| Members of ES 300 | |
|---|---|
| Dr. Elizabeth DeSombre | Professor |
| Sarah Schoenbach | Overall Text Editor |
| Kristen Blanton | Overall Data/Graphics Editor |
| Abigail Tinker | Policy Editor |
| Rebecca Owens | Media Coordinator |
| Nicole Duarte | Ruhlman Coordinator |
| Juliette White | Sector Editor: Transportation |
| Sally Spaulding | Sector Editor: Waste |
| Amy Leitch | Data Coordinator: Energy |
| Sara Baldauf-Wagner | Data Coordinator: Transportation |
| Tuyet Huynh | Data Coordinator: Waste |
This web page presented on 100% recycled electrons. It's long; please think twice about printing it out.
Global climate change is one of the greatest environmental issues of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Climate change is the expected result of a human-induced greenhouse gas effect. This anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect began in the late 19th century with the Industrial Revolution, when human beings started to consume fossil fuels and other energy sources on a massive scale (Figure 1). The industrialized countries, particularly the United States, have manifested this trend of ever-increasing consumption of natural resources in the extreme prevalence of personal automobiles, increasing electrical generation and use, and the production of huge amounts of waste. All of these activities, and many others, create gases that trap energy within our atmosphere. These gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor.[1] The concentrations of each of these gases in the Earth's atmosphere have increased dramatically since the onset of the Industrial Revolution (Figure 1), correlating with increasing global temperatures (Figure 2). For example, atmospheric carbon dioxide, a product of the combustion of many fuels and the greenhouse gas with the greatest residence time, has increased by more than 30% since pre-industrial times.[2] Additionally, the anthropogenic greenhouse effect has been perpetuated by the removal of carbon sinks from the global system. Deforestation and other land use changes have resulted in a loss of the planet's ability to store atmospheric carbon dioxide, exacerbating the human-induced greenhouse gas effect and the potential of global climate change.
 Figure 1: Concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over time is shown to correlate with increased use of fossil fuels.[3] |
 Figure 2: Global average surface temperature since Industrial Revolution.[4] |
Some confuse the anthropogenic greenhouse effect with the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, on which life on the planet relies. The Earth is in a continual exchange of energy with space; sunlight arrives at the Earth, transferring energy to the planet, and that energy is theoretically lost to space in equal amounts, keeping the temperature of the Earth constant.[5] However, the transfer of energy between the Earth and space is not equal. The Earth's atmosphere acts as a blanket for the planet, trapping energy heading for space and re-radiating it back to the ground.[6] Due to the natural greenhouse effect produced by our atmosphere, the Earth's average surface temperature is 15°C, about 33°C higher than it would be otherwise.[7] The Earth's natural greenhouse effect provides the impetus for life on this planet, while the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, which has trapped significantly more greenhouse gases in our atmosphere than naturally intended, could result in the mass devastation of life.
In light of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect, climatologists' projections suggest that the global average temperature and climate is shifting (Figure 3) and that it will continue to shift in the future if humans persist in emitting greenhouse gases into the Earth's atmosphere. It has been estimated that, given the continuation of current trends, the global average temperature of the Earth will increase by between 1.5°C and 6°C within this century.[8] While this change may seem minimal, in reality, a 6°C change in temperature is all that separates our current climate from the Earth's last glaciation period. While a second ice age is an extreme example of the potential effects of climate change, there are other potentially devastating effects of a shifting climate that will vary over the globe. Though average global temperatures will increase, some areas will experience warmer temperatures while others will experience temperature decreases. It is expected that temperature increases will be greatest in the polar regions of the globe, particularly in the winter months.[9] Nighttime temperatures are expected to increase more than daytime temperatures, limiting daily temperature ranges.[10] Generally, more temperature extremes are expected as climate change persists.[11]
These shifts in the global climate can have devastating effects for human society. For example, as the climate changes and the Earth's average global temperature increases, shifts will occur in rain and monsoon patterns, and more natural disasters, such as floods, are expected to occur.[13] Agricultural production will experience both positive and negative changes as climate change will alter the lengths of growing seasons. As temperatures increase outwardly from the equator, tropical diseases such as malaria will spread to areas such as North America.[14] The perils of climate change are not relegated to land, however. The oceans will be affected by global climate change as well. Rising temperatures equate to rising sea levels; as global average temperature increases, the oceans absorb heat, causing them to expand. This process is known as thermal expansion, and it is projected that the rate of sea level rise will increase fourfold over this century with current climate change trends, resulting in a rise in global sea levels of almost 20 inches.[15] Such increases pose a threat to those human populations living close to shore, particularly those in low-lying countries and small island states.
Humans will not be the only ones to suffer as climate change occurs. As temperatures shift, sensitive plant species will become extinct if they are unable to migrate at the same pace as the changing climate.[16] This will result in a decrease in animal life, as there are animal species that are dependent on temperature sensitive plants. Additionally, temperature-sensitive animals may not be able to cope with climate change either. The Earth has already experienced a loss in biodiversity as a result of climate change. Coral species require a particular ocean temperature to survive; as ocean temperatures have begun to increase, significant amounts of coral bleaching have occurred. If climate change were to continue, the consequential rise in sea level would also be devastating for most corals and other similar species, as they must remain close to the ocean surface and are unable to grow quickly enough to compensate for rising sea levels.
In response to the threats of global climate change, international legislation has been formulated to help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. In 1992, 186 countries from Europe, Asia, Africa, South America and North America joined together to create the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).[17] The overall objective of the UNFCCC is "to achieve stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at levels that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system...." [18] To achieve this goal, the Kyoto Protocol was created in 1997. The Kyoto Protocol outlines commitments and methods of implementation for ratifying countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Individual country emissions reductions are based on a percentage of 1990 emission levels, and must be achieved by 2008-2012.[19] For the Kyoto Protocol to enter into force, and thus become legally binding for all ratifying countries, 55 Annex I countries (those countries that are considered industrialized by the UNFCCC [20]), accounting for at least 55% of Annex I 1990 global emissions, must sign and ratify the protocol.[21] As of April 2003, 108 countries had ratified the protocol, accounting for 43.9% of 1990 level emissions.[22] Though the United States is a member of the UNFCCC and has signed the Kyoto Protocol with an emissions reduction obligation of 7% of 1990 levels, the administration of George W. Bush has indicated a lack of intent to ratify the protocol. However, the international community remains hopeful that the Kyoto Protocol will enter into force soon, potentially with Russia's ratification of the Protocol.
In light of the devastating potential of climate change and imminent international legislation, the students of Environmental Studies 300, Spring 2003, undertook efforts to quantify Wellesley College's contribution to the greenhouse gas effect and global climate change. For this purpose, Clean Air-Cool Planet, a New Hampshire-based advocacy group that engages civil society in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, provided a calculatory framework specific to college campuses.[23] Further modifications were made to the program to make it Wellesley-specific, and data was collected from both on and off-campus sources. This report portrays ES 300's findings: the quantity of greenhouse gases that Wellesley College emits, what factors relate to those emissions, and what accounts for the greatest emissions on campus, in addition to policy suggestions for future emissions reductions.
Three sectors are examined by this greenhouse gas audit between the years 1990 and 2002: Energy, Transportation, and Waste. Emissions projections are calculated in metric tonnes of CO2 equivalents, [24] which represents a composite of all greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Combined, these sectors provide a comprehensive picture of the overall greenhouse gas emissions produced by Wellesley College (Figure 4). Energy is by far the largest contributor to overall emissions at 86%, followed by Transportation at 11% and Waste at 3%.
When emissions are broken down by sector and by factor (Figure 5), it is clear that on-campus stationary sources are the greatest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. This factor portrays those emissions produced by Wellesley College's co-generation plant and boilers, which are further explained in this audit's Energy Sector.
It is evident that there has been an increase in greenhouse gas emissions at Wellesley College between 1990 and 2002 (Figure 6). Emissions from the Waste Sector have increased 12% over time. While waste is currently the lowest emitting sector at Wellesley College, it is also one of Wellesley's most controllable sectors, and therefore greenhouse gas emissions from waste should be closely monitored and reduced. The Transportation Sector exhibited the greatest rate of increase between 1990 and 2002 at 19%, however, the Energy Sector, even though it only increased in greenhouse gas emissions by 16%, was the greatest contributor to Wellesley College's greenhouse gas emissions. Though overall greenhouse gas emissions from Wellesley College have increased by 16% over time (Figure 6), student populations have remained relatively stable (Figure 7). Emissions per student have thus increased from 15.8 tonnes of CO2 per student in 1990 to 18.4 tonnes per student in 2002.[25] Explanations for this increase, in addition to greater explanations of the individual factors contributing to Wellesley College's greenhouse gas emissions, are in the following three sections of this audit.
The day-to-day activities of a university or college campus demand great amounts of energy. The production of heat for dormitories, the lighting of academic buildings, and the constant use of computers all require energy that is either produced or purchased by campus administrators. This energy, as it is produced and utilized, creates greenhouse gases, which are linked to the climate change phenomenon. The burning of fossil fuels, which include oil and natural gas, for energy lead to the production of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas with a radiative forcing of 1.5 Watts per square meter of atmosphere.[26] This is equivalent to an average increase in incoming sunlight of 1.5 Watts per square meter of atmosphere.[27] Energy-related activities can contribute to over 90% of a campus' greenhouse gas emissions.[28] Consequently, this greenhouse gas audit includes an examination of the production and consumption of energy at Wellesley College from 1990 to 2002.
Until 1994, Wellesley College's electricity was purchased from the Town of Wellesley. As of 1994, Wellesley has produced most of the electricity demanded by the campus through a co-generation pant, which produces electricity and redirects the heat created in this process to nearby boilers. The boilers within Wellesley College's Physical Plant produce steam for heating and hot water for most of the campus. The chillers, which are run off of electricity, produce all of the chilled water for the campus. If there is an additional energy need not satisfied by the Physical Plant, energy is purchased from the Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts. (Dawley, Appendix B1)
The Energy Sector of this greenhouse gas audit focuses primarily on Wellesley College's Physical Plant and the processes within. This audit includes an analysis of Wellesley's use of natural gas and oil to fuel its boilers, the purchase of electricity from 1990 to 1994, and the use of natural gas for the in-house production of electricity from 1994 to 2002.
A main source of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions is the production of steam. There are three large main boilers within the Physical Plant; out of these, Boiler 1 runs on either #6 oil or natural gas, while Boilers 2 and 3 only run on #6 oil. The boilers generate steam, which is used to heat and humidify many of the buildings on campus (Dawley, Appendix B1 & Lyons, B2).
Natural gas consumption within the boilers has increased dramatically since the installation of the natural gas line in 1992 (Figure 8). Oil consumption, on the other hand, has decreased over time, though consumption remains highly variable. This variability is linked with Wellesley College's gas contract in which there is an interruptible natural gas line that feeds Boiler 1. At any time, Wellesley College's natural gas provider can require Wellesley to use oil in Boiler 1 instead of natural gas; this contract gives Wellesley a cheaper price for its natural gas (Dawley, Appendix B1). This request usually occurs at times of high demand, such as cold winters like that of 2001, when Wellesley's natural gas line to Boiler 1 was shut off for nearly five months. From this data, it is evident that natural gas consumption produces far fewer emissions than the consumption of oil (Figure 8, 9). Natural gas consumption results in 0.0599 tonnes of CO2/MMBtu, while oil consumption results in 0.0767 tonnes of CO2/MMBtu (Figure 10). In 1999, Wellesley College used far more natural gas than oil within its boilers (168,694 MMBtu and 12,547 MMBtu, respectively), and, as a result, its CO2 emissions for that year were significantly lower, 5,793 tonnes of CO2, than in 2001, when Wellesley used more oil than natural gas (166,832 MMBtu and 68,830 MMBtu, respectively) (Figure 8). Since more natural gas was utilized within the boilers in 2002 than in the beginning years of this audit, there has been a marked decrease in boiler-related greenhouse gas emissions over time (Figure 9).
From 1990 to 1994, Wellesley College purchased electricity from the Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts (Appendix A1). Within those four years, electricity-related greenhouse gas emissions increased overall by 3,130 tonnes of CO2 (Figure 11). In 1991 Wellesley College experienced a dip in electrically-related emissions of approximately 5,000 tonnes of CO2. Explanations for this dip in emissions, and correlating consumption, vary; however, as the decrease in electricity consumption occurred during the winter months, this audit hypothesizes that the dip is Wintersession-related, though no exact explanation could be determined. There was an increase in emissions in 1992 of 6,966 tonnes of CO2 over the previous year, resulting in a net increase of approximately 2,000 tonnes of CO2.
