Climate Action Plan - McMaster University

McMaster University

2010 Climate Action Plan December 2010

Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 2. McMaster University’s Climate Commitment.......................................................................... 1 3. McMaster University’s 2007 Greenhouse Gas Inventory ........................................................ 2 3.1 Energy .............................................................................................................................. 4 3.2 Waste................................................................................................................................ 5 3.3 Transportation .................................................................................................................. 6 4. The Climate Action Plan........................................................................................................... 7 5. Climate Action Planning Committee ........................................................................................ 7 5.1 Energy .............................................................................................................................. 9 5.2 Waste.............................................................................................................................. 12 5.3 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 14 6. Next Steps and Future Tracking: ............................................................................................ 15 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 16 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................ 19 References ..................................................................................................................................... 20

Tables Table 1: Definition of Each Emission Scope .................................................................................. 2 Table 2: Emission Category Reporting Scope ................................................................................ 2 Table 3: Total Emission Summary by Source and Scope ............................................................... 3 Table 4: Ten Buildings with the Highest Total Emissions ............................................................. 5 Table 5: Total Scope 3 CO2e Emissions by Source ........................................................................ 5 Table 6: Scope 1 CO2e Emissions by Source – Security Services ................................................. 6 Table 7: Scope 1 CO2e Emissions by Source – Parking Services .................................................. 6 Table 8: Scope 1 CO2e Emissions by Source – Hospitality Services ............................................. 6 Table 9: Scope 1 CO2e Emissions by Source – Facility Services .................................................. 7 Table 10: Top Ten Most Energy Intensive Buildings ..................................................................... 9

Figures Figure 1: Percentage Breakdown of CO2e Emissions by Source ................................................... 3 Figure 2: Total Emissions by End Use ........................................................................................... 4

i

Executive Summary McMaster University is an institution comprised of innovative faculty, staff and students who have immense potential to influence the local and global environment. This broad awareness, combined with the realization that, as one of the largest and most research-intensive universities in Canada (Research Infosource, 2010), McMaster is in a position to become a leader in creating a culture of sustainability, which includes addressing its impact on climate change. In October 2010, President and Vice-Chancellor, Patrick Deane signed a national climate change accord, the University and College Presidents’ Climate Change Statement of Action for Canada (hereafter referred to as the “Climate Change Accord”), which affirms McMaster’s commitment to addressing climate change. Through conducting a campus-wide greenhouse gas inventory in 2009, signing the national Climate Change Accord in 2010 and creating this Climate Action Plan, McMaster is establishing its role as a leader in sustainability. Through these actions, McMaster is affirming its commitment to addressing its impact on climate change and fostering a culture of sustainability that will transcend campus bounds. 1. Introduction In 2009, McMaster University worked with Zerofootprint to conduct a campus-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory of carbon emissions from its main campus for the baseline year 2007. The natural progression and follow-up to a GHG inventory is to create a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to outline the direction and steps to be taken to achieve reductions. In the summer of 2010 McMaster established a Climate Action Planning Committee. Following the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) guidelines for Climate Action Planning, three working groups were created to determine strategies for emission reductions related to transportation, waste and energy. This document outlines McMaster’s commitment to addressing climate change, presents an overview of McMaster’s 2007 GHG inventory, and provides an overview of reduction targets and proposed initiatives. This report will also describe the plan for next steps and future tracking. McMaster’s CAP will be a living document that is updated frequently as new information becomes available and reductions are measured against stated projections. 2. McMaster University’s Climate Commitment In October 2010, McMaster University’s President and Vice-Chancellor, Patrick Deane, signed the University and College Presidents’ Climate Change Statement of Action for Canada. This accord expands on the successful American College & University Presidents' Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), which now has over 600 signatories that have committed to becoming carbon neutral. Like the ACUPCC, the Canadian Climate Change Accord focuses on both the responsibility of universities to reduce emissions, as well as opportunities to accelerate larger solutions beyond our campuses (University and College Presidents’ Climate Change Statement of Action for Canada, 2010). The Canadian Climate Change Accord outlines five general and six specific actions to be taken by the signing institution. A compliance report which outlines the required actions as well as a list of initiatives that McMaster has already implemented to become compliant with each stated action can be found in Appendix A. 1

