Penn updates Climate Action Plan

Multimedia

Penn's Environmental Impact

Check out a five-year summary of Penn’s environmental impact. This interactive graphic takes a look at carbon dioxide emissions alongside other university initiatives. RELATED: Penn’s updated climate plan

Penn Park, Eco-Reps and carbon emissions are among the hundreds of environmental initiatives discussed in a recent 45-page progress report.

For the first time since it launched a campus-wide Climate Action Plan in 2009, Penn has provided an comprehensive update on the plan’s progress — focusing on what it has achieved, as well as what goals still must be met.

“I’ve been most proud that this has become a mainstream issue at Penn,” Vice President of Facilities and Real Estate Services Anne Papageorge said. “We’ve taken advantage of the public’s growing interest in sustainability, and we’ve been able to communicate and advocate that this applies to everyone.”

Among the updates provided, the report looked back on the recognition Penn has received for its sustainability efforts over the past few years. For example, the University has been recognized by the Sierra Club as one of the top 25 greenest campuses in the country.

Additionally, according to the report, Penn has been recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency as among the top 50 buyers of wind power nationwide.

Though the University’s carbon emissions have varied up and down within a range of about 2 percent over the past few years, Fiscal Year 2011 — which ended June 30, 2011 — marked the first time that emissions have risen since the launch of the plan.

This was in part due to the one million square feet added to campus real estate through major projects like Penn Park, Papageorge said.

The Climate Action Plan has not been limited to involvement from FRES alone, she added. Student activism has also played a major role in the push toward environmental sustainability.

Environmental Sustainability Coordinator Dan Garofalo pointed to groups like Eco-Reps — which currently has more than 200 student and staff participants — as a sign of growing support for the Climate Action Plan.

“It’s been very popular, very successful — we had more applicants than spots this year,” he said.

However, some are still looking to increase the visibility of groups like Eco-Reps across campus.

“I think we’re helping the Climate Action Plan move along, but it’s very difficult to reach so many people whose behavior would need to be changed in order to reach the goals,” Engineering sophomore Laura MacKinnon, who serves on the executive board of Eco-Reps said. “Our program is still limited in scope.”

The Climate Action Plan has also spilled over into the realm of academics, bringing in sustainability-related topics to more than 160 courses across various disciplines, according to the recent update.

In addition to the creation of a new Sustainability and Environmental Management minor and an Environmental Building Design master’s program, the University also announced the Vagelos Integrated Program in Energy Research in Sept. 2011.

Through VIPER — a dual-degree program between the School of Arts and Sciences and the School of Engineering and Applied Science — incoming freshmen in the Class of 2016 will have the opportunity to study alternative energy sources.

One thing that the update did not address was Penn’s collaboration with peer schools in its sustainability efforts.

According to Garofalo, Penn has been actively meeting with institutions like Stanford University and the University of Chicago on a regular basis to share ideas.

“It’s a healthy competition” between the schools, Papageorge said, “We’re all looking to learn from each other.”

Ultimately, the Climate Action Plan’s goal is to make the University entirely climate neutral by 2042.

The closer, upcoming goal is in 2014, when Penn hopes to achieve a 17 percent reduction in energy consumption.

“When it was written, none of these things were discussed,” said Ken Ogawa, executive director of operations and maintenance for FRES. “We’ve gone from nothing to collaboration across the country.”

INTERACTIVE: Penn’s environmental impact
Penn seeks faculty input on campus climate
Penn invests in wind energy
Penn ranks first in green power consumption

Comments (5)

government subsidized windmills,eco-reps=green obamabots.agenda21 fascism.sustainability is a scam.please stop tarnishing penn’s reputation by aiding and abbetting this corruption of science and public policy.stanford and unniv of chicogo,you have to be kidding me.shame on you.

How about Penn devote more time and money to the education we’re all paying for rather than becoming “carbon neutral”. The supposed fact that CO2 is detrimental to the environment rests solely on the unverified claims of human-induced global warming. And yes, many reputable scientists and climatologists have evidence disproving the theory. Look at who is actually profiting from global warming and you’ll see where the “science” is coming from. It’s sad that Penn is leading the way in an environmental witch hunt like this.

Precisely why I will never donate to Penn. Tuition and University resources should be spent on students, curriculum, facilities, faculty research, etc. Resources should not be spent to satisfy the political and social agendas of administrators.