In 1993 Wellesley College spent $7 million to build the co-generation pant to meet the campus' electricity needs. This plant, which became operational in 1994, saves Wellesley in electrical costs and offers Wellesley College an increased degree of control over its electrical source. In the co-generation pant, five natural gas-burning engines, the most efficient available at the time of purchase, are used to produce electricity. The heat given off by these engines is captured and used in the production of steam in the boilers (Figure 12). This coupling of the production of electricity and steam results in more efficient production. Greenhouse gas emissions from the production of electricity result from the burning of natural gas. (Dawley, Appendix B1)
 Figure 12: Diagram of Wellesley College co-generation plant. (Dawley, Appendix B1) |
The emissions from electricity production have increased, on average, by 650 tonnes of CO2 per year since 1995 (Figure 13). Possible reasons for this include the air-conditioning of Founders, Green and Pendleton Halls, students' increased use of personal appliances and lights in their dorm rooms, the increase in the number of students who spend wintersession on campus, and the increase in the number of computers on campus. The emissions from electricity production in 2002 reached 21,400 tonnes of CO2 (Figure 13). Wellesley College's on-campus electrical production accounts for the greatest single source of greenhouse gas emissions within the Energy Sector (Figure 17).
The addition of the co-generation plant accounts for the greatest increase in Wellesley College's greenhouse gas emissions in the period between 1990 and 2002. Without the co-generation plant, Wellesley would purchase electricity from the Town of Wellesley or another off-campus provider. Since the installation of the co-generation plant, the Massachusetts energy pool has become more reliant on nuclear energy, [29] which emits fewer greenhouse gases than other forms of energy production.[30] Nuclear-based energy has increased by approximately 218% from 1994 to 1999 in Massachusetts. Were Wellesley to purchase electricity from the Town of Wellesley in 1999, its electrical-based greenhouse gas emissions would be 48% lower than with the co-generation plant (Figure 14). However, it would have been impossible for Wellesley College to predict in 1994 that the Massachusetts pool would become so heavily nuclear-based in later years. Additionally, there is no way to predict how the Massachusetts pool of energy might shift in the future; for example, the pool could either shift towards more emissions-free forms of energy production, like wind energy, or it could revert to coal-based plants, which are heavy greenhouse gas emitters. Wellesley College's decision to install the co-generation pant limits the administration in its choices of electrical production as the plant is a fixed source. However, the co-generation plant does provide Wellesley significantly more control over its electricity production, and consequential greenhouse gas emissions, than would purchasing electricity from off-campus providers.
From within the Energy Sector, the greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions is the combustion of natural gas, which is used primarily in the co-generation plant but also in Boiler 1 (Figure 15). The variability of greenhouse gas emissions from oil and natural gas consumption are related to need (i.e. whether or not it is a cold winter) and to the fact that Wellesley College has a contract for an interruptible natural gas line to Boiler 1. This means that, under current conditions, the Energy Sector is the one that Wellesley College has the least control over.
When energy-related greenhouse gas emissions are broken down by oil and natural gas (Figure 15, 16), the total emissions for natural gas from 1990 to 2002 far outweigh those of oil (61% vs. 39%, respectively). The greater emissions from natural gas are due to its massive use instead of its greenhouse gas emissions, as natural gas produces far fewer greenhouse gases than oil (Figure 10). In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, 1 MMBtu of oil produces 0.0767 tonnes of CO2 while 1 MMBtu of natural gas produces 0.0599 tonnes of CO2 (Appendix A2). When the greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas are further broken down (Figure 17) it is evident that the bulk of Wellesley's natural gas-based greenhouse gas emissions are from electrical production (48% vs. 19% from the boilers). This is explained by the fact that electricity production on Wellesley's campus is only achieved by natural gas, whereas both oil and natural gas are used for steam production within the boilers. Additionally, the demand for electrical production is year-round, while the demand for steam is seasonal.
A number of factors within the Energy Sector were omitted for the purposes of this audit, mainly because of an inability to access or accumulate data. These factors include the production of water vapor by Physical Plant processes, energy use in faculty housing, Wellesley College's brief stint with electric vehicles, and vehicles for energy loss on campus. The production of steam for heating and hot water produces water vapor as waste which, when released into the atmosphere, acts as a greenhouse gas.[32] Water vapor is an important greenhouse gas, and any "production" of this gas could be considered a contributing factor to greenhouse gas emissions. However, data as to how much water vapor is regularly released by the Physical Plant was scant. The fact that water vapor is omitted by this audit is permissible, however, as water vapor, though it is a potent greenhouse gas, has an extremely low residence time and therefore does not persist in the atmosphere.[33]
This audit did not examine faculty housing at Wellesley College. Many faculty houses, though owned by Wellesley College, are off of the Wellesley system and are, instead, powered by the Town of Wellesley itself. Even though energy to power a professor's home would be purchased regardless of whether that professor lived on campus or not, the emissions could be traced back to Wellesley College if the buildings are considered part of Wellesley's campus. However, data as to how much electricity and heat every faculty house consumed from 1990 to 2002 was difficult to ascertain, and therefore an analysis of these buildings is not included in this audit. Data on faculty electricity consumption was used, however, to create policy recommendations that will be discussed later in this audit.
A third factor excluded from the Energy Sector's analysis is Wellesley College's past electric fleet, which began operation starting in 2000 [34] and has since been phased out of use. While Wellesley's use of electric vehicles should be applauded, their impact on energy-related greenhouse gas emissions was minimal. For the purposes of this audit, specific examinations of the electric fleet are omitted; however, the emissions produced from the generation of electricity used to charge these vehicles were included in general electricity-based emissions.
A final factor not examined by the Energy Sector is energy loss. The loss of energy, while important for greenhouse gas emissions, is difficult to analyze. Vehicles for energy waste on the Wellesley College campus include poor window insulation and loss of heat through the steam tunnels. Each of these can be measured only in relative terms. Though this audit is unable to directly quantify energy loss at Wellesley College, policy recommendations are made to help limit future energy waste.
Transportation via automobiles and aircraft typically requires the combustion of fossil fuels and is a substantial anthropogenic source of greenhouse gas emissions. The use of fossil fuels involves extracting carbon from an inactive underground form, refining it for consumption as oil and natural gas, and burning or combusting it. The process of combustion emits carbon dioxide and other climate altering greenhouse gases into the earth's atmosphere.[35] Yet, travel by car and plane is continuously rising in popularity and is coupled with an increased automobile size, fostering a rapidly increasing climate problem. Since 1975, the percentage of U.S. citizens purchasing passenger cars and wagons fell from 81% to 54%; purchases of SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans have picked up this slack.[36] Unfortunately, Wellesley College has followed the trend of high dependence on high emitting motor vehicles. People and supplies come in and out of the campus regularly, and whether they travel by car or plane, the resultant emissions are extensive.
Within the Transportation Sector, six categories of greenhouse gas emitters are examined between the years 1990 and 2002. These include the Wellesley fleet, student commuters, faculty and staff commuters, college-subsidized transportation, Admissions funded travel, and regular deliveries to campus. Within the Transportation Sector, emissions are only considered for school-year months, when most student-related transportation occurs. While there are transportation-related emissions during Wellesley's summer sessions, this audit was unable to acquire data to quantify them, thus suggesting that the Transportation Sector's contribution to Wellesley College's greenhouse gas emissions is underestimated.
The Wellesley College fleet, or "Motor Pool," is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions on campus (Appendix A3). As Wellesley maintains this fleet and fuels its vehicles on campus, emissions are determined from the number of gallons of diesel or gasoline fuel used per year (Willoughby, Appendix B3 & Dewitt, Appendix B4). Data was unavailable for all years of the study; as such, emissions for several years are extrapolated from existing data. Based on the trend-line seen in Figure 18, this audit determined that the Wellesley fleet accounts for the largest increase (83%) in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 (300 tonnes of CO2) to 2002 (550 tonnes) within the Transportation Sector. This large increase in emissions can be attributed to the increase in gallons of fuel consumed per year as a result of the growth of the fleet over the last 12 years to its present-day size of 140 vehicles, ranging from SUVs and trucks to snowplows and tractors (Dewitt, Appendix B4).
One of the privileges of being a Wellesley student is the ability to bring a car to campus, and over 25% of students, or roughly 700 individuals, do so each year (Barbin, Appendix B5). Because 95% of students live on campus, very few students commute to Wellesley on a daily basis. Student vehicles are thus predominately used to run errands, to drive to and from Boston, to commute to work, and to travel to and from home during breaks. It was assumed that students use their cars to drive approximately 40 miles per week and that they make two trips home in their cars each year. These two forms of mileage are used to calculate greenhouse gas emissions related to student travel (Appendix A4).
Greenhouse gas emissions related to student commuters have increased by 26% between 1990 and 2002, from 733 tonnes of CO2 to 986 tonnes, respectively (Figure 19). This can be attributed to the increase in registered student vehicles from 1990 to 2002. The number of registered student vehicles increased slightly between the years 1990-2002, ranging from 600 to 700 (Barbin, Appendix B5).
The majority of Wellesley College's faculty and staff commute by car to campus each day. It was assumed that both faculty and staff members commute to Wellesley five days each week and travel an average of 20 miles per round-trip (Appendix A5 & A6). The consequential greenhouse gas emissions ranged from 1,355 tonnes of CO2 in 1990 to 1,510 tonnes in 2002, resulting in an 11.4% increase in emissions (Figure 19). This change in greenhouse gas emissions is smaller than the one seen from student commuters because the number of faculty registered vehicles has remained around 435 throughout the years while staff registered vehicles have increased slightly from 800 in 1990 to 879 in 2002 (Baldwin, Appendix B6). However, together these vehicles contributed 33% to the total 2002 greenhouse gas emissions, making this category the largest single emitter within the Transportation Sector (Figure 23).
At Wellesley College, subsidized transportation includes the Senate/Exchange Bus, which shuttles students, faculty, staff and guests to and from Boston daily, and the Movie/Mall Shuttle, which transports students to a local mall and cinema. These services are provided by G & W Transportation Co., Inc. These transportation services are provided to students at less than their full cost, thus making them subsidized. The large, diesel-fueled Senate/Exchange Bus makes 122 round-trips to MIT and the Boston area each week, resulting in approximately 3,200 miles of weekly travel, while the smaller Movie/Mall Shuttle makes 7 round-trips on Saturdays only, resulting in about 116 miles of weekly travel (Eastment, Appendix B7 & Driscoll, B8).
Subsidized transportation is a direct and easy way for students to get into Boston and, as such, is an important aspect of student life at Wellesley. However, it is also the second largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions within the Transportation Sector, accounting for 25% of total transportation-related emissions (Figure 23) (Appendix A7). This large contribution is due primarily to the many trips made to Boston by the large, diesel-fueled Exchange Bus during the week and the Senate Bus on the weekends, while the Movie/Mall Shuttle contributes far fewer emissions because of its smaller size and fewer trips (Figure 20). There has been an increase of 8.6% in subsidized transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions from 1,792 tonnes of CO2 in 1990 to 1,904 tonnes in 2002 (Figure 25). Part of this increase is attributable to the introduction of the Movie/Mall Shuttle in 1994. The other potential explanation for the increase is that the Senate/Exchange Bus increased the number of trips made into Boston towards the later end of this audit (Eastment, Appendix B7 & Driscoll, B8).
Regular deliveries consist of those vehicles that bring goods to campus on a consistent basis. These include deliveries from Sysco and Garelick Farms, Office Depot, Andrew's Pharmacy, UPS, Intercollege Library Loan, and All Seasons Vending Services (Kane, Appendix B9, Cater, B10 & Strouse, B11). Deliveries made to Collins Café and to Printing Services are also included in this category (Bery, Appendix B12 & Borque, B13).
The vehicles from these nine companies travel approximately 75,900 miles a year, releasing 346 tonnes of CO2 on tasks directly related to delivering goods to Wellesley College (Appendix A8). When emissions within this category are examined by individual company, Sysco and Garelick Farms accounted for over 94% of the total greenhouse gases emitted over the course of this audit (Figure 21). These two companies traveled both a greater number of miles a year (14,000 on average as opposed to 6,711 on average for other deliveries) and released a greater amount of emissions per mile due to the large size of their trucks. Overall, regular deliveries to Wellesley College account for 7% of emissions produced via transportation from 1990 to 2002 (Figure 23).
