Well folks, we’ve hit 6 (and PittEnvironmental has blogged about 4 of them). This morning, we’ll hear from the founding dean of Chatham’s School of Sustainability, and a Pitt panel on green initiatives around the university. Throughout this article, the term ‘susty’ is used in place of ‘sustainability’.

9:15 In opening remarks, Ward highlighted the lack of comprehensive education around climate change, but also mentioned the UHC’s new program to bring more climate change speakers to the campus in an effort to give all students such a background. The first of those events is next week’s Joe Romm lecture on the 17th.

Keynote: David Hassenzahl

Wants to talk about sustainability in the two places that he’s worked – UNLV and Chatham. Emphasized that it’s easy to get discouraged, but that as long as day-to-day actions are moving us forward, we should not do that.

Susty as an organizing principle:

• Chicago School: ‘Everything is by definition sustainable, because of resource replacement and economics’
• ‘An awkward and ugly word’, ‘Susty is a technical requirement, not an aspiration’ 
• Standard triple bottom line variants.
• Not impeding future generation (Brundtland, seven generations out)
• Different aspects: facilities, academics, campus life, community. All require focus at a university.
• Four principles:
  • Process, not endpoints (‘Don’t get caught up in goals or measurements’)
  • Needs to be preferred to status quo for success (‘How does what you’re doing make lives better?’)
  • Systems perspective
  • Appropriate knowledge (rather than multi- or trans- disciplinary)

9:32 Assessment:

• Without measurement, importance and quality and progress are lost
• Assessment systems (STARS) can push us to do specific things that may or may not move us towards sustainability
• In contrast, systems like the Living Building Challenge emphasize endpoints rather than specific methods
• Certifications are nice, but tradeoffs require analysis and thought
• Mention of SWPA Susty Business Compact

 

9:36 Las Vegas as a Susty Everytown (argument that LV faces the same issues as many other places)

It will take a long time to cycle through infrastructure – 10 years for cars, longer for buildings. We don’t often think about suburban LV, but it is often full of cinder block walls. Like other places, developments are built not for walking between houses, but for driving, and with houses facing away from the street and towards the backyard. How do we plan communities that inhibit or encourage interactions?

9:40 Exponential population growth, but we’re building infrastructure designed to discourage people from forming actual communities, or doing anything but drive. (IMO, Phoenix is still more ridiculous). Terrain is flat in the valley, but surrounded by mountains. Back in the 1970′s, started having runoff from higher residential exterior water use, creating wetlands in the desert. By 2008, the LV Wash runs 365 days a year with heavy flow. He uses the phrase ‘Suburban Drool’, which is not his, but is excellent. Year round wetlands in the desert (in neighborhoods as well as the wash) is a wacky concept.

9:49 With all that standing water, mosquitoes are now endemic to LV – new ecosystems, and new diseases. Swimming pools are a problem as well, particularly with the housing downturn. This comes back to the idea of systems thinking and unintended consequences.

Lawns are decreasing, but those that remain still use a lot of fertilizers and herbicides. There is also lots of dog waste. Because rainfall is short and intense, all of that washes into Lake Mead right above where freshwater intakes are. This all requires more energy to clean up drinking water for consumption (Systems again).

Schools generally have kids driven to school, then playing ‘on a blacktop, with still air, surrounded by 10 ft walls, with lots of vans idling’ (the respiratory emissions are awful). Emphasized difference between driving and walking to school – totally different interactions with built environment, but the environment isn’t the final determining factor. He came back to health and the environment, and noting obesity, diabetes, and pollution as well as disconnection, and that quality of life is higher (though how do we measure that?).

9:53 Shift towards the ‘we can do things better’ part of the presentation (which I’m not going to write about as much). Notes the ‘green line’ for wine that loosely follows the Mississippi.

9:59 On to Chatham: have a master plan for the Eden Hall Campus for 1200 students with net-zero all sorts of things (we could question net-zero, but it’s a reasonable goal). The campus is at the top of two watersheds, and so has impacts on everyone below them (though is eventually diluted, and with negligible impacts the next town down will be a bigger impact. Susty on rivers is a problem of agriculture and towns, not net-zero campuses.)

First phase will focus on food and energy, aiming for initial set of buildings by October. Aiming for 70% lower energy use, to enable 100% renewable energy. Putting heat pumps in everything (expensive but good – is it maintainable?). All buildings will be LEED Platinum, with full time monitoring (maintenance?). Questioning whether to grow all the food or trade with local farmers.

