1. University of Toledo Climate Action Report Scope 1 By Rachel Beres, Andrew Kulikowski, Jon Lockie, Chad Pietkowski, Ken Samoei, and Cory Williams

2. Carbon Footprint A rising trend in sustainable “green” engineering effective way to measure emissions Compare to other campuses ◦ Of different populations and locations ◦ Helps to know Toledo’s impact compared to other colleges Plan for the future ◦ Lower carbon dioxide based on the carbon footprint

3. Scope 1 On-campus co-generation plant ◦ A power plant that produces both electricity and heat ◦ Toledo does not have a co-generation plant On-campus stationary source ◦ A steam plant powered by coal Direct transportation sources ◦ Public buses, maintenance and police vehicles ◦ Different types of fuels used in these vehicles Refrigerants and chemicals as well as agricultural sources ◦ Any chemicals used in refrigerators and freezers and other cooling devices ◦ One small vegetable garden

4. Objectives Create a campus climate action report ◦ Shows where we currently stand and projects future environmental impact at current rate. Highlight problem areas ◦ Shows where largest environmental impact is and gives a starting point for reductions Provide a summary of the University of Toledo’s carbon footprint

5. Methods Each fuel source emits certain chemicals when burned. When coal is burned CO 2, CH 4, and N 2 O are released. These compounds are then converted to carbon emissions and represented as MT eCO 2. Each fuel source that is burned on campus is converted to MT eCO 2.

6. Methods Once each source of energy is converted to MT eCO 2 it is then summed and used to show the total carbon emissions or “carbon footprint” of the University of Toledo campus. The University currently uses coal, gasoline, diesel, E85, and biodiesel 20. The emissions from refrigerant use and animal husbandry was also calculated.

7. Results MODULESummary WORKSHEETTotal Emissions in Metric Tones CO 2 Equivalents UNIVERSITYUniversity of Toledo Scope 1 Fiscal YearOther On-Campus Stationary Direct Transportation Refrigerants & ChemicalsAgriculture MT eCO 2 2007 ---- 2008 ---- 2009 ----

8. Interpretation Problems ◦ Transportation  Gas  Diesel  Biodiesel ◦ Power supply  Coal  Natural Gas

9. Interpretation Good News ◦ Wind power ◦ Solar power ◦ Biodiesel bus fleet

10. Interpretation Compared to others ◦ Use more power overall than Ball State University ◦ Use less coal than Ball State University ◦ Use more natural gas than Ball State University Vs.

11. Projections Blue line – represents campus’ emissions if no action is taken Red line – represents the emission if the university is able to reach its goal of carbon neutrality

12. Projections Why are they useful? ◦ Allows people to see the upward trend in emissions if no action is taken ◦ Visually shows the difference when action is taken ◦ Shows whether decisions made bring the university closer to carbon neutrality or further away

13. Reduction of Greenhouse Gases Efficiencies: ◦ Increasing the efficiency of current operations that produce greenhouse gases, which largely means reducing current and future fossil fuel energy consumption by buildings.  Building and system design (new buildings)  Building & system operation (existing buildings)  Central system operation (steam, chilled water, electricity  Equipment purchasing and operation  An immediate review of University’s design and operational standards should be initiated for both new and existing buildings.

14. Reductions cont’d Conservation: ◦ New efficiencies can be also achieved through changes in consumption habits and patterns such as the usage of electronic equipment and waste recycling. Renewable: ◦ Switching to carbon-free and renewable sources of energy, or increasing the recycling of emission causing materials. Offsets: ◦ Purchasing or producing carbon offsets through more direct projects. Offsets like the wind purchase should only be employed after other sources have been full explored

15. Conclusions The data that has been collected thus far points towards an increase in our campus’ energy consumption, a less than sustainable usage of non-renewable resources, and an undesirable level of greenhouse gas emissions Main campus’ power plant gas usage – obvious increase in consumption

16. Conclusions cont’d Safe to assume that the transportation sector of the university’s emissions and consumption will have the most environmental impact out of all other sources – Mainly Commuter Campus

17. Conclusions cont’d Recap on Methods of Reducing our Emissions and Consumption: Important for the University to become increasingly efficient in our operations New and existing building on campus energy efficient in design and operation Conservation – utilizing renewable resources, look in to furthering our recycling program Look in to purchasing or producing carbon offsets

18. Call to Action Being a part of the ACUPCC, it is imperative that the University of Toledo as a whole continue to monitor our impact on the environment and that we make changes in our normal operations and habits that will result in minimizing our carbon footprint. *It is absolutely necessary that actions must be taken not only by the university but by its students in order to reach our long term goal of carbon neutrality