Wellesley College Admissions provides certain prospective students the opportunity to visit the campus by funding their travel expenses (Desjarlais, Appendix B14). The modes of travel for these potential students range from buses and trains to air travel. Although this travel accounts for a very small portion (less than 2%) of the overall transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions (Figure 23), it is a form of travel that has greatly increased since its introduction in 1999; Wellesley paid for 26 prospective students to visit campus in 1999, while it paid for 229 in 2002. The related greenhouse gas emissions have thus more than tripled from 31 tonnes in 1999 to 105 tonnes of CO2 in 2002 (Figure 22, 25). (Appendix A9)
Within the Transportation Sector, faculty and staff commuters account for the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, contributing 33% to overall emissions, between 1,355 and 1,510 tonnes of CO2 a year. For all years, college-subsidized transportation contributed the second greatest amount of emissions, ranging from 1,065 to 1,157 tonnes of CO2 and making up 25% of total emissions. Student commuter emissions were the next greatest contributor at 21%, emitting between 773 and 947 tonnes of CO2 per year. The Wellesley fleet contributed between 300 and 550 tonnes of CO2 per year over the years studied and made up 12% of overall emissions, while deliveries contributed approximately 346 tonnes per year, making up 7% of emissions. Admissions-funded travel contributed the least in overall emissions at an average of less than 55 tonnes of CO2 per year, but experienced the greatest rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions at approximately 261%. (Figure 23, 24)
The two largest emitters in this sector, faculty/staff commuters and college-subsidized transportation, contribute 58% to total transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions (Figure 23). While faculty/staff commuters travel an average of 37 times as many miles per year as the Senate/Exchange Bus, the bus produces a comparable amount of greenhouse gas emissions (only 353 fewer tonnes of CO2) (Table 1). This is because the Senate/Exchange Bus is a large diesel-fueled bus that emits up to 29 times the amount of CO2 per mile as the much smaller gasoline-run passenger vehicles used by commuters. (Table 1)
| Table 1: Faculty/Staff Commuters vs. Subsidized Travel | |||
| Miles traveled per year | Emission per year | Emissions per mile | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Faculty/Staff Commuters | 4,198,400 | 1,510 | 0.0004 |
| Subsidized Travel | 111,325 | 1,517 | 0.01 |
As every subdivision of the Transportation Sector (except for regular deliveries) has seen an increase in greenhouse gas emissions since 1990, overall transportation-related emissions have increased from 3,840 tonnes of CO2 in 1990 to 4,650 tonnes in 2002, an overall increase of 21% (Figure 25).
Wellesley College provides many forms of transportation that were not measured by this audit because information was not extant or readily available. One form of transportation omitted by this audit is the subsidized travel of faculty, usually by air, for professional reasons, such as to conventions and conferences. Likewise, this audit did not include travel of guest speakers to Wellesley College. This travel is not regular and records are sparse. Employee candidates' travel to Wellesley was not evaluated by this audit for the same reasons. Similarly, this audit does not include travel of members of the board of trustees to Wellesley for meetings. Construction occurring on campus also results in the emission of greenhouse gases through the use of large vehicles, but these emissions are not evaluated by this audit because of the irregularity with which these projects occur. The audit also did not cover all emissions stemming from athletics. In addition to the emissions from athletics department vans that are a part of the Motor Pool, emissions are produced by team travel in rented buses and vans. These secondary sources of greenhouse gas emissions are omitted from this audit because of inaccessible rental records. Finally, Wellesley College owns vehicles that can be used by students but, as Wellesley does not pay for the gasoline used in these cars, records of mileage do not exist and so the emissions resulting from this travel are omitted by this audit.
Many forms of irregular transportation occur as a result of Wellesley's existence, but are not provided by Wellesley College, and are thus not considered by this audit. This irregular transportation includes student guests, non-regular deliveries such as food and flowers, and travel to campus by non-Wellesley community members. Many people come to campus for special events, such as graduation, to visit the campus as prospective students, or simply to walk around the lake. None of these forms of transportation are analyzed by this audit due to the difficulty in obtaining accurate information. Finally, no transportation that results from Wellesley's summer sessions is included in this audit. The emissions evaluated represent only the nine-month school year.
Another source of greenhouse gas emissions on a college campus is waste. Waste production results in greenhouse gas emissions via its transportation and disposal. The transportation of waste uses vehicles that consume fossil fuels and emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Additional greenhouse gases, such as methane and carbon dioxide, can be emitted during waste disposal, though the amount of greenhouse gases emitted depends on the disposal method used. Waste disposal methods can vary from incineration to land-filling to recycling. Wellesley College can influence greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the waste sector because waste management policies affect energy consumption and the generation of methane. Waste management policies can also promote carbon sequestration in addition to reducing non-energy-related manufacturing emissions.[37] Wellesley College's current system of waste disposal is clouded by a lack of accurate record-keeping, as well as an informal recycling program, making it difficult to analyze Wellesley's waste disposal practices. However, through contact with Wellesley staff and off campus companies, this audit has projected an accurate assessment of emissions related to waste generated at Wellesley College.
Waste produced at Wellesley College is not disposed of on campus and the consequential greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation of Wellesley's waste are substantial. Wellesley College has a contract with Wellesley Trucking, a waste removal company, such that waste is removed from Wellesley and transported to one of four waste incineration facilities on a rotating schedule: SEAMASS in Carver (103 miles per round-trip), Covanta Company in Haverhill (96 miles per round-trip), and RESCO in both Millbury (66 miles per round-trip) and Saugus (51 miles per round-trip) (Debello, Appendix B15). Information is not available as to what amounts of waste go to each of the four facilities or which facility receives the waste carried by Wellesley Trucking each week. Generally, the waste is picked up five days a week (Debello, Appendix B15). As such, this audit has assumed that the trash is distributed among the four sites equally throughout the year. (Appendix A9)
Wellesley College's garbage is transported to these four facilities in a typical diesel-run garbage truck, resulting in emissions of approximately 989 tonnes of CO2 each year. Transportation to and from the SEAMASS waste disposal site accounted for the greatest amount of emissions from the Waste Sector as a result of the greater distance of travel (Figure 26). Wellesley College's waste transport routine has not changed since 1990 and therefore exhibited no change in greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation of waste over the duration of this audit (Figure 28).
This audit has determined that Wellesley College produces an average of 20 tons [38] of waste per week, or 1040 tons per year (Figure 27), which is carted away from campus and incinerated in waste-to energy facilities (Appendix A10). This waste production equates to roughly 17 lbs of waste per student per week (Appendix A11). Incineration involves the combustion of solid waste and releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Wellesley College's waste, upon incineration, produced roughly 458 tonnes of CO2 per in 2002, constituting 32% of waste-related greenhouse gas emissions (Figure 28, 29). This audit has determined that, between 1990 and 2002, there was a 3% increase in waste generation at Wellesley College, and a correlating increase in waste-related greenhouse gas emissions of 11.7% (Figure 28).
Overall waste-related greenhouse gas emissions result from the combination of emissions from the transport of waste to disposal facilities (Appendix A12) and of emissions resulting from the burning of the waste. Waste-related greenhouse gas emissions have increased from 1,296 tonnes of CO2 in 1990 to 1,447 tonnes in 2002 (Figure 28). This increase in emissions of 11.7% is not due to the transport of the waste, which, while it contributes the largest portion of emissions in this sector, has remained constant over time. Rather, the increase in waste generated by Wellesley College has resulted in the increase in emissions. Waste generation has experienced a 3% increase per year from 1990 to 2002 (Figure 28). It should be noted, however, that if increases in the amount of waste produced by Wellesley College continue, transportation-related emissions will increase as well. With more waste comes a greater need for larger disposal vehicles and/or more frequent trips to disposal sites, both of which contribute to greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.
Wellesley College's waste has been taken to waste-to-energy facilities for the duration of this audit. The process of waste-to-energy is a complex process and begins with the visual detection of large items like shopping carts, televisions and car batteries. These items are removed and the remaining waste is sent to the boiler. The waste is burned in water-cooled furnaces at temperatures greater than 1800oF. Only 10% of the waste's original volume remains in the form of inert ash after burning. A couch, for example, would be disposed of by burning all of the fabric, the wood frame, and plastics. The metal frame and the springs would remain. The remaining waste passes under a magnet, which extracts ferrous material for recycling. The non-ferrous material is sold to companies and used in the making of asphalt. (Lynch, Appendix B16)
In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, waste-to-energy facilities create energy and thus can cause a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. However, this impact varies widely according to what material is being incinerated. Plastics can increase greenhouse gas emissions by 0.25 tonnes of CO2 per combusted ton.[39] Other high emitters upon combustion include carpet and computers. However, some materials, such as office paper, result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (-0.18 tonnes of CO2 per ton of waste [40]) when combusted. It should be noted, however, that greater emissions reductions can often be achieved by alternative methods, such as recycling. When office paper is recycled it has a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of -0.80 tonnes of CO2.[41]
For every one million tons of waste, the waste-to-energy facilities offset the need to use 1.67 barrels of oil to create the same amount of electricity. For example, Haverhill resource recovery facility began operating in 1989 and now processes 1650 tons of waste per day of waste and creates about 48 megawatts of renewable energy per day. This energy is sold to energy wholesalers for use on New England's power grid. The facility has a continuous emissions monitoring system as its air pollution control equipment.[42] This energy production from solid waste offsets the emissions that oil may have created, but this amount is not large. Forty-eight megawatts of renewable energy, in relation to Wellesley College, would not be enough energy to power one day of electrical operation. Wellesley College uses about 75 megawatts per day (Dawley, Appendix B1). Thus, a year's worth of Wellesley's waste would, relatively, only provide small amount of energy. While waste-to-energy facilities, and Wellesley's use thereof, should be applauded, their effect on Wellesley College's greenhouse gas emissions is not included in this audit.
Presently, Wellesley College's recyclables are hauled to the Wellesley Recycling and Disposal Facility by college staff in college vehicles (Debello, Appendix B15). In most cases, it is less expensive for Wellesley to have a student and staff-managed program than to have recyclables removed by a contracted company, but, because of this informal process, no actual data exists as to how much waste is recycled annually at Wellesley College. However, this audit has estimated that Wellesley College recycles 0.5 tons of white paper and cardboard per week (Figure 30) (Willoughby, Appendix B3). Once the white paper and cardboard are sent to the Wellesley Recycling and Disposal Facility, the materials are added to the general recyclables holding tank, compressed, bailed, and later sold to contractors who turn the materials into other goods.[43]
Every dormitory building at Wellesley College has a recycling representative whose responsibility consists of coordinating the pick-up of recyclables (namely white paper, cardboard, and newspapers) with the school's Recycling Coordinator, James Ralli. Unfortunately, however, James Ralli often has other responsibilities that supercede campus recycling, and, if materials are not collected for a particular week, then those recyclables are added to the regular waste stream (Diamond, B17). In some cases, individual custodians in dorms such as Lake House, Bates and Beebe collect recycled materials for deposit. This individual collection is not a campus-wide policy, but rather individual custodians take it upon themselves to redeem plastic, glass and aluminum materials (Custodial Staff, B18).
Recycling representatives are supposed to collect all the recyclables in their dorms Sunday night for pick up Monday morning. However, the success of this program is somewhat dubious. If the recycling representative defaults on her obligations, whatever recyclables have been collected throughout the week are added to the regular solid waste stream. Also, custodians have no special dispensation to dispose of any recyclable materials, nor do they receive any special direction regarding recyclables. Furthermore, custodians are reprimanded by their superiors is bins are full at the close of Monday (Custodial Staff, Appendix B18). Therefore, in an effort to avoid this chastisement, custodians are likely to simply add dorm recyclables to the regular trash if a recycling representative is late in fulfilling her duties.
At the administrative level, Wellesley College recycles white paper, cardboard and newspaper from its academic buildings. This is the full extent of Wellesley's current administration-sponsored recycling program. Fortunately, Wellesley Environmental and Energy Defense (WEED) has fueled a renewal of institutional momentum regarding recycling (Diamond, Appendix B17). This enterprising group of students, faculty, staff, and union members has distributed recycling bins around campus and collects their contents for recycling on a regular basis. Wellesley has not been privy to this level of environmental activism since 1990, when the campus community felt its first big push to recycle.
Recycling is an effective way for Wellesley College to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Nationally, about 28% of waste is recycled or composted.[44] However, with merely 0.5 tons of Wellesley's waste being recycled weekly, Wellesley only recycles about 2.5% of its waste.[45] Because recycling does not emit greenhouse gases and actually preempts those emissions that would have been produced in waste-to-energy combustion, it helps to reduce Wellesley's total greenhouse gas emissions output.
As the chemicals used in refrigeration can have greenhouse gas implications, this audit considered the possibility of greenhouse gas emissions from the disposal of refrigerators on campus. It is estimated that Wellesley College disposes of approximately one dozen refrigerators per year, which are sent to Millis Used Auto, a company that deals in used refrigerators. If Wellesley College's units are unsalvageable, the freon contained within them is reclaimed and disposed. If a refrigerator is salvageable, it is sold and shipped to South America. For the large refrigerators on campus, Wellesley reclaims the freon itself, as it is a costly chemical, prior to sending the unit to Millis Used Auto (Byrne, Appendix B19). During this process, no freon is lost and all is reused in other refrigeration units. As lost freon is the main source of greenhouse gas emissions from refrigeration processes, no calculable greenhouse gases are emitted in the refrigeration process of Wellesley College. However, the transportation of these refrigerators to Millis Used Auto and South America does result in transportation-related emissions, though little data exists on these transactions. As for student refrigerators on campus, the number of refrigerators, in addition to student disposal methods, is not traced by Wellesley College.
