Blueprint for a Green Campus (2000 Edition) 

Table of Contents | Introduction | Goals | Institutional Issues | Climate-Friendly Campus | Growing Without Increasing Traffic | Safe/Healthy Campus | Consumption and Disposal Habits  

Structural and Institutional Issues

There are a number of overarching issues that have broad impacts on many of the specific issues covered by this report.

Accounting for True Costs

The internal campus "marketplace" should be adjusted to more accurately reflect true costs. Currently, many of the incentives set by the campus market encourage resource consumption. Some examples include:

• Printing is "free" in public computer labs (or rather, the costs are spread across all users in the form of a flat computing fee). Consequently, there is no incentive for individual users to conserve paper. For some perspective, compare this to copying--this is analogous to having free copiers all over campus. It would be quite feasible to charge a user's account for each page that is printed from public computer labs. This user fee could be entirely revenue neutral.
  
• Parking is underpriced. The user cost for parking does include construction costs and operating and maintenance costs, but does not include the underlying land value. In central Boulder, where land can easily exceed $1 million/acre, this dramatically undercounts the costs. For comparison, the main campus has approximately 40 acres of land devoted to parking--nearly 4 times the size of the entire Grandview area. A more accurate price would have a significant effect on travel behavior. For example, a 1997 study of the finances of CU Parking Services performed for the University by Bamberger and Associates concluded that a forty percent increase in parking fees would cause faculty and staff permit sales to go down by fourteen percent.
• In addition, parking permits could be restructured to allow users greater flexibility in purchasing parking rights. Currently, parkers must purchase permits which give the right to park on campus every day. Once they have made this purchase, there is an incentive to drive to campus every day. Using modern computer technology, it is possible to have a much more flexible system, allowing users, for example, to purchase the right to park on campus 2 times per week.

These examples leave out a whole category of costs: environmental externalities. In the above examples, the external costs to environmental quality and human health are imposed by paper production, automobile use, or energy production. While the economists tell us that it is necessary to include all of these costs in order to have a truly efficient economy, simply getting the direct costs right would be a good first step.

Another structural problem is the firewall that typically exists between capital and operating budgets for building construction. Because these funds typically come from very different sources and are budgeted separately, it is very difficult to spend more up front on efficiency measures, even if the total life cycle cost will be lowered. This leads to decisions that are both economically irrational and environmentally destructive.

Consistent Measurement and Reporting of Campus Environmental Performance

Another difficulty is the lack of any consistent measurement of campus environmental performance. Many of the steps recommended in this blueprint would require an ability to measure our environmental performance. For example, the proposal to abide by the Kyoto Protocol on climate change would require a baseline inventory on campus emissions of greenhouse gases, as well as regular updates to the inventory. The proposal to grow without increasing traffic would require an agreed upon methodology for measuring traffic volumes generated by campus activities. A formalized integrated pest management policy would need to be supported by a baseline study and ongoing tracking of pesticide and herbicide use on campus. The effort to stem the generation of solid waste requires consistent annual reporting of waste generation. In all of these areas, we recommend establishing a consistent and agreed upon methodology as well as assigning ongoing responsibility for study to an identified department.

The Need for a Campus Environmental Council

There is no high level, centralized support system for improving CU’s environmental performance. Nor is there an entity on campus that exists to review the environmental impact of campus policies, building projects or programs, or to create new environmental policies. While there are many individual entities that fill parts of this role--including the Solid Waste Advisory Board, the Boulder Campus Planning Commission, the Hazardous Materials Advisory Board, the Environmental Center, the Environmental Operations Manager within Facilities Management, and Environmental Health and Safety--this does not provide comprehensive review. Many changes get implemented with no consideration of environmental impacts or discussion of alternatives.

Many of the positive steps taken which go beyond regulatory compliance have been driven by UCSU efforts and visionary administrators. There has not been much coordinated, high-level support. This stands in contrast to schools such as the University of Texas in Houston, Brown University, or George Washington, where efforts to "green the campus" are coordinated and funded at the highest levels. Our experience here is that adoption of improved environmental programs on campus generally requires a major campaign effort by concerned students and faculty, rather than being initiated by the administration. The creation of a campus environmental council which could serve to advise the chancellor, with staff support, would be an important step toward implementing the master plan and this blueprint. This could also be seen by the EPA as a good faith effort towards developing a comprehensive Environmental Management System for the campus, which will help avoid future legal liability.