3. McMaster University’s 2007 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Establishing a baseline against which to measure progress is essential in the creation and implementation of a CAP. It is understood that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are a major contributor to climate change. There are a number of greenhouse gases in addition to CO2, such as Methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O), which are included in emission factors given to each emissions source and these are combined to provide an equivalent level of measurement that is termed Carbon Dioxide equivalent (CO2e). In 2009, in order to identify areas and activities that produce high levels of CO2e, McMaster University along with Zerofootprint calculated the 2007 corporate GHG emissions that resulted from university operations. The resulting GHG inventory provided McMaster University with its carbon footprint for the year 2007. Following guidelines from the GHG Protocol, emissions were classified into three categories – scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3 – and are addressed as such within the inventory. A definition of each scope is presented in Table 1. Examples of each scope from McMaster are illustrated in Table 2. Table 1: Definition of Each Emission Scope Scope Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3

Definition Direct emissions that occur from sources owned or controlled by the company. Emissions from the generation of purchased electricity consumed by the company. Optional category that allows for the treatment of other indirect GHG emissions. These occur as a consequence of activities of the company but occur from sources not owned or controlled by the company. Source: Greenhouse Gas Protocol, 2010

Table 2: Emission Category Reporting Scope 1

Source: Zerofootprint, 2009

McMaster included scope 1, 2 and 3 emission sources in the 2007 inventory. In future inventories, McMaster plans to broaden both breadth and depth of reporting for each of the three scopes as more information is recorded and becomes available for inclusion. One example of this is the campus-wide survey of commuter travel which will include information 2

on frequency, distance and mode of travel for faculty, staff and students. This data will provide McMaster with the ability to broaden reporting of scope 3 emission sources. The 2007 GHG inventory provides detailed measurements of emissions produced by a variety of sources, including emissions from 50 different buildings, 4 backup generators, 29 campus fleet vehicles, and collected waste and recycling (Zerofootprint, 2009). The creation of this carbon inventory established a baseline to accurately assess current operational practices, as well as enable the development of reduction strategies (Zerofootprint, 2009). This section will illustrate a general summary of McMaster’s total emissions in the year 2007. The following table and two figures illustrate a summary of McMaster’s emissions by source, scope, and end use. Table 3: Total Emission Summary by Source and Scope1


As illustrated in Table 3, despite the existence of seven scope 1 emission sources, 98% of all scope 1 emissions result from natural gas combustion for heat and steam generation (Zerofootprint, 2009). Figure 1: Percentage Breakdown of CO2e Emissions by Source


3

Figure 2: Total Emissions by End Use


Following recommendations from AASHE, McMaster University focused on three areas for improvement – energy, waste and transportation. Transportation is a relatively small factor contributing to McMaster’s carbon footprint, compared to other sources. However, research shows that as breadth and depth of reporting on transportation emissions start to include commuting, business and vendor travel, transportation can account for nearly one half of an institution’s GHG emissions. According to the ACUPCC (2010), commuting alone could account for between 12% and 51% of the average gross emissions at a post-secondary institution. Including action items focused on vehicle fuel usage and flow of goods will become even more relevant as McMaster begins to address commuter travel as a source of scope 3 emissions. Leading by example, McMaster can ensure that university-owned vehicles embrace a high standard for sustainable operation. The following three sections provide a detailed overview of emissions for each of the three defined focus areas obtained from McMaster’s 2007 GHG Inventory. 3.1

Energy The following table illustrates the ten buildings with the highest total emissions. These buildings constitute 45% of the total building emissions at McMaster and 37% of McMaster’s total emissions (Zerofootprint, 2009).

4

Table 4: Ten Buildings with the Highest Total Emissions1


3.2

Waste The following table provides information on scope 3 emissions from waste sources. It can be seen that paper accounts for the majority of CO2e from McMaster’s combined waste and recycling stream at 62%. Organics and plastics are the second and third most prominent emitting items in the waste stream; each making up 14% of McMaster’s combined waste and recycling stream. Table 5: Total Scope 3 CO2e Emissions by Source1


5

3.3

Transportation The following information is further divided into four sections in order to illustrate the total GHG emissions associated with various departmental fleets. These departments include Security Services, Parking Services, Hospitality Services and Facility Services. The information in the tables below provides an overview of the variety of vehicles owned by McMaster, with different levels of efficiency and usage rates. In addition the tasks being performed vary by fleet and, in many cases, by specific vehicle. Table 6: Scope 1 CO2e Emissions by Source – Security Services1


As shown in Table 6, the 2008 Ford Hybrid is more fuel efficient at 34/30 miles per gallon (MPG) than the 2005 Chevrolet Impala at 21/32 MPG (Natural Resources Canada, 2010) making the hybrid vehicle much more efficient at lower speeds, such as on McMaster campus roadways, which have a limit of 40 km/h. Table 7: Scope 1 CO2e Emissions by Source – Parking Services1


