By JR Fulton, Architect, LEED® AP, Housing and Food Services, University of Washington;
Kurt Haapala, AIA , LEED® AP, Associate Mahlum; and
Ron van der Veen, AIA, LEED® AP, Principal Mithun, AASHE Board of Directors

Energy efficient buildings can be designed, built or renovated to use less than half of their present operational energy while maintaining high quality, health, and comfort. This can be done without significant capital investment costs. Energy efficient buildings cost less over the life of the building, reduce the total cost of ownership, reduce energy and operational costs and significantly reduce carbon emissions. Building in energy efficiency can “futureproof” the University and make it more resilient. But you have to ask for it!

In order to significantly reduce our future carbon footprint in campus construction, it is necessary to provide a very strong focus on energy efficient buildings. One of the most prudent ways to do this is to require an aggressive energy reduction requirement for all university new building and major renovation projects. The Architecture 2030 organization has created the 2030 Challenge that provides the framework for producing energy efficient buildings now and carbon neutral buildings by 2030. Adopting and mandating a building energy efficiency standard like the 2030 Challenge for campus construction will significantly reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions. The 2030 Challenge should be a cornerstone of your Climate Action Plan.

Architecture 2030 recommends that buildings be required to use 50% less energy than a similar building in a similar climate through 2010 with an additional 10% reduction in energy use every 5 years until carbon neutrality is achieved in 2030. For simplicity, the 2030 Challenge has identified several code proxies for ease of implementation. One example of a code proxy is to require a 25% reduction in energy above ASHRAE 90.1-2007 through 2010 with additional reductions every five years.

We believe that LEED is the best overall sustainability benchmark for college buildings, but our experience at the University of Washington has been that despite successfully doing multiple LEED projects and creating very sustainable buildings, significant and consistent reductions in building energy use were not completely achieved to the degree necessary to address climate change. Since the UW Greenhouse Gas Inventory indicated that the University’s buildings were the single largest users of energy and were the predominant generator of UW greenhouse gases - additional focus on energy reduction was necessary.

Of the energy reduction standards available, we believe the 2030 Challenge to be the most appropriate. We recommend that the 2030 Challenge be used in conjunction with a LEED standard. The 2030 Challenge should be mandated for all future campus construction projects and integrated into your University’s Climate Action Plan for the following reasons:

• The 2030 Challenge requires significantly more energy efficient buildings today and is much more aggressive than current energy codes.
• The 2030 Challenge can be achieved with existing technology and minimal additional capital investment costs though it does require an integrated sustainable design approach and greater collaboration between design professionals.
• The 2030 Challenge is an escalating standard which requires increased building energy efficiency over time through better practice and new technology.
• The 2030 Challenge standard is currently being embraced by the design and construction industry.

Constructing highly energy efficient buildings and reducing the energy demand side on campus is one of the most critical and significant means to reduce campus energy use, carbon emissions, and long term energy costs. Identify and mandate an aggressive energy reduction requirement like the 2030 Challenge for all your upcoming construction projects. Make it a requirement of your Climate Action Plan. Just building to the energy code is one step above being illegal! Building to a LEED standard is better, but still not enough. We cannot afford to squander the carbon mitigation opportunities of future construction. Adopting the 2030 Challenge will provide multiple tangible benefits to your institution: reductions in energy cost, reductions in carbon emissions, increased energy security, and a more resilient institution, all very tangible results for University leadership and the campus community.

By Michelle Galley, Senior Writer, Academy for Educational Development

Thousands of workers will be needed to fill the “green” jobs that are being created as environmentally friendly technologies‚ public policies‚ and public-private investments move the United States toward a low-carbon future. According to a new report from AED and the National Council on Workforce Education‚ community colleges are in a pivotal position to prepare this green workforce.

“Going Green: The Vital Role of Community Colleges in Building a Sustainable Future and a Green Workforce” details the ways in which more than two dozen community colleges prepare workers for new, reoriented, or emerging jobs in the clean-energy economy. From New York to California, community colleges are implementing climate solutions by creating living classrooms, modeling ways to eliminate harmful emissions, and integrating sustainability principles into their curricula, the report says.

