1

Guardbridge Biomass District Heating Project: climate change responsiveness

and carbon accounting project

Authors: Jan Bebbington,a Matthew Brander,b Francisco Ascui,b Lorna Stevenson,a and Rafa

Zamorano Diaz.a (a: the University of St Andrews, b: the University of Edinburgh).

Correspondence should be addressed to Jan Bebbington, School of Management, The

University of St Andrews, St Andrews, KY16 9SS. Email: jan.bebbington@st-andrews.ac.uk.

Acknowledgements: Funding support from the Scottish Funding Council (via the University

of St Andrews) is gratefully acknowledged. The project has benefited considerably from

input from project participants within and outside of the University of St Andrews and we

thank these people for their time. Special thanks go to Roddy Yarr and David Stutchfield

who supported this work. Valuable input from seminar participants at the University of St

Andrews and the University of Essex are also acknowledged. As ever, any errors and

omissions remain the responsibility of the researchers.

Date: 16th December, 2016.

2

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction and framing the issue

1.1 Introduction to the project

1.2 Climate science and policy 1.3 Research methods

1.4 Defining key terms and concepts

1.5 Report summary

Chapter 2: Climate change responsiveness

2.1 Introduction and summary of climate change actions 2.2 Strategies and policies review 2.3 Developing responsiveness 2.4 Concluding comments

Chapter 3: Accounting for carbon

3.1 Introduction 3.2 Carbon accounting methods 3.3 Carbon accounting findings 3.4 Discussion and implications 3.5 Concluding comments

Chapter 4: Conclusions

4.1 Study recap and conclusions 4.2 Broader implications

References

Annex I: Interview pro-forma questions

3

Chapter 1 – Introduction and framing the issues

1.1 Introduction to project

This project is focused on documenting and understanding aspects of the Guardbridge

Biomass District Heating Project (hereafter DHP) at the University of St Andrews. In particular,

this research sought to:

1. Understand the process by which the University of St Andrews became responsive to

climate change concerns and, in particular, how the notion of a ‘carbon neutral’

university came to be articulated. To answer this question, evidence has been gathered

from:

A review of the University of St Andrews’ strategies and policies;

Documenting the University’s carbon performance; and

Interviews with those charged with managing and governing the University.

This part of the project also includes comparative interviews with those who have

responsibility for climate change elsewhere in the Scottish higher education sector in

order to explore if the findings from the University of St Andrews’ focused research has

wider resonance;

2. Measure the impact of the DHP in carbon accounting terms and in particular to

denominate the possible wider effects of using biomass as the fuel source. The

innovative aspect of this work is the use of a consequential approach to carbon

accounting which will be contrasted other carbon accounts of DHP.

This research, therefore, yields more nuanced measures of carbon emissions impacts as well

as a conceptual understanding of how the University came to conceive of the DHP. Further,

the research findings have implications for how climate change responsiveness might be

pursued at the University and other higher education institutions. Before moving to the

details of the University’s experience, however, global, regional and sectoral influences on

climate change awareness and responsiveness are introduced.

1.2 Climate science and policy

The scale, scope and complexity of global climate change have seen it rise to the top of global

policy agendas as well as prompting responses from private and public sector organisations.

4

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that “[w]arming of the climate

system is unequivocal”, and, just as importantly, that “[h]uman influence on the climate

system is clear” (IPCC, 2014, p.2). The pressing and critical nature of climate change challenges

most recently created the conditions for the Paris Declaration/Agreement (agreed in

December of 2015, available for ratification from April 2016 and in force from November 4th

2016, see http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php) that forms the international

context within which individual country’s emissions reductions are placed.

The Agreement points towards radical emissions reductions in the next half century. The need

for countries to develop climate change responsiveness is not in question. How these

responses might emerge in policy terms and cascade to organisational impacts depends,

however, on the approach taken. Within the United Kingdom (and Scotland) there are clear

drivers for carbon reductions through the Climate Change Act (2008) and the Climate Change

(Scotland) Act (2009). These two pieces of legislation specify carbon reduction trajectories

and are supplemented by a raft of policy processes that support these ambitions.

The United Kingdom’s approach is to set carbon budgets for particular time periods that limit

the amount of total emissions. In order to meet these targets there are a variety of regulatory

processes in place that affect organisations, namely: membership and trading through the

European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme; signing up to Climate Change Agreements; or

being subject the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) Energy Efficiency Scheme.1 The latter

is the main mechanism by which carbon reductions are sought from the University of St

Andrews (since 2010). This Scheme requires carbon emitters to measure, report and reduce

emissions associated with their use of electricity and gas. The Scheme contains rules for

measuring emissions requiring measurement of relevant activity (such as the amount of

energy used) that is then used as the base for imputing emissions (that is, all sources of energy

have an associated carbon factor). Organisations are required to buy allowances that can be

redeemed against their carbon emissions and this process provides an incentive for

organisations to reduce their emissions (should the cost of doing so be less than the price of

1 As with many policy areas, BREXIT is likely to have implications for implementation of climate change policy.

See SPICe, 2016 for an introduction to what these issues might be.

5

buying allowances).2 Failure to have allowances to cover emissions results in a financial

penalty and, as can be expected from such