Bucknell University’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Fourth Inventory Update

FY 1990-2014

By

Ashley Weir

Economics & Environmental Studies, Class of 2016

April 2015

Advisors

Thomas DiStefano, Ph.D., P.E. Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering Department

Dina El-Mogazi Director, Sustainable Design Program

  2  

Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank my independent study co-advisors, Dina El-Mogazi and Professor Tom DiStefano. I’m so appreciative of the support and guidance they provided me throughout this study. I would also like to thank Professor Michelle Oswald and her team of students – Ben Seketa, Vicki Caudullo and Marissa Moosic – who collected and provided the Scope Three transportation data for this study. Lastly, I would like to thank the Bucknell faculty and staff who provided the Scope One and Scope Two data required for this study: Stephen Durfee, James Knight, Greg Koontz, William George, Tom Lydon, Merritt Pedrick, Lisa Hoover and Patty Johnston.

  3  

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………. 2

Table of Contents……………………………………………………………… 3

List of Figures………………………………………………………………….. 4

I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………. 5

Global Climate Change…………………………………………….…... 5

American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment….... 5

Objectives of Inventory………………………………………………...... 5

Previous Inventory Updates…………………………………………….. 5

II. Methods……………………………………………………................................. 6

Choice of Calculator…………………………………………….…….... 6

Data Requirements and Sources…………………………..……………. 6

Institutional Data………………………………………………. 6

Scope 1 Emissions……………………………………………… 6

Scope 2 Emissions……………………………………………… 7

Scope 3 Emissions……………………………………………… 7

Emission Offsets……………………………………………….. 11

Challenges in Data Collection…............................................................. 11

Data Quality and Assumptions……………………….……………...…. 11

III. Results & Discussion………………………………………………...………… 12

IV. Conclusion & Recommendations…….……………………………..……....… 18

Recommendations for Actions to Reduce Emissions………………….. 18

Opportunities for Strengthening Data Quality………………………… 19

References………………………………………………………………………. 21

 

  4  

List of Tables & Figures

Figure 1: Student commuting and building origin………………….………………….. 8

Figure 2: Faculty residence by county………………………….……………………… 9

Figure 3: Total emissions by sector collected for Bucknell University.……………….. 12

Table 1: Emissions collected for since 2008…..……………………………………….. 12

Figure 4: Total emissions by sector between FY 2006 and FY 2012………..………... 13

Figure 5: Total emissions by scope collected for Bucknell University………………... 13

Figure 6: Net emission collected for Bucknell University…………………………….. 14

Figure 7: Total emissions produced per student……………………………………..... 15

Figure 8: Total energy use per square foot of building space…………………………. 15

Figure 9: Percent contribution to FY 2011-2012 carbon emissions by scope………..... 16

Figure 10: Percent contribution to FY 2011-2012 carbon emissions within Scope 1...... 16

Figure 11: Percent contribution to FY 2011-2012 carbon emissions within Scope 3...... 17

Figure 12: Summary of percent emission contributions by source for FY 2011-12…..... 17

 

