1. Other GHG Emission Inventories Shamus Keohane, Sonny Ruffino, Kristen Schlott, & Chris Holt EECE 449, Spring 2010

2. Project Objectives The primary objective of this project was to compile GHG data from other Universities to make comparative analysis with respect to Washington University’s place among other schools when it comes to sustainability. An additional goal of the data analysis is a qualitative subject investigation to see which areas of a GHG inventory Wash U can improve upon or is already succeeding in.

3. Approach and Methodology Our approach to this problem began with a review of the previous class’ report on this topic. Of the 32 other schools investigated by the previous group, size data was only available for 12 schools, and transportation data was only available for 19. Their analysis was exclusively based on comparison on these two subjects. Using the data we collected, we expanded the categories to include net GHG emissions, total campus area, purchased electricity and student population. The following schools were eliminated from their list of 32 because of a lack of data in every category: Tufts, Smith, Lewis and Clark, Wellesley, College of Charleston, Cal St. Polytech, College of William & Mary, and Occidental. Additionally, we wanted to compare 3 additional schools that have noteworthy sustainability programs. These schools were Arizona State University, Cornell, and Bates.

4. Methodology Now with a list of 25 schools, we began the process of collecting sustainability data for each school. This information was often found on school sustainability websites, with inventory documentation usually attached. Additionally, the American College and University President’s Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) offered a singular location where common categories of information for each school was located. Data for each school was tabulated into a Google Doc. working space along with general statistics for each school (area, population, etc). From this common source of data, we began to analyze the information for trends

5. Results : Figure 1

6. Figure 1 Analysis Note that Wash U ranks 3 rd amongst the analyzed schools in terms of net emissions of CO2. Despite Wash U’s size compared to other schools such as ASU, which has 5 times as many students as Wash U. Also noteworthy is the fact that schools are generally trending to emit more GHG than previously evaluated, this will be discussed in more detail later. Immediately attention grabbing in this figure is Harvard’s dramatic decline since the time of the previous inventory. Harvard installed a new on-campus power plant since the previous inventory, reducing their GHG emissions from purchased power, as will be shown momentarily

7. Results: Figure 2

8. Figure 2 Analysis This figure shows gross CO2 emissions divided by the entire student population of each school (undergraduate plus graduate) As we can see Wash U’s per capita emissions ranks second only to Duke University. As one would expect, the largest schools have some of the lowest GHG emissions per capita.

9. Figure 3 : Purchased Electricity

10. Figure 3 Analysis This figure offers the first clue as to why Wash U ranks amongst the highest emitters of CO2. Even though Wash U is not the largest school analyzed, it has far and away the most CO2 emissions as a result of the amount of electricity purchased. Also factored into this conversion however is the prevailing source of electricity for a given region. Since many of the local utility companies used coal fired generators to produce electricity, more CO2 emissions will result from electricity purchased here than say a region with strong renewable resources such as wind or hydropower. Also, note that Bates and Colby College have an effective GHG emission from purchased electricity of 0. Both of these schools have contracts with electricity providers to purchase 100% of their electricity from renewable resources.

11. Figure 4: Scatter Plot

12. Figure 4 Analysis Figure 4 shows the net emission of a University plotted on the y-axis and the school’s student population plotted on the x-axis. It shows points for both compiled reports. As shown by the area enclosed dashed red line, there is a general trend showing more emissions for larger schools, as would follow intuitively. However, schools that stray to the upper left corner, outside of the normal area have very high emissions per capita and should strive to reduce emissions, whereas schools underneath the normal area to the right have very low emissions per capita and effectively minimize GHG emissions. Also shown in this plot is the drastic change in Wash U’s emissions from the time of the last report. Where it had previously been comfortably inside the normal zone, Wash U is now far outside in the bad region.

13. Figure 5: Changes from the Last Report

14. Figure 5 Analysis Figure 5 is a scatter plot showing current CO2 emissions on the y-axis and CO2 emissions from the previous report on the x-axis. Also included is a unity line that represents y=x. This figure shows which schools have increased or decreased their net CO2 emissions since the time of the last report. Those schools above the unity line have increased while those below it have decreased. Additionally the farther away from the line the school is, the larger the difference between the inventory reports. As we can see, Wash U has had the largest change from the time of the last report.

15. Figure 6a Transportation

16. Figure 6b. Transportation

17. Figure 6 Analysis We should note first that it appears that many schools’ GHG emissions resulting from transportation has skyrocketed, when in fact the schools are more expanding their GHG inventories to account for transportation effects. The large disparity between transportation reporting from the 2008 report to the this report is likely the cause of the overall increase in emissions seen in this time period Wash U and Harvard currently do not include transportation in their GHG inventories. As seen from the report by the Tranportation group, international student travel can have a major impact on Transportation GHG emissions. Yale currently has 8% international students while Duke has 13%.

18. Summary and Conclusions It is clear from the previous data that Wash U has reported drastically more CO2 emissions from the last group’s report in 2008. Wash U currently still does not include transportation, so the current estimates for Wash U emissions are lower than they are in reality. Wash U’s poor rank among other Universities in GHG emissions can primarily be attributed to the amount of electricity Wash U purchases and the source of that Electricity. If Wash U were to contract with utility companies to purchase electricity produced from renewable resources, Wash U could greatly improve its standing in the academic community. In conclusion, while Wash U may take an open and active stance toward it’s sustainability goals, the University need to look to new areas that can have greater impacts in reducing the University’s Carbon Footprint.

19. References Duke University (2007) http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=225 Penn State University Park (2009) http://www.ghg.psu.edu/campus_inv/default.asphttp://www.ghg.psu.edu/campus_inv/default.asp Washington University in St. Louis (2009) http://www.wustl.edu/sustain/GHGEmissions.pdfhttp://www.wustl.edu/sustain/GHGEmissions.pdf U of Pennsylvania (2008) http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=258 Cornell (2008) http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=237 Yale (2008) http://sustainability.yale.edu/sites/default/files/GHG2008.pdf Arizona State University (2008) 2008: http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=628 2007: http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=386 U of Illinois at Chicago (2008) http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=102http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=102 UT Knoxville (2009) http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=1018 Colorado State University (2009) http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=932http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=932 UC Berkeley(2008) http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=142 U of Connecticut (2007) http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=587 Harvard(2007) http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/FACTBOOK_2007-08_FULL.pdf Tulane University (2008) http://green.tulane.edu/PDFs/Inventory_Complete_2008_FINAL.pdf University of Central Florida (2008) http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=1108 Utah State University (2008) http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=971http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=971 Rice (2009) http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=843 UC Santa Barbara (2009) http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=963 University of New Hampshire (2007) http://www.sustainableunh.unh.edu/climate_ed/greenhouse_gas_inventory.htmlhttp://www.sustainableunh.unh.edu/climate_ed/greenhouse_gas_inventory.html Oberlin College(2007) http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=367 Middlebury College (2007) http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=441 Carleton College (2007) http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=236 Colby College (2008) http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=801 Bates College (2008) 2008: http://www.bates.edu/Prebuilt/GHGInventory.pdf 2007: http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.php?id=329 Connecticut College (2009) http://www.conncoll.edu/green/greenliving/GreenlivingDocs/CC_greenhouse_gas_emissions_inventory_0809.pdf