Table 8: Scope 1 CO2e Emissions by Source – Hospitality Services1


6

Table 9: Scope 1 CO2e Emissions by Source – Facility Services1


4. The Climate Action Plan The CAP will be utilized as a planning, tracking and reporting tool which will help McMaster to define climate action initiatives and ensure reduction targets are being met. The initiatives defined by the Climate Action Planning Committee will ensure that climate action is embedded into McMaster’s operations, education and culture. Two key methods will be used to accomplish this. First, defined climate action initiatives will allow McMaster to annually update the University and College Presidents’ Climate Change Statement of Action for Canada Compliance Report, found in Appendix A, with those initiatives which satisfy McMaster’s commitment to the Climate Change Accord. Second, defined climate action initiatives will be included into McMaster’s annual list of sustainability initiatives and the subsequent annual report, which outlines progress made on each initiative stated. McMaster’s CAP and the Compliance Report are reviewed annually in the fall, and McMaster’s annual list of sustainability initiatives is defined in January and February for approval by the community in March. The programming is coordinated to ensure that establishing the annual list of initiatives aligns with updating both McMaster’s CAP and Compliance Report. 5. Climate Action Planning Committee The Objectives of McMaster’s Climate Action Planning Committee are as follows: o Create progressive and realistic multi-year goals for reduction of campus GHG emissions; o Establish a plan of action to achieve the multi-year goals; and o Encourage collaboration and engagement by campus stakeholders to make reductions in their respective areas.

7

The Climate Action Planning Committee was made up of working groups for each area of focus – transportation, waste and energy – and maintained representation of faculty, staff and students as their role or expertise related to each area. The Climate Action Planning Committee included representation of at least one member from each of the following areas: o o o o o

Faculty Faculty Administration Student Government Senior Management Staff members responsible for operational control for each area

Each working group of the Climate Action Planning Committee was established with the following mission and desired outcomes: Mission: Collaboratively work on the evaluation, planning, development and implementation of conservation initiatives at McMaster University Desired Outcomes: o Determine areas on campus where reductions can be made and have the greatest impact o Determine conditions necessary to optimize operating capacity of McMaster’s research and operations while addressing the emissions impact o Set multi-year reduction goals and projections o Identify funding opportunities o Develop and design plans for implementation o Proceed with implementation o Monitor and measure reductions to evaluate success o Assess and review related policies o Educate for a culture of conservation Each working group focused their initial meeting on defining Terms of Reference for each group as well as defining a baseline year, broad targets, timeline for reductions, and focus items. All working groups established 2009 as the benchmark year, set the first targeted reduction year for 2011 and determined to create a five-year plan for reductions. Variations exist for each working group with respect to focus items and reduction targets as described below. Before defining a list of strategies and initiatives to reduce McMaster’s carbon footprint, each group defined the specific items for focus. After each working group defined a Terms of Reference and overall direction, each committee member was tasked with identifying potential initiatives within their specific area and across the university where GHG reductions could be made. The ideas and discussions that followed these initial meetings regarding potential initiatives and implementation strategies were the basis for the CAP. Projected reductions were calculated based on available data and information obtained through community consultation. Emission projections were estimated to ensure that the suggested initiatives were sufficient to reach the stated goals of GHG reduction for each area. The section below outlines the outcomes of each working group and ultimately the initiatives that will be taken forward for recommendation and inclusion in McMaster’s 2011 list of sustainability initiatives. 8

Each of the three working groups established a year-one target for GHG reductions for their respective focus areas. The Transportation and Waste Working Group also established a fiveyear target for GHG reductions. Each working group decided to base projections on information from the 2009 year; however, McMaster had not yet calculated total campus emission in a GHG inventory for 2009. Using 2007 as our current benchmark for total GHG emissions, until the 2009 inventory is available, the current five-year projections for transportation and waste, and one-year goal for energy, equate to a 6.7% total reduction from 2007. An average of 2% annual GHG reductions would allow McMaster to become carbon neutral in 2060, based on McMaster’s 2007 GHG Inventory. As McMaster will be increasing the breadth and depth of reporting, as well as expanding the university footprint, tracking and continual updating will be required to ensure that McMaster reaches stated goals for achieving targeted reductions. The following three sections provide an overview of the outcomes of each working group. 5.1

Energy The Energy Working Group established a goal of between 2% - 5 % emission reductions in year one, and decided to define reduction targets for following years on an annual basis. The Energy Working Group decided to focus reduction initiatives on the top ten energy intensive buildings on campus. McMaster’s top ten energy intensive buildings and their respective total annual energy consumption in kWh, as of 2009, are as follows: Table 10: Top Ten Most Energy Intensive Buildings Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Building ABB MDCL JHE BSB LSB Mills Memorial Library MUSC IWC PYCH ETB