  5  

I. Introduction Global Climate Change In recent years, the reality of global climate change has become increasingly apparent due to rising temperatures, shifts in snow and rainfall patterns, and more extreme climate events. Over the past century, the Earth’s average temperature has risen by 1.4°F and is projected to rise another 2 to 11.5°F over the next hundred years (1). These seemingly small changes in the planet’s average temperature can result in extreme and potentially dangerous shifts in climate and weather. Humans are largely responsible for recent climate change due to human activities releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The majority of these greenhouse gases are the result of burning fossil fuels to produce energy, as well as deforestation, industrial processes, and other human practices. When released into the atmosphere, greenhouse gases trap energy, preventing it from leaving the planet’s surface, and thus warming the Earth. As the negative consequences of climate change become more prominent in the upcoming decades, they will likely present many challenges to the environment and our society. This global issue calls for human action to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we put in the atmosphere. American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment The American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) was created to address global climate change by providing a framework and support for America’s colleges and universities who commit to pursuing climate neutrality on their campuses (3). The ACUPCC was founded in 2006 and now has 697 signatories, including Bucknell, who committed to the program in 2008 under former president Brian Mitchell. Becoming a signatory required Bucknell to prepare a thorough inventory of greenhouse gas emissions by May 2009, to update the inventory every other subsequent year, and to execute tangible emissions-reducing actions every two years. In addition, the ACUPCC required Bucknell to develop a long-term Climate Action Plan, which it released in 2010 and is available on the ACUPCC website, along with previous inventories. Objectives of Inventory The purpose of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory is to monitor Bucknell’s emissions from year to year in order to track the campus’ progress in reaching its reduction goals. The study also enables the University to identify the largest sources of emissions, which could prove useful when considering how to reduce emissions. In addition, the inventory serves to create awareness of Bucknell’s emissions and practices amongst students, faculty, and the public. Previous Inventory Updates This is the fourth update to Bucknell’s original Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. This report covers fiscal years (FY) 2012-13 and FY 2013-14, which begin on July 1 and end on June 30. Christina Kassab ’09 completed the original inventory in 2006. The first update to the inventory was completed in 2009 by Ally Robertson ’10 and the second update was completed in 2011 by Melinda Thomas ’12. Daniel Bonilla ’14 completed the third inventory update in 2013. All of

  6  

these inventory updates include emissions data since 1990 and used the Clean Air Cool Planet Software for emissions calculations. The third update to the inventory was more comprehensive than preceding inventories due to the addition of wastewater and paper sources to the Scope 3 emissions data. In addition, Scope 3 transportation data was collected more thoroughly and approximated more accurately due to the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). For this fourth update, there were no major changes in the emissions sources that were measured, or how the data were measured. II. Methods Choice of Calculator The main tool used to calculate greenhouse gas emissions was the Campus Carbon Calculator (v.7.0), created by Clean Air Cool Planet. The Calculator was selected because it is the chosen emissions calculator by the ACUPCC and it is simple to use. It is an Excel workbook that allows users to input data, and automatically calculates the equivalent CO2 and other emissions. The calculator has built-in macros and formulas that make the conversions and produce various graphs that clearly demonstrate changes over time. Data Requirements and Sources The data input into the calculator were compiled from a variety of sources and were grouped into five categories: Institutional Data, Scope 1 Emission Sources, Scope 2 Emission Sources, Scope 3 Emission Sources, and Offsets. Institutional Data Institutional data includes the university’s budget, population, and physical size. This data is used to normalize emissions for comparison with other institutions and for projecting future emissions trends. For this update, William George, Associate Controller in Accounting Services of the Finance Office, supplied the university’s operating, research and energy budgets for FY2013 and 2014. The workbook automatically normalizes the budgets to 2005-dollar equivalents so that an accurate comparison can be made between years. The university’s population numbers and total building space were supplied by Patty Johnston, Institutional Research Assistant in the Office of Institutional Research and Planning. Scope 1 Emissions Sources (Direct Sources) Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions from sources that are owned and/or controlled by Bucknell. This includes combustion of fossil fuels in college-owned facilities or vehicles and fugitive emissions from refrigeration. Bucknell has complete control over these emissions and is solely responsible for them. James Knight, Senior Associate Director of Energy and Utilities, provided the amount of gasoline and diesel used for Bucknell-owned vehicles. Stephen Durfee, Campus Energy Manager, supplied data on emissions from on-campus stationary sources, including the co-generation plant. Greg Koontz, Assistant Director of Utilities Maintenance, provided the pounds of refrigerants and other chemicals.

