Photo: Lou Gold

How Tar Sands Impacts Our Changing Climate

Tar sands production in Canada’s Boreal Forest is fueling the climate crisis (not to mention destroying wildlife habitat in the largest terrestrial ecosystems in the world). According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline has the potential to increase carbon pollution by 27 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of 6.2 million cars on the road for 50 years.  Woah! That’s a lot of emissions. This project would lock us into decades of dirty fuel dependence at the exact moment in history when we need to take serious action against a rapidly changing climate and embrace our clean energy future. We need to get it together. Our future depends on it.

What This Means For Wildlife

Scientists warn that without significant new steps to reduce carbon pollution, our planet will warm by 7 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, with devastating consequences for wildlife. The climate crisis is already changing the playing field for wildlife and urgent action is needed to preserve America’s conservation legacy, according to our new report: Wildlife in a Warming World: Confronting the Climate Crisis.

“We know what’s causing the climate changes Americans are seeing in their own backyards and we have the solutions to secure our climate and safeguard our wildlife for future generations,” said Larry Schweiger, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. “What we need is the political leadership to make smart energy choices and wise investments in protecting our natural resources. We can’t leave this problem for our children and grandchildren to fix – they’ll judge us based on what we do now.”

How We Can Transform Our Energy Future

Photo: Marine Jaouen

On Sunday, February 17th, join thousands of Americans at a historic rally in Washington D.C. to protect polar bears and other wildlife at risk from climate change.

Protect wildlife from dirty fuel that is contributing to climate change!

This is par for the course. So far this election season, fossil fuel groups have spent more than $153 million — to  get pro-fossil fuel policies in place. In 2011, 90 percent of campaign contributions went to the GOP, and 10 percent to Democrats. The biggest spenders were Shell ($25.7 million), Exxon ($25.4 million), and ConocoPhillips ($22.9 million). The five companies’ oil PACs have donated over $2.16 million this election cycle. Koch Industries also spends big money to pressure Congress, with $16.2 million on lobbying and more than $1.3 million from its PAC (the top oil and gas spender).

*** You can help fight the influence of polluters in our political system.  Click here to find out how. ***

The undue influence was the subject of a recent NWF Campus Ecology report that concludes polluters are determined to get their anti-conservation agenda passed into law, and roll back critical regulatory protections.

Not only is this money fueling political campaigns, it is behind many of the shadowy attack ads and television spots that rail against environmental protections, undermine clean energy and promote more coal, gas and oil, ads sponsored by entities with innocuous-sounding names like Patriotic Americans for Clean Energy.

image courtesy ph2dot1.com

The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s trade group (no, not an “institute”), is the biggest dirty energy spender at $37 million so far with its “I’m an energy voter” ads, complaining about efforts this year (that NWF supports) to repeal wastefuloil industry subsidies.

The True Cost of Dirty Energy

The oil, gas and coal industries are among the most profitable of all businesses. They are peddling fuels that spew carbon pollution that has created a virtual blanket around the planet causing global warming and leading to more severe weather more often, protracted heat waves and drought, more intense hurricanes and floods, sea level rise, crop failures, water shortages and massive wildfires.

Big Influence

The student-aimed NWF guide unmasks the multiple ways that oil, gas and coal companies worm their way into molding public decision-making to pad their pockets. It pinpoints how dirty energy – coal, gas and oil — companies bankroll the campaigns of incumbent Congressional leaders and other candidates by financing political action committees (PACs), super PACs, so-called nonprofit “social welfare groups” and other entities, some without public disclosure. Since 1999, the oil, gas, and coal companies have greased the campaigns of members of Congress to the tune of almost $1 billion dollars.

NWF also fingers 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations that may be more powerful than super PACs because they can accept unlimited amounts of money and hide their donors. These groups can escape the disclosure requirements that apply to candidates, parties and PACs. These shadow groups have outspent super PACs by a three-to-one margin.

This onslaught of dirty energy money has results. NWF points to 109 votes in the House of Representatives since the start of 2011 for policies that enrich the oil and gas industry, including 45 votes to weaken environmental, public health, and safety requirements applicable to oil companies; 38 votes to block or slow deployment of clean energy alternatives and 12 votes to short-circuit environmental review of the dangerous Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Reality Check

Money can’t buy you happiness, the old saying goes, but in this year, Big Oil, Big Gas and Big Coal are buying their happiness, at the expense of the people, by outspending, outgunning the rest of us. It’s high stakes for them, but ultimately the stakes are even higher for us, the people who will be stuck breathing dirty air and drinking dirty water if they continue to call the shots.

