approach by amending the constitution of their
student government to stipulate that all student government activities and decisions adhere to a
set of environmental ideals and standards.
At St. Olaf
At St. Olaf, the Environmental Senator represents environmentally-oriented interests in
the Student Senate. The Environmental Senator is charged with sitting on the Environmental
Task Force (consisting of relevant faculty and staff and the senator; it has been largely inactive in
2013), monitoring the environmental impact of SGA, acting as a board member of the Clean
Energy Revolving Fund, serving as a liaison to the various environmental groups and
organizations on campus, and representing student environmental concerns to administrators.
Compared to the methods being employed by similar colleges, St. Olaf has taken an on
par approach. However, adequacy is no reason to cease striving for exceptional work. By reassessing the question of student government and sustainability, St. Olaf has the opportunity to
set the standard for other colleges as it has in the past.
Our Suggestions
If St. Olaf elects to create an Office of Sustainability, the Environmental Senator position
should be refashioned to coordinate between senate and this office. The Environmental Senator
could then help implement a sustainable vision for the college through Student Government. We
do not believe this issue is something the SGA can address on its own, as processes within
student government are time consuming and subject to multiple authorities. Nor do we believe
creating a new branch is the right answer, as additional positions, committees, or branches
simply consume more student’s time without a guarantee of measurable improvement. This is an
extensive and varied issue the college needs to address and cannot be simplified into a mere facet
of student life. It is also impossible to guarantee that members of student senate will be able to
vote in an informed manner concerning sustainability due to the fact that they are intrinsically
beholden to their respective constituencies and cannot be expected to acquire expertise in every
field. Student Government should assuredly be involved in doing their part to promote
conservation and limit energy use, but this is too large of a problem for them to address in its
entirety. The Sustainability Subcommittee also cannot exist every year under the current
executive design. The current Sustainability Subcommittee will help implement a strategy for
student government to become knowledgeable on these issues each year, possibly by addressing
this issue through a committee on internal affairs. This year the committee also intends to
7
introduce a few proposals to alter sustainability practices within SGA. However, the ability to
ensure responsible interaction between student government and sustainability oriented interests
lies beyond the scope of any senate sub-committee, rather, decisive action is needed by the
administration and student body respectively.
Transportation
Transportation for colleges can add a huge impact to both sustainability and being
environmentally conscious. Transportation that does not use fossil fuels or relies less upon it is
most commonly referred to as alternative transportation. Common examples of alternative
transportation found at other colleges consisted of car sharing, hybrid cars, and biking.
Dickinson, Oberlin College and Luther all have bike shops that let students repair bikes and rent
them. All had the ability to rent bikes for a day or even for the entire semester. This availability
encourages students to bike more around campus and the neighboring area. Many colleges have
also made an effort to purchase hybrid cars for their public safety officers. At Oberlin College,
the Office of Safety and Security purchased two Ford Escape Hybrid vehicles in 2005. Luther
College owns eight hybrid vehicles. Almost all of the colleges that we looked at work to promote
carpooling among staff and students offering better parking spots or a small compensation.
At St. Olaf
At St. Olaf students have access these types of alternative transport: Enterprise Car-Share
(formally WeCar), free buses to off campus activities, extra carpooling, VanGo, and EcoTrans.
The college fleet has the potential to utilize our own biodiesel from Stav Hall waste as well,
although the waste is currently being given to Thousand Hills. We also have a very limited
supply of bikes available to check out from the library through Green Bikes funded and assisted
by Administrative Decision-making, student partnership, and administrative staff at the library.
Our Suggestions
We have made admirable strides in sustainable transport thus far, but little is being said
about the continued benefits. Promotion of alternative transport seems to be lacking at St. Olaf.
Simply revamping marketing of the Movie Bus program through SGA increased participation
three-fold. We believe such marketing efforts should be continued. Green Bikes has
discontinuous turnover, and students coordinate the bulk of the program (along with a
partnership with the library). A bike shop exists in the bottom floor of Ytterboe, but there are few
spaces for students to interact surrounding alternative transport. Integrating and fostering
management of the Green Bikes program under a sustainability office model may solve turnover
issues. Recent efforts on the part of the Northfield Transit Initiative should also be noted –
integrating these efforts would provide students with innovative civic engagement opportunities.