While this audit generated a comprehensive analysis of Wellesley College's waste sector, there were a few categories of waste that are omitted from this audit because of infrequency of occurrence, degree of emissions, and lack of data. Though Wellesley College's Waste Sector includes hazardous waste, batteries, wastewater and chemical waste produced by campus activities, these factors are not analyzed within this audit. The disposal of print cartridges, fluorescent light bulbs, bio-medical waste from Health Services, and chemicals used in the art studios are omitted from this audit, as limited data exists describing the amount of each of these types of waste. While these items do not produce greenhouse gas emissions in and of themselves, they do produce emissions via their transportation and disposal. Since these emissions are omitted from this audit for lack of data, this suggests that this audit undervalues the amount of greenhouse gases that are generated within Wellesley's Waste Sector.
Also omitted from this audit is an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from chemicals used within the Science Center. While some of the chemicals used in the laboratories (under fume hoods) are greenhouse gases, the amounts in which they are used are extremely small, in addition to difficult to track, and are not analyzed within this audit. Other hazardous chemicals in the laboratories are held in a 55-gallon drum, which is collected twice yearly by Triumvirate Environmental Company and usually blended with other fuels to be burned to heat cement kilns. While these activities do produce greenhouse gas emissions, data as to how much chemical waste is processed on an annual basis is scant (Clark, Appendix B20).
Wastewater is not considered as a factor in Wellesley's greenhouse gas emissions for the purposes of this audit. It is difficult to measure how much water Wellesley College uses and how processes on campus contaminate it (with pesticides and other chemicals, for example) as well as what cleaning and processing that water must undergo.[46] The treatment of wastewater and human sewage is a source of methane and nitrous oxide emissions.[47] However, because Wellesley College's wastewater is combined with that of the Town of Wellesley, Wellesley College's direct contribution to waste-water-related greenhouse gases is impossible to calculate (Aston, Appendix B21).
Waste produced during large-scale construction projects at Wellesley College is not included in this audit. While in recent years Wellesley has completed several construction and renovation projects that have generated waste, most of the metal, stone tile, and other construction wastes that are recyclable are, in fact, recycled (Willoughby, Appendix B3). Furthermore, non-recyclable waste joins the regular Wellesley trash and is thus included in this audit's solid-waste figures.
The increase of atmospheric anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and the consequential climate change phenomenon, is of international scope and Wellesley College is an influential actor within the issue. The daily activities of a college demand a great amount of energy, create great amounts of waste, and promote great amounts of travel. While many of these activities are necessary to ensure that daily college processes run efficiently, Wellesley can take actions to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions that will save money, increase efficiency, and bolster environmental awareness.
Wellesley College, in addition to its economic ability, has a moral and ethical obligation as an institutional citizen to take action to reduce its detrimental impact on the environment. Wellesley College is not an isolated entity, but a participating member of the Massachusetts community, the intellectual community, and the environment at large. Additionally, as a respected actor in the international community, Wellesley College can add strength to the collective voice of other institutions to legitimate environmentally friendly national policies.
Scientists and politicians alike agree that some legislative action will have to be taken in the future to address the issue of climate change. Two approaches that have developed in the international arena that encourage a proactive stance towards climate change are the precautionary principle and the idea of no-regrets policies. The precautionary principle maintains that scientific uncertainty, regarding an issue with such drastic global implications as climate change, should not be a factor in limiting preemptive action. This principle holds especially true in the context of an issue that may result in particularly serious or irreversible damage.[48] While scientific uncertainty exists, it is mainly in regards to issues of predicting the intensity of change or forecasting local effects; not the phenomenon of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect itself. In the same vein, a no-regrets policy encourages actions that will address environmental issues while benefiting Wellesley College in other ways. Environmentally friendly actions can be taken to reduce operating costs and waste production that will save money. Wellesley has benefited financially from cost-effective business decisions in the past, which have also had significant positive environmental impacts. Installation of double-paned windows in the Hazard Quad during the late 1970s increased the energy efficiency of each residence hall by 80-90%, and has saved Wellesley College between $120,000 and $160,000 per year in reduced heating costs. This represents a total savings of approximately $2,760,000 to $3,680,000 since the instillation of the windows. Alternatively, installation of sliding glass windows in Stone-Davis has increased the energy efficiency of the residence hall by 20-30%. (Rida, Appendix B22)
Wellesley College actively sells an image as a national leader in the education of women; at one point every lamp post on the campus proclaimed that here were women who "will make a difference in the world." Climate change is the major environmental issue facing the world today, and provides an open arena for Wellesley women to make a positive difference in the world. Currently, however, Wellesley College has a detrimental impact on the climate change issue as it continues to emit more greenhouse gas emissions each year. As a respected women's college, Wellesley should be especially concerned about the disparity of effects that climate change will have on women around the world. Due to developmental constraints, less developed countries are less equipped to address issues of international environmental legislation, or to provide infrastructure and aid to their populations in response to environmental threats such as global climate change. Women in developing countries will be negatively affected by the impacts of climate change because they are typically the farmers, fuel-gatherers, water-drawers, and care-takers of families. As such, these women are especially close to their local environment and will be disproportionately affected by climate change.
Colleges have traditionally brought issues of social change to the forefront of community and national awareness. Following that path, Wellesley College is a voice to be heard by domestic and local policy-makers. Recently, Wellesley has acted as an institutional citizen in the national arena by taking a stance on affirmative action.[49] Climate change is another issue for Wellesley College to speak out about, as addressing the issue of climate change has positive effects on both environmental and social concerns. Reducing energy demands will have direct effects on national resources, as well as contributing to the encouragement of technological innovation. A reduction, or improvement, in transportation will have immediate impacts on air pollution and respiratory health. Finally, a decrease in waste production will have significant effects on land use changes, such as the creation of landfills or the preservation of forests.
Given the observed increase in average global temperatures, some degree of climate change is inevitable. However, with the support of international treaties, domestic legislation, and individual action, Wellesley College is in a unique position to contribute to the mitigation of climate change. In this section, this audit suggests 20 possible policies that Wellesley College can adopt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its Waste, Transportation, and Energy sectors. These policy suggestions were inspired by the findings of this greenhouse gas audit, though they do not represent all of Wellesley's existing options for emissions reductions. There are countless avenues that Wellesley College can take to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, ranging from financially beneficial to highly costly. The policy suggestions made by this audit run the gamut of cost and feasibility in order to inform Wellesley of its available options. Wellesley College should use the suggestions made by this audit as a starting point for generating creative greenhouse gas reducing policies.
It cannot be denied that there are costs to many of the policy suggestions within this audit. Behavioral changes will have to be adopted as new polices are developed, and some may require a significant initial investment in exchange for future benefits. However, with the encouragement of technological innovation, cost-effective solutions to current problems and alternatives to present options can be developed. It is clear that some legislative action will have to be taken to address the issue of climate change, and any action that Wellesley College can make today will put it on the path towards successfully meeting any obligations produced by future legislation. Here is an opportunity for Wellesley College to make a positive difference in the world today, as well as in the future.
Wellesley College should commit to an emissions reduction target in line with the Kyoto Protocol.
The practical first step for Wellesley College to take is to set an emissions reduction target. A quantitative goal will help guide Wellesley's emissions reduction policies. Wellesley should commit to a reduction target in line with the Kyoto Protocol, which would require a 7% emissions reduction below 1990 levels. Such a commitment would be a reasonable but significant reduction target as well as a strong symbolic message in support of international action to address climate change. Wellesley should join the leading group of colleges and universities, including Tufts, Lewis & Clark, Cornell, Oberlin, Middlebury, and University of Vermont, who are making a difference in the climate change issue by pledging to meet or beat Kyoto. By doing this, Wellesley College could influence how other institutions, the United States government, and the world deal with the issue of climate change. Committing to Kyoto would require Wellesley to reduce its current average emissions by 8,765 tonnes of CO2 by 2008-2012.
Wellesley College should regularly conduct comprehensive waste audits.
To reduce Wellesley College's waste, and subsequently its greenhouse gas emissions, it would be beneficial to conduct a comprehensive waste audit. Such an audit would allow Wellesley to inventory the types of waste products that comprise the 20 tons produced per week on campus (Debello, Appendix B15). Often, recyclable materials such as paper, cardboard, cans and bottles, glass, metal, plastic, and Styrofoam are found within these 20 tons, in addition to significant amounts of compostable material. This audit does not recommend a waste inventory be a one-time event but rather a series of initial audits that can be averaged to form a baseline of waste production. WEED has begun an informal annual waste audit of Wellesley College (Diamond, Appendix B17) but lacks the resources necessary to conduct it adequately. An annual waste audit should be conducted by the administration to ensure the effectiveness of any new policies.
(Appendix A14)
Increase institutional support of a recycling program so that it is comprehensive and successful.
Currently at Wellesley College, students run the recycling effort in dorms; the program is inconsistent and lacks supportive infrastructure. However, Wellesley College has an incredible opportunity to be a premier recycler because it is situated next door to a cutting edge recycling facility. The Town of Wellesley Recycling Center is capable of recycling most materials. If Wellesley took advantage of this resource and recycled all possible materials, Wellesley would reduce its waste stream significantly. Approximately 1/3 of a ton of Wellesley's recyclables from the dormitories is trashed each week, with a total of 42% of the campus wide waste stream being recyclable materials.[50] This material causes greenhouse gas emissions as it is transported 50-100 miles to waste-to-energy facilities where it is incinerated.
The success of a recycling program on campus is dependent upon a conscientious effort at collecting recyclables, distributing proper recycling bins, and developing and delivering universal information regarding recycling procedure. Students will be more inclined to separate out recyclables from their trash if there are clearly marked bins available on dorm floors that are emptied regularly. Additionally, faculty and staff need consistent information about what to recycle and how. Wellesley should make a recycling program a high priority. Also, because the recycling facility is much closer than any of the waste to energy facilities, transportation of the recycled materials will cause fewer greenhouse gas emissions than if the materials were not recycled. The cost to Wellesley College of driving the recyclable materials to the Wellesley Recycling Center is significantly less than the cost of having Wellesley Trucking pick up and deliver waste to the waste-to-energy facilities, and it will produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
(Appendix A15)
The College should hire or designate an employee to coordinate recycling and other environmental efforts on campus.
Wellesley College should employ a person whose sole purpose would be to manage the recycling program on campus, monitor the current status of Wellesley College's waste output, and to coordinate other environmental efforts. This person would ensure a comprehensive recycling program operated at all times, would stay abreast of new technology, and work to implement beneficial new environmental policies.
Establish a semesterly print quota for students.
An immense amount of paper is used in public computer labs at Wellesley College. Knapp Media Center spends about $26,000 on paper in one semester alone (Hand, Appendix B23). There is a significant amount of paper waste due to this free use of printing services, which then produces greenhouse gases during transport and incineration (about 18% of computer lab paper is not recycled). It is possible to track how much paper each student uses for printing in public computer labs using Microsoft Professional Software. A semesterly print quota should be assigned to each student username and the student's account could be charged after this quota is exceeded. This would give students an incentive to carefully consider their printing jobs and would reduce paper use and waste. A similar system works successfully at The University of London. Microsoft Professional Software would have to be purchased and installed on Mac computers (PCs already have it) and Information Services resources would have to be used to run the system.
(Appendix A16)
Reduce waste by switching all purchasing to recyclable products when possible.
Wellesley College should develop a program to reduce waste to as close to zero as possible. Such an initiative requires eliminating waste at the purchasing end by buying products that can be recycled after their use. Complete waste reduction would also require food waste to be composted. The Purchasing Department would need to coordinate with all other departments on campus to find suitable recyclable options for purchasing. Initially, switching to a total recyclable products-purchasing system would be costly. However, the majority of the $200,000 per year Wellesley College spends on contracting with Wellesley Trucking to transport waste (Willoughby, Appendix B3) can be used to make this transition. To eliminate food in the waste stream, Dining Services would need to set up a system with the Grounds Department so that food waste can be transported to a compost pile on campus. This policy would significantly reduce greenhouse gases due to the reduction of transportation and incineration of waste. Twenty tons of recycled waste equates to over $70,000 per year in savings.
A smaller exchange bus should be used Monday through Thursday to and from MIT, since these trips have light student flow.
Wellesley College administration should request a smaller bus from G & W Transportation for all Monday through Thursday trips. Frequently, only a handful of students can be found on these routes. While the existence of the Exchange Bus already reduces greenhouse gas emissions because it offers students an alternative to cars for commuting into Boston, a smaller bus would increase the reduction. As another plus, this policy requires no behavior change on the part of the Wellesley community. The policy would benefit Wellesley College because using a smaller vehicle would reduce the amount of gasoline needed, inevitably reducing costs to G & W, and, ultimately, Wellesley College. As this policy does not require behavior changes, there is no foreseeable reason for student opposition. The Wellesley administration will likely support this policy because of reduced costs of service. If this policy is adopted the benefits would be seen immediately.
(Appendix A17)
Wellesley College should run its own bus system with buses that use electricity.
