Western Washington University
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report – FY2010
Kellen Rosburg
18 Nov. 2010
Foreword:
The following report is a summary of the findings associated with Clean Air Cool Planet’s (CACP)
Green House Gas (GHG) Inventory Calculator (Carbon Calculator). The research was conducted
by WWU Office of Sustainability’s Resource Conservation Specialist, Kellen Rosburg and was
supervised by the Campus Sustainability Coordinator, Seth Vidaña.
The report will begin by presenting the findings, followed by a description of the data acquisition
process for each section of the CACP calculator, including discrepancies regarding changes in
calculation of FY2006 emissions. This will be followed by a brief conclusion of the report
including suggestions of where improvements can be made, as well as where the university is
performing well.
Here is a brief glossary of some terminology and acronyms that will be used in this report. All
other acronyms used in this report are either self-explanatory or defined by context.








GHG – Green House Gas: These are gasses that contribute to the greenhouse effect.
Examples are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and others.
GGI – Greenhouse Gas Inventory: A method for measuring the greenhouse-effect
causing emissions from a defined location.
CACP – Clean Air Cool Planet: The non-profit company that provides the GHG calculator
used for the GGI.
REC – Renewable Energy Credit: A mechanism for delivering 1000kW of energy derived
from renewable energy sources.
Carbon Calculator – This refers to CACP’s GHG calculator.
T&D Losses – Transportation & distribution power loss due to resistance in electrical
wires over long distances.
FM – Facilities Management.
AP – Accounts Payable.
Introduction:
The GHG calculator takes input data from 5 major areas: institutional data, scope 1
emissions, scope 2 emissions, scope 3 emissions, and offsets. Scope 1 emissions are on-campus
point-source GHG emissions (e.g. steam plant). Scope 2 emission sources include purchased
utilities that create air pollution off-campus (e.g. purchased electricity). Please note that scope 2
emissions do not include natural gas because the gas is actually combusted on campus, and thus
is classified as a scope 1 emission. Scope 3 emissions include GHG emissions from commuting,
air travel, landfill waste and paper usage. The offsets section includes on campus composting
and purchased offsets, such as RECs.
Results:
Notes:
The following is an analysis of the GHG calculator results. Unless otherwise indicated, presented
values and graphs are in units of metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MT eCO2). Units of any
horizontal axis are fiscal years, unless otherwise indicated.
CO2 Emissions by Sector:
The graph to the left displays the
percentage of total emissions of CO2
equivalent by sector. From the graph
we can directly see that the top three
contributors are purchased electricity,
on-campus stationary sources (natural
gas use), and travel (both air and
personal vehicle directly financed by
the university), in that order. The
category “other” includes carbon
dioxide emissions due to refrigerants &
chemicals, agriculture and paper usage
on campus.
The above graph takes a more focused look at the top CO2 producing sectors that the
university has the ability to directly alter. The number-one contender in Western’s carbon
footprint is electricity purchased from PSE. For the time being, offsets are ignored. This year
(FY10), WWU generated 16,016.1 metric tons of CO2 equivalent just from electricity use – 40.2%
of the total carbon footprint. Next in the lineup is the on-campus stationary sources sector. On
Western’s campus, this includes only carbon dioxide emissions from combustion of natural gas.
Fiscal year 2010 resulted in a burn of 241,721 therms of natural gas, which translates to
12,791.6 tons of CO2 having been emitted, or 32.1% of Western’s carbon footprint. Study
abroad travel generated almost 4000 tons of CO2 – 10% of the total. The fourth most prominent
emission source is directly financed outsourced travel – reimbursed personal vehicle mileage
and university funded air travel, though the latter contributes most to this sector. All that flying
around caused 2,715.9 tons of eCO2 to be released into Earth’s atmosphere; 6.8% of the
university total. The next two sectors with large emissions are student & staff commuting at
1,267.8 tons (3.2%) and solid waste (landfill) at 630.5 tons (1.6%).