Food
The colleges we examined treat food-related environmental practices very
seriously. From composting, to purchasing local foods, to creating campus gardens and farms,
sustainable shifts have had a significant impact. Luther College’s Food, Purchasing, and Waste
Committee, comprised of students and faculty, examines the habits of the college in regards to
the purchasing of local food, food waste, and other practices. By composting in the dining hall
8
as well as purchasing local food for their dining hall, Luther is effectively reducing its carbon
impact. In addition, the college is maintaining many college gardens, three of which are
connected to residence halls.
Other colleges across the country are following suit and engaging in sustainable
practices. Similar to Luther are Dickenson College & Oberlin College. Dickenson runs an
organic farm that provides food to the cafeteria as well as reusing its vegetable oil by converting
it into fuel. Oberlin, enacting some of the same practices as Luther, has gone trayless in two of
their dining halls, provides fair-trade coffee to its students, maintains an herb garden and also
composts paper and food waste. Similar to St. Olaf, Oberlin has eliminated the use of bottled
water in all of its facilities and vending machines. Colleges across the nation continue to
develop new practices for enacting sustainable behavior, and for starters, many turn to the
college’s food service.
At St. Olaf
St. Olaf is doing a great job partnering with local farmers. The school donates its
biodiesel to a local, environmentally-conscious farmer (Thousand Hills). We compost from Stav
Hall, King’s Hall, the Cage, and the Pause[2] , but the industrial composter currently does not
have the capability to accommodate other locations on campus. It would be ideal to be
composting from all the Residence Halls, but students currently generate too much food waste.
Despite efforts to educate students all of last year through SustainAbilities and Environmental
Coalition’s Clean Plate Campaign, food waste actually went up in October. The SustainAbilities
program tried integrating composting solutions in the residence halls under the direction of Oles
Compost and through the use of Green Cones, a solar compacting system, last year. Student
participation was simply too large to make the cones a successful solution – food was not
composting quickly enough. Additionally, confusion is still present on campus about what can
and cannot be recycled. Student groups have tried addressing these issues but have not been
overly successful, despite continued efforts. The reusable mug program still exists in the Cage,
which was started by Environmental Coalition two years ago, as well as the bag lunch program.
Mugs for the program are donations from students, faculty, or staff, and typically run out
quickly. Notably, St. Olaf still has trays in Stav Hall. Trayless campaigns, run by environmental
organizations at other schools, have been largely successful. Similar campaigns at St. Olaf have
received extensive pushback, due primarily to student desires for convenience, and because
students wish to take their food with them to meetings or language tables. Currently, about 80%
of St. Olaf students use trays. Trays assist in generating approximately 30% more food and water
waste, as students take more than they can eat or drink.
Our Suggestions
We want to applaud Bon Appetit, and St. Olaf’s support of Bon Appetit, for its work in
raising awareness about food with a heavy carbon footprint and in promoting and purchasing
local, sustainably raised foods. We hope they continue in this sustainable approach.
SustainAbilities have also hosted a number of events on sustainable agriculture, per student
interest. We think composting at St. Olaf needs to be re-addressed, as it is a relatively simple
solution to the generation of waste on campus. However, composting is not something student
groups alone can address. Many colleges include a compost bin next to their garbage and
recycling, which we would also appreciate. Increasing compost generation on campus would
require a way to process the increased compost and/or a reduction in food waste to account for
9
compost generation in other sectors of the college, i.e. the Residence Halls. With sufficient
funding sources in the long-term, an additional industrial composter may prove a viable solution.
Removing trays from the cafeteria could also reduce food waste, as a systemic decision on the
issue would simply remove the convenience of tray use. Reducing food waste generation on
campus is a behavioral shift that will require continued tenacity.
Student Work
Student work in developing a sustainable campus is (in all of our examples) facilitated by
an administrative branch. Workers usually direct or carry out projects that promote sustainable
on-campus living (e.g. campaigns, hall representatives, data gathering/analysis) or effect
sustainable change in on-campus facilities (e.g. garden, bike store).
Oberlin’s Facilities department employs 10 students to be part of the Resource
Conservation Team. The RCT works on a wide range of resource-use reduction initiatives and
manage Oberlin College’s comprehensive recycling program. Also at Oberlin, the Campus
Dining Service employs a few students to work primarily in the dining halls and initiate wastereducing projects such as waste audits, assessment of packaging options, and a composting
program. The CDS Recyclers educate students and staff in the dining halls about reducing
resource use in particular through reducing food and packaging waste.
