February 26, 2008
Carbon Neutral Campus
For a larger view, go here.
"Carbon Neutral U"
In the age of global warming, the greening of the American college campus is a largely grassroots effort driven by students, faculty, and in-house staff dedicated to sustainable thinking.
By Andrew Blum
Posted February 20, 2008
Metropolis Magazine
In late 2005 Yale University president Richard Levin exercised the considerable prerogative of his office and announced that his institution—with its 5,500 residents, 21,000 commuters, and 1.7 million square feet of office space—would slash its greenhouse-gas emissions. His chosen target seemed attainable enough: a 43 percent reduction by 2020, which would bring the university ten percent below 1990 levels, thereby exceeding Kyoto Protocol goals. More than two years later Yale’s carbon graph is a beautiful site in an otherwise Sisyphean struggle.The university has already cut emissions 17 percent, with projects under way expected to cut another 17 percent by 2009—putting Yale a decade ahead of schedule in reaching its target. The even better news is that Yale is far from alone among universities: nearly 500 schools have signed the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment, which sets them toward climate neutrality by a specified date (although it’s toothier than it sounds).
Aight dudes, what's your school doing, if anything, to slash its greenhouse emissions and/or intentionally pursue sustainability in its building infrastructure? How many LEED-oriented buildings on your campus? If not any, why? Go ask.
Are the new buildings on your campus built with any green building principles in mind?
If your school teaches about the need for caring for the environment but is not looking to put those principles into practice in the use and construction of its own buildings, I think you would be justified in asking some questions. If your school is a religious school your administration may likely be clueless about building green and non-religious institutions may be in the same boat as well (or they may not even care). Who knows?
Ask questions.
Posted by anthony at February 26, 2008 11:42 PM | TrackBackAnthony,
Just curious, do you know if any such considerations were made regarding the construction of the new building on campus at CTS?
Posted by: Justin at February 27, 2008 10:46 AMI am all about doing good for the environment, but this whole "Green" movement has gotton crazy. Companies are making major bank by playing on our emotions and guilting people into buying furnaces, cars, etc that are "good" for the environment, but come at a extreme cost to the individual consumer.
For example, I have a furnace in my home that is 30+ years old. It is probably less than 50% efficient (meaning of the natural gas it uses, only 50 percent actually provides a benefit to my home...the rest is waste). I got a few bids to upgrade my furnace and nearly all companies pushed the "Green" alternatives to me. They played on my emotions and left me with estimates from $7,500 to $12,000 (95% efficient furnace, A-coil, A/C condensor). How am I to afford that? I got their pricing on their less efficient furnaces (80% efficiency) and found prices from $4,500 to $6,500.
My thought is: for a 1,500 sq ft home, how much of a difference is there between running an 95% furnace to an 80%? I would think not much. Plus my wife "owns" the thermostat and keeps it cold in the winter, and warm in the summer.....grrr!!! :)
If people really believe carbon dixoide is to blame for global warming, we shouldnt focus on cars, and homes to solve the problem.... We should all become vegetarians. Check this article out....Are you ready to give up your beef, chicken, pigs/hogs?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-cosub2sub-from-cars-427843.html
I hope CTS thought about building smart to conserve energy with their new building (to lower their operational costs), but I think it would be irresponsible for them to replace "less efficicent, but good equipment" on existing building to lower carbon emissions. Obiviously if they are burning tires to heat the place, they should upgrade...haha!!!
In a follow up to the first part of Frese's comment: I was approached by a small developer recently who asked me what I thought of the whole 'green' and LEED movement. I paused for a moment and let all of my bias and viewpoints swirl around and then told him that the way he should look at 'green' building is as a marketing tool and if he can get a project built (in today's economy) because he went 'green' the do it.
Does a green building/site make a better building/site? I don't know, the only thing I can say is that it is probably less bad (what ever that is worth).
I am about to sit for my LEED AP exam and I am working with a developer who is pursuing a new criteria from GE and their Ecomagination people, and my only motivation is that it will put me more in demand in the future.
Should Christians be at the front of the environmental discussion? Absolutely. Is LEEDS and other such criteria the cure-all? I don't think so. A change in attitude would be far better than a change in water heaters.
Justin, I have no idea. You'll have to ask them.
Posted by: Anthony at February 28, 2008 12:28 AMFrese, good stuff to think about!
Posted by: Anthony at February 28, 2008 12:29 AMchurnock, get the book "Cradle to Cradle"! Just because something is "green" does not mean that it's good for the environment. There are more questions to ask.
Posted by: Anthony at February 28, 2008 12:31 AMThanks Anthony, I have it.
Check out any of Rem Koolhaas' stuff. You should be able to get some good stuff for this blog out of his work.
Posted by: churnock at February 28, 2008 09:56 AMchurnock, thanks for putting me on to Koolhaas!
Posted by: Anthony at March 1, 2008 01:08 PMchurnock....took the words outta my mouth. you an LA? if so, where? I've been struggling with this green-jesus movement (green as the savior of the world) for a while...and being one of the only voices that I see questioning it, it was a pleasure to see what you said. let me know where you're working...shoot me an email if you want.
anthony....took GRE yesterday: 740 verbal, 710 math...whoohoo! finishing up application to GMU for masters fellowship (going to actually, at least at this point, try to focus on exactly this topic, the economics of green/sustainable development).
Posted by: shawn at March 2, 2008 04:50 AMAnthony,
Rem is awesome. And he would have to be will a name like Rem Koolhaas, or else he wouldn't have any lunch money.
Shawn,
Yep, I'm an LA, guilty as charged. I did my graduate work at Auburn University and am finding my way in B-ham, Alabama (the black hole of good design and LA firms). I have left traditional practice and am working with developers and trying to get some of my own stuff built.
I would like to see your stuff on the economic side once that is done. Check out Duhnam-Jones in "The Green Braid", I read it last night and it might be right up your alle.
Posted by: churnock at March 2, 2008 09:51 AMor my allee? ba-doom-ching!!!
Posted by: shawn at March 2, 2008 12:01 PMFrese makes an interesting point, but reality is that those cows, pigs, and chickens have been around, more or less in their present numbers, for centuries without problems. No kidding; back around 1850, there were an estimated 50 million bison on the Plains, and now we raise about the same number of cattle--and keep in mind that there were millions of Texas longhorns and domestic cattle elsewhere in the nation, too. So if carbon dioxide, methane, and such from ruminants are that much of an issue, it should have caused major problems centuries ago.
Posted by: Bike Bubba at March 7, 2008 05:01 PM