*** You can help fight the influence of polluters in our political system.  Click here to find out how. ***

I spent the day listening to numerous policy experts and representatives from various industries that will be affected by the proposed standards.  While these individuals’ testimonies were informative, and many of their perspectives were necessary to the discussion, they tended to blur together.

It was the nurses, religious leaders, U.S. military veterans, and soccer moms whose testimonies caught my attention.   Because they were speaking from personal experience, it was their voices that stood out throughout the hearing.

• A nurse who regularly tends to children with asthma spoke about children too scared to walk up a flight of stairs, fearful it may bring on an attack.
• NWF’s own Ed Perry told us about a fishing trip he took with his sons where they encountered lifeless bass floating down the river, killed by rising water temperatures.
• An African American woman spoke of the asthmatic children from communities disproportionately affected by reduced air quality.
• I was almost brought to tears when a veteran from the Truman National Security Project told us of the classmates he’d buried who’d been killed by explosives paid for with U.S. money used to purchase oil.

I was not only touched by the sincerity of these pleas to limit the pollution released into our air, I was struck by the wide range of reasons for these pleas.  It was clear from the diversity of those in testifying, that clean air isn’t just an environmental issue; it’s a human issue.  I realized that those dealing directly with the impacts of the use of dirty fossil fuels have not only the authority, but the responsibility, to speak up for change because it is their stories that I, and I’m certain others, took away from the hearing.

Take Action! Help protect America’s pika by editing and sending comments to the Environmental Protection Agency in support of strong fuel efficiency standards for cars.

And don’t forget to personalize your message!

courtesy greenscroll.org

But what if greenhouse gas emissions weren’t invisible? 

This year, power plants will no longer be able to deny what we can now see–they are polluting the air we breathe. Even in areas where asthma rates are directly correlated to a near-by power plant, they still deny their role in diminishing our public health. But now the EPA has released a new GHG reporting program that allows people to see the amount of pollution in their backyards.

How Much Do Power Plants Pollute Your State?

 

 

 

“The GHG Reporting Program data provides a critical tool for businesses and other innovators to find cost- and fuel-saving efficiencies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and foster technologies to protect public health and the environment.” –Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation

The Worst Offenders: Top 11 Carbon Polluters for 2011

Click on the map to find out more information

2. Bowen coal plant in Cartersville, Georgia. Total greenhouse gas emissions: 20,863,476 MtCO2e.

3. Miller coal plant in Quinton, Alabama. Total greenhouse gas emissions: 20,595,125 MtCO2e.

4. Martin Lake coal plant in Tatum, Texas. Total greenhouse gas emissions: 18,603,904 MtCO2e.

5. Gibson coal plant in Owensville, Indiana.Total greenhouse gas emissions: 17,853,899 MtCO2e.

6. Monroe coal plant in Monroe, Michigan. Total greenhouse gas emissions: 17,714,052 MtCO2e.

7. Labadie coal plant in Labadie, Missouri. Total greenhouse gas emissions: 17,233,324 MtCO2e.

8. Colstrip coal plant in Colstrip, Montana. Total greenhouse gas emissions: 16,994,687 MtCO2e.

9. Gen J M Gavin coal plant in Cheshire, Ohio. Total greenhouse gas emissions: 16,744,942 MtCO2e.

10. Rockport coal plant in Rockport, Indiana. Total greenhouse gas emissions: 16,539,699 MtCO2e.

11. W A Parish coal plant in Thompson, Texas. Total greenhouse gas emissions: 16, 459,497 MtCO2e.

See how your state compares >>

Help protect Alaska’s polar bears by urging your decision makers to oppose big polluter plans to undermine the Clean Air Act >>

Chevrolet Volt with charging station (via Flickr's saebaryo)

A major announcement on fuel efficiency is expected in Washington, DC on Friday morning:

The Obama administration and major auto manufacturers have reached a deal to raise fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks between 2017 and 2025, resolving a contentious negotiation over how to cut vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions.

The agreement would require U.S. vehicle fleets to average 54.5 miles per gallon or 163 grams per mile of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2025, which represents a 50 percent cut in greenhouse gases and a 40 percent reduction in fuel consumption compared with today’s vehicles, according to sources briefed on the matter.

These new rules are welcome evidence that government and a broad range of interests can come together around an agreement on fuel economy standards and greenhouse gas reductions. They continue the Clean Air Act’s tradition of delivering big environmental and economic benefits to the nation as a whole.