My sincerest apologies to the commenters who preceded me, however I will take the opposite stance: That in fact the University is not doing nearly enough. Climate Change is in fact very real, and denying its existence will not make it go away. Having said that aside from a climate mitigation argument, by trying to lower Penn’s carbon emissions we are for the most part talking about lowering our energy usage. This is not radical by any sense, and justified by sound financial sense. Many energy efficiency measures will have Internal Rate of Return’s in the 15-25% range, and often payback the cost of the capital investment within two years. Penn is fortunate in that they have relatively easy access to capital to improve their existing operations. Going forward there needs to be more emphasis on how best to improve Penn’s operations. I am calling on all University donors to save their naming right donations, and think how best their capital can contribute to Penn’s Climate Action Plan goals. A 17% reduction in emissions should not be normalized for building growth. It should in fact be a real reduction in emissions. Penn needs to re-evaluate the initiatives it has taken so far. There needs to be real dedication to improving and replacing lights (lets switch to LEDs!), focusing on building automation, and demand-response initiatives campus wide. The current automation specialists that Penn employs, Johnson Controls, doesn’t have innovative plans for the campus. They can hardly get motion sensing light controls correct, for an example of the fine-quality of craftsmanship of Johnson Controls , just check out a Huntsman GSR.

Shifting the conversation back to Penn’s operations, I expect our leading higher education institutions in this country to lead by example. Penn is recognized for purchasing a significant percentage of both its total energy and electricity usage in the form of wind credits. However, what many people don’t realize is that the wind credits which Penn supports comes from North Dakota. There are two things fundamentally flawed with that. The first being that Penn’s carbon emissions related to its energy usage has very little to do with wind energy in North Dakota. The second argument is that if you look at a wind potential map of the United States the mid-west is a hot bed for onshore wind resources. The mid-west represents the greatest onshore wind resources this country has to offer. If wind can produce electricity cheaper than coal and natural gas, (which it can in some regions!) it would be in regions like North Dakota where wind potential is significant. For full disclosure I haven’t studied the cost that Penn pays for a wind credit, and it could be that the North Dakota project they support is sufficiently far away from previously existing transmission lines such that a private Wind Credit market is needed to support the financial viability of the project. Having said that if Penn is serious about their carbon mitigation plans, they should consider supporting renewable energy projects which are both in the region where Penn’s carbon emissions come from (i.e. within PJM’s operating region) and also support projects which need supporting. Which is to say they should support alternative energy projects which may not otherwise be viable without Penn or a private renewable energy certificate (REC) market’s support. I think that there is strong case to be made for localized energy production, and despite the increased cost relative to cheap North Dakotan wind; Penn should strongly consider solar photovoltaic installations on its most unused resources, its campus roofs! Additionally, there is a case to be made for onsite vertical axis wind turbines which many other Universities have already installed (Yale for example). If you like to join my cause in being an active evangelist to the Penn bureaucracy and community in supporting local clean energy generation, please contact me at dean.frankel@gmail.com

Penn is legally classified as a Load-serving entity, which even though they only consume power. The consume so much of it that they get to be considered as a power PROVIDER. In other words you or I may spend $0.12/kWh as most of PA does, but Penn only spends $0.085/kWh. Penn spends ~$35 million a year in its energy bills, it is about time they took a stand and began to become spend more seriously on measures which will get them to their 17% carbon emissions reduction goal by 2014.

All the best,

Dean

It is a scam and a hoax. It all started in part at the highest levels when exceptional American scientists were approved by the Bush administration’s State Department to serve on intergovernmental panels on climate change. It continued when extensive theory was developed about how earth systems work, and how man impacts them, all supported by the National Academy of Science and the National Science Foundation, two highly questionable scientific institutions who fund highly-questioned research at America’s best universities. An overwhelming percentage of the scientific community is complicit, and how the plot has not been uncovered remains a mystery if only because tens of thousands won’t talk about the conspiracy. The military is in on the game since it now believes new resource conflicts may emerge as the result of changes in the weather. Worse, free-thinking Penn students from Earth & Environmental Sciences, Wharton, Engineering, Design, Law, and Philosophy are getting caught up in the hoax perpetuated by “wacko tree huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, make our cities safer and more livable” , and guide their University towards becoming a more responsible and exemplary global citizen. Don’t let Penn get fooled into spending resources on political and social agendas not supported by science and the assent of the relevant community.

Comments are closed for this item.