Dickinson staffs their Center for Sustainability Education with 12 students. The
Sustainability Office at Macalester employs 11 students. Student workers across campus are also
involved in the sustainability Student Worker Network, where up to 25 student workers in 11
different departments work on sustainability issue across the campus. At Luther, the Center for
Sustainable Communities offers work study positions in the college gardens, in the sustainability
office (promoting sustainable habits and organizing events both on campus and in the
community and doing research), in the halls (as representatives to answer questions, organize
residence hall events, etc.), and in waste diversion (composting and recycling).
At St. Olaf
There is currently no office at St. Olaf that would obviously employ students to work
under the sustainability banner, or formal outline for student work relating to sustainability.
Rather, sustainability initiatives on the part of students have been largely volunteer based.
Environmental Coalition has encompassed a number of initiatives in the past, including the Take
Back the Tap Campaign, the Clean Plate Campaign, Oles Compost, Carbon Neutral St. Olaf,
Recycling at St. Olaf, among others. A number of sustainable food-related sub-organizations or
initiatives have also existed under Environmental Coalition’s umbrella or through EC’s
members. In recent years, EC initiated the reusable mug program in the cage and the reusable
lunch bag program, analyzed buying practices by Bon Appetit through the Real Food St. Olaf
campaign, and helped Bon Appetit with their Carbon Diet Days. EC also organizes volunteer
opportunities at local farms or otherwise, which civic engagement courses and/or ES 137
occasionally take advantage of, and organizes tours of local facilities. Beyond EC and somewhat
affiliated to it, other active environmental organizations on campus include OUTS (Oles in the
Sun), which organize outdoor adventure opportunities, and CERF (Community Energy
Revolving Fund), which consists of a fund that grants startup monies to sustainable projects that
are also financially sustainable and will thereby repay the fund. There are other groups on
campus that are student led (Student Naturalists, SustainAbilities, Green House and Wendell
10
Berry House), yet are either paid or living-based, while the organizations listed above are strictly
volunteer-based. SustainAbilities is one form of student work, and is an organization staffed and
managed by students that focuses on sustainable living habits. SustainAbilities is funded by a
two-year grant budgeted to run out this year. Please see the Residence Life Section for more
information on this topic. Students can be funded through the CIR (Center for Integrative
Research) to conduct their own research, which can be focused on environmental issues on
campus.
Our Suggestions
Though there is no Sustainability Office at St. Olaf, Facilities and Bon Appetit have the
capacity to form and supervise student work positions. The work can either be practical or
research-based. Students at St. Olaf are very interested in research experience, and many students
are considering a career in environmental activism. The natural lands, and many surrounding St.
Olaf lands, have served as hubs for research relating to sustainability. Farmers leasing St. Olaf
lands must meet certain sustainable standards, and students in varying independent research
projects have studied water and soil quality in these fields. Ecological research has also been
conducted on the prairie, forest restorations, and waterways in the surrounding area. Faculty and
students have engaged other notable research projects with an environmental focus (Arctic
climate research, trout streams, green chemistry, science education in elementary schools, algae
usage and biofuels, historical research, among others). Research has also been conducted within
the Environmental Studies Department. Providing a venue for students to do research that
benefits the campus environment could be hugely beneficial for both the school and the student
workers.
Curriculum
Curricular approaches to sustainability vary greatly among colleges. The American
Association for Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE)’s STARS program, similar to many
other ranking divisions for sustainable efforts in higher education, divides institutional design of
sustainability education into the following categories: sustainability course identification,
focused courses, related courses, sustainability courses by department, sustainable learning
outcomes (often represented as the proportion of students with a related degree or certificate), an
undergraduate program in sustainability, graduate program in sustainability, an immersive
sustainability experience (either a program or study abroad), a sustainability literacy assessment,
and incentives for the development of sustainability courses for professors. A sustainability
course is generally one that educates students about the interconnections and interdependency of
ecological, social, and economic systems and development; engages participants in inquiry and
empowers students to apply knowledge in the service of solving climate and environmental
issues or in incorporating ethical sustainable practices into their professional and civic life.
Many, like Dickinson and Luther College, have classes with a specific sustainability focus and a
rating scale for those classes. Professors are able to use the Center for Sustainability Education at
Dickinson to edit curriculum to incorporate this sustainable focus.