The rules will extend the progress already being made under the 2012-2016 car and light truck rules– to deliver a win-win on consumer savings, relief from high prices at the pump, energy security and deep cuts in carbon pollution.

Vehicles That Work IN The Out of Doors & FOR The Out of Doors

Strong standards ensure that whether you drive a compact car or a big truck you can see big fuel savings, energy security, and environmental benefits. Many of our National Wildlife Federation members who are outdoor enthusiasts or work in natural resource fields rely on trucks, and high gas prices have a big impact. Standards that create a steady increase in fuel efficiency for all sizes of vehicles ensure that everyone gets the benefit of fuel savings – that families, small businesses and state agencies can all have the vehicles they need and see big savings at the same time.

And contrary to the doubters, the innovations we’re seeing today in engine, transmission and accessory technology deliver better efficiency AND better power and performance.  If enacted and implemented soundly, the standards will mean that you can have a truck that works in the out of doors and for the out of doors at the same time.

A Victory for Economy & Environment

While we don’t yet know the exact numbers, there’s no doubt the standard will put tens of billions of dollars a year back into families and businesses’ pockets to spur economic recovery , rather than flowing out of the country for foreign oil.  And innovation at home means jobs at home and competitiveness in the global auto market.

From what we know about the standard, trucks will face a lower efficiency improvement requirement in early years than cars.  But the agencies have also included measures to reward big jumps in large pickup truck efficiency.  We look forward to working with the agencies and the industry to ensure we move as quickly as possible to ramp up innovation and efficiency gains in pickup trucks.

The proposal still needs to be enacted and effectively implemented to guarantee its benefits, but the announcement tomorrow shows that we have what it takes to get consumers savings at the pump, enhance America’s energy security, build the cars and trucks of tomorrow, and bring all the parties together to get the job done.

Air pollution from smoke stacks

The National Wildlife Federation was one of several groups testifing yesterday in support of the Environmental Protection Agency taking reasonable action to reduce carbon pollution.

The “listening session” is one of several being held around the nation to gather input as the EPA prepares to rein in carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and petroleum refineries under the Clean Air Act.

Yesterday’s session focused on input from environmental and environmental justice organizations, but the EPA plans on holding three more of these sessions:

• February 17th (Chicago, IL) – State and Tribal Representatives
• February 23rd (Washington, DC) – Coalition Group Representatives
• March 4th (Washington, DC) – Petroleum Refinery Industry Representatives

John Hammond, NWF’s Southeast Regional Executive Director based in Atlanta, said the following:

“Today’s listening session occurs in the midst of a congressional sneak attack on the environment through a budget bill.  Polluters are trying to use the deficit to mount a reckless and irresponsible attack on the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act that endangers the air we breathe, the water we drink and the wildlife and lands we cherish.

We must reject the notion that our kids must breathe polluted air, drink toxic water, or eat contaminated fish in order for our economy to prosper.

Carbon dioxide poses serious threats to Americans’ health, our economy, our wildlife, and our future, yet there are currently no limits on the amount of carbon pollution.

A recent study by the EPA found that heat-related deaths nationwide could jump by 3,500 to 27,000 by midcentury if carbon pollution is not reined in. Asthmatics and others with existing cardiovascular disease are especially at risk. Just last month, the federal government reported an uptick in asthma rates across the nation.  Asthma rates are higher for women and communities of color, especially African Americans and Puerto Ricans. With climate change heating our air, urban areas in the South already prone to bad air quality are becoming especially vulnerable.

Now is the time for EPA to get serious about reining in carbon pollution that cleans up our air and secures a better environment for future generations.”

It is time to speak up and make our voices heard for this important action on behalf of our clean air and water. Visit the Listening Sessions on Greenhouse Gas Standards website for more details.

This is a class that campaigned on clean energy and climate in the last election after all, and had the electorate on their side (see Zogby’s November 2008 poll for a refresher).  57 percent of voters said global warming action was an important reason for their vote. A lot has changed of course, but energy policy remains a strength for their party. A new Fox poll today shows Democrats have a nine point advantage with the electorate on energy, 46 to 37.    

