Homemade Spacecraft from Luke Geissbuhler on Vimeo.

Let’s take a look at five innovative and exciting ideas from Stanford University, City College of New York,  Western Michigan University, UC-Davis, and the University of Arizona…

(1) Stanford moves aggressively to cut energy use, reduce carbon impact

For those of us who have worked through campus climate action plans, one of the hardest things to deal with is emissions from steam plants.  Stanford is trying to tackle this by starting with energy recapture and conservation.  Their plan is significant because it’s potentially transferable to other schools, especially in warmer climates that use heating and cooling at the same time.  And it focuses on conservation first—usually a smart and cost-effective approach.

Excerpts:

• In an effort to tackle the threat of global climate change head on, Stanford University has developed an ambitious, long-range, $250 million initiative to sharply reduce the university’s energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
• Changes outlined in the Energy and Climate Plan could reduce the campus carbon impact by as much as 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, far exceeding the aggressive goals of California’s landmark AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act.
• Unexpectedly, they discovered that over half the university’s heating demands could be met with heat that is already being removed from buildings by the campus cooling system. Such a reuse of energy would cut the amount of natural gas burned for heating purposes dramatically, reducing energy costs as well as emissions of greenhouse gases.
• Reconfiguring the university’s heating and cooling scheme, despite the $250 million price tag, would save money over the next four decades. Energy, water, and other operating cost savings are expected to be about $639 million from 2010 to 2050, after repayment of the initial capital investment.
• The energy-reduction plan revolves around this fact: Campus cooling systems do their job by using chilled water to remove unwanted heat from buildings. For years, that unwanted heat has been piped away from the buildings in the form of warm water, only to be discharged into the air through evaporative cooling towers at the central plant.
• That’s enough spare heat to take care of half of the campus heating needs. The result is that much less natural gas would be burned to warm offices, classrooms, dormitories and laboratories.

(2) City College of New York to offer master program in sustainability in the urban environment

Another example of an institution breaking down traditional divides—in this case architecture, engineering, and science—in the name of curricular initiatives that provide meaningful sustainability training.  Their goals are important, but if there’s anything missing, it’s contributions from sociology and psychology.  These other frames will be key for linking people and the built environment.  Otherwise, there’s a risk that these programs will deliver myopic, techno-driven conceptions of sustainability that are blind to cultural disparities and needs.

Excerpts:

• The program’s core curriculum lays a foundation in sustainability values, strategies and metrics through coursework in urban and natural systems, environmental economics and industrial ecology.  It draws upon approaches such as ‘whole systems thinking’ and life cycle analysis to understand and evaluate complex urban eco-systems.
• An interdisciplinary capstone project, which requires teamwork and interchange among groups of architects, engineers and scientists, will develop experience with the processes and dynamics of integrated design.  Additionally, students will take electives in relevant advanced courses within architecture, engineering and science.
• Graduates will ultimately develop leadership and teamwork skills that will give them an advantage in diverse professional settings where interaction and collaboration among teams of scientists, engineers, architects and others are commonplace.

(3) Western Michigan University getting $1 million for green manufacturing

University-business relationships like this are terrific for showing how university leverage and resources can help the broader economy transition to a more-sustainable world.

Excerpts:

• WMU’s Green Manufacturing project draws upon existing research and development centers at the University. Faculty researchers and students will collaborate with area manufacturers, especially smaller businesses, to help them build greater energy efficiency into manufacturing processes and promote recycling of materials to further reduce costs. About 25 companies in Battle Creek, Kalamazoo, Benton Harbor-St. Joseph, Grand Rapids and Muskegon have already expressed interest in participating, according to Patten.
• “I am especially proud with this project,” said Dunn, “because it highlights one of the longtime strengths of Western Michigan University, which is applying the latest knowledge and technology to create practical solutions of immediate and long-term benefit.”
• “Companies realize that being green is good for their bottom line to ensure their longevity,” said Patten, who added that project will help preserve existing jobs and foster creation of new ones.

(4/5) UC-Davis and U. Arizona have incentivized alternative transportation by using rewards to entice more walking and biking.

This is a great idea, and a no-brainer for schools with climates like Davis and Tucson.  Look at how Davis’ effort to attract people goes beyond traditional appeals for carpooling.  It’s a lesson to other schools:  If you really want people to change commuting behavior, sweeten the deal.

An excerpt from UC-Davis:

• Rewards for green commuting include complimentary parking permits, discounted bus and train passes, discounts on bicycle storage lockers, shower and locker facilities for walkers and bicyclists, and options to get you home in an emergency.
• On top of all that, goClub members are eligible for prize drawings every other month. A sampling of the prizes: bus and train passes, bicycles and assorted bicycle gear, a train-and-bus trip for two to Yosemite, a one-month membership to the Activities and Recreation Center, two tickets to an athletics event of your choice, lunch coupons and UC Davis apparel.
• The old alternative transportation program listed some 1,734 participants: carpoolers and vanpoolers, and bus riders and train riders. All of these people have been automatically enrolled in the goClub.
• With the addition of walkers and bicyclists, goClub membership could grow by thousands—especially considering that bicycling accounts for more than 40 percent of campus-related transportation.