The idea of “living laboratories” for learning is a common focus in institutional education
design as well. Duke University is a leader in this effort, offering many living laboratories for
diverse educational experiences in sustainability. Some examples of living laboratories have
included the “Home Depot Smart Home,” where students living in the home use and develop
11
“smart technology” and where courses are offered on sustainable living topics such as “Smart
Home Technology Development” and “Sustainable Structures.” The Duke Campus Farm, the
Duke Forest which holds up to 50 research projects at a time, researching disposal of nontraditional recyclables, SWAMP which acts as an outdoor classroom and field laboratory for
wetland restoration, and the Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative are all examples of Duke’s “living
laboratories.” Dickinson College includes the following organizations or groups, many of which
were initially begun by student interns, and which are run through the Center for Sustainability
Education: Organic Farm, Alliance for Aquatic Resource Monitoring (ALLARM), Green hall,
Bike Shop, Biodiesel plant. New projects funding for Dickinson’s living laboratory comes from
the “Ideas Fund.” Living laboratory models also often provide students with the opportunity to
do recognized undergraduate research.
At St. Olaf
St. Olaf’s primary response to sustainability education is currently through the
Environmental Studies major and concentration. This major has a specific interdisciplinary
focus. Beyond the major, 2013-14 is the pilot year of the Environmental Conversations program.
The program allows students to learn and focus on specific environmental courses along with
other interested students. The students are required to live in Kittelsby Hall which started a
“green hall” initiative. The program focuses on writing and religion courses with off-campus
tours of environmentally conscious locations. The “Green Building/Green Remodeling” course
offered this fall, taught by Paul Jackson and Pete Sandberg, serves as a similar model to “living
laboratories” at other colleges. The course “Sustainable Development,” taught by the new
ENVST/ECON faculty member, Seth Binder, during the spring, also serves as a “living
laboratory” design. The Environmental Studies Department offers a number of courses with
relatively similar models, including Academic Civic Engagement Courses. The Green Building
course this fall is the first in recent years that includes a member of facilities as a co-educator.
Beyond courses, SustainAbilities has helped advance approaches to curricular sustainable.
SustainAbilities emphasizes “practical steps to a sustainable society,” engaging routine
information sessions, lectures, and accessible events to initiate sustainable literacy on
campus. At its initial conception, the SustainAbilities program also completed a full course
evaluation of St. Olaf’s curriculum called the “Green Course Listing,” ranking and marking
courses as either green focused or green related (sustainabilities.stolaf.edu/green-course-listing/).
Our Suggestions
St. Olaf is currently doing a great job when it comes to curricular sustainability.
However, eight-five percent of first-year Oles think that environmental literacy is an important
part of a college education, and 58 percent support a general education requirement for
environmental literacy (Farrell, J. “Sustainability Across the Curriculum Workshop” – St. Olaf
College, June 13-14). A sustainability GE would be an excellent way of ensuring all Oles learn
to be not only ethical global citizens of the world, but also ethical ecological citizens while in
college. The sustainability GE could model itself off of the WRI/ORC model, where it could be
added to a given course’s syllabus, rendering it minimally cumbersome for students. The Green
Course Listing would provide an excellent foundation for implementation, as there are many St.
Olaf courses that would already qualify with a sustainability GE. We suggest the curricular
committee within Senate consider revamping this aspect of the general education curriculum.
12
Other than the GE, current efforts of sustainability education at St. Olaf are admirable.
We fit many of the outlined requirements by AASHE to receive a ‘gold star’ in this category.
Additional incentives for faculty development of sustainability topics may be one area in which
we could improve, although most faculty integrate these topics per their own interest without
incentives anyway. Although the college’s vision forward is to emphasize people and programs,
addressing sustainability through curriculum should not be the only avenue of future
development of a sustainable model for St. Olaf. Solidifying the environmental conversations
program could be a large step for getting more students involved in conversing about living
sustainably.
Land Use & Energy Consumption
Attempts to limit energy use on college campuses are varied and robust. Colleges around
the country have implemented biodiesel, wastewater treatment, solar, wind, and geothermal
strategies for more effective resource use. Oberlin has been a particular leader in these efforts.
Oberlin College helped launch the green building movement of the mid-1990s and has used
innovative green building systems since in many locations and settings, including the Adam
Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies (AJLC). The Living Machine in AJLC processes
wastewater into reusable grey water. Students operate the machine. Oberlin has also recently
installed a new solar parking pavilion adjacent to the existing photovoltaic (PV array on the roof
of the AJLC). Dickinson College uses biodiesel generated from their campus cafeteria’s use of
vegetable oil. Colorado College has completed a campus de-lamping campaign, has put in
occupancy sensors, has an electric vehicle charging station, and a passive solar greenhouse.