Consumption (kWh) 13,414,929 6,744,049 5,221,988 3,436,068 2,959,960 2,824,079 2,580,084 2,395,213 2,120,152 1,857,288

To fully understand McMaster’s energy usage, a campus-wide plug load analysis took place throughout the summer of 2010. All university buildings, excluding residence buildings and the nuclear reactor, were inventoried for electrical devices, lighting, temperature, humidity, and equipment usage rates. This information will be the main tool to evaluate the priority level of each initiative defined below, as well as the associated costs and projected savings both in terms of kilowatts and carbon equivalents. Below is a list of recommendations, challenges, and possible solutions defined by the Energy Working Group. Projected costs and savings will be incorporated when the relevant information from the plug load analysis becomes available in 2011.

9

Recommendations - Energy: The following six recommendations have been defined by the Energy Working Group: Removal of inefficient, energy-intensive research equipment Recommendations Define inefficient research equipment on campus through the plug load analysis and support the removal and/or upgrade of the device. Challenges - Cost to dispose of chemicals stored in old refrigerators and freezers. - Cost to remove the device and have it properly recycled or disposed of. - New, efficient devices may have a higher initial cost. Possible Solutions - Work with Purchasing Resources on a vendor take-back program for both purchased chemicals and lab equipment. - Work with Employee Occupational Health and Safety Services (EOHSS) to promote and educate researchers at McMaster University on the process for chemical disposal to ensure that new refrigerators are not purchased before evaluating the capacity of a current unit. - Partner with Horizon Utilities to conduct a “Refrigerator/Freezer RoundUp” at McMaster University to encourage the removal of inefficient units. - Investigate the opportunity for an equipment renewal fund that would support the renewal of inefficient research equipment if significant energy savings would be realized. - Determine the feasibility of developing an in-house program to retrofit standard refrigerators for flammable liquid storage to be approved by the Canadian Standards Association. This would enable a low-cost purchase of an energy-efficient appliance. Fume Hood Efficiencies Recommendations Improve the efficiency of operations of campus fume hoods through decreasing fume hood air flow and fume hood belt replacement. Challenges - Lowering fume hood air flow must be researched, tested and piloted for each specific location. - Researchers who take an extended leave may voluntarily close their research lab while not in use; however, there is currently no program to support communication between research and Facility Services on this issue. Possible Solutions - Piloting with the Department of Chemical Engineering to determine if fume hood air flow can be lowered and to evaluate associated costs and savings. - Establish a program for researchers to notify Facility Services for shortterm lab shut-downs. - Fume hood belt replacement is already underway, but investigating the actual cost savings associated with belt upgrades may expedite this process to achieve greater savings.

Occupancy Sensors Recommendations Increase the use of occupancy sensors for building lighting. Challenges - It is unknown where occupancy sensors have already been installed and which areas are lacking them. - Some areas must be lit at all times for safety reasons. Possible Solutions - Identify where occupancy sensors have been installed and define areas, such as lecture halls, that would be ideal for the addition of occupancy sensors. - Determine the cost of installation, the energy-saving potential and highpriority areas on campus. - Work with Facility Services and EOHSS to identify areas, such as hallways and corridors, for the installation of LED emergency lighting to be used during evening hours rather than full lighting 24 hrs each day.

10

Education of Energy Consumption Recommendations Create a multi-faceted educational campaign on current energy consumption and energy conservation. Challenges - Obtaining information on current monthly energy consumption for each building and presenting it in a reader-friendly form. Possible Solutions - Work with Facility Services and Zerofootprint to establish a method for a software system to download building energy information in a usable format on a monthly basis. - Connect with various groups and departments responsible for media and information display to request that a building energy chart be displayed to occupants each month. This program would also enable energy reductions to be tracked and celebrated. - Simple educational messages could be used to support large energy conservation and educational programs. At a low-cost, this light plate banner would act as a reminder to building occupants to do their part for conservation. Possible Savings Studies have found that educating building occupants on their energy consumption can result in anywhere from 2-15% reductions in total energy consumption (USA Today, 2010; Pape-Salmon, 2010; Pulse Energy, 2010). If evaluating electricity usage of the top ten electricity intensive buildings in 2009, these savings would equate to the reduction of approximately 145.6 – 1,103.7 tonnes of CO2e. Desktop Power Management Recommendations Ensure computer equipment is fully shut down when not in use. Challenges - Some employees leave their work computers on at all times to be able to connect remotely from home. - Researchers may leave their computers running for extended periods of time to run computer models and the like. Possible Solutions - While some areas would not lend well to the installation of desktop power management software, there are some areas that would be ideal for such an initiative. - Areas that are not in operation during evening hours, such as between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., could be managed to turn off each night automatically and track and measure the real savings that have been achieved. This program has already taken place in certain departments across campus which can be used as a pilot to encourage other departments to implement the program in their area. Building Air Handling to Support the Removal of Baseboard Heaters Recommendations Work with building occupants to adjust heating and cooling and support the removal of electric baseboard heaters. Challenges - Building occupants purchase baseboard heaters to be able to adjust heating and cooling automatically and may not be as willing to relinquish control of heating and cooling to Facility Services staff. Possible Solutions - Engage building occupants who are willing to work with Facility Services to adjust the heating and cooling of their area to meet their needs to remove their baseboard heaters for a more sustainable approach to heating and cooling of campus buildings. - Heating with natural gas, which is used to centrally heat campus buildings, rather than electricity will achieve carbon savings as a result of using a cleaner fuel source.