One of the issues with getting new, clean technology into developing countries has been the worry that giving this equipment away often leads to misuse. During a panel discussion titled, "The Development Agenda for Clean Energy and Transfer of Technologies," I asked what could be done to fund projects that provide these technologies at a minimum cost, which will ideally help these nations reach their environmental and energy goals. The answers I received indicated that creating a market for a particular machine or technology seems to help: one panelist explained that all of the costs his organization had paid out initially were eventually recovered, such that the project became profitable after a few years. He emphasized the need to enter in to an existing market or create a market for a particular good or service that will allow an individual or business owner to earn at least a little money on their investment.

As an example, another panelist offered an example where PV solar panels were installed in a village and villagers were trained about the maintenance and use of the system. To recover the cost of installing the panels, villagers were charged $3/month for electricity, a portion of which went to the people maintaining the system, helping to sustain the project over the long term.

I stuck around the U.S. Center for the next panel discussion, "Mitigating Climate Change: Capturing Carbon Underground, in Soil and in Plants." I find the idea of carbon sequestration to be potentially harmful (excuse to keep using coal and fossil fuels), or at least ineffective, but know little about the different means of capturing and storing CO₂. I figured that perhaps it was time to learn something new! The session was actually hosted by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), including representatives from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

First, one woman explained the process and effectiveness of using ecosystem restoration to store carbon in plant life and in the soil. This is called biological or terrestrial carbon sequestration. It's actually really fascinating, can help to increase wildlife habitat and it works! (Read more about how it works here.) One thing I didn't know: Wetlands may actually have more potential to sequester carbon dioxide than typical forests.

When the woman from USGS presented the geological carbon sequestration concept, explaining that some oil and gas companies have used injection wells to pump liquid CO₂ down into oil wells in order to aid with oil extraction, I was not impressed. Oil companies use energy to capture, transport and pump this CO₂ (which in most cases today comes from natural deposits, not the atmosphere) to the oil wells, so that they can pump more oil and emit more GHGs. How will this possibly help us move toward carbon neutrality? Of course, other locations are being considered for storing the liquid carbon dioxide, but it is up to the USGS to determine whether formations like saltwater aquifers are safe and will actually store the CO₂ permanently. I asked her if there have been any studies done to evaluate the overall effect that this technology would have on the level of GHGs in the atmosphere. She said that at this time the amount of energy needed to sequester the carbon outweighs the atmospheric CO₂ reduction that could theoretically be achieved. Determining whether or not this is a worthwhile technology for emissions reductions is up to the Department of Energy, she said, but the USGS is working to determine if and where the carbon could safely and successfully be stored if geological carbon sequestration is pursued into the future.

That evening, I decided to participate in the China+US Youth Workshop, "Our Shared Future", on the University of Copenhagen campus. I was curious to see how strategies and action differed in these two giants, especially as negotiations between U.S. and Chinese governments are seen as the critical factor in the outcome of this conference.

Once we had all gotten to know each other, we broke up into small groups and began talking about our work to promote clean energy and address climate change in our native countries. It seemed that while many of the efforts in China were top-down and done in collaboration with the Chinese government, U.S. efforts were largely grassroots initiatives demanding action from political leaders, often against incredible opposition from certain industries and corporations.

We also began brainstorming ways in which we can work together, rather than in continual conflict with one another as our governments often do. Several valuable points were made, especially that cooperation between our countries will depend on increasing the mutual trust on both sides at all levels of society and government. In order to foster this trust, we entertained ideas ranging from setting up Facebook and Google groups so that we can all keep in touch and exchange information to organizing foreign exchange programs for sustainable development and social entrepreneurship in both of our countries. 

I met a female student named Yuki studying mechanical engineering (my major when I was studying at Georgia Tech) in China who expressed interest in learning more about U.S. green building technologies. This brought up another great point, which is that while our governments may refuse to share information about certain technologies with each other, we are free to exchange this information as individuals (at least to the point where we aren't violating any laws or patents). I got Yuki's contact information and am planning to send her articles and information describing some of our best sustainable building practices. Here are some photos from the event.

I'm way in the back to the right. Yuki is the girl with long hair and bangs near the front (center). Ben (bearded guy giving a thumbs up on the left) and Holly (girl with the scarf right next to him) both played a key role in organizing this event.

Friday, December 11 (Day 3)

The first session I attended this morning was called "Connecting Biodiversity, Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation." I was reminded of important issues to keep in mind when considering the effects of and possible solutions to climate change: while most of us know that natural ecosystems and the life forms they support will be the first ones affected by a changing climate, it was still shocking to hear that
approximately 10% of species on earth will face extinction for every 1 degree Celsius in average global temperature increase. That's in addition to the species threatened by habitat loss and other non-climate related threats! I also learned that about 20% of human caused greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions come directly from deforestation. So the question is, how do we stop and even reverse deforestation and other forms of land degradation to prevent this release of GHGs and actually increase the earth's capacity to store carbon dioxide in plants and soil? 