Scope 2 transportation and distribution (T&D) losses account for 4% of the total GHG
emissions. Carbon emissions due to T&D losses arise from resistance to current flow in high
voltage lines over long distances. Resistance diminishes both current and voltage being
delivered through high voltage lines. Because of this, more power has to be produced in order
for the grid to act as if it suffered no losses. This is where T&D emissions come from. The only
way to reduce T&D emissions is to generate electricity on campus. Generating electricity on
campus is a big attractor to students looking for an environmentally friendly college. It would
also help cut down on the cost of purchased electricity, on which Western spends close to $2.5
million annually. One method of generating electricity on campus is cogeneration, which uses
the byproduct of electrical generation as a heating system. Solar power is another option,
especially with all the south-facing rooftop on campus. Many people disregard solar energy as
an alternative energy source in Bellingham saying, “it’s too cloudy!” However, Germany is the
leading producer of solar energy worldwide, and has a similar climate to that of Bellingham. In
fact, Germany is at a higher latitude than Bellingham. Yet another option is anaerobic digestion,
in which bacteria convert food waste (from dining services) into nutrient rich digestate which
can be used as fertilizer. The process produces methane gas, which can be captured and burnt
as a fuel for electrical generation. The list of other options is essentially endless.
As you can see, carbon emissions due to on-campus paper use were also included on
the above graph. The reasoning for this is to display an easy method for completely preventing
36.3 tons of carbon dioxide entering our atmosphere.i The trend of paper use has not
necessarily declined over time; in fact FY2010 had the highest paper usage of the past four
years. Why then, has the related CO2 emission decreased? It is entirely due to the switch from
0% recycled paper to 40% and 100% recycled paper. To remove the final 36.3 ton/yr CO2 output
related to paper consumption, all that must be done is to switch entirely to 100% recycled
paper. The cost difference between the mostly 40% recycled paper use in FY10 to the
theoretical 100% recycled use in FY10 is just under $15,000 – less than a hundredth of a percent
(0.0072%) of the total 2010 university operating budget.ii
Let’s take a look at trends in the high CO2 producing sectors. Electrical use is on the rise,
likely due to new buildings and additions springing up all over campus (e.g. AIC, Chemistry Addon, Buchannan Addition, etc.). Natural gas use increased through FY2008, decreased quite a bit
in FY2009, and seems to be on a downward trend; though this could be the effect of mild
winters reducing the number of heating degree days. Directly financed travel is on the decline, a
pattern likely attributed to the 2008 freeze on out-of-state travel. Carbon emissions due to
commuting are dropping. The numbers plugged into the calculator show that students and staff
are switching from driving personal vehicles to commuting by bus, carpool and foot – a positive
trend! Student personal vehicle use is down 2% and faculty/staff personal vehicle use is down
7% from FY2006.
Solid landfill waste is a bit of a complicated greenhouse gas source. The total amount of
landfill bound waste has increased over the years, but so has landfill technology. All of our noncompost waste ends up at Roosevelt Regional Landfill (RRL) in Roosevelt, WA. In 2010, RRL
captured 90% of all methane released by decomposing trash (a higher percentage than in 2006).
On average at RRL, 67% percent of recovered methane is used to generate electricity, the
remaining third is flared. Since Western cannot control the amount of recovered methane at
RRL, the only way to reduce this source of GHG emission is to increase composting on campus.
Composting occurs so rapidly that very little methane is produced in the process, and it is
generally cheaper than landfill waste service.iii If we as a university were to divert a larger
portion of our waste stream to compost, we could significantly impact our carbon footprint for
the better. This solution, along with future improvements in landfill technology, could provide a
dramatic reduction in the solid waste portion of our carbon footprint.
Left: A graph of sector percentage of
total eCO2 emission over the fiscal
years 2006 to 2010. This graph details
the percentage of the total carbon
output that each high-level emission
source contributes. We can see that
natural gas has remained a fairly
constant source since FY07, but each
year electrical use makes up a greater
fraction of the total carbon footprint. I
have separated the data into two
graphs – to the left are high-level
sources (high percentage of total) and
below are low-level sources.