The diesel buses that Wellesley College currently uses emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases. Diesel-electric hybrid buses are available; it is estimated that these buses produce 75% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a full diesel bus.[54] Wellesley should search out a bus company with hybrid buses to contract with, or Wellesley should buy the buses and run the system itself. Within these buses, an electric motor, which is charged by regenerative braking and a diesel engine if necessary, is used to turn the wheels. Therefore, these buses are continually self-charging, thus averting concerns of not reaching a destination or of increased demands on Wellesley's co-generation plant. Initially, this would require significant time and effort as Wellesley would hire bus drivers and purchase buses. Permanent additional management would be necessary to organize the bus fleet, hire bus drivers and maintain buses. In the long run, however, this policy would benefit Wellesley, as electric buses are much cheaper to run than diesel buses.
(Appendix A18)
Wellesley should implement a parking permit system to reduce the number of faculty and staff cars driven to campus.
Currently, a perk of being an employee of Wellesley College is free parking on campus. This creates an incentive for employees to drive to work even when they could commute to campus by walking, biking, carpooling, or using public transportation, and does nothing to reward those employees who choose not to drive. A parking permit system could work to change employee driving behavior and have an impact on emissions at little or no cost to Wellesley. Employees should be charged a nominal fee for parking; those who opt to not obtain a parking permit should receive a significant reimbursement from Wellesley and could park on campus for a day fee if necessary. It would be especially practical to begin this policy when the new parking garage opens as the entrance will be gated and require an approved one card to gain access. To provide further incentive for employees to change their behavior, a list should be published every semester commending those who opt not to purchase a parking permit. This policy will cause employees to think about their commuting choices, and might change some driving behavior. Regardless of the benefits, some employees may oppose the new fee imposed on them after years of parking for free.
(Appendix A19)
The College should reward owners of fuel-efficient vehicles with either a price cut in their parking permit or preferential parking spots.
Parking permits for students should range in price so that particularly fuel-efficient vehicles, such as small cars and hybrids, receive a reduced rate and particularly inefficient vehicles, such as SUVs, are charged more for a permit. Faculty who do not pay or could pay minimally for parking permits could receive preferential parking spots for fuel-efficient vehicles. This would require that the parking lots be segregated and that Campus Police enforce parking zones. Campus Police may protest this system as it may be complicated to implement. Much opposition can be expected from owners of inefficient vehicles or anyone who sees this policy as unfair due to different economic capabilities of community members. Though, because fuel-efficient vehicles are often lower-priced than SUVs, this policy may be somewhat progressive and would lead employees to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles in the future.
(Appendix A20)
Motor Pool should commit to purchase in the future the most environmentally efficient vehicles capable of the job for which they are needed.
Wellesley College Motor Pool should make a commitment that all vehicles purchased, whether replacement or new, will be the most fuel-efficient vehicles possible, even if this increases initial cost to Wellesley College. This would require that research on the necessary attributes of a vehicle be done before purchases are made. Research on vehicle efficiency and current market options would also be called for. Some examples of this would be limiting Campus Police to one SUV that patrols only when weather conditions are such that it is necessary for safety, and the purchasing of a hybrid SUV for such purposes if one becomes available. Gasoline-electric hybrids should be purchased for as many tasks as they could accommodate. Similarly, smaller pick-ups could be used for many grounds purposes. Cooperation from all departments using these vehicles would be needed and willingness to pay more for a hybrid or more efficient vehicle might be necessary.
(Appendix A21)
One or two of Campus Police's patrollers should patrol by bicycle instead of in cars at all times.
One or two of the active patrollers should travel the campus via bicycle instead of automobile. This policy would require that campus police officers be capable and willing to travel by bicycle on some shifts. For this reason, some officers might oppose such a policy, especially during certain seasons. The campus community might also oppose this policy if it is felt that safety is compromised due to decreased speed in emergency response. However, fewer patrol cars would be needed in such a scenario therefore reducing the capital costs and fuel consumption of Campus Police.
(Appendix A22)
Wellesley College should recommend that all individual computers on campus be laptops and that screen savers should be set to a blank screen.
A simple measure that Wellesley College can take to limit its greenhouse gas emissions is to focus on student computer use. A laptop computer uses 1/4 the energy of a desktop computer.[56] Wellesley should recommend laptops to all incoming students and/or current students looking to purchase new personal computers. This policy can be included in the information sent out to first-year students preparing for Wellesley. This measure should be supported by Wellesley College because it does not incur any cost for Wellesley and, in fact, would lead to a savings due to decreased energy use. Students owning laptops would benefit from the increasing accommodations Information Services is providing such as laptop stations in public clusters and computer ready classrooms.
(Appendix A23)
Wellesley can limit its greenhouse gas emissions due to computer use by suggesting to all students, faculty, and computer lab managers that computers be turned off at night and that the screensaver function should be set to a black screen (this option is often [none] in the screen saver menu). Though putting computers to sleep while not in use would be more efficient, this function may produce problems because computers do not always wake up and so has been rejected by Information Services as a general policy. Information Services, or any other computer maintenance group on campus, would not likely oppose the blank screen suggestion because it does not produce this problem. This measure would incur no cost for Wellesley College and should have wide-ranging support. While students might miss the amusement they receive from a fun or witty screensaver, this audit expects little opposition from the student body.
(Appendix A24)
Wellesley College should advise students to keep utility costs and greenhouse gas emissions low.
A large proportion of Wellesley's College electricity consumption is due to individual use in dorms. Wellesley can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by making students aware of the simple steps they can take within their own dorm rooms to limit both their environmental impact and the cost of utilities at Wellesley. In the same way that students are advised about fire exits and stairwells, a sticker with a list of energy reduction tips can be posted on the backs of students' doors. The measures listed could include: turning down the radiators when leaving the room and in general; turning private refrigerators to a lower setting; turning off lights when leaving the room; and turning off computers when not in use and/or keep screensavers set to "black screen". A policy measure such as this one would come at little cost to Wellesley (a simple printing of one page of suggestions) and would find little opposition from faculty and staff. Students might protest the posting of this information on the backs of their doors, but any opposition would be minimal, particularly if it explained how this measure could reduce costs and therefore prevent tuition increases. In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a policy such as this one would help reduce utility bills, making both Wellesley officials and attending students happy.
(Appendix A25)
Retrofit windows in campus buildings to be more energy efficient.
Though initially costly and labor intensive, a successful long-term strategy to reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved through the repair, replacement, or double-glazing of campus windows. Currently, many of the windows on Wellesley College's campus are authentic, ornate, single-paned, lead-lined windows. While these original windows have significant aesthetic value, they allow large quantities of heat to escape. Double-glazing these windows would increase their energy efficiency by 80% - 90%. However, it is incredibly difficult to double-glaze the historic windows, and they would most likely need to be replaced instead. The authentic windows can, however, be mimicked with double-glazed glass and aluminum lining. While the authentic windows may hold great historic value for some, they are incredibly difficult for Wellesley College to maintain. As no one else produces these windows anymore, Wellesley must operate and maintain its own window-manufacturing facility, where workers often risk lead poisoning in the course of their work. While the initial cost of removing the old windows and installing new double-glazed ones would be high, the savings Wellesley would reap in terms of saved energy and operation costs would be phenomenal. (Rida, B22)
A possible alternative to double-glazed windows, though somewhat less effective, would be the installation of sliding glass storm panels on the inside of original windows in campus buildings. Sliding windows were successfully incorporated into the renovated Stone-Davis Residence Hall and greatly increased the overall efficiency of the building. Sliding storm windows are approximately 20% - 30% efficient, and cost only $3 per sheet, as opposed to the $30 per sheet for double-glazed glass. The use of sliding storms instead of double-glazed glass would allow Wellesley College to maintain its historic architecture while reducing costs and greenhouse gas emissions.
Old steam heating systems in campus buildings should be replaced with hot water-based systems.
Wellesley College should replace its steam heating systems with those that use hot water. Currently, most of the dorms and many of the other buildings on campus use steam systems that are, on average, sixty years old. These systems require pumping steam at 360oF throughout entire buildings (Rida, Appendix B22). The system is difficult to regulate in individual rooms within these buildings, as steam is periodically piped into the radiators independent of demand. This is a hugely inefficient waste of energy in terms of production of steam and results in greenhouse gas emissions from the boilers. New and more efficient water-based heating systems are available and one has already been put to use in Stone-Davis. These new systems require transferring heat from 360oF steam produced by the Physical Plant to individual building boilers. Water within these boilers is heated to 180oF and pumped to individual radiators around the building. This means that less steam, which requires more energy to produce, is used in the overall heating of campus buildings. The installation of these heating systems can increase building energy efficiency by 50%, saving Wellesley roughly $30,000 - $40,000 per dorm per year (Rida, Appendix B22).
(Appendix A26)
Replace all incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent light bulbs.
This simple step that Wellesley can take to reduce energy demands involves no additional labor. By changing burnt-out incandescent light bulbs and replacing them with compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), Wellesley has the opportunity to significantly lower energy demands. CFLs have been shown to use 66% less energy than similarly bright incandescent lights, and last up to 10 times as long. Wellesley College currently purchases CFLs for some purposes, at an average cost of $6.26. Retail CFLs range in price from $5 - $15 while a standard incandescent bulb sells for around $0.55. Simply replacing a burnt-out 100-Watt incandescent light with a 32-Watt CFL can save over $30 in energy costs for the life of the bulb.[59] CFL bulbs will save Wellesley money due to less frequent purchasing and will save labor costs because they last longer and need to be replaced less often. The replacement of a standard incandescent light bulb with a CFL would result in a reduction of 0.0004 tonnes of CO2 emissions per life span. With the replacement of the thousands of incandescent light bulbs on campus, the averted emissions become significant.
(Russel, Appendix B25)
Year Incandescent Lights Purchased 2002 10,943 2001 9,822 2000 11,509 1999 12,914
Additionally, CFL light bulbs burn at a safer temperature than halogen lights, 100°F rather than 1,000°F; therefore they are safer to use. There is strong student support for the replacement of light fixtures on campus to provide for brighter, whiter light, especially in the dormitories. The current light fixtures in dorm rooms are inefficient as they provide very low luminosity, and are underused because the light they give off is an unpleasant green-yellow hue. Students avoid the disagreeable light by bringing personal lamps to school, perpetuating a further increase in electricity demand. The custodial managers and budget designers are most likely to oppose this recommendation because of greater initial costs, and increased risk of theft of the more valuable light fixtures.
Conduct an energy audit of all faculty housing and make any necessary improvements to increase energy efficiency.
Wellesley College faculty housing is very inefficient. Each resident who lives in faculty housing uses 0.0151 kWh of electricity per square foot of housing per year, while the average Town of Wellesley resident uses 0.00019 kWh (79 times less). This shows that faculty housing is significantly less electrically efficient than the average Town of Wellesley household. Residents have little ability to increase their efficiency through their own volition because Wellesley College is responsible for the maintenance of faculty housing. Therefore, it is Wellesley's responsibility to do an energy audit of faculty housing to improve efficiency. This would not aide in reducing the emissions of Wellesley specifically as faculty housing was not included in this greenhouse gas audit. However, improving faculty housing efficiency would be beneficial. It would green Wellesley's image, lower faculty utility bills (an added perk for faculty residents), and it would be generally beneficial for the environment. Examples of possible efficiency improvements, both in terms of electricity and heat, and the related CO2 emissions reductions per year are as follows:
Putting insulation jackets on water heaters up to 0.45 Setting water heaters to 120 0.23 Replacing old windows and doors 4.54 Re-caulking windows and doors 0.45 Replace any light fixtures that do not accommodate fluorescent lights 0.23 Installation of skylights to decrease lighting costs and demand.
These changes will be a significant one-time investment but could reduce energy consumption by faculty residents, thus averting greenhouse gas emissions. Faculty housing residents are likely to support this policy because it will improve their homes and decrease their utility bills. The changes would probably be costly; therefore anyone concerned with budgets at Wellesley College may take issue with this policy. The Maintenance Department will likely oppose this policy because the audits and installation of any changes would divert their energies from their other campus maintenance duties. Depending on the number and type of changes made, this policy could result in large reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
Change from an interruptible natural gas line to a firm line for Boiler 1 and use natural gas as much as possible in the production of steam on campus.
The interruptible natural gas line to the main boiler results in higher greenhouse gas emissions for Wellesley College. As oil produces 0.0767 tonnes of CO2 per MMBtu while natural gas only produces 0.0599 tonnes per MMBtu, Wellesley produces more greenhouse gases when forced to use oil in the main boiler. The natural gas line that feeds Boiler 1 should be switched to a "firm line," which the gas company cannot cut off. This would allow Wellesley to use cleaner natural gas as much as possible, which would avoid burning oil on the order of 500,000 gallons, depending on the year, and reducing emissions by as much as 1,876 tonnes of CO2. Two boilers would still operate on oil, however, thus removing concern about instability in gas delivery or steam production. Those who wish to significantly decrease Wellesley's emissions will support this policy, however it will be costly. It is likely that anyone concerned with money at Wellesley College will oppose this policy.