The United Nations' answer to this question is a program called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD), intended to fund reforestation efforts and ecosystem conservation. Learn more about REDD here. At least one of the speakers at this session emphasized that projects funded through the REDD program must carefully evaluated regarding their ecological, cultural and social impacts. Some issues have arisen due to difficulties in monitoring and quantifying the actual impact of REDD projects that have been funded in the past. It seems that in order for REDD to successfully reduce the amount of GHGs in our atmosphere, there must be improved means of estimating and evaluating the effectiveness of projects funded to sequester carbon from the air.

One speaker also suggested that any successful REDD project must have co-benefits beyond just carbon intake. For example, such a project should also support native wildlife repopulation and provide a good livelihood for nearby populations.Immediately after this session, I went to a panel discussion by Indigenous people from Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia. They discussed their experiences with the REDD program and expressed some concerns about the limitations it has. From their perspective, there should be REDD mechanisms for communities to engage in ecological management as they have in the past. They pointed out that land owned by indigenous peoples is often better managed than land owned and managed by others. They were calling for implementation of the proposed REDD-plus program, which would provide support to those who maintain forests in addition to reforestation efforts.  

My last session of the day was "Alternative Energy Programmes for the Least Developed and Developing World" in the U.S. Center. According to a Kateri Callahan, President of the Alliance to Save Energy, $170 billion invested in energy efficiency through the year 2020 could result in a reduction of as much as 50% in global energy demand. ($170 billion may sound like a lot but, to give a bit of perspective, General Electric's 2008 revenue amounted to $183 billion. We spend more than $170 billion each year on our Navy and Marine Corps in the U.S.) The savings on energy bills alone would allow the investment to be recovered within a matter of years. 

There's more, but it's 6:45am in Copenhagen, so I will let this be for now. More tomorrow.

During yesterday’s Education for Action session, Jim Baizer, science policy advisor at Arizona State University, said, “We work at institutes that are creating future leaders. They are coming up with economies that crash and lose $13 trillion. We are responsible for all these people and all these ideas.”

If higher education’s job is to prepare students for the world ahead, panelists and speakers seemed to suggest, it has so far failed to meet the challenge.

But no one is giving up. Tony Cortese, founder and president of Second Nature, said, “This is the first time in higher education that I’ve seen people saying that we need to be the first to try something and figure it out, rather than wait around and see who else can work it out first. Of course, sometimes when we try to solve a problem, we cause worse problems, because we think too much in the short-term. What we need to do is get people to look at multiple consequences, in an interdisciplinary and long-term way.”

The all-day session included workshop time for small groups, in which 70 or so faculty, administrators and students broke out to devise solutions on their specific campuses, or tell stories of projects that had already demonstrated success. One standout was UC-Santa Cruz, which has been pioneering a project that gets students to spend a semester researching a solution to a problem in their community and presenting the results to university staff.

Crystal Durham, executive director of the California student Sustainability Coalition, said, “We’ve probably saved millions of dollars in consulting fees by using the curriculum. Students run a research-based class that solves a problem. For example, they might say they want more recycling on campus. So they spend a semester working to understand how the local waste management system works, bringing in someone to talk, finding out how the university could make this happen, then at the end of the semester they present their results.” The class gives students real work to do that not only prepares them for their careers and incorporates environmental literacy into the curriculum, but also moves the school towards climate neutrality.

This is the most immediate way to influence students, said participants: the college must walk the walk toward climate-neutrality and involve youth in the process. Most attendees were already familiar with the President’s Climate Commitment, either because their school had signed, or because they were campaigning to get their president on board. More than 650 college presidents have signed, out of the 4,000 colleges and universities in the U.S.

The importance of the Commitment, said Cortese, is that it moves beyond the historical segregation of environmental studies from the rest of the university: “When universities have done environmental work historically, what they’ve done is create environmental studies departments, which reach 5% of the students, and create more specialists. What’s great about the PCC is that it moves beyond these models.”

For everyone in the room, moving their institutions towards climate neutrality was a priority. Amber Katherine, a professor of philosophy at Santa Monica College, made the point that schools can no longer ignore the urgency of rising greenhouse gas emissions and increasing water, food, and resource scarcities. “What must we do at one minute to midnight?” she asked. “There is no time left, and excuses aren’t acceptable.”