  7  

Scope 2 Emissions Sources (Indirect Sources) Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions from sources that are neither owned nor operated by Bucknell, but whose products are directly linked to on-campus energy consumption. This includes purchased energy – electricity, steam and chilled water – though Bucknell does not purchase steam or chilled water. These emissions come from converting primary energy sources that release greenhouse gas emissions when used (fossil fuels) to energy sources that do not (electricity, steam or chilled water). James Knight provided the amounts of purchased electricity. Scope 3 Emissions Sources Scope 3 emissions include emissions from sources that are neither owned nor operated by Bucknell but are either directly financed or are otherwise linked to the campus via influence or encouragement (2). This includes faculty, staff, and student commuting and air travel, study abroad air travel, solid waste, wastewater and paper. Professor Oswald’s transportation team collected data on faculty & staff and student commuting with the use of surveys, as well as data on faculty & staff and student air travel, athletic travel, and study abroad travel. To quantify greenhouse gas emissions, it was necessary to determine the number of and length (distance) of trips. A survey was developed to determine the number of Bucknell student, faculty, and staff trips within and to popular proximal commercial areas. The miles traveled by students within campus, student commuting to campus, and faculty commuting to campus were calculated from this survey, and this information can be used in Bucknell’s campus-wide study to convert miles traveled to emissions of CO2. To quantify the miles traveled to and from campus by faculty and staff by vehicle, the survey asked faculty and staff participants their county of residence. They were also asked to quantify the number of trips made to Bucknell per week during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, as well as during the 2012 and 2013 winter terms and 2012, 2013, and 2014 summer terms. The survey asked student participants to identify where they lived on campus during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years. Student participants were then asked the number of trips traveled within campus, during the school year and, if applicable, during the summer term per week. The survey also asked how many trips students made to the Market Street area, Weis Markets area, Walmart area, and Selinsgrove area per month. The following equations were used within an excel spreadsheet to complete calculations.

D × FTP = CM/Person/Year

(Σ CM/Person/Year) / Number of Survey Responders = Average CM/Person/Year

Average CM/Person/Year × Number of Faculty & Staff or Students = Total CM/Fiscal Year where D is Distance from county seat to Bucknell, FTP is Total Frequency of Trips Made per Person per Year, and CM is Commuter Miles.

  8  

A number of assumptions were made to convert survey results to total commuter miles made by Bucknell’s faculty, staff and students. Assumptions were made only when information provided by survey results did not provide adequate information. It should be noted that while these assumptions were only made when necessary, as assumptions can reduce the accuracy of information. Firstly, it was assumed that students driving within campus were traveling to Bertrand Library.

Figure 1: Student commuting and building origin

It was also assumed that all faculty/staff travel originated from or are to the participant’s county of residence’s “county seat” location, or the administrative center of the county. For example, the survey assumed that faculty and staff traveling from Lycoming County traveled an average of 31.5 miles based on the location of Lycoming County’s county seat. If a faculty or staff member actually lived in the furthest corner of Lycoming County from Bucknell, their commute trip one way would be approximately 84 miles. Similarly, a faculty or staff member living in the closest corner of Lycoming County to Bucknell would have a one-way commute trip of 15 miles. Therefore, it can be stated that there is a large amount of uncertainty regarding the accuracy of using county seats as a starting and end point for trips.

  9  

Figure 2: Faculty residence by county In order to complete calculations so that they were representative of the entirety of Bucknell’s employees, the split of county home-of-residence of faculty/staff observed in the survey was extrapolated to the entire faculty/staff community. Furthermore, it was assumed that the percentage of faculty and staff residing in the surrounding counties observed in the survey were equivalent to that of the entire faculty and staff community at Bucknell. In regards to calculating miles traveled in the summer, it was assumed that 20% of Bucknell’s student body and 100% of the faculty/staff body is on campus during the summer term. Travel patterns observed in survey results specifically regarding the school year were then extrapolated to the summer term. In terms of vehicles driven, participant’s vehicle (regular, hybrid, electric) and model was not taken into account. With regards to off-campus housing, it was assumed that 50% of the senior class lived off campus during both the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school year and followed travel patterns to survey participants who lived off campus in that time period. Finally, it was assumed that travel patterns observed in the survey results could be extrapolated to the entire student and faculty/staff population. In order to determine the total miles traveled by Bucknell athletic teams in the years of interest, the transportation team contacted the Department of Athletics and Recreation via email. Terrie Grieb, of the Department of Athletics and Recreation, provided spreadsheets delineating the amount of money spent on athletic travel in a given year. The athletic department does not keep records of the number of miles traveled by athletic teams during their travel. The amount spent