Right: A graph of sector percentage of
total eCO2 emission over the fiscal
years 2006 to 2010 for low-level
sources. The most prominent feature of
this graph is the significant drop in
percentage of carbon emissions due to
directly financed travel. There has also
been a steady, albeit not significant,
decline in the percentage of total
carbon output due to refrigerant use
(bottom most curve on the graph). All
other sectors have either increased or
remained constant.
Left: The graph to the left represents
the yearly carbon dioxide emissions for
each sector for high level sources.
These graphs can be compared the
above graphs of percentage per sector
in order to see if a change in
percentage of total emissions
corresponds to a decrease in carbon
output for that sector, or just a
redistribution of percentages due to a
change in another sector.
Below: Same as to the left, but for
low-level sources.
The table below breaks down eCO2 emission (in metric tons) by year for each sector and
pairs these values with the percentage of total emission for that sector. Most sectors show an
overall drop in eCO2 production.
Trends in Total University Emissions:
According to the output data from the CACP GHG calculator, Western may be on the tip
of a downward trend in annual greenhouse gas emissions. Total equivalent carbon dioxide
emissions increased rapidly from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2008, climbing by nearly
6600 metric tons in just two years. Between fiscal years 2008 and 2009 total carbon output
remained essentially constant, dropping only by 165 tons (>2.5% of the previous two years’
increase). Over the course of FY2010, GHG emissions dropped by 4301 metric tons. The
following graph illustrates these points.
Given this information, we can now begin to analyze the performance of the university
using different normalizations. The first is carbon output per student FTE over time. This graph is
presented below, along with the student population over time, for comparison.
As student population increases, eCO2 emission per student FTE decreases – this is to be
expected. The efficiency is hidden in the fact that staff population has remained essentially
constant over the past four years. What this means is that class sizes have been increasing,
which is a more efficient use of building space. The result is a small decrease in carbon footprint.
Provided below are a few more graphs of carbon emissions for other demographics and
university statistics. The data analysis is left to you.
Offsets:
In 2004, Western Washington University’s Students for Renewable Energy group (SRE)
began the push for 100% renewable energy. In 2005 they succeeded, and for the first time
Western’s campus was powered by 100% renewable electricity. In 2009, WWU switched to a
new provider of renewable energy credits. With this switch came the ability to purchase green
power in a dirtier grid region, and at a lower cost. Western chose to purchase RECs in the midwest, where the ratio of carbon output per kWh is much higher. For the first few years of REC
purchase 100% of electrical use was offset (the goal of SRE). However, with the transition to
more potent RECs the offset increased – in FY2010 Western offset 245% of its carbon emission
related to electrical use, or 98% of total university emissions. This means that not only electrical
use, but natural gas use and a little extra were completely offset in 2010 as well!
Percent of Total Emissions Offset by RECs
Percent of Electrical Use Emissions Offset by
RECs
120%
275%
250%
225%
200%
175%
150%
125%
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2006
Fiscal Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
Fiscal Year
Left: This graph displays a
University eCO2 Emission by Year
50000
44,274
45000
Metric Tons eCO2
40000
35000
20000
39,808
42,969
37,690
30000
25000
44,109
28,173
26,894
26,105
15000
10000
Total eCO2
Net eCO2
Offset eCO2
5000
0
FY2006
FY2007
4,936
635
FY2008
Fiscal Year
FY2009
FY2010
comprehensive view of Western
Washington University’s carbon
dioxide emissions over a 4 year
period. The red line is total eCO2
emission, while the blue line
shows the net eCO2 emission
(total, less offset). The thin, green
curve represents the total offset
(on campus composting plus
renewable energy credits).
Only 661 more RECs from NextEra Energy Resources would have been required for
Western Washington University to be a 100% offset university in fiscal year 2010. At only about
$1.60 per REC (FY2011), this is an additional cost of $1,057.60.