“Community colleges are responding quickly to the employment demands of the industry‚ and in doing so‚ they are supporting the country’s economic recovery‚” said Mindy Feldbaum‚ director of workforce development programs at the AED National Institute for Work and Learning.

As the U.S. moves closer to a green economy, community colleges are becoming even more important because they are able to quickly adapt their curricula to meet changing market conditions, Feldbaum said.

The green jobs for which community colleges are preparing workers include wind power installers; solar engineers; green architects and designers; ethanol plant technicians; and biodiesel laboratory technicians.

The report outlines six action steps that community colleges can take to play a leading role in creating a sustainable future and green workforce. For example, institutions can reduce their own carbon footprint, make sustainability a defining feature of campus culture, and educate their surrounding community about environmental stewardship.

Examples of employment opportunities in the fastest-growing areas for green jobs—energy-efficient construction, solar energy, wind power, geothermal resources, and biofuels—are also included in the report.

Download “Going Green: The Vital Role of Community Colleges in Building a Sustainable Future and a Green Workforce,” at http://aed.org/Publications/upload/GoingGreen.pdf.

By Jeff Julian, Director of Communications and External Relations and Sustainability Initiatives Committee Member, Joliet Junior College

Less than one-third of the 645 colleges and universities that have signed the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) are two-year institutions. It is an interesting number when you consider that according to the American Association of Community Colleges, the nation’s 1,173 two-year community and technical colleges enroll more than 11 million students annually.

One can only speculate as to the reasons why other two-year schools haven’t become signatories. Before Joliet Junior College (JJC) signed on, our college leaders discussed many issues, including the benefits and obligations of the commitment, the economic impact in light of uncertain funding sources, and the role climate change and sustainability will play in future institutional planning.

In the end, college leaders supported the ACUPCC, which is in line with the institution’s current commitment to sustainable practices and recognizes the past work in this area by the college community. For Joliet Junior College, joining the climate commitment wasn’t the beginning; it was a reaffirmation of a responsibility to the environment that students, faculty, staff and alumni have pledged for many decades. From prairie restoration grants to energy usage audits to incorporating LEED in master planning, JJC has always been a good steward of its resources as is the case at many two-year institutions.

When JJC President Gena Proulx signed the commitment in 2009, she wrote, “By signing this commitment, college presidents do more than just bring sustainability issues to the forefront of the campus discussion. They also guide their institutions as they join a group of leaders united in their commitment to minimize the effects of climate change while educating and training the workforce to help achieve this.”

When it comes to climate change and sustainability issues facing our nation and our world, the evidence continues to suggest that our time to make effective and lasting changes is limited. Two-year institutions will play an important role because they are largely responsible for educating and training the nation’s workforce, including those who will be employed in green collar jobs.

Though making a commitment of this magnitude is never easy, America’s community college presidents have 11 million reasons to consider signing the ACUPCC.

By Sally DeLeon, Research Fellow, Rocky Mountain Institute Built Environment Team

In early June, Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) and AASHE convened a collaborative workshop in Denver, Colorado where twelve schools and external experts worked together to address common obstacles to campus climate-change mitigation. With generous support from an anonymous funder, the event brought together facilities personnel, sustainability staff, students, administrators and faculty from a diverse group of selected colleges and universities with technical-subject experts from RMI, VerdeCapital, LLC, Burns and McDonnell and experienced program directors from AASHE, Second Nature, and National Wildlife Federation’s Campus Ecology Program.

The central purpose of the workshop was to collaboratively brainstorm realistic solutions to typical problems that come up in the course of campus climate action planning and implementation. The ideas generated through this process will be incorporated into a web-based practical research report,Accelerating Campus Climate-Change Initiatives, that RMI and AASHE will release later this summer. Some of the major topics of discussion at the workshop were: the need for more pervasive energy-end-use metering and related educational opportunities; steps to build the case for non-financial benefits of green buildings and campus renewable energy systems; and organizational structures to support campus-community collaboration on climate change mitigation.