  10  

per team was compiled from spreadsheets provided, and these numbers were summed to reach the total amount spent. In order to convert dollars to miles traveled, a large assumption was made. As per the CACP user manual, a conversion factor of $0.25 per mile was utilized to complete the calculation. This calculation was performed using the following equation:

($0.25 / miles) × $ Amount Spent on Athletic Travel = Total Athletic Miles Traveled It was found that $876,889.21 was spent on athletic travel in 2013 and 2014 combined. Therefore, the total athletic miles traveled were calculated to be 3,507,556.84 miles. However, these values are not delineated into air travel and bus travel, as required by the CACP calculator. Therefore another significant assumption was made. Fifty percent of the miles traveled were assumed to be air miles and the other fifty percent bus miles. As improvement made to this study is that all of Bucknell’s study abroad programs were included in the calculation of miles traveled, as opposed to just the “Bucknell In” programs. Bucknell’s Office of International Education was able to provide information through Trace Coats via email. Mr. Coats provided several spreadsheets related to study abroad travel in 2013 and 2014. After significant data organization, the number of students who studied in each country in a given semester was compiled (i.e. fall, spring and summer). The Office of International Education does not record mileage traveled, nor flight information. To calculate mileage traveled without the necessary information, several assumptions were made. For normal study abroad flights, it was assumed that each flight departed from Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey, and landed in the capital of the country destination. Each student’s mileage was counted individually, which does not account for the amount of students who may have taken the same flight. This will result in an overestimation, which was done to make up for the likely variation in each student’s departure city. For students listed to have traveled to multiple countries, it was assumed that this referred to the “Semester at Sea” program. Each semester’s Semester at Sea program listed specific cities for embark and disembarking the program. Furthermore, all flights were counted as round-trips from the same airport. Finally, 8 students listed as studying abroad in the Unites States were disregarded, as no further information was provided about what program, and where, they were studying. In order to quantify the air miles traveled by students in these programs, an online flight mileage calculator was utilized. From there, the following formulas were used to calculate the total flight miles traveled by study abroad students:

(Miles / Flight) × Number of Students in Program = Total Flight Miles Traveled/Program

Σ Total Flight Miles Traveled/Program = Total Study Abroad Miles Traveled It was found that an estimated 3,109,253 miles were traveled in 2013, and 3,689,513 were traveled in 2014. The final set of data collected covered air miles traveled by students and faculty for any other Bucknell sponsored activities, including conferences, sabbaticals, workshops, and other similar events. Valerie Cook in the Department of Procurement Services was contacted via email, and she provided the reported miles flown by students and faculty on record for outsourced travel, a