Averaging the university’s carbon output over the past five years yields a mean carbon
emission of 41,770 MT eCO2. Without a complicated model, this is the best prediction that can
be made for carbon output for FY2011. In order to offset 100% of predicted 2011 carbon
emissions, roughly 43,000 RECs must be purchased – only 3000 more than usual. This translates
to an additional cost of just $4,800. If these 3000 extra renewable energy credits were
purchased for FY2011, depending on the severity of the winter and conservation efforts on
campus, Western could achieve a net carbon output of zero.iv
Data Acquisition & Discrepancies:
Notes:
This section is intended to assist future Resource Conservation Specialists, or other Office of
Sustainability employees, in completing the CACP GHG calculator. It can also be used as a source
of data with which to defend this report.
Discrepancies correspond to differences between the FY2006 calculator inputs for the report
completed in 2006 and the FY2006 inputs for the 2010 report. The FY2006 input values from the
2006 report will be denoted by FY06_06 and FY2006 input values used in this (FY2010) report
will be indicated by FY06_10.
Budget:
Operating Budget:
Source:
Value:
Notes:
University Planning and Budgeting Annual Operating Budget Publication
$208,628,786 (FY10)
http://www.wwu.edu/upb/opbudreqcal/index.shtml
Annual Operating Budgets
2009-2001 Operating Budget, page 41.
Discrepancies: None.
Research Dollars:
Notes:
Energy Budget:
Source:
Value:
Notes:
This portion was left blank as WWU is not a research university.
Research funding is included in the total operating budget or provided
by grants.
Kellen Rosburg – Office of Sustainability (x4575)
$4,395,270.98 (FY10)
Sum of natural gas and electricity costs for the university.
These came from ‘GAS 09-10.xls’ and ‘ELEC 09-10.xls’ spreadsheets on
the FM utilities drive.
Discrepancies: FY06_06: $4,339,331 vs. FY06_10: $4,061,918
This possibly arises from the fact that Ron included the cost of RECs,
which was not the case for this (2010) report because REC purchase is
funded by a student fee (green fee), not by the energy budget.
Population:
Full-Time Students:
Source:
Value:
Notes:
WWU Academic Factbook & Institutional Reporting Common Data Set
12,991 (FY10)
http://west.wwu.edu/factbook/hmenu_page.aspx?hm=112
Common Data Set 2009-2010, page 3.
Sum of full-time undergrad male and female students plus sum of male
and female full-time graduate students.
Discrepancies: FY06_06: 12,518 vs. FY06_10: 12,647
Differences arise from the fact that graduate students were included;
the previous report does not indicate if full-time grad students were
included. Another source of discrepancy is the origin of data; 2006 data
was acquired from someone in the registrar’s office while 2010 data
was obtained from a university publication.
Part-Time Students:
Source:
Value:
Notes:
WWU Academic Factbook & Institutional Reporting Common Data Set
1,584 (FY10)
http://west.wwu.edu/factbook/hmenu_page.aspx?hm=112
Common Data Set 2009-2010, page 3.
Sum of part-time undergrad male and female students plus sum of male
and female part-time graduate students.
Discrepancies: FY06_06: 1,031 vs. FY06_10: 1,600
Differences arise from the fact that graduate students were included;
the previous report does not indicate if full-time grad students were
included.
Summer School Students:
Notes:
CACP calculator states that it is unnecessary to report summer students
because it is not used in the calculation of carbon footprint in this
version of the calculator, but may be required in later versions.
Faculty:
Source:
Value:
Notes:
WWU Academic Factbook & Institutional Reporting Common Data Set
730 (FY10)
http://west.wwu.edu/factbook/hmenu_page.aspx?hm=112
Common Data Set 2009-2010, page 26, I1, line a), total faculty.
Discrepancies: FY06_06: 2,189 vs. FY06_10: 628
The previous report lumped faculty and staff into one group and called
that faculty. This report (2010) leaves faculty and staff as separate
groups.