Effective land use on college campuses has also been a particular area of effort. Oberlin
college’s native ecosystems surrounding the AJLC have a restored wetland which incorporates
50 emergent and open-water wetland plants native to the Ohio region. Development of a diverse
and multi-species assemblage is encouraged.
Many college’s energy or resource use strategies are guided by climate action plans.
Dickinson will be climate neutral by 2020, Oberlin by 2025, Lewis & Clark by 2018, Colorado
by 2020, Macalester by 2025, Luther by 2030, Carleton by 2050, and Duke University by 2024.
Most of these plans include a centralized and dedicated group of people ensuring the college
adheres to target and long-term goals of the plan. Many climate neutrality plans nationally are
guided by the President’s Climate Commitment, which outlines a manner of strategizing that is
conducive to the given signatory, including: creating institutional structures that can develop and
implement a plan within the first two months of signing, conducting a comprehensive inventory
of GHGs within the first year, submitting an action plan outlining better ways to manage energy,
increase energy efficiency and conservation, and transition to renewable energy sources, carrying
out tangible actions while the plan is being developed, creating interim targets for goals and
actions, taking actions on research and toward progress, and finally establishing mechanisms for
evaluation. Colorado College, for example, has focus on adopting an energy efficient appliance
purchasing policy, requiring all new campus construction to be at least LEED Silver standard,
and supporting sustainably responsible proposals at companies where the institution’s
endowment is invested.
13
At St. Olaf
St. Olaf’s natural lands represent Olaf’s most responsible use of land. In addition to a
300-acre campus, the college owns nearly 700 acres of land adjacent to the campus. The college,
principally through the Biology and Environmental Studies Departments, has conducted
extensive natural habitat restoration projects – over 40,000 tree seedlings and nursery stock trees
have been planted on approximately 90 acres in an effort to re-establish the dominant Big Woods
forest originally found in this area, over 150 acres of native tall grass prairie has been
reconstructed, 17 wetlands have been restored, and a bluebird trail of 64 houses has been
established through the woodlands and prairies. A primary goal of the Natural Lands, in
partnership with Facilities, has been the restoration of wetland areas from previously agricultural
lands. The natural lands restoration is guided primarily through the Curator of the Natural Lands,
under whom the St. Olaf Student Naturalists also work. Student Naturalists provide educational
and casual opportunities for students to better understand and enjoy the natural lands.
In addition to land use, campus energy usage has seen a long-term commitment to
sustainability over the last 25 years. Facilities has taken a “closed-loop” approach to adjustments
in energy infrastructure, trying to keep waste, water, and energy use localized on campus
property. This has been accomplished through substantial renovations and revamping, including,
among other efforts, the installation of a high efficiency boiler for the natural gas fired steam
system on campus. The wind turbine is of note with regards to energy usage, which provides the
equivalent energy of approximately one-third of the electricity used by the college. As of 2013,
St. Olaf sells the energy generated by the wind turbine back to Xcel Energy for 3.3 cents, then
buys it back for 7 cents. St. Olaf has also installed LED lights outdoors and in many buildings on
campus, significantly reducing energy costs. Despite adding a substantial amount of additional
square feet since 2001 (about 250,000 gross square feet), energy usage per student has not
substantially increased (students currently use approximately 5.5 tons of CO2e per year, and
British thermal units (BTUs) per student per degree day stayed the same throughout new
construction). This is in contrast to some other schools, like Oberlin, which has high energy
consumption as it limits old building remodels. St. Olaf’s carbon usage is also largely below
other schools (Luther: 6.0 CO2e per student per year; Gustavus: 8.2; Colorado: 8.6; Carleton:
10.9 as of 2011). St. Olaf has been building to a very high standard for years, and codified much
of its work in the “Sustainable Design Guidelines” from 2005-2006. Regents Hall has a Platinum
LEED certification, yet the design guidelines used in Regents have guided and will guide other
renovations and design work throughout campus. Tostrud, Dittman, Buntrock, Regents NS,
Regents MSCS, Tomson, Hall of Music, Alumni Hall, the latest library addition, Ytterboe,
Hoyme, and Ellingson have all been guided by LEED Gold standards in line with the college’s
Framework and Utility Master Plan. St. Olaf received a “Top Ten” award in energy conservation
from Xcel Energy in 2009. Facilities hopes to install modern energy monitors in the coming
years in the Residence Halls. This summary represents just a snapshot of the expansive work
Facilities, and other aspects of the college, have done to maximize efficient energy use on St.