  11  

single number for each year. This required another assumption that fifty percent of the miles flown (each year) were flown by students and the other fifty percent of miles flown were flown by faculty. A reported 376,765 miles were flown in 2013 and 673,321 were flown in 2014. Therefore, under the assumption mentioned above, 188,382.5 miles were flown by students and faculty in 2013, and 336,660.5 miles were flown by students and faculty in 2014. Scope 3 Emissions Other Than Transportation In addition to transportation sources, Scope 3 also includes emissions from solid waste, wastewater and paper. Merritt Pedrick, Associate Director of Operations, provided the amount of solid waste Bucknell transported to Lycoming County Landfill and the amount of wastewater for FY 2013 and FY 2014. The landfill captures the gas produced by the microbes, 75% of which is flared and 25% of which is used to produce electricity to sell to Pennsylvania Power & Light. The amount of flared solid waste and the amount used to produce electricity were calculated based on the data supplied by Mr. Pedrick. Tom Lydon, Assistant Director in the Office of Publications, Print and Mail, provided the amount and percent recycled content of paper purchased by Bucknell for FY 2013 and FY 2014. Emission Offsets Emission Offsets are reductions in emissions that can be used to compensate for emissions at Bucknell. An offset is achieved when the campus invests in a reduction in GHGs outside of its institutional boundaries, such that it exerts some financial control on that entity, and is therefore responsible for that entity’s reduction in GHGs (2). For FY 2013 and FY 2014, Bucknell purchased 4,000 Green-e Certified National Voluntary Wind Renewable Energy Credits, which equated to 4,000,000 kWh of wind-generated electricity. Stephen Durfee provided this information. Challenges in Data Collection The required Institutional, Scope 1, Scope 2, Scope 3 and Offset data were collected without any major difficulties. At times, though, locating the correct person to speak to regarding certain data was challenging. Staff members would also sometimes need to be contacted for data collection purposes multiple times in order to obtain the data by the scheduled deadline. Data collection thus had to begin months in advance in order to complete the report in time. Data Quality and Assumptions For every inventory update, it is assumed that the data collected for previous inventories, as well as the data supplied by the staff, is accurate. However, the data may not be entirely accurate due to a lack of sufficient records or measuring tactics. For example, the amount of refrigerants & chemicals included in this study is the quantity that Bucknell purchased in the given fiscal year. However, this is not an entirely accurate representation of the amount that was actually used throughout the year. In addition, some of the transportation data in Source 3 is not entirely accurate due to methods that will be discussed later in this report.

  12  

III. Results & Discussion Figure 3 shows emissions in equivalent thousand metric tonnes (MT3) of carbon dioxide calculated for Bucknell University based on data collected since 1990. The graph separates emissions by source.

Figure 3: Total emissions (MT3eCO2) collected for Bucknell University FY 1990-2014. Table 1 below lists total emissions (MTeCO2) for every two years since 2008, showing that although emissions were decreasing, they actually increased slightly between 2012 and 2014. Breaking emissions down by scope shows that Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions have decreased while Scope 3 emissions have increased over the past several years, especially since 2012. This is likely due to changes in data collection, as the last inventory update only included miles traveled for Bucknell-In study abroad programs, whereas this inventory included miles traveled for all study abroad programs that students participated in. This is also seen in the difference in total air travel between 2012 and 2014. As air travel contributes significant emissions, it is important to keep track of how many miles of air travel Bucknell is contributing to its total emissions.

Table 1: Emissions (MTeCO2) collected since 2008.

Year Scope 1 Emissions

Scope 2 Emissions

Scope 3 Emissions

Total Air

Travel Total Emissions

2008 32,769.8 2,015.5 6,501.2 2,932 41,486.5 2010 32,535.4 1,915.4 5,292.6 2,434.8 39,743.5 2012 32,317.2 1,808.5 4,261.1 1,810.5 38,386.8 2014 30,381.1 1,653.9 6,871.4 2,663.2 38,906.5

  13  

Total emissions decreased significantly after Bucknell added a co-generation plant in 1997 and retired its coal-burning plant. Figure 2 illustrates total carbon dioxide emitted, separated by scope. Figure 4 isolates the time period beginning in 2006 in order to show the change in total emissions since 2007 in closer detail.

Figure 4: Total emissions (MT3eCO2) by sector from FY 2006 and FY 2014.

Figure 5: Total emissions (MT3eCO2) by scope from FY 1990-2014.

  14  

Figure 5 shows that Scope 1 emissions are by far the largest contributor to total emissions, followed by Scope 3 emissions, with Scope 2 emissions being the smallest contributor. After 2005, there is a spike in total emissions due to directly financed outsourced travel and study abroad air travel being accounted for and incorporated into Bucknell’s total emissions. Thus the graph makes it appear that Bucknell increased its emissions after 2005, but this is only due to the additional data collected and not because of a real change. Since 2003, Bucknell has been partially offsetting its emissions through the purchase of Green Power Certificates. These certificates (sold as kWh) represent electricity generated from renewable energy sources. Since 2009, Bucknell has been purchasing 4,000,000 kWh for each fiscal year. Figure 6 shows the total emissions, offsets, and net emissions, which are caluclated by subtracting offsets from total emissions.