(Appendix A29)
Wellesley should purchase offsets to make up any emissions not reduced through in-house policies so that an emissions reduction target is reached.
It is likely that Wellesley College will need to purchase offsets to help reach an emissions target in a cost-effective manner. An offset is a unit of abatement of CO2 that can be purchased, generally sold in terms of an investment in a project that will reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Common offset projects include building wind turbines (in place of a fossil fuel power plant), preserving a forest, or reforesting land. Offset units are sold per tonne of CO2 abated. The current rate is around $6/tonne.[61] The reduction policies that will save money and boost efficiency should be undertaken regardless of the greenhouse gas benefits and many of the other policies have long term benefits for the environment other than lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Wellesley College, as an academic institution, has a responsibility to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and to educate its community members about their impact on the global climate. Wellesley College's contribution to the climate change phenomenon is significant; it is not simply a drop in the bucket. On an annual basis, Wellesley College produces an average of 38,256 tonnes of CO2. Since 1990, Wellesley College has increased emissions by almost 6,000 tonnes of CO2. Wellesley would have to plant approximately 25,000 trees to counteract these emissions.[62] The bulk of Wellesley College's greenhouse gas emissions, approximately 86%, are generated by the Energy Sector. Though Wellesley College has installed an economically efficient and environmentally friendly co-generation plant, this decision has caused Wellesley to become a relatively greater greenhouse gas emitter because of shifts in the Massachusetts energy pool. While Wellesley College is committed to its use of co-generation for its electricity production, there are many steps that Wellesley can take to reduce its electricity-related emissions, which are the Energy Sector's greatest contributor of greenhouse gases. Wellesley College can help students, faculty and staff to make behavior changes that will reduce electricity consumption and consequential emissions. Measures can also be taken to reduce overall energy-related emissions. These are often quite cost-effective for Wellesley College. For example, window replacement in the Hazard Quad dormitories has already saved Wellesley roughly $120,000-$160,000 per year since the late 1970s (Rida, Appendix B22). The second greatest contributor to Wellesley College's greenhouse gas emissions is the Transportation Sector, which generates 11% of emissions. There is significant room for improvement within Wellesley's Transportation Sector, including shifting to more efficient vehicles in Motor Pool to changing Wellesley's contracts with G & W Transportation. While Wellesley often provides subsidized transport in excess of student demand, particularly on the weekdays, efforts should be taken to ensure that public transportation remains simple and cost-effective for students so that they will utilize mass transit as opposed to personal vehicles. The sector that contributes the least to Wellesley College's greenhouse gas emissions is the Waste Sector; however, waste is incredibly important environmentally and should neither be overlooked nor slighted. Waste production has been increasing at Wellesley College at an average of 3% each year and accounts for 3% of total greenhouse gas emissions. Wellesley College should act to reduce its waste production, not only to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also to teach its community members to think about their individual waste production. Wellesley College has already taken one step towards this goal by introducing disposable-free dining halls on campus, which has helped to significantly reduce waste. By limiting waste production and instituting campus-wide recycling programs, Wellesley College can have a ripple effect throughout the United States and the world, as students leave Wellesley but continue waste reduction and recycling habits in their new residences. Wellesley College is an academic institution that prides itself on its moral stature and ingenuity. Already, Wellesley College has made a conscious decision to support small-scale coffee growers as opposed to huge coffee companies through the purchasing of Fair Trade coffee for the Schneider Student Center. This is evidence of decision-making based on moral responsibility. The next moral decision that Wellesley College should undertake is a reduction in its impact on global climate change. President Diana Chapman Walsh started this process by recently co-signing a letter to President George W. Bush, beseeching him to promote innovative energy policies within the United States.[63]
It is now time for Wellesley College to look within itself to mitigate global climate change. Individual actors are needed in addition to global governments. Campuses for Climate Action is a group of academic institutions throughout the United States that have formed formal partnerships with Clean Air-Cool Planet. These institutions include Bates College, Bowdoin College, Colgate University, Eastern Connecticut State University, Middlebury College, Skidmore College, Tufts University, University of New Hampshire, and University of Vermont.[64] Through these partnerships, Clean Air-Cool Planet helps these universities and colleges to raise awareness of climate change, to adopt a greenhouse gas emissions reductions target and to develop and implement a strategic plan to achieve that target. Wellesley should join this coalition of academic institutions, not only to reduce its impact on global climate change, but also to remain at the forefront of moral and intellectual action.
A1. Data for Wellesley College's electrical purchases was found via a variety of sources. Data on how much electricity Wellesley College purchased between 1990 and 1994 (Lyons, Appendix B2) was entered into the CA-CP framework. To estimate the pool of energy sources used to produce that electricity, Massachusetts's estimates [65] were used, and trend lines were utilized to project pool breakdowns for years without data.
A2. Emissions for 1 MMBtu of oil and 1 MMBtu of natural gas were calculated using the CA-CP framework.
A3. The formulas built into CA-CP were used for analysis of the Wellesley Fleet (Willoughby, Appendix B3, Dewitt, Appendix B4). Emissions were based on the number of gallons of both gasoline and diesel fuel consumed annually.
A4. To calculate student commute traffic in 2002, it was assumed that each student who brought her car to campus had to make at least one round-trip home per year in order to get her car both to and from school. The average distances these students traveled from home were calculated by taking a point at the center of the state the car was registered in 'as the bird flies.' The average distance traveled from home was found to be 1311 miles, using ArcGIS 8.1, a geographic information systems program, and it was realized that in many cases this distance was shorter than the average distance traveled. It was then assumed that students who live more than a 10 hour drive from home probably only made one round-trip home per year while students closer make at least two round-trips home per year. By recording every student as having traveled home twice a year, the inaccuracies of distance estimation are predominately covered. These miles were then tallied and divided by the number of registered student cars in order to obtain a school-wide average distance traveled from home. This average distance was then divided by the number of days a year traveled by the student while she was on campus so that it could be added to the number of miles that students travel on a weekly basis while at Wellesley. It was assumed that while at Wellesley, each student made 2 trips a day (1 round-trip), 4 days a week, 32 weeks a year, with each trip being 10 miles.
Formulas:Weekly Travel (For each registered student vehicle) = 128 days/year (4 days/week x 32 week/year) x 2 trips/day (1 round-trip) x 10 miles/trip = number of miles traveled a year per student (A)
Travel From Home (For each registered student vehicle) = Number of miles to center of registered state (as bird flies) x 4 trips a year (2 round-trips) = number of miles traveled to and from home a year
Total number of miles traveled home a year by registered student vehicles/number of registered cars = average number of miles traveled home a year by each car (B)
B/128 days +A= number of miles traveled by student a day
It was thus figured that each student traveled an average of 120 miles a week.
Due to the lack of records from Campus Police for student registered cars, it was estimated that 600 student cars were registered in 1990 and that an extra 10 cars per year were registered after 1990 (based on trends). From these numbers the same formulas were used as for the 2002 year. For years other than 2002, it was assumed that the average number of miles traveled home per car remained the same (1311 mi).
A5. To calculate faculty commuter traffic, it was assumed that each faculty member made one round trip a day, 5 days a week, 8 months a year (with an additional 10 days added on), and averaged 10 miles a trip. Based on available statistics it is assumed that the number of faculty members has remained relatively constant. (Baldwin, Appendix B6)
A6. To calculate staff commuter traffic, it was assumed that each staff member made one round trip a day, 5 days a week, 8 months a year), and averaged 10 miles a trip. Based on available statistics additional staff members are employed by the college every year. It was assumed that there was an average increase of 5 staff members a year; working backwards from 2001 it was estimated that that the staff consisted of 800 individuals in 1990. (Baldwin, Appendix B6)
A7. This category included all regular Senate, Exchange and Movie/Mall G & W trips (excluding special chartered trips). The Movie/Mall Shuttle did not begin running until 1994.
Bus travel [66]: Lbs.CO2/passenger/ mile = 0.389
The Senate/Exchange Bus has a capacity of 60 passengers. The bus thus produces 23.3 Lbs. CO2/mile (0.389*60). The Movie/Mall has a 30 person capacity. It thus produces 11.7 Lbs. CO2/mile (0.389*30). Pounds were then converted to metric tonnes
A8. For smaller vehicles, such as vans and cars, the same formulas were used as for commuting individuals (Appendix A4). For large trucks, the same formula was used as was used for subsidized travel by large bus (Sysco and Garelick Farms) Lbs. CO2 mile = 23.3 (Appendix A7). For the UPS truck the conversion factor of Lbs. CO2 mile = 11.7 was used. These formulas were adjusted from CACP formulas calculating bus emissions. Pounds were then converted to metric tonnes.
A large amount of data regarding deliveries made on campus came from secretaries of individual departments who knew how often company X made a delivery to their office. It is possible that slight variations did occur from year to year. However, this audit did determine, however, that there had to have been deliveries and thus assumed that because the student population remained relatively stable over the last 12 years that the amount of GHG emissions related to regular deliveries also remained stable.
A9. For funded air/bus/train travel to perspective students, these formulas designed by CA-CP were used the formulas below, and distance was calculated from the major airport located most centrally in the given state.
Bus Travel [66]: Lbs.CO2/passenger/ mile = 0.389
Air Travel: Lbs.CO2/passenger/mile (Domestic operations) = 0.6330
A10. To determine Wellesley's yearly production of waste, 20 tons of waste was multiplied by 52 tons per year, resulting in 1040 tons of waste produced per year (Willoughby, Appendix B3).
A11. TO determine per student waste production, waste production per week (20 tons) was converted to lbs (*2000) and divided by the approximate Wellesley student population (2400), resulting in 16.67 lbs of waste/student/week.
A12. A trend line for waste production was generated based on a 3% decrease in production yearly from 1040 tons of waste in 2002 (Willoughby, Appendix B3).
A13. For garbage trucks, the following formula was used to calculate emissions: Lbs. CO2 mile = 23.3. This formula was adjusted from CACP formulas calculating bus emissions. Pounds were then converted to metric tonnes
A14. Emissions reduction calculated using the CA-CP framework.
A15. It has been approximated that between 6-12 lbs of plastic, and between 10-20 lbs of glass, both commodities sorted into recycling bins are included in dormitory trash weekly (Lamont, Appendix B24). By taking an average of these two ranges, this audit derived the following quantities: 9 lbs of plastic, and 15 lbs of glass per week. Multiplying by the 16 dormitories on campus of a comparable size to Pomeroy Hall, approximately 664 lbs of recyclable trash enter the waste stream needlessly. Converting 664 lbs to metric tonnes, this audit determined that 1/3 of a ton of recycles are disposed of as trash. One ton of trash converts to 0.485 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide released. Divided by three, Wellesley could potentially save approximately 0.16 metric tons per week of carbon dioxide by instituting a simple plastic and glass recycling program.
Based on the WEED Waste Audit of 2002 which found 42% of Wellesley's waste is recyclable, 8.4 tons (0.42 x 20 tons waste per week) of waste is recyclable per week, or 436.8 per year (8.4 x 52). At a rate of $60-$85 to dispose of one ton of trash, Wellesley could save $26,208-$37,000, or $128,000 per year by recycling all possible materials instead of disposing of them. This would save 42% of Wellesley's emissions (both from transportation and disposal) from the Waste Sector or .42 x 1447= 607.74 metric tonnes of emissions averted by recycling.
A16. The Knapp Media Center currently uses approximately 1 million sheets of paper per week, (Hand, Appendix B23). In a box of 10 reams, where each ream is 1000 sheets, this means the Knapp uses 100 boxes of paper per week, and thus 1300 boxes of paper per semester. Ignoring for a moment that there are four other major printing stations on campus, not to mention smaller stations and staff and faculty printers, this audit can conservatively say that Wellesley spends $26,000 on paper per semester just for the Knapp Center (assuming that paper is approximately $20 per box). If each student were restricted to 400 pages per semester: 400 sheets x 2,300 students = 920,000 sheets which translates to 92 boxes of paper per semester (920,000/1000 sheets of paper per ream = 920 reams/ 10 reams per box = 92 boxes) at $20 for each box paper would cost Knapp $1,840/semester spent. Subtract that from the current Knapp paper budget of $26,000 to get a savings of $24,160.
If Wellesley College reduced the use of 184 boxes of paper per semester at 20 lbs a box = 3680 lbs of paper/ 2000 lbs per ton = 1.84 tons x 18% = .3312 tonnes. Emissions calculations generated using the CA-CP framework.
A17. This audit calculated a reduction of 566 tonnes in Exchange/Senate Bus emissions if replaced with a smaller vehicle. A full sized diesel bus (60 passengers) emits 23.3 Lbs. CO2/mile, compared with a smaller bus (30 passengers) that emits 11.7 Lbs. CO2/mile. (Miles/year * 23.3) - (Miles/year * 11.7) = 566 tonnes
A18. This audit found that electric buses can reduce emissions by 75%,[67] and multiplied this factor by annual bus emissions.