Olaf’s Campus.
Our Suggestions
St. Olaf is a leader in energy and land conservation, and should be recognized as such.
Our primary suggestions in this section thus stem from an interest to keep information updated
and accessible to students in readable formats. This report’s primary focus was not necessarily to
complete a full energy audit of St. Olaf’s campus, and our suggestions are thus not as extensive
14
as a full sustainability audit may warrant. Information on current land use and energy practices
was taken from the St. Olaf website’s “Campus Sustainability” page and further conversations
with members of Facilities. It has been many years since parts of these pages were updated, and
we believe this is telling of St. Olaf’s approach to sustainability generally. To students, it appears
as though the campus had a surge in sustainable activity around 2008 when Regents Hall was
built, yet otherwise forgot the issue. Seen through Facilities extensive efforts that go largely
unnoticed by students, this is not the case. A mechanism of more transparent reporting of
sustainability activity, and student involvement in energy use analysis (i.e. through student
work), may help mitigate this confusion. We believe the website on campus sustainability should
be updated to reflect the college post-Regents Hall’s construction. Additionally, although
Regents and other buildings on campus are built to high green building standards already, we
believe St. Olaf should continue to engage energy efficient building standards, particularly as the
goals and regulations of the field of green building design become more advanced.
Providing more mechanisms to keep sustainable practices at St. Olaf salient and available
to students is extremely important – a college campus is an excellent site for students to learn
about how to conduct sustainability audits, perhaps of use at their future workplaces. St. Olaf
needs to make the data available for such research, like through a more efficient monitoring
system that could accurately reflect energy usage. Many competitive energy monitoring systems
today offer the availability to track data live – student interest and involvement in energy
conservation on campus may increase greatly if a screen tracked their energy usage right in the
front of their residence hall or in the entrance of an academic building where they have class.
The televisions used for the tightrope system could be an excellent way to transfer this
information accordingly.
In addition to transparency, we hope St. Olaf can institute a mechanism of ensuring
sustainable action on the part of Facilities, and with the Natural Lands, remains relatively
consistent. Turnover in positions often causes information to be lost, leading to extra effort as
staff must reinvent the sustainable wheel. Codifying administrative guidelines on ways to
implement sustainable energy or land use mechanisms through position descriptions or otherwise
would help alleviate problems caused by turnover.
This subcommittee would like to further put forth a few specific suggestions for Kildahl’s
upcoming renovations, perhaps to be modeled in other renovations as well. Photovoltaics (solar
panels) are now less expensive than they used to be, and partnership with differing organizations
or seeking out specific donors could allow for the implementation of solar energy on hall roofs
(or adjacent to halls). Although we recognize the financial constraints of remodels, there are
some aspects of renovation that may not require any substantial funding differentiation and could
make a large difference. We believe any additional bathroom renovations should include dualflush toilet systems such as those in Regents, limiting water use. Low-flow showerheads, if
reasonably usable, should also be formally installed where students cannot remove them as has
occurred in the past. Specific metering for each hall should also be installed. In addition to
energy monitors for the whole hall, individual monitors that reset after each use for one sink and
one shower per hall could allow individuals to track their own energy contributions, creating a
positive feedback of sustainable behavior. The organization Architecture 2030 would be an
excellent resource for additional suggestions of sustainable remodeling, in addition to St. Olaf’s
own students, faculty, and staff.
Lastly, we suggest a task force to track energy flows on campus. Stronger statistical
analyses of campus energy use will help create goals for future sustainable action, especially in
15
light of budget cuts within Facilities operating budget. Student involvement in such a task force,
in a way that does not allow information to fall through the cracks with high student turnover,
like through a Sustainability Office, would make this process even more powerful. We hope the
task force would additionally outline ways in which the college can move forward with larger
plans for energy mitigation, such as the addition of other renewable energy sources (another
wind turbine and photovoltaics).
Conclusion
St. Olaf has been a leader in sustainability efforts for many years. This committee hopes
that the suggestions offered in this report will help St. Olaf to continue to be a leader. As
sustainable living becomes more and more popular in the United States and the world,
prospective students will increasingly look at St. Olaf’s sustainable practices in comparison with
other schools’ to make their college decision. In light of both past and recent forward-thinking
approaches by the Northfield community and Carleton as well, a more strategic approach to
collaboration could provide a means for effective action as well. We believe increased visibility
and dedication to, and communication about, the college’s sustainable practices will make a
difference for current and future students, staff, and faculty.