10:02 Overall Chatham susty efforts – STARS Gold, all the rest of the standard awards, USNWR set of 4 schools going beyond normal efforts.

Conclusions – susty is a process, and needs to be where you are. Campuses need to be living labs to try things out. Think about appropriate knowledge to collect, and how to influence peers, and what behaviors to adopt now (those will be around in 20-30 years). Finally, town-gown relations can help impact susty.

 

 

Panel Discussion

Participants:

• Susanna Leers, Head of the PUPC of the University Senate. 
• Dan Marcinko, Univ. Susty Coordinator (head of FM’s team)
• Kit Ayars, CSSD
• Pat Heffley, Upper-campus housing building manager
• Susan Fukushima, Sodexho manager on campus

Head of PUPC discussed the dissolution of the SuSC, and the [slow] work on a replacement – and that many susty-oriented practices are now common place.

10:15 Mr. Marcinko notes that many things are happening, highlighting building efforts. Five LEED certification projects ongoing, with Chevron and BST3 12th floor recently finished. Looking at the branch campuses as well – Greensberg and Johnstown. Nordenberg Hall (the new dorm) is currently tracking Silver. Looking at other points, but thinking about whether those points are sensible places to spend money (not necessarily cost-wise, it seems). Emphasis on water efficiency (silly for this region, but w/e). New website section for FM with more usability and weekly updates. New carbon emissions inventory coming out soon, shout-out to MCSI. Sustainability report in progress, release in fall.

10:21 Ms. Ayars emphasized that people really do care. CSSD focuses on power, paper waste, and partnerships with others (they are limited in direct impacts). Working on virtualization of servers to reduce power usage in network ops center – significant reductions. Lab computers power down after 30 mins. A lot of efforts around paper weren’t possible 3 years ago – self service, software distribution, etc. Much of this has been student-pushed, and several million sheets have been saved this school year. 30000 discs saved from downloading software rather than getting disc. Sidenote: The plastic bags for printing pickup are 100% recyclable, and purchased from a manufacturer that uses renewable energy. Overall printing is down. Reasons here would be interesting – I’d guess that tablets and phones are related. Lots of work with the GFAB. The Susty Handbook was part of the orientation USB key.  Welcomes new partnerships – call the helpdesk.

10:28 Mr. Heffley discussed his history with HM as the lead person for susty efforts in housing. Started with trashroom bins, then worked on motion sensors throughout dorms. Hydration station in Sutherland, working on Panther and PA, already in Nordenberg (though not accessible yet). Did lighting retrofits in Sutherland and Forbes, saving $40,000 per year (40-50% more efficient). Next big project is the entrance area for Sutherland Hall (with a mention of permanent exterior recycling bins!).

10:34 Ms. Fukushima emphasized Sodexho’s overarching plan. Wants to work on reducing water use, local/seasonal products, and social responsibility (fair trade and sensibly grown products). Follow Monterrey Bay Aquarium seafood system. Use energy-efficient equipment. Participates in Global Susty Supply Chain Code of Conduct – a nice thing to see for its long-ranging impacts. Recently signed agreement with Real Food Challenge, which is a goal of 20% from locally grown sustainable food. Here at Pitt, partnerships have worked well. Cardboard is recycled, grease is used for biodiesel. Trayless dining has reduced a lot of impacts.

Question: Biggest accomplishment and biggest challenge

Mr. Marcinko: Building Automation System, for both control and metering. Challenge is in utilizing the dollars that we have wisely.

Ms. Ayars: Dislikes picking favorites, but notes that cleaning chemicals for labs are now green (she has chemical sensitivities, so this matters a lot). Challenge is in balancing needs and wants.

Mr. Heffley: Agrees with Mr. Marcinko on the Automated Building System. More for HM, recycling mattresses is a big deal. Company can teardown and recycle/reuse mattresses, or Sutherland’s were taken to Jamaica (was this a useful point of aid?). Challenges focus around the demand from students and the time it takes to actually install things.

Question: What is top-down support for susty like?

Ms. Leers: Admin is supportive, but cites the traditional need for a ‘loyal opposition’ from faculty and staff.

Question: How do you communicate with students about efforts?

Mr. Marcinko: Increased website use for documentation, and the idea of producing a susty report.

In conclusion, Mr. Marcinko also presented initial results from REcyclemania, 33rd in Grand Challenge, 11/357 in Gorilla, 64/355 per-capita (3rd BE), 50% waste utilization 18/158 paper, 27/165 cardboard (both 1st BE). Notes that hydration stations were a student effort that are now part of building standards.

 

Break for booths and snacks – thanks for reading through all of this discussion!