Percent emissions reductions * Annual Bus emissions = .75*1,904 = 1,428
A19. Two estimates were generated for employee parking permits.
A20. Two estimates were generated for benefits to efficient vehicles.
This audit assumed a 0.30 efficiency increase for these "efficient" vehicles.[68] The average mid-sized SUV obtains 21 miles per gallon, while the average compact car receives 30.1 miles per gallon. To travel one mile a mid-sized SUV uses 1/21= 0.047 gallons. To travel one mile an average compact car uses 1/30.1= 0.033 gallons. 0.033/0.047= 0.70 the amount originally used. 1-0.70= 0.30 or 30% less than original emissions
This 30% reduction is assumed in all cases in which we switch from average vehicles to efficient vehicles. For the low estimate of this policy we assumed only 5% of the community would purchase more efficient vehicles. The product of these two factors with the 2002 student and faculty emissions gave us the reduced emissions.
A21. Percent of efficient cars*percent efficiency increased* Total Motor Pool emissions in 2001 0.1*0.3* 535= 16.05 tonnes of CO2. This audit assumed cars would be 30% more efficient. Those two factors multiplied by the total motor pool emissions from 2001 provided reduced emissions.
A22. Total Motor Pool emissions 2001/ Number of cars in Motor Pool = 535/147 = 3.6 tonnes CO2/individual vehicle. This audit found the amount of total Motor Pool emissions and divided it by the number of vehicles in the motor pool to get the reductions from removing one vehicle due to bicycle riding. While the campus police cars are small, they are constantly moving, so this audit considers this to be an accurate measure of emissions.
A23. The energy consumption of a laptop was measured from start up to shut down (for 12 hours) using an electrical meter, resulting in a measurement of 0.194 kWh. This was considered to be the average amount of power used by an average laptop in an average day on campus. Multiplying 0.194 kWh/day by 265 days (the estimated number of days a student uses her laptop) resulted in a projected use of 51.41 kWh/laptop/Wellesley year. To determine the energy consumed by a desktop, this number was multiplied by 4,[69] resulting in 205.64 kWh. The difference in consumption between the two measurements was calculated to be 154.24 kWh.
To determine the economic benefits gained through laptop use, a price per kWh was estimated by averaging the 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 unit prices ($0.0691 and $0.101, respectively, Dawley, Appendix B1). This calculation produced an average per unit price of $0.0851/Kwh of electricity. By multiplying this unit price by the number of kWh saved though using a single laptop each year, a value of $13.12 was produced in terms of yearly savings.
To determine the greenhouse gas emissions saved through the use of one laptop per year, the energy saved (154.23 kWh) was put into the CACP spreadsheet producing a projected savings in greenhouse gases of 0.66 metric tons of CO2 per laptop per year.
According to Wellesley College Information Services, 20% of those first-year students with personal computers have desktops (Orr, Appendix B28). That 20% of the first-year class is estimated to be approximately 120 students (based on a total class size of 600). Both economic costs and greenhouse gas emissions were multiplied by this number accordingly.
A24. A computer running with a moving screensaver uses 25 - 30 Watts/hour of electricity, while a blank screensaver uses 17 - 19 Watts/hour, as measured with an electrical meter. The difference between these measurements (6 - 13 W) was used to calculate kWh saved per school year (6 hours each day for 265 days). These saved kWh were translated into emissions saved using the CACP framework. The money saved was computed by multiplying the saved kWh by the unit price of electrical production at Wellesley.
Assuming that most students do not use blank screen savers currently, if all students switched to this new policy this would be a change to approximately 2300 computers. Both economic costs and greenhouse gas emissions were multiplied accordingly.
A25. The price of producing the "Keep it Cheap! Keep it Green!" stickers was calculated as follows: The total number of student rooms on campus was determined (1,518 rooms, Chow, Appendix B29). It would cost as much as $0.25 to print on an 8.5 by 11-inch page of sticker paper. Two stickers could be printed on each 8.5 by 11-inch page, and so the total cost was determined by multiplying the total number of student rooms by cost per page ($0.25, Printing Services, Appendix B30), and dividing by 2, for a total printing cost of $189.75.
A26. To calculate the greenhouse gas emissions averted through the use of hot water heating systems instead of steam-based ones, first the difference in temperature demanded by each system was calculated. This temperature difference, 180oF, was converted to MMBtus.[70] Greenhouse gas emissions, were the boilers to be run on natural gas, were calculated by inputting the MMBtus saved into the CA-CP framework. To calculate emissions saved were the boilers to use oil, the MMBtus were first converted into gallons.
The total cost of purchasing new water-based radiators for campus dormitories was calculated by multiplying the cost of each radiator ($350) by an estimation of the number of rooms on campus without these radiators. This room number was calculated by dividing the number of student rooms (1,518, Chow, Appendix B29) and dividing it by the number of dorms on campus (15). This resulted in approximately 100 rooms per dorm. By allotting 200 of these rooms to Stone-Davis, it was estimated that approximately 1300 dorm rooms on campus would need new radiators.
The averted greenhouse gas emissions were calculated per use of heater. This refers to each time a heater is required to emit heat or increase its heat output. Each time a heater is turned on or up, energy is required.
A27. To determine the initial cost of purchasing CFL bulbs for Wellesley College, the different between the price of one CFL and one incandescent bulb was determined. One incandescent bulb costs approximately $0.55 ($2.19 for a 4-pack [71]), while a CFL can cost between $5 and $15, Wellesley College pays an average of $6.26 per CFL. One CFL is equivalent to 10 incandescent bulbs, increasing the cost of incandescent lights relative to CFLs to $5.50. The difference in cost for these types of bulbs can range from $0-$10.
To determine the average greenhouse gas savings per CFL, the difference in wattage was calculated by subtracting the wattage of one CFL (32W) from its correlating 10 incandescent bulbs (100W each). This number was put into the CA-CP framework to determine the metric tons of CO2 saved with the substitution of one CFL for incandescents.
To determine the yearly greenhouse gas savings produced by this policy, first an average was taken of the incandescent bulb purchases from 1998 - 2002. That average was divided by 10 to determine the number of CFLs that would be necessary to replace the incandescent bulbs. The resulting number was multiplied by the estimated GHG reduction per CFL to determine total potential yearly savings. The number of CFL bulbs was also used to determine total potential economic savings. Initially this represents a greater purchasing cost for CFLs; however since a single CFL will take the place of 10 incandescents, there will be greater saving in the long run.
A28. To determine the electrical consumption of each faculty-housing resident per square foot per year, the consumption of three faculty houses were averaged for 2001 and 2002. These were: 666, 668, and 670 Washington Street. Each house's yearly kWh consumption was divided by its total square footage. This number was then used to extrapolate the total faculty consumption based on a total square footage of 48,795 ft2 (Eastment, Appendix B7). This number was then divided by the number of faculty residents (90) and divided by the total square footage of faculty housing (48,795 ft2, Eastment, Appendix B7). Averages were taken for each fiscal year, and then both years were averaged together. While the fact that the faculty houses examined by this audit are individual apartments makes comparison to Town of Wellesley homes difficult, the numbers were so grossly different that this audit hypothesizes that if a proper analysis were conducted, the results would show a similar trend in consumptive patterns.
To determine the yearly kWh/resident/ft2 for the Town of Wellesley, the total residential electric sales from FY 2002 (86,636,439 kWh) was divided by the total 2001 residential population (26613 residents, Bavin, Appendix B26). This number was then divided by the total residential area of the Town of Wellesley (17037198 ft2, McCabe, Appendix B27). The resulting yearly consumption was determined to be 0.00019 kWh/resident/ft2.
A29. In 2001 Wellesley's interruptible natural gas line was cut off for almost five months of the year causing the main boiler to be run on oil during that time. However in 2002 the natural gas line was never interrupted and the main boiler ran on gas the entire year. This offers a convenient way to compare costs of and emissions from oil and gas usage for a probable scenario under the interruptible line contract and for the conditions that a firm natural gas line would cause.
In 2002 Wellesley used 133,340 MMBtus of natural gas which cost the college $793,373 ($5.95/MMBtu). If this had been from a firm line (@$7.50/MMBtu) it would have cost the college $1,000,050, a difference of $206,677 (Dawley, Appendix B1). In 2001 432816 gallons of oil was used instead of natural gas when the line was interrupted. This caused 4957 metric tons of CO2 to be emitted which would not have been produced if natural gas had been used. The total cost of fuel in that year was $1,221,456.18 (1,112,216 gallons of oil @ $0.73/gallon and 68,830 MMBtu of natural gas @ $5.95/MMBtu). Had a firm line been in use fuel costs would have been $1,498,862 (679,400 gallons of oil @ $0.73/gallon and 133,720 MMBtu of natural gas @ $7.50/MMBtu).
B1. Dawley, Mike, Systems Operation Engineer, Physical Plant, Wellesley College. Data was provided through several personal communications (February-May 2003) as to the general workings of the Wellesley College Physical Plant. Hard data for oil and natural gas consumption within the boilers and natural gas to produce electricity was provided for 1994-2003. Data as to the costs of electrical production on campus, as well as the price at which Wellesley does and could purchase natural gas, was also provided.
B2. Lyons, Mary, Administrative Assistant, Physical Plant, Wellesley College, 4/8/03. Through personal communications in February and March 2003, hard data for boiler consumption of oil and natural gas was provided, in addition to electrical consumption for a variety of faculty houses in 2001 and 2002.
B3. Willoughby, Patrick, Associate Director, Motor Pool, Wellesley College, 2/18/03 and 3/17/03. Through personal communications, descriptions of Motor Pool activities and data on fuel consumption were provided, in addition to explanations and data relating to Wellesley College recycling processes and descriptions of campus renovation operations.
B4. Dewitt, Charles, Head of Motor Pool, Motor Pool, Wellesley College. Through personal communications, descriptions of the different types of vehicles within the Wellesley's fleet were obtained.
B5. Barbin, Lisa, Manager Police Operations, Campus Police, Wellesley College, 3/10/03. Through personal communications, data on student vehicle registration was obtained. While adequate records were not available for all years, an increasing trend in registered vehicles was apparent from what records do exist. This trend was applied to the years for which hard records were not obtainable.
B6. Baldwin, Lawrence, Director, Department of Institutional Research, Wellesley College, 3/25/03. Provided statistical information on faculty and staff commuters over time.
B7. Eastment, Peter, Director of Housing and Transportation, Housing Department, Wellesley College. Through personal communications and interviews, data was provided as to Senate Bus schedules and processes of operation in addition to data on faculty housing populations and footage.
B8. Driscoll, Maria, Administrative Assistant, Housing Department, Wellesley College. Through personal communications, data was provided as to Senate Bus schedules and processes of operation.
B9. Kane, Tom, Purchasing Manager, Purchasing Department, Wellesley College, 2/14/03. Provided information on frequency of Office Depot and All Seasons Vending deliveries to campus via personal communications.
B10. Cater, Gloria, Administrative Director, Health Services, Wellesley College, 2/19/03. Through personal communications, provided information on frequency of Andrew's Pharmacy deliveries to campus.
B11. Strouse, Donna Volpe, Intercollege Library Loan, 2/19/03. Through personal communications, data on the frequency of Interlibrary Loan and UPS deliveries to campus were ascertained.
B12. Bery, Odette, Chef/Manager, Collins Café, 2/17/03. Provided information on frequency and number of deliveries to Collins Café through personal communications.
B13. Borque, Richard, Manager, Printing Services, Wellesley College, 2/14/03. Provided information on frequency of printing services deliveries to campus.
B14. Desjarlais, Jennifer, Director, Admissions Department, Wellesley College. Through personal communications, data on the number of students funded to visit Wellesley, in addition to their modes of transportation, was ascertained.
B15. Debello, David, Wellesley Trucking, 2/25/03. Through personal communications, data on Wellesley College's contract with Wellesley Trucking and information on mileage to waste disposal facilities were obtained.
B16. Lynch, Jim, Covanta Energy Company, 3/10/03. Through personal communications, data on and explanations of waste-to-energy facilities and processes were provided.
B17. Diamond, Ariel, Founder and Student Co-Chair, Wellesley Environmental and Energy Defense, Wellesley College, 5/8/03. Through personal communications, data was gathered on WEED efforts and recycling processes.
B18. Custodial Staff, Wellesley College, 3/21/03. Through personal communications, data on Wellesley College's recycling system was ascertained. Identities concealed at the request of interviewees.
B19. Byrne, Edward, Manager of Maintenance Services, Physical Plant, Wellesley College, 3/27/03. Through personal communications information was gathered on Wellesley College's refrigeration transactions and Freon-recapturing processes.
B20. Clark, Harold, Scientific Safety Manager, Science Center, Wellesley College, 3/10/03. Through personal communications, data on waste production and disposal within the Science Center was provided.
B21. Aston, Cheryl, Massachusetts Water Resource Authority Library. Explanations of Wellesley College's wastewater processes were ascertained through personal communications.