11

5.2

Waste McMaster’s GHG Inventory was based on information from McMaster’s 2009 waste audit which was conducted by Waste Check in compliance with Ministry of the Environment standards for waste auditing. Data from the 2009 waste audit was normalized for the year 2007 based on student population (Zerofootprint, 2009). The Waste Working Group decided to focus on three waste categories – paper, organics and plastic. The Group set a reduction goal of 10% reduction of total CO2e derived from the campus waste portion, based on the 2009 waste audit, and 5% for each of the latter four years of the plan. Initiatives were defined and projections were made for each category respectively. Recommendations – Waste: Initiatives listed below are projected to achieve a reduction of 10.4% of McMaster’s CO2e emissions associated with campus waste and recycling. Paper Savings through Duplex Printing Recommendations Work with Media Production Services to encourage the use of multifunction devices (MFD). These devices print, fax, copy and scan as well as provide the capability to manage documents electronically and to default to double-sided printing. Challenges - Encouraging the adoption of each area’s MFD and removal of desktop devices. - Ensuring that faculty, staff and student users are aware of all capabilities available and know how to take full advantage of the devices, such as scanning to email. Possible Solutions - Providing and communicating an online ”How To” guide on how to use the functions offered by the MFDs. - Ensure that all MFDs that are currently networked are set to default double-sided printing. - Encourage the removal and recycling of desktop print, copy, scan and fax devices. Projected Savings - Media Production Services quotes 36,000,000 sheets of paper used for printing, prior to the deployment of MFDs. - If 50% of printing is double-sided 351.05 tonnes of CO2e would be eliminated

Composting Organic Waste Recommendations Work with Hospitality Services and Facility Services to establish a system for composting at McMaster. Challenges - Determining suitable locations to begin to pilot programs for composting organic waste. - Ensuring proper and efficient pick-up schedule of organic waste from campus. Possible Solutions - Pilot with the preparation area of Mary E. Keyes eatery, East Meets West Bistro. - Expand to include the preparation area of Centro at Commons. - Pilot a backyard-style composting program for other organic material on campus, such as clippings from campus grounds.

12

Projected Savings

- The composting program in operation at the preparation area of the Mary E. Keyes residence eatery, East Meets West Bistro, collects 30 bins, weighing 90 kilograms each, of organic material each week. - Composting in Mary Keyes results in the elimination of 123.69 tonnes of CO2e - Centro at Commons will begin composting in December 2010. Weights are not yet available on which to base projections; however, results similar to Mary E. Keyes residence can be expected. - Backyard-style composting taking place in the Biology Greenhouse is diverting approximately 4 tonnes of CO2e annually - A total elimination of 251.38 tonnes of CO2e is projected to result from the three composting initiatives stated above.