_____

For more information:

• AASHE bulletin 11/9/09

For scientists worried that advocacy undercuts credibility, this piece may allay your concerns.  I recommend reading the whole article (it’s a rich analysis).

Here’s the conclusion as a short excerpt:

Reasons to oppose advocacy by environmental scientists have been made on the grounds that doing so compromises scientific credibility, conflicts with the essential nature of science, and conflicts with the practical requirements of being a productive scientist. Reasons to favor scientist advocacy have been based on the fundamentally similar nature of science and advocacy, concern for the social harm that might arise from not advocating, and the dual nature of a scientist  citizen. When examining these positions as formal arguments composed of premises and conclusions, all but two arguments (social harm and citizenship) collapse. Moreover, only one argument seems robustly sound and valid.  According to this argument scientists, by virtue of being citizens first and scientists second, have a responsibility to advocate to the best of their abilities and in a justified and transparent manner. Importantly arguments against science advocacy are valuable for offering insight about how one should or should not be an advocate, not whether one should advocate. If these conclusions are accurate, then Hardin (1998) is correct: “[O]ne of today’s cardinal tasks is to marry the philosopher’s literate ethics with the scientist’s commitment to numerate  analysis.” Our assessment calls for more active participation by scientists in matters of policy. Nevertheless, each scientist is called according to his or her abilities. Broad participation, however, will undoubtedly result in disagreement among good scientists and in some scientists advocating in an unjustified and dishonest manner. Thus broad participation will substantially complicate the policy-making process. Although this might seem undesirable, our goal here should not be simplicity but rather the betterment of society.

¹Nelson and Vucetich (2009) On advocacy by environmental scientists: What, whether, why and how. Conservation Biology, Volume 23, No. 5, 1090–1101.

²Bowdoin people can link to the article here.

Risk analysis is a four-step process by which scientists determine whether chemicals or other agents are unhealthy:

• Step 1: Hazard screening–Does a chemical look or act like other chemicals already known to be harmful or safe?
• Step 2: Exposure characterization–How much are we exposed to and how much accumulates in our bodies?
• Step 3: Effects characterization–How do different doses of an agent lead to different health effects, or what we commonly refer to as “dose-response curves”? This is usually achieved using short-term lab animal tests or epidemiological data that show things like health effects of people working at industry sites or living in contaminated neighborhoods.
• Step 4: Risk characterization–Given that we identify a chemical as being potentially dangerous (Step 1), and can measure our exposure (Step 2) and the effects that this specific exposure has on health (Step 3), what is the likelihood or risk that we will experience ill health as a result of the exposure?

As the EPA will tell you, there is often poor understanding of the long term risks of synthetic chemicals and radiation.  Much of this comes from the fact that

• We have not screened many of the chemicals on the market for potential safety.  Here’s a quote from the EPA’s website in 1996, which was subsequently removed:

For the majority of the approximately 3,000 high production volume industrial chemicals produced in the United States in 1996, we have little or no publicly available hazard screening data. These chemicals, non-polymers produced in quantities of more than one million pounds per year, are found in the workplace and in thousands of consumer products. Even fewer data are available for the remainder of the some 70,000 chemicals on the EPA’s inventory.

• Rigorous effects characterizations are hard to do.  Lab animal tests (rats, mice, etc.) are useful, but they are not a perfect substitute for understanding human health impacts.  Moreover, the kinds of long-term data we need rarely exist because that’s the nature of short grant funding cycles.  We know very little about the synergistic effects of multiple chemicals interacting in our bodies.  Finally, health problems analyzed in epidemiological studies can often be confounded with other lifestyle issues, such as weight, diet, exercise, and smoking.

Thus, we know we are exposed to these things, and we can even measure them in our bodies and in infants,  but we don’t know very well how this translates to long term health risk.

To some, this uncertainty might be license to ignore the issue.  To others, it necessitates better education about what’s in or emanating from our products so that we can decide for ourselves whether or not to limit exposure.

The Environmental Working Group has compiled several interesting lists of consumer products including specific ingredients that have the potential to be harmful:

• Shopper’s guide to pesticides in food
• Shopper’s guide to cosmetics and health care products
• Shopper’s guide to sunscreens
• Shopper’s guide to cell phone radiation

So go ahead and check out your favorite vegetable, shampoo, cell phone, or toothpaste, and see what comes up.

photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/w610guy/ / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0