Staff:
Source:
Value:
Notes:
Discrepancies:
Vic Kiel – Human Resources (x7418)
1,306 (FY10)
Must submit a request form for staff population on campus.
FY06_06: 0 vs. FY06_10: 1,334
The previous report lumped faculty and staff into one group and called
that faculty. This report (2010) leaves faculty and staff separate.
Physical Size:
Total Building Space:
Source:
Greg Hough’s Building Area Report
Value:
3,460,661 sqft (FY10)
Notes:
I:\Utility\Reports\WWUAreaHistory_squarefootag.xls
WWU FY2010 Draft Stats, Gross Square Footage (GSF) All WWU.
Discrepancies: FY06_06: 3,109,845 vs. FY06_10: 3,199,120
The previous report claimed that WWU’s auxiliary building space was
research space. This is not the case as it includes housing and dining
services building space. They subtracted this amount from the total
building space, resulting in differences between this (2010) report’s
input data and that of the old report.
Total Research Space:
Notes:
This was excluded in the report as these numbers difficult to obtain.
Further, this is included in total building space.
Scope 1 Emissions – On-Campus Cogeneration:
As of fiscal year 2010, Western Washington University had no on campus co-generation plants.
Also note that steam/condensate production is included as natural gas use in the next section.
Scope 1 Emissions – Other On-Campus Stationary Sources:
Natural Gas:
Source:
Value:
Notes:
Kellen Rosburg – Office of Sustainability (x4575)
241,721 MMBtu (FY10)
Total 2009-2010 natural gas therms converted to MMBtu.
Value came from ‘GAS 09-10.xls’ spreadsheets on the FM utilities drive.
Discrepancies: None.
Direct Transportation:
Source:
Value:
Notes:
Discrepancies:
Reatha Cammack – FM (x6413)
Gasoline: 51,500 gal. Diesel: 9,400 gal. (FY10)
These numbers were provided by Reatha.
FY06_06: 47,058 vs. FY06_10: 41,310 (gal. gasoline)
Gasoline: there was a comment on the old data saying that the number
had not been confirmed with Reatha Cammack yet, so I make the
assumption that it was an incorrect value.
Diesel: No discrepancy.
Refrigerants & Chemicals:
Source:
Remigijus “Migo” Biciunas – FM (x3741)
Value:
2 lbs HFC-134a, 21 lbs HFC-404a, 60 lbs HCFC-22, 3 lbs other (FY10)
Notes:
Migo tracks every ounce of refrigerant using computer software.
Discrepancies: There are multiple types of refrigerant; some that were reported in
2006 were not reported in 2010, and vice versa. The discrepancy likely
comes from a different contact in FM. Migo has computer tracked
refrigerant data, which appears more accurate than word of mouth.
Fertilizer Application:
Source:
Randy Godfrey – Grounds (x2278)
Value:
Synthetic: 6,400 lbs @ 22% N2. Organic: 1,950 lbs @ 4% N2 (FY10)
Notes:
FY2006 values were used for FY2007-FY2009 due to lack of data.
Animal Husbandry:
Notes:
WWU raises no animals.
Scope 2 Emission Sources:
Purchased Electricity:
Source:
Kellen Rosburg – Office of Sustainability (x4575)
Value:
39,079,633 kWh (FY10)
Notes:
Total kWh for 2009-2010 from ‘ELEC 09-10.xsl’.
Remember to set grid sub-region.
Discrepancies: FY06_06: 38,435,481 kWh vs. FY06_10: 38,422,105 kWh
For the FY2006 report, Ron Bailey may have quote the High & Oak St.
sub account which is the master meter for campus. This report (2010)
used the sum of all invoiced kWhs.
Steam & Chilled Water:
Notes:
Steam is included in natural gas and nowhere else in the calculator. This
refers to purchased steam. WWU does not purchase any chilled water.
Scope 3 Emission Source:
Faculty/Staff & Student Commuting:
Source:
Wendy Crandall – Sustainable Transportation (x7245)
Value:
Auto: 727,871 miles – faculty/staff, 1,950,449 miles – students.