Reduction in Consumption of Plastics through Education Recommendations Work with campus stakeholders to decrease the amount of plastics brought onto campus and educate for sustainable consumption Challenges - Plastics are commonly consumed on campus, such as packaging for food and drinks as well as a form of protection in shipping goods. - Providing information on sustainable consumption to members of the campus community and working with vendors to reduce packaging is a resource-intensive task depending on the level of engagement and willingness to make changes by both the supplier and consumer. Possible Solutions - Working with vendors to reduce or take back packaging, such as in the Office Supply contract between McMaster and Grand & Toy - Providing infrastructure to encourage refilling a beverage bottle rather than purchasing single-use plastic bottles - Banning the sale and distribution of single-use plastic bags on campus is another possible solution and could be expanded by including additional items. Projected Savings - A goal of 10% reduction in plastics through education, water fountain retrofits, reusable water bottle give-aways and encouraging sustainable purchasing has been established. - A 10% reduction of plastic would result in the reduction of 75.33 tonnes of CO2e . Increase Diversion through Infrastructure Improvements and Education Recommendations Increase the number of waste and recycling bins on campus to facilitate recycling. Provide educational posters to communicate McMaster’s recycling program and encourage proper recycling. Challenges - Cost of waste and recycling bins that are approved by the fire department are substantial. - Some buildings on campus do not provide sufficient space to include central waste and recycling bins. - Including more central bins will require more staff to maintain the program. Possible Solutions - Inventory all campus buildings to determine areas in need of bins and have all locations approved by the fire department. - Determine lowest cost for fire-rated bins. - Encourage faculty, staff and students to take waste and recycling to central bins rather than rely on desk-side recycling bins that do not facilitate proper recycling as they are normally only in groups of two rather than three. Projected Savings - A recommendation for the purchase and installation of 204 central hubs over the next three years has been put forward by the Office of Sustainability. - Through increased diversion, a minimum of 3% reduction in total CO2e from campus waste, as a result of diversion alone, is expected to be achieved by 2011.

13

5.3

Transportation Based on the 2007 GHG Inventory, the Transportation Working Group focused on the three vehicle fleets: Facility Services, Security Services and Parking Services’ five shuttle buses. The group established a goal of a 10% reduction in fleet vehicle emission in year one and a 20% reduction over the following four years, based on 2009 vehicle usage data for the three fleets mentioned above. Vehicle emissions depend not only on the year, make and model of each vehicle, but also on the operation of the vehicle. For example, a vehicle that is driven aggressively will emit more than one that has been driven less aggressively. This provides difficulty in establishing accurate projections in emission reductions. However, through a review of recent literature and using accurate benchmarks from McMaster’s 2007 GHG inventory, projections can still be estimated. Recommendations – Transportation: The Transportation Working Group identified four possible methods of reducing GHG emissions from transportation to be implemented over the next five years. However, planning for implementation and projections has been focused on the investigation of using alternative fuels to gasoline. Investigate Using Alternative Fuels to Gasoline Recommendations Adopt fuels such as natural gas or propane to fuel campus vehicles Challenges - Infrastructure costs associated with fueling stations - Training for staff to manage and operate the fueling stations - Investment in vehicle retrofits to be able to accept an alternative fuel Possible Solutions - Working with a fuel provider to manage the station installation, staff training and vehicle retrofit program for McMaster - Savings in fuel costs would provide a return on the initial investment Projected Savings - Although the initial cost of implementation and vehicle conversions may delay achieving stated results in year one, it can be expected that by converting campus fleet vehicles to either propane or natural gas in the next five years will achieve between 20% to 30% emission reductions for all vehicles currently using gasoline or diesel as the primary fuel source (Natural Resources Canada, 2010; Natural Gas for America, 2010). - In 2007 the emissions produced by the three campus fleets mentioned above was 213 tonnes of CO2. A minimum 20% reduction would equal 43 tonnes of GHG emissions eliminated, based on McMaster’s 2007 Inventory. Encourage the Use of Alternative Modes Recommendations Encourage alternative modes of transportation, such as departmental bicycle fleets Challenges - Work task must be appropriate to be able to use an alternative mode Possible Solutions - Departments including Security Services and Facility Services have already established bicycle fleet programs in their respective areas. These departments could expand on their current bicycle fleets and educate on best practice for establishing a bicycle fleet for other areas on campus

14

Right-size Vehicles Recommendations Challenges Possible Solutions

Right-size vehicles to ensure that the most efficient vehicles are used for the task required - May require an investment into vehicles new to McMaster - Purchasing a more fuel efficient vehicle to conduct the same task as a larger, less-fuel-efficient vehicle may provide cost recovery through fuel savings

Evaluate Movement of Goods Across Campus Recommendations Evaluate the current approach to the movement of goods across campus to determine if there is a more efficient way to achieve required outcomes Challenges - Obtaining information and conducting an evaluation of goods movement across campus would be a resource-intensive task Possible Solutions - Work with current vendors and departments to evaluate the way they move goods on campus and have them assist in determining ways to increase efficiency of goods movement

