 |
 |
 |
|
|
Environmental
Issues Committee
February 19, 2008
EMU Century F
Attendees: Chuck Kalnbach, Jesse Hough, Lynn
Giordano, Steve Mital, Tim King Deb Merskin, Jim Blick,
Art Farley, Leslie Hinkle, Paula Staight, Christine Thompson, Bill Cresko January minutes were
approved. Steve presented
information that the committee asked him to assemble: UO Emissions Spreadsheet) Five major
areas listed: Buildings,
Transportation, Purchases, Water, and Solid Waste. This can be used to help determine
what types of emissions should to be included in the scope of UO’s responsibilities
and those that are beyond scope. Data
was provided where possible in the following categories: Estimated eCO2 in MT;
Monitoring Data Availability; Opportunities for Significant Additional GHG
Reductions; % of Core Emissions; and % of Total Emissions. Recommendations: It would be more accurate to change the
category labeled buildings as physical infrastructure, move water under infrastructure
and solid waste to purchases. Add
a category for IT after transportation.
The committee questioned how much data Purchasing, Banner, and
departments will be able to provide, and what improvements in tracking may be required. Good Company) A section of the report makes a case
for institutions of higher education, when possible, to achieve more expansive emission
reduction than are expected of other types of organizations. Emissions Classifications) Organized into
four levels: Core emissions; Direct transportation activities; Indirect transportation activities; and Goods
and services. Under each area
Steve listed definitions, sources, monitoring, actions, goals, and measurements. The bulk of emissions and those that UO
has more direct control over are found in level one. Steve asked for feedback
on the classification framework for the different types of emissions. He would like the committee to consider
the monitoring plans for each emissions class and begin to discuss reduction
goals and measurement options. Recommendations: Suggested
that data from past years be included in the reporting process in order to have
comparisons on how much GHG has been reduced, as well as to publicize how much
has been accomplished. There was
discussion about the pros and cons of measuring methods, such square foot, or a
per student basis, or other ways to calculate GHG reduction. The goal of carbon neutrality was
discussed. Cost savings is factor
that should be taken into account. Steve shared that the
buildings working group has met and is in process of drafting a list of
actions. The group has considered breaking
down cost savings incrementally, for example in 7 years, then 15 years payback,
etc. Another approach to
measurement that is being contemplated suggests break out certain types of
spaces because more energy would be used in science buildings, for example, compared
to classroom spaces. Next Meeting: Thursday, March 20th, from 2:00 –
3:00 p.m. in the EMU Alsea Room Contact: Kay Coots, R.S., CSP Environmental Health and Safety Director Phone: (541) 346-5421 E-Mail: kcoots@uoregon.edu |
| Updated by SLM on 11/2/06 Please send Comments to the webmaster. |