Bus: 161,076 miles – faculty/staff, 569,953 miles – students.
Light rail and commuter rail: N/A.
Notes:
Wendy provided this information from student/staff surveys. The data
was given as “trips per day” but the calculator asked for trips per week,
so without the correct data, the assumption was made that “week”
meant a 5-day work week.
Discrepancies: The new calculator computes these values differently, the inputs were
the same for FY2006, but the calculator produced different output. It is
also possible that the previous calculator was not updated to reflect the
correct population for the data that came from the sustainable
transportation surveys.
Air Travel:
Source:
Value:
Notes:
Debbi Baughn – AP (x3341)
3,164,803 miles (FY10)
Faculty/staff and student air travel was combined into one group. The
FY2006 air travel value was used for FY2006-FY2009 because data was
not available for the years between FY06 and FY10. Debbi provided a list
of departure and destination airport codes, called “city pairs.” An air
mileage calculator at webflyer.com was used to find the mileage for
each trip. The mileage values were then summed.
Personal Mileage Reimbursement:
Source:
Debbi Baughn – AP (x3341)
Value:
640,787 miles (FY10)
Discrepancies: This section was not a part of the FY2006 calculator.
Study Abroad Air Travel:
Source:
Krista Mantello – International Programs & Exchanges (x7627)
Value:
5,107,486 miles (FY10)
Notes:
Krista provided a list of destination countries and the number of
students who traveled to each country. The assumption was made that
students left from Sea-Tac (SEA) and traveled to the airport in the
capital city of the destination country. Webflyer.com’s air mileage
calculator was used to find the one way distance, which was multiplied
that by 2 for round trip, and then multiplied by the number of students
who traveled to that country. The mileage values were then summed.
The FY2006 mileage value for FY2006-FY2009 because data was
unavailable for the years in between.
Discrepancies: This section was not included by the person who completed the FY2006
report.
Landfill Waste:
Source:
Value:
Notes:
Rodd Pemble – Sanitary Service Company (360-734-3490)
Art Mains – Roosevelt Regional Landfill (1-800-275-5641)
No CH4 recovery: 201 short tons
CH4 recovery – flared: 597 short tons
CH4 recovery – electrical generation: 1,211 short tons
This value can only be roughly estimated. By going through every SSC
invoice for a given month, Kellen Rosburg put together a list of
dumpster sizes, quantities, and number of pickups per week. This list
was used to find the campus-wide yardage of waste pickup per week.
He multiplied that value by 52 weeks to find the total yardage per year.
Rodd Pemble from SSC told him that WWU landfill waste weighs roughly
200lbs/yd. Using this value, he calculated the total tonnage of landfill
bound waste. Art Mains from Roosevelt Regional Landfill (where all
Bellingham trash ends up) informed Kellen that ~90% of all waste is
methane recaptured. On average 33% of the recovered methane is
flared and 67% is used for electrical generation. Kellen used these
percentages to find number of short tons for each category of landfill
waste on the carbon calculator. The 2006 value from the old report was
used for FY06-09 because landfill waste data cannot be easily recreated.
Paper:
Source:
Value:
Notes:
Discrepancies:
John Zuzarte – Central Stores (x2678)
151,895 lbs 40% recycled, 47,191 lbs 100% recycled (FY10)
There was no data for FY2006.
The paper section was not a part of the FY2006 calculator.
Offsets:
On-Campus Composting:
Source:
Randy Godfrey – Grounds (x2278)
Value:
11 short tons (FY10)
Notes:
Randy reported that WWU composts ~450yd/yr. The composted
material is mostly leaves/brush with a density of 450lbs/yd3.v This value
was used to compute the total tonnage. Since compost is made mostly
of leaves/brush, and trees are rarely cut down at WWU, it was assumed
that the amount of compost remains constant over time. Please note
that outsourced composting (SSC FoodPlus recycling) was not included
in this value, only composting that occurs on campus. Since composting
is constant year to year, the value of 11 short tons was used for FY06FY10.
