KU receives C+ in sustainability efforts

By Aly Van Dyke

Thursday, October 29, 2009

University students earned top marks in their efforts to green the campus culture, but in other areas the university still needed some work, according to the College Sustainability Report Card.

Survey Highlights

Student Involvement: A

17 organizations listed as having come into affiliation with sustainability; four organizations filled out the survey, citing several projects initiated by students.

Investment Priorities: A

The University is invested in renewable energy.

Policies for investment managers relate to sustainability.

Administration: B

Almost 100 people serve as members or ambassadors for the Center for Sustainability.

The University had several policies in place toward purchasing eco-friendly materials.

The University increased its recycled copy paper purchases from 6.5 percent from July to December 2008 to 17 percent from January to July 2009.

Climate and Energy: B

The University’s greenhouse gas emissions rose 9 percent in 2008 to more than 240,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

One full-time student generated 10.51 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2008.

The University doesn’t have an emissions goal.

2.24 percent of the University’s electricity is offset through wind credits.

Food and Recycling: B

95 percent of the campus’s landscaping waste is composted or mulched.

The tray-less program at the three residence dining halls has reduced student waste from 4.2 oz per day to 2.3 oz per day and saved more than 115,000 gallons of water.

$94,000 of KU Dining’s $6 million food budget is used to purchase local food.

Transportation: B

43 percent of people commute to campus via environmentally friendly transportation – walking, biking, carpooling or bus.

18 percent of full-time students live on campus.

Green Building: D

No LEED-certified buildings on campus.

Policy requires new buildings to beat a different energy efficiency standard by 30 percent.

Endowment Transparency: F

Endowment Association would not release information, but does upon request.

Shareholder Engagement: F

Shareholders would not release information, but does upon request.

The Sustainable Endowments Institute based out of Cambridge, Mass., gave the University a C+ this year, up two grades from its C- streak since 2007.

“We’re not leading the way, but we’re not following behind the pack either,” Jeff Severin said, director of the Center for Sustainability.

The Sustainable Endowments Institute has rated universities on sustainability for the past four years. Each year, the institute sends out a survey to the various colleges to be completed and submitted online. The institute evaluates the schools on nine different categories, ranging from Administration to Endowment. This year, it sent out the survey to 332 colleges in the U.S. and Canada. The highest grade, given to 26 universities, was an A-. The average was a B-.

Kansas State University received a C-, while the University of Missouri earned a B-. The University and Missouri both received a C- last year.

This year the University received B’s in administration, climate change and energy, food and recycling and transportation, It earned A’s in student involvement and investment in renewable energy. But, it recieved a D in its green building efforts and F’s in endowment transparency and shareholder engagement.

Severin, like others who filled out the survey, said he thought a B, rather than a C+, would be a more appropriate grade. Most said they would factor out the endowment responses and adjust the survey’s Green Building standard to better reflect the University’s efforts to protect the environment.

Winning Grades

Unlike the past years, the University didn’t see a single grade drop from last year. In fact, four sections received better grades, one being Student Involvement, which jumped from a C to an A.

Severin said the jump was mostly because, for the first time, student leaders in campus environmental groups completed the survey instead of the Center for Sustainability.

“It’s pretty evident on our campus how much students have made a difference,” Severin said, pointing to the Rain Garden and the Potter Lake Project as examples of student initiatives making a difference.

Ryan Callihan, Lenexa senior and president of KU Environs, was one of the four students who helped complete the survey this summer. He said faculty involvement in environmental initiatives on campus have improved since the Center for Sustainability established its Faculty Ambassador program in 2007. However, he said students still initiated the vast majority of programs.

“If students had it their way, all the categories would have an A,” Callihan said.

But he said he would like to see more administration involvement and support for environmental initiatives on campus.

“The students can only do so much before we run into administration problems or the University just doesn’t want to improve things,” Callihan said.

Another grade increase was in Food and Recycling, which increased from a C to a B this year.

Sheryl Kidwell, assistant director of KU Dining Services, said KU Dining earned a better grade through being pro-active in its sustainability initiatives over the past year. She listed the biodegradable disposables in the retail cafes, the trayless effort in the residence dining halls and the rooftop garden as examples.

Other gains were made in Climate and Energy and Transportation standards where both increased from C’s to B’s. The 15 elliptical machines cycling energy back into the power grid at the Ambler Student Recreation Fitness Center helped comtribute to the jump the Climate and Energy grade. The free bus rides for students helped the Transportation standard earn its B.

Failing Grades

Of the nine sections used to evaluate universities’ sustainability efforts, the University did poorly in three: Green Building, which received a D, and Endowment Transparency and Shareholder Engagement, which both received a F’s.

Jim Modig, director of Design and Construction Management, said the Green Building standard received D’s the past three years because the survey focused primarily on Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certifications. LEED-certified buildings are seen as some of the most energy efficient and environmentally conscious structures in the world.

“The LEED program is a very worthy program, but to participate in LEED, you have to pay a considerable amount of money for assessments, forms and applications fees,” he said. “Instead of paying for assessments and application fees to get a plaque on the wall, we would rather take those monies and reinvest them in the University where we can see some good for the money we spent.”

The cost for LEED certifications varies, but most estimates say the certification processing fees are between $20,000 and $60,0000, and construction costs increase by 8.5 percent. For example, certifying the $34 million Gridiron Club addition to Memorial Stadium with a LEED Platinum rating, the highest there is, could add about $3 million to the project.

Instead of having LEED certifications for its buildings, the University has a policy requiring all new buildings to beat the state’s energy efficiency standard by 30 percent. This standard will come into play in the next few years for the new pharmacy building, the Gridiron Club building and a building on Edwards Campus.

Modig said that was as good as having energy efficiency equivalent to a LEED certified building, just without the cost and the plaque. He said, in addition to the policy for new buildings, Design and Construction Management has made several efforts to increase energy efficiency in older buildings, such as replacing black roofs with white roofs to minimize heat gain and reflective heat.

According to the survey, Kansas University Endowment Association had its own issues.

The Endowment Association has received F’s since the Sustainable Endowments Institute started grading sustainability in 2007. Dale Seuferling, Endowment Association president, said the organization answered the survey in the strictest sense possible, which gives the impression that Endowment Association doesn’t share records. He said that lowered the grade.

“We do respond to public requests for holdings and provide that information,” he said.

After receiving yet another failing grade, Seuferling said he looked at the responses of other schools and realized the Endowment Association could represent its policy more accurately next year.

The Endowment Association did receive an A in Investment Priorities, and has since 2008. The survey cited investments in renewable energy funds and policies for investment managers relating to sustainability as reasons for the high grade.

Future Improvements

Although the University jumped a couple grades, most experts agreed the University could still do more to improve sustainability.

Severin said energy efficient upgrades on existing buildings would lower the University’s carbon footprint.

“The policy does a good job for new buildings, but we still have all these ancient buildings that need updated,” Severin said.

He said one calculation found that 75 percent of the University’s carbon emissions can be attributed to activities in buildings on campus.

Modig said Design and Construction Management could look at reusing more of its building materials, but said what the University really needed was a cultural change toward recycling and sustainability.

“When people really begin to practice that and really begin to accept that culture, I think that’s where the University would probably see the greatest gain toward getting their A in sustainability,” he said.

— Edited by Anna Kathagnarath

Advertise Here

Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Advertisement