Following the workshop, each of the participating campus teams continued to work on refining their ideas for a model campus climate project that they would propose to RMI at the end of June. The group of twelve includes four public universities (Colorado State University, University of Minnesota Morris, University of Missouri, and University of Vermont), five private colleges and universities (Furman University, Luther College, Tufts University, Unity College, and Yale University) and three publically funded community colleges and technical schools (Harford Community College, Lakeshore Technical College, and Richland College). Both the workshop and the resulting project discussions emphasized the unique needs of each of type of institution as well as opportunities that schools have in common for collaborating, such as regional climate action planning networks.

With some advisory input from experts at the workshop, each school’s team has designed a project that will either make a significant reduction in their campus greenhouse gas emissions, measurably address a significant barrier to campus climate action, or both. Projects range from solar thermal installations with real-time energy kiosks to revolving loan funds for student-driven energy efficiency and conservation measures. RMI’s anonymous funder is enthusiastic about supporting these projects with seed funding and will work with the campuses during the 2009-2010 academic year to learn and disseminate information from the project implementation process.

In the quest to achieve sustainability it is often the most easily-quantifiable of the three pillars of sustainability, those of economic vitality and environmental health and protection, which are invested in on campuses. And initiatives like campus solar installations, fleet changes, and LEED certified buildings are certainly critical components of a sustainable campus. But what about the third pillar, that of social justice? While many of the energy efficiencies and upgrades undoubtedly produce social benefits, they tend to be fortunate side effects rather than the initial goals. Fair trade purchasing, on the other hand, clearly addresses the social justice pillar by ensuring that farmers and craftspeople receive a fair price for their goods.

The Fair Trade Practices & Policies resource will be useful for campuses looking to realize social sustainability goals. There is much to be learned from the large variety in the venues campuses have chosen for promoting and selling fair trade products and in the kinds of goods that can be certified fair trade. Though coffee is by far the most common “fairly-traded” product, some campuses have expanded their offerings to include fair trade tea, bananas, sugar, chocolate, crafts, and even ice cream. Additionally, fairly traded products are often produced with environmental sustainability in mind – many fair trade coffee brands, for example, offer organic and shade grown varieties, thereby reducing dangerous chemical use and deforestation threats –and are economically sustainable for the famers and craftspeople, ensuring a fair selling price, and for the end users, by ensuring an ongoing source for those products.

Fair trade offerings should be a widely-available staple on college and university campuses looking to achieve sustainability and do their part for social justice, and we hope this resource will help you achieve that goal.
 

Now that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) has passed, there are many opportunites for two-year funding and awards for a variety of special projects.

I recently had a question from an AASHE member instution regarding what fellow campuses were doing with the federal economic stimulus money in regards to energy efficency upgrades. In particular the member asked, "What we could really use is a list of energy saving projects that other campuses are going to fund with stimulus money. We are having trouble coming up with ideas because we have been proactive over the years. We really have taken care of most of the low hanging fruit. We need ideas!"

Some campuses have set up websites (see Harvard and Kansas State University as examples) that outline plans and gives information regarding the money and the different areas it will fund.

But, I want to ask you, readers of the this blog and others, what plans does your campus have? Post up!

Robert Provine, professor of psychology, was quoted in media across the globe recently regarding a new study on the evolution of laughter in apes.

Provine, an expert on and an international expert on the neuroscience of laughter, yawning and other contagious behaviors, has long studied the distinctive, panting laughter made by apes and other primates when they are tickled.

He was quoted in print and online media across the US and Europe regarding a new study led by Marina Davila Ross, a primatologist at the University of Portsmouth, UK. Davila Ross and her colleagues tickled juvenile apes and human babies, and recorded the sounds produced. The study concluded that the similar sound patterns due to ticklish laughing in humans and apes are likely based on a common ancestor that lived 10 to 16 million years ago.

"I think that it's about time we get out there, start tickling the dogs and the cats, and the pigs, the rats, as well as the chimpanzees," Provine said in a National Public Radio feature on the research. "I think we'll learn a lot about what we have in common, as well as our differences."

Provine’s thoughts on the study were featured in hundreds of media articles and broadcasts, including, NPR’s "All Things Considered,” the Associated Press, Nature, New Scientist, AAAS Science Now, The Guardian (UK) and Wired.