About 260 university buildings across the nation have received a thumbs-up from the U.S. Green Building Council in Leadership for Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, the national benchmark for green building. Another 1,600 campus buildings have registered for certification.

“Campuses are always on the cutting edge of greener construction,” said Melissa Gallagher-Rogers, higher education sector manager at the USGBC. “The universities see themselves as innovators.”

Much of the credit is due to enthusiastic students, she said, who expect greener buildings on their campus. In the case of Oberlin College, Gallagher-Rogers said, some students have chosen their school because of its commitment to green.

Gallagher-Rogers said the USGBC saw a significant surge in greener building on campuses in 2007 when energy prices reached all-time highs. But with green campuses so commonplace these days, some universities are going above and beyond LEED certification to prove their prowess.

Down south, the University of Florida is evidence that campuses can have both quality and quantity when it comes to green building.

The 17.4 million square foot Gainesville campus is cutting back on their $2.5 million monthly energy bill by constructing highly efficient buildings. In 2001 the university adopted LEED criteria for all major new construction and renovation projects in the future. In 2006, they upped the ante and required LEED Silver certification for all new construction. So far the campus has ten LEED certified buildings with another 55 registered – the most of any college in the nation.

“We are really big and we know we had a big footprint and we wanted to do whatever we can to minimize that footprint,” said Bahar Armaghani, assistant director of Facilities, Planning and Construction at UFL. “As an educational institution we feel it is our duty to walk the talk.”

Under Armaghani’s leadership, UFL constructed Rinker Hall in 2003, the state’s first LEED Gold-certified building. And the green movement has snowballed ever since.

The university’s biggest savings come from water reclamation. Boasting its own wastewater treatment and irrigation systems, the campus collects more than 2.5 million gallons of reclaimed water a day and uses it to irrigate native landscaping, an aspect that only boosts the Gators’ LEED report card.

All ten of the university’s LEED-certified buildings used 87 percent or more recycled materials in construction-such as concrete, metal and wood – earning the university additional credits. To reduce the heat island effect, buildings have been outfitted with light-colored roofs, and in the case of the Charles R. Perry Construction Yard, a 2,600 square foot green roof. By purchasing green power credits for every project, the university offsets 70 percent of its carbon footprint.

Standards have been set for future construction as well, guaranteeing the use of waterless urinals and dual flush toilets, occupancy sensors and glazed windows. All of these innovations add up to about a 30 percent savings in energy costs for the campus.

A university benefits from greener building in a variety of other ways. One, Gallagher-Rogers said, is marketability: “It’s not only saying you’re green but proving it.”

“We have been lucky to not have to convince the administration to build green,” Armaghani said. “They are all on board with this.”

Despite the fact that UF is already leading the way in green building, Armaghani insisted they are not near to being done. She’s right. Although UF boasts the most LEED certified and registered buildings – 65 in total – the campus is home to a staggering 1,932 structures.

“We still have a lot to do; I think we should be doing even more.”

For one, Bahar wants at least Gold certification for all new construction. She would also like to see LEED certification for smaller projects. (Currently the university only applies LEED criteria to projects exceeding $1 million.)

But she’s not stopping there.

“We need to beef up the envelope,” Armaghani said, referring to the skin or exterior of a building. The tighter the envelope, the less energy wasted. She also wants to see more use of energy recovery systems such as reusing chilled water to power HVAC systems.

And instead of purchasing green power credits, Armaghani would like the campus to be self-sufficient by installing photovoltaic cells on buildings.

Currently, three of the campus’ LEED certified buildings are outfitted with touch-screen dashboards in their lobbies, allowing visitors to view the buildings’ energy output. Armaghani said her team is working to place these dashboards in every building and connecting them to the web for 24/7 monitoring.

“We haven’t been focusing on the carbon and I think we’re probably going to do that more in future,” she said.

With President Bernard Machen’s signature on the American College and Universities Presidents Climate Commitment and a promise to become carbon neutral by 2030, the university has a lot of work ahead of them. But for Armaghani, it’s all in a day’s work.

“This is all becoming part of our regular practice,” she said.

See More:

Measuring the Life Cycle of a Facility: GreenerBuildings

LEED: Prioritizing Energy Efficiency: ClimateEdu

Retro-Commissioning: The First (Big) Step to Reducing Your Campus Carbon Footprint: EH&E