In addition to the above recommendations to reduce GHG emissions, the Transportation Working Group also made a recommendation to increase the breadth and depth of reporting to include business and commuter travel emissions. To accurately estimate the emissions associated with business and commuter travel, information will have to be collected through working with McMaster’s Financial Services and through a survey of commuter travel. Information has already been sought to begin estimating emissions for commuter travel. A campus-wide transportation survey was sent to all faculty, staff and students of McMaster in the summer/fall of 2010. The information obtained in this survey will allow for commuter travel to be included in McMaster’s Scope 3 emissions in future inventories. 6. Next Steps and Future Tracking: In follow up to the creation of this action plan and initial investigation, recommendations will be taken forward to further develop a feasibility study for implementation and inclusion in McMaster’s list of sustainability initiatives. A software tool that would allow for monthly tracking and monitoring would increase the ease and accuracy of tracking and reporting. This software tool would also allow for the creation of McMaster’s 2009 GHG inventory to be able to provide greater detail in total emissions and projected reductions. Future GHG inventories will provide metrics to measure projections against baseline data. McMaster’s Climate Action Plan will be updated as reduction initiatives are implemented and reductions achieved. Upon creation of McMaster’s 2009 GHG inventory, this plan will be updated accordingly. All CAP documents will remain as online resources to be found on the Office of Sustainability .

15

Appendix A University and College President’s Climate Change Statement of Action for Canada In accordance to the UCPCC, McMaster commits to the following actions: •

We will exercise leadership by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in collaboration with our communities. McMaster’s Climate Action Planning Committee will focus on plans for carbon reduction. They will work with internal and external stakeholders. Some internal stakeholders include Security and Parking Services, Facility Services and McMaster’s Student Union. Some external stakeholders include, Hamilton Street Railway, City of Hamilton, Hamilton Car Share, Horizon Utilities and Zerofootprint.

•

We will develop measurable targets using research and science. Targets will be developed and stated using tools such as McMaster’s Carbon Inventory, McMaster’s Waste Inventory and Transportation Survey. Campus stakeholders work collaboratively to develop targets through the Sustainability Ambassador Program, Climate Action Planning Committee and Sustainability Steering Committee

•

We will develop achievable and practical plans to achieve reduction targets. Initiative implementation is planned and facilitated through collaboration of pan-campus stakeholders

•

We will put in place rigorous assessment and measurement procedures. Carbon Inventories will be conducted annually, waste audits conducted once every two years and a transportation survey conducted once every four years. These tools will provide quantitative and qualitative measures that will support assessment of plans and stated initiatives. Sustainability initiatives will be reported annually in the McMaster Sustainability Annual Report. McMaster’s Climate Action Plan will be reviewed annually to ensure initiatives and reductions are in line with plans and stated reduction targets.

•

We will fully disclose and be accountable for our actions. McMaster has made the following information publicly on the Office of Sustainability website: all past waste audits and the 2009 Waste Reduction Work Plan; 2007 Carbon Inventory; McMaster’s Climate Action Plan will be posted once completed in fall of 2010; McMaster List of Sustainability Initiatives for 2009 and 2010 as well as the 2009 McMaster Sustainability Annual Report.

16

In pursuit of these actions, McMaster will ensure the following: •

Initiate the development of a comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse gases by creating a planning body that includes students, staff, faculty, researchers, administrators and other partners to set emission reduction targets in accordance with each institution's jurisdiction. McMaster has a Climate Action Planning Committee which includes representation from students, staff, faculty, researchers, administrators and other partners. This planning committee is responsible for planning McMaster’s reduction targets, timeline and plans for achieving reductions at the initiative level.

•

Within one year of signing this document, complete a comprehensive inventory of all greenhouse gas emissions on each campus. McMaster has completed a campus wide carbon inventory for the baseline year of 2007, which can be found online on the Office of Sustainability website

•

Within two years of signing this document, set targets and develop an institutional climate action plan that engages each institution's research, education and operations into a comprehensive strategy that catalyzes solutions for climate change. McMaster University currently has a Climate Action Planning Committee responsible for creating solutions for climate change at McMaster University. The Climate Action Plan will be complete and released in the fall of 2010.

•

While the comprehensive plan is being created, immediately implement selected tangible actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Plans to reduce emissions have taken place through a variety of sustainability initiatives such as: o Waste Reduction Work Plan which has expanded McMaster’s recycling program and includes an educational campaign for waste reduction and diversion. o Energy management and reductions are in progress through initiatives such as desktop power management. o Transportation emissions have been reduced through the transition to hybrid fleet vehicles, the installation of a secure bike storage facility and hosting of major events aimed at promoting the use of sustainable forms of transportation.

•

Make action plans, inventories and periodic progress reports publicly available for review and comment. The following plans, inventories and reports are currently available online on the Office of Sustainability Website: McMaster’s List of Sustainability Initiatives for the current year; McMaster’s waste and carbon inventories; McMaster’s Waste Reduction Work Plan. In addition, McMaster’s Climate Action Plan will be available online in the Fall of 2010.