Figure 6: Net emissions (MT3eCO2) collected for Bucknell University FY 1990-2014. Total emissions per student have been decreasing gradually since 2007, as seen in Figure 7. However, there was a much smaller decrease in total emissions per student in FY 2014.

  15  

Figure 7: Total emissions (MTeCO2) produced per student for FY 1990-2014. Figure 8 shows the total energy used by Bucknell University per square foot of building space. By 2012, emissions had decreased by nearly 100 kBtu/ft2 since 1992 and were steadily decreasing, but rose slightly between FY 2013 and FY 2014.

Figure 8: Total energy used per square foot of building space for FY 1990-2014. Figure 9 illustrates emissions data by scope for FY 2013-2014.

  16  

Figure 9: Percent contribution to FY 2013-2014 carbon emissions by scope.

Figure 9 shows that Scope 1 contributed the most carbon emissions for FY 2013-2014 with 93%. This includes emissions from on-campus stationary sources, the university fleet, and refrigerants and chemicals. Figure 10 illustrates the percentage of emission contributions within Scope 1.

Figure 10: Percent contribution to FY 2013-2014 carbon emissions within Scope 1.

Co-generation electricity and co-generation steam contributed 94% of carbon emissions under Scope 1. A breakdown figure is not included for Scope 2 because purchased electricity contributes 100% of Scope 2 emissions. Scope 3 emissions are shown in Figure 11.

  17  

Figure 11: Percent contribution to FY 2013-2014 carbon emissions within Scope 3. Faculty and staff commuting accounted for 38% of Scope 3 emissions while study abroad air travel accounted for 27%. All other sources contributed the remaining 65% of emissions. Figure 12 summarizes the percent contributions from sources within Scopes 1, 2 and 3.

Figure 12: Summary of percent emissions contributions by source for FY 2013-2014

Co-generation steam and co-generation electricity account for 49% and 24% of carbon

  18  

emissions, respectively. The remaining 27% comes from all other sources. IV. Conclusion & Recommendations With the negative effects of climate change becoming increasingly apparent, Bucknell University has taken responsibility for its own greenhouse gas emissions and continues to make strides towards carbon neutrality. Bucknell’s emissions have decreased since 2007, but the decreasing emissions have stagnated. Between FY 2012 and 2014, emissions actually increased slightly. This is likely in part due to differences in methodology for data collection for the last inventory update and this one. Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions have continued to decrease, though. This decrease in emissions from these sources is likely due to improved efficiency and retrofitting of buildings. Although Bucknell’s campus has expanded, its new buildings are more energy-efficient. With Bucknell’s campus expanding further in upcoming years, though, it will be important to note how these changes continue to impact the university’s emissions. Scope 3 emissions contributed the most to the increase in emissions due to the changes in data collection methods. By including data from all study abroad programs students participated in rather than just Bucknell-In programs, the amount of air travel included in Scope 3 emissions increased significantly. However, due to the changes in methodology and the assumptions made when collecting data, it is ambiguous whether or not the increase in Scope 3 emissions was also due to changes in faculty, staff and student habits. Overall, the results of this inventory update indicate that Bucknell’s commitment to achieving carbon neutrality by 2030 is optimistic, despite the relative increase in emissions since the last inventory update. Improved data collection methods and a continued dedication to emissions reduction will allow for more progress to be made in reporting Bucknell’s emissions and reaching carbon neutrality. Recommendations for Actions to Reduce Emissions In order to reach the goal of carbon neutrality by 2030, Bucknell will have to accelerate its efforts to decrease or offset its carbon emissions. Recommended tactics include improving conservation habits, building efficiency, investing in renewable energy resources, and purchasing more offsets. As co-generation steam and co-generation electricity were responsible for the bulk of the Bucknell’s greenhouse gas emissions, it is important to consider how the University can reduce these emissions. Some steps to be taken could include practicing better utility conservation behavior, retrofitting and renovating inefficient buildings, prioritizing utility conservation in the design, construction, and operation of all new buildings, investing in renewable energy resources, and purchasing more offsets. Although Bucknell has made an effort to make its new buildings more efficient, with its newest building, Academic West, receiving LEED Silver Certification, the University should continue to work towards upgrading older buildings to be more energy-efficient. In addition, many of the older or smaller buildings do not have devices to keep track of how much energy and water the building is using. By adding energy and water use monitoring instrumentation to all buildings, the University would be better able to track how much energy and water is being used and how they might be able to conserve more. By incorporating interactive displays of utility use in the entryway of each building, the University could influence positive change in social behavior towards more responsible use of water and electricity.