B22. Rida, Adel, Assistant Director and Vice President, Physical Plant, Wellesley College, 4/11/03. Through personal communications, data was ascertained as to costs and benefits of heating and window renovations at Wellesley College.
B23. Hand, Susan, Project Leader, Knapp Media Center, Wellesley College. Through personal communications, data on Knapp paper use was ascertained.
B24. Lamont, Susan, Custodial Services, Wellesley College. Through personal communications, information on quantities of disposed materials was provided.
B25. Russel, Richard, Wellesley College Electrical Shop, 4/8/03. Provided data through personal communications on the numbers of incandescent light bulbs purchased by Wellesley College yearly from 1998-2002.
B26. Bavin, Gary, Town of Wellesley Department of Public Works, 4/7/03. Through personal communications, data on the Town of Wellesley population and annual electrical consumption was ascertained.
B27. McCabe, Donna Lee, Chief Assessor, Town of Wellesley, 4/8/03. Provided data on Town of Wellesley residential square footage.
B28. Orr, Pattie, Wellesley College Information Services, 4/17/03. Through personal communications, statistical data was provided as to student computer purchases.
B29. Chow, Candice, Wellesley College Housing Office, Wellesley College, 4/18/03. Through personal communications, the total number of student rooms on campus was provided.
B30. Printing Services, Wellesley College, 4/16/03. Through personal communications, printing prices were determined for the "Keep it Cheap, Keep it Green!" stickers.
The preceding pages contain data charts used within the framework provided by Clean Air-Cool Planet. For the emissions calculator program and information, please contact:
Clean Air-Cool Planet
100 Market Street, Suite 204
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 03801
http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org
Zip disks are available for this audit's complete data collection and calculation processes. Please contact:
Dr. Elizabeth DeSombre
Frost Associate Professor
PNE 132 Political Science
Wellesley College
106 Central Street
Wellesley, MA 02481
edesombr@wellesley.edu
[1] Wolfson, R., and Schneider, S. H., "Understanding Climate Science" in Schneider, S. H., Rosencranz, A., and Niles, J. O., eds., Climate Change Policy: A Survey , Washington, Island Press, 2002, p18
[2] Wolfson, R., and Schneider, S. H., "Understanding Climate Science" in Schneider, S. H., Rosencranz, A., and Niles, J. O., eds., Climate Change Policy: A Survey , Washington, Island Press, 2002, p13
[3] Energy Conservation Datebook, ECCJ, Website, http://www.eccj.or.jp/databook/2000e/img/1331-3.gif, date visited 5/9/03
[4] Wolfson, R., and Schneider, S. H., "Understanding Climate Science" in Schneider, S. H., Rosencranz, A., and Niles, J. O., eds., Climate Change Policy: A Survey , Washington, Island Press, 2002, p4
[5] Wolfson, R., and Schneider, S. H., "Understanding Climate Science" in Schneider, S. H., Rosencranz, A., and Niles, J. O., eds., Climate Change Policy: A Survey , Washington, Island Press, 2002, p7
[6] Wolfson, R., and Schneider, S. H., "Understanding Climate Science" in Schneider, S. H., Rosencranz, A., and Niles, J. O., eds., Climate Change Policy: A Survey , Washington, Island Press, 2002, p9
[7] Wolfson, R., and Schneider, S. H., "Understanding Climate Science" in Schneider, S. H., Rosencranz, A., and Niles, J. O., eds., Climate Change Policy: A Survey , Washington, Island Press, 2002, p9
[8] Climate Change Secretariat, "A Guide to the Climate Change Convention and Its Kyoto Protocol," Bonn, Climate Change Secretariat, 2002, p31
[9] Climate Change Secretariat, "A Guide to the Climate Change Convention and Its Kyoto Protocol," Bonn, Climate Change Secretariat, 2002, p31
[10] Climate Change Secretariat, "A Guide to the Climate Change Convention and Its Kyoto Protocol," Bonn, Climate Change Secretariat, 2002, p31
[11] Climate Change Secretariat, "A Guide to the Climate Change Convention and Its Kyoto Protocol," Bonn, Climate Change Secretariat, 2002, p31
[12] Wolfson, R., and Schneider, S. H., "Understanding Climate Science" in Schneider, S. H., Rosencranz, A., and Niles, J. O., eds., Climate Change Policy: A Survey , Washington, Island Press, 2002, p6
[13] Climate Change Secretariat, "A Guide to the Climate Change Convention and Its Kyoto Protocol," Bonn, Climate Change Secretariat, 2002, p31
[14] Climate Change Secretariat, "A Guide to the Climate Change Convention and Its Kyoto Protocol," Bonn, Climate Change Secretariat, 2002, p31
[15] Climate Change Secretariat, "A Guide to the Climate Change Convention and Its Kyoto Protocol," Bonn, Climate Change Secretariat, 2002, p34
[16] Climate Change Secretariat, "A Guide to the Climate Change Convention and Its Kyoto Protocol," Bonn, Climate Change Secretariat, 2002, p33
[17] "Convention Parties and Observers," United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Website, http://unfccc.int/resource/country/index.html, date visited 5/4/03
[18] Climate Change Secretariat, "A Guide to the Climate Change Convention and Its Kyoto Protocol," Bonn, Climate Change Secretariat, 2002, p9
[19] Climate Change Secretariat, "A Guide to the Climate Change Convention and Its Kyoto Protocol," Bonn, Climate Change Secretariat, 2002, p22
[20] Climate Change Secretariat, "A Guide to the Climate Change Convention and Its Kyoto Protocol," Bonn, Climate Change Secretariat, 2002, p10
[21] Soroos, M. S., "Global Climate Change and the Futility of the Kyoto Process," Global Environmental Politics 1:2, May, 2001, p. 3
[22] "Kyoto Protocol: Status of Ratification," United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Website, http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf , date visited 5/3/03, p5
[23] "About CA-CP," Clean Air-Cool Planet, Website, http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/about/, date visited 5/4/03
[24] Henceforce, "metric tonnes of CO2 equivalents" will be referred to as "tonnes of CO2"
[25] Emissions are calculated per student as Wellesley College is an academic institution that exists for the education of its student body.
[26] Schneider, S. H., Wolfson, R., "Understanding Climate Science" in Schneider, S. H., Rosencranz, A., Niles, J. O., Climate Change Policy: A Survey, Island Press, Washington D.C., 2002, p18
[27] Schneider, S. H., Wolfson, R., "Understanding Climate Science" in Schneider, S. H., Rosencranz, A., Niles, J. O., Climate Change Policy: A Survey, Island Press, Washington D.C., 2002, p18
[28] Clean Air, Cool Planet: University Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory Toolkit, Clean Air, Cool Planet, CACP, NH, 2001, p11
[29] Percentage Share, Massachusetts, Table 5. Electric Power Industry Generation of Electricity by Energy Source, 1990, 1994, and 1999, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_-r0f9pes'massachusetts.pdf, date visited 4/20/03
[30] Laurent, Christine, "Beating Global Warming with Nuclear Power?" UNESCO Courier, February 2001, p 37ff.
[31] Percentage Share, Massachusetts, Table 5. Electric Power Industry Generation of Electricity by Energy Source, 1990, 1994, and 1999, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_-r0f9pes'massachusetts.pdf, date visited 4/20/03
[32] Price, T., Probert, D., Environmental Impacts of Air Traffic, Applied Energy, UK, 1995, p146
[33]"The Atmosphere" International Atomic Energy Agency, Website, http://www.iaea.or.at/programmes/ripc/ih/volumes/vol_two/cht_ii_01.pdf, date visited 5/9/03
[34] Wellesley Week, Website, http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/WellesleyWeek/Archive/ww043001.html#motor, date visited 5/4/03
[35] Kump et al., The Earth System Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 1999, p 140
[36] Environmental Protection Agency: Light Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975-2000 Executive Summary, 2000, http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:JGdsBIZ1UOAC:www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/s00003.pdf+increase+SUV+united+states&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 date visited 5/3/03
[37] Freed, Choate, and Lee. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Factors for Municipal Waste Combustion and other Practices," Research conducted under EPA Contract 68-W6-0029, n.d., pg 1.
[38] "tons" refers to Imperial tons, as opposed to metric tonnes
[39] Executive Summary: Background and Findings, U.S. EPA, Website, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/ghg/ghg.htm, date visited 5/6/03, p 11
[40] Executive Summary: Background and Findings, U.S. EPA, Website, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/ghg/ghg.htm, date visited 5/6/03, p 11
[41] Executive Summary: Background and Findings, U.S. EPA, Website, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/ghg/ghg.htm, date visited 5/6/03, p 11
[42] Covanta Energy, Energy Solutions, http://www.covantaenergy.com/energy/waste_2_energy.php4 date visited 5/6/03.
[43] ES 100 course fieldtrip to Wellesley Recycling and Disposal Facility on 11/6/02.
[44] U.S. EPA "Municipal Solid Waste." http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/facts.htm date visited 5/5/03
[45] Percentage based on 20 tons of waste produced per week at Wellesley College
[46] Massachusetts Water Resource Authority. http://www.mwra.state.ma.us, date visited 2/25/03.
[47] "In Brief: The US Greenhouse Gas Inventory." http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/uniquekeylookup/RAMR5CZKVE/$File/ghgbrochure.pdf, date visited 5/5/03.
[48] Climate Change Secretariat, "A Guide to the Climate Change Convention and Its Kyoto Protocol," Bonn, Climate Change Secretariat, 2002, p11
[49] "News Release: Wellesley Joins Liberal Arts Colleges in Support of Affirmative Action," Website, http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Releases/2003/030303.html, date visited 5/11/03
[50] Waste Audit 2002, Wellesley Environmental and Energy Defense, 4/26/2002.
[51] This is an averaged percentage between 22% tons of paper are recycled nationally, according to Lane Community College and 29% recycled at Harvard University. (Lane Community College, Recycling Services; Top 10 Reasons to Recycle, 2003, http://www.lanecc.edu/recycle/wasteaud.htm, date visited on April 16, 2003.) and (Harvard University, Harvard 2002 Waste Audit, http://www.uos.harvard.edu/information/depfacsol.shtml , date visited on March 12, 2003.)
[54] TriMet Hybrid Diesel Electric Buses: http://www.tri-met.org/environment/hybridbus.htm date visited 4/20/03
[55] TriMet Hybrid Diesel Electric Buses: http://www.tri-met.org/environment/hybridbus.htm date visited 4/20/03
[56] Tufts University, "Saving Energy with Computer Power management", Tufts Climate Initiative, http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/powermanagement.html, last visited 4/9/03
[57] Estimates based on 1999 Percentage Share, Massachusetts, Table 5. Electric Power Industry Generation of Electricity by Energy Source, 1990, 1994, and 1999, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_-r0f9pes'massachusetts.pdf, date visited 4/20/03
[58] Price per kWh of electricity is an average of 01/02 and 00/01 prices (Dawley, Appendix B1)
[59] EnergyStar, http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls, last visited 4/8/03
[60] "What You Can Do," Time 9 April 2001, p. 39ff.
[61] Dautremont-Smith, Julian. Climate Neutral College Takes Shape. The Pioneer Log. Volume 66 Number 5. 10/19/01.
[62] "Climate Change Calculator," American Forests, Website, http://www.americanforests.org/resources/ccc/, date visited 5/10/03
[63] Tufts University, Letter to the President, dated 5/30/01
[64]"Campuses for Climate Action," Clean Air-Cool Planet, 100 Market Square, Suite 204, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 03801
[65] Percentage Share, Massachusetts, Table 5. Electric Power Industry Generation of Electricity by Energy Source, 1990, 1994, and 1999, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_-r0f9pes'massachusetts.pdf
[66] Julian Dautremont-Smith, Guidelines for College-Level Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories, Lewis & Clark College, 2002
[67] TriMet Hybrid Diesel Electric Buses: http://www.tri-met.org/environment/hybridbus.htm date visited 4/20/03
[68] Portney, Paul. Penny Wise and Pound Foolish: New Car Emission Standards in the United States. 2002 Corporate Average Fuel Economy data. http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:jjgsLaFShSUC:www.rff.org/resources_archive/pdf_files/147_ortney.pdf+mileage+regulations+united+states&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 , date visited 5/7/03.
[69] Tufts Climate Initiative, Saving Energy with Computer Power Management, http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/powermanagement.html, date visited 4/9/03
[70] "Electrical Terms", Piqua Power Systems, http://www.piquapowersystem.com/terms.htm, date visited 4/21/03
[71] Staples, Longer-Life Soft White Bulbs, 3 Way 50/200/2500, http://www.staples.com/catalog/search/Search_Sum.asp?PageType=2&SearchPageType=2&Keywords=light+bulbs&IpSessionId=809824508227&IpClassId=142195&Brand=All+Brands&PriceRange=All+Price+Ranges&Go.x=10&Go.y=12, date visited 4/9/03