17

•

Work cooperatively with governments, civil society, the business community and other institutions of higher learning to contribute to global climate change actions in recognition of our responsibility for equitable solutions. McMaster works in collaboration with many stakeholders external to the University on initiatives relating to sustainability and climate change. Some examples include: o City of Hamilton, e.g., Public Works o Community groups such as the President’s Advisory Committee on Community Relations, e.g., Neighborhood Associations o Vendors and suppliers to the university, e.g., Grand & Toy o Other Universities and Colleges, e.g., member of both the Ontario Sustainability Coordinators Association (Provincial) and College and University Sustainability Professionals (National)

18

Glossary Carbon Footprint The measure of the amount of greenhouse gases, measured in units of carbon dioxide, produced by human activities. A carbon footprint can be measured for an individual or an organization, and is typically given in tonnes of CO2-equivalent per year. (The Encyclopedia of Earth, 2010). Climate Action Plan (CAP) Details goals, objectives and steps that an institute, community, city, state or country can implement in order to reduce their contribution to climate change. There are a variety of reasons why institutions are implementing CAPs; these include an awareness of the problem of global climate change and a desire to contribute solutions; knowledge of CAP implementation in other scholarly institutions; the perception that GHG emissions reductions will have substantial value with regard to reducing costs, attracting students, faculty, and funding, increasing productivity, and/or improving public relations. (AASHE, 2010). Compliance Report Refers to the document produced to outline ways in which McMaster is compliant to stated actions, for example, with regard to the actions outlined in the University and College President’s Climate Change Statement of Action for Canada. CO2e A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential (GWP). Carbon dioxide equivalents are commonly expressed as “million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.” The carbon dioxide equivalent for a gas is derived by multiplying the tons of the gas by the associated GWP. (Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Gases in the atmosphere that absorb infrared energy and contribute to the air temperature. These gases are like a heat blanket and are important in insulating the Earth’s surface. Among the greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other halocarbons. (Wright, 2004). LED “There have been great leaps in efficient lighting in recent decades, from the traditional incandescent to halogen to compact fluorescents. The next technology on the horizon is lightemitting diodes (LEDs) . . . There are many advantages to LED lighting, the greatest being efficiency. Many LEDs offer 90 percent efficiency, compared with 5 percent for traditional lighting sources. This represents significant cost advantages to consumers and reduced greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.” (Natural Resources Canada, 2009).

19

References AASHE, 2010 for Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, ACUPCC Reporting System: Average Gross Emissions by Source. http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-source-statistics.php?class=3 AASHE, 2010 for Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, ACUPCC Reporting System: Climate Action Planning Guidelines. http://www.aashe.org/resources/climate_action_plans.php Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. Climate Change. http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html Greenhouse Gas Protocol, 2010. A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard: Revised Edition http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf Natural Gas Vehicles for America, 2010. NGV’s and the Environment. http://www.ngvamerica.org/about_ngv/ngv_environ.html Natural Resources Canada, 2010. Fuel Consumption Guide http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/tools/fuelratings/ratings-search.cfm Natural Resources Canada, 2009. LED Technology and Application. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/residential/personal/lighting/led.cfm?attr=4 Pape-Salmon, A, 2010. Pulse for Energy and Sustainability Managers. http://www.slideshare.net/PulseEnergy/pulse-for-facility-managers Pulse Energy. 2010. Reduce Building Energy Use Through Occupant Engagement. http://www.slideshare.net/PulseEnergy/building-occupant-engagement Research Infosource, 2010. Canada’s Top 50 Research Universities. http://www.researchinfosource.com/2010-top50-sup.pdf The Encyclopedia of Earth, 2010. Carbon Footprint. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_footprint University and College President’s Climate Change Statement of Action for Canada, 2010. http://www.climatechangeaction.ca/ USA Today, 2010. Do you use more energy than your neighbors? http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2010-02-01homeenergy01_ST_N.htm Wright, R., 2004. Environmental Science: Towards a Sustainable Future. 9th edition. New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall, 736pp. Zero Footprint, 2009. McMaster University 2007 Greenhouse Gas Inventory. http://www.mcmaster.ca/sustainability/documents/McMaster_GHG_Inventory_2007_web. pdf

20

1

Zerofootprint used information collected from McMaster University to calculate emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). When data was unavailable, Zerofootprint conservatively estimated McMaster University carbon emissions by applying industry, national, or regional averages for emissions, energy use, or other metrics. All greenhouse gas emissions were calculated using GHG emission factors sourced from Environment Canada, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, and others. Where emissions factors differed, the local emissions factor or calculation methodology were used (Zerofootprint, 2009).

21