  19  

Investing in renewable energy such as geothermal or solar energy would also be a good tactic for Bucknell to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. There are many opportunities for Bucknell to install solar panels on roofs of buildings or other open areas across campus that could have a 10-year payback. Although it is difficult to get a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from solar installations, Bucknell could install enough solar capacity to offset the emissions increases from all new building construction. With the campus’ continuing expansion, this could be a useful strategy to help keep emissions down. Bucknell could also purchase more offsets in order to reduce its carbon footprint, which it has not done since 2009. Although this is the simplest method in the short-term, it is also the most expensive. It seems more beneficial for Bucknell to focus on investing in renewable energy, retrofitting & renovating, and energy conservation, as these have long-term benefits to both the University and the overall goal of reducing emissions. The University should also work on encouraging practicing better energy conservation to the Bucknell community. This is a preferable tactic because it saves Bucknell money by reducing annual energy costs while decreasing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted. Many students are unaware of the effect their daily habits have, so more programming focused on sustainable habits could have an impact on the campus culture. Various organizations on campus have already begun to pursue efforts to promote energy conservation on campus, which included participating in Campus Conservation Nationals, a national energy-reduction competition for colleges and universities, in April 2015. This was Bucknell’s first time participating in CCN, and resulted in residence halls on campus making significant energy reduction throughout the three-week competition. Efforts such as these will hopefully continue to strengthen in the future so more progress is made. Although it is often difficult to influence peoples’ behavior, it is still important to raise awareness of these issues across campus. Opportunities to Strengthen Data Quality The data collection process for Scope 3 transportation can still be improved to improve accuracy. When measuring the distance that faculty members travel to campus, one central point in each county from which faculty were traveling from was used to calculate the distance they travel to Bucknell. This is a broad generalization, and accuracy would be improved if zip codes or addresses were used instead. In addition, various departments on campus can improve their recording of miles traveled by faculty, students and athletic teams. For example, the athletic department does not currently keep track of miles traveled by athletic teams, and only accounts for the cost of travel. It also only counts total miles traveled rather than accounting for how many miles are traveled by air and how many are traveled by bus. In addition, some data, such as the number of miles traveled by faculty, staff, and students for Bucknell-sponsored activities for FY 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, were provided in a single number rather than separating the data for each fiscal year. This led to the assumption that half of the miles were traveled in each year. Due to these discrepancies, the data is not as strong as it could be. Results would be greatly improved if there were an enforced, standardized transportation bookkeeping method for all departments. Lastly, Bucknell should inquire about updated operations at Lycoming County Landfill. The Landfill has recently been working to expand their on-site co-generation system and may now

  20  

convert nearly all landfill gas to electricity. With these improvements to data collection, there will be even more accurate results for future inventory updates.  

  21  

References (1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate change: Basic information. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/ (2) Clean Air Cool Planet. Campus Carbon Calculator. Retrieved from http://cleanair coolplanet.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/02/ v6.5_Users_Guide.pdf (3) American College & University President’s Climate Commitment. Mission and History. http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/about/mission-history