Discrepancies: FY06_06: 266 vs. FY06_10: 11 (tons)
It is possible that the previous report included SSC FoodPlus composting
as on campus composting, which should not be included.
Other (Non-Additional RECs):
Source:
Seth Vidaña – Office of Sustainability (x2491)
Kellen Rosburg – Office of Sustainability (x4575)
Brittney Noble – NextEra Energy Resources (561-319-2745)
Jonelle Garcia – PSE Account Rep. Assistant (425-456-2431)
Value:
39,173 metric tons eCO2 (FY10)
Notes:
In fiscal years 2009 and 2010 WWU purchased 40,000 RECs from
NextEra. Each REC counts as 1000kWh, or (1 MWh). The Office of
Sustainability chose to convert this to metric tons of eCO2 (value
confirmed by Brittney at NextEra) because WWU purchases RECs in the
Midwest where 1MWh = 2158.79 lbs CO2. The power used on campus
produces about 1080 lbs/MWh. This means WWU offsets more CO2
than created in terms of electrical use. If 40,000,000kWh was plugged
into the Green Power Certificates column of the calculator, the
additional offset would not have been taken into account. Prior to
FY2009, WWU purchased RECs from Puget Sound Energy. These RECs
were for local windfams. Because of this, pre-FY09 carbon offsets were
calculated using the GHG calculator’s values for our grid region.
Discrepancies: This section was completed in a very different way than the 2006
report. The old report used RECs by kWh. This report input them in
terms of metric tons of CO2 offset. Values cannot be compared.
Discrepancy Summary:
The discrepancies can be summarized and quantified by the following table which
displays the differences in carbon output and differences in percentage of total emissions for
each sector for both the FY2006 report and the FY2006 inputs for the current FY2010 report.
Concluding Remarks:
This report has enabled us a look at the sustainability of Western Washington University
in terms of the carbon footprint. All in all, the university seems to have a decreasing carbon
footprint, especially when we take into consideration the offsets purchased by the university.
However, the true goal is to achieve a small gross carbon dioxide emission. Offsets are a
good way to help reduce net carbon emissions, but in reality act only as a Band-Aid; the problem
is out of sight, but continues to bleed. Global warming is real and our carbon footprint is real –
its impact needs to be lessened. As we can see from this report, the two factors that have the
greatest impact on Western’s carbon emissions are electrical use and natural gas consumption.
We can lessen the impacts by undertaking various conservation projects. Many buildings on
campus, such as the biology building and the environmental studies building are locked early at
night, but the heat still roars on. Could we not completely shut down the heating systems at
night in the buildings that are locked? ATUS could look into stricter energy efficiency settings in
computer labs across campus. What about the co-generation or anaerobic digester mentioned
above? A large scale solar project is now even an option with the new green-fee committee.
There are many options for reducing carbon footprint on campus; they just need to actually
happen.
i
36.3 tons CO2 from what-if analysis of 100% 100%-recycled paper for all ~199,000lbs of paper used in FY2010
subtracted from actual carbon output due to paper use in FY2010.
ii
Cost per pound of different paper types provided by John Zuzarte of WWU Central Stores. The total cost of
reported paper use for FY2010 was calculated and subtracted from the calculated projected cost of 100% recycled
paper for the total FY2010 paper use of ~199,000lbs. Percentage of operating budget is cost difference divided by
FY2010 operating budget, multiplied by 100 percent.
iii
Birnam Wood Apartments (west) swapped out a 6yd dumpster for a 4yd dumpster and added 4 60 gallon
FoodPlus (compost) totes. The total cost of the new setup was comparable (but actually less than) just the 6yd
dumpster.
iv
Prediction comes from average of CO2 emission for FY06 through FY10.
v
The density of 450 lbs per cubic yard is an average of the densities of 400lbs/yd and 500lb/yd for leaves and
brush respectively. “Volume-to-Weight Conversions for Recyclable Materials” Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection. http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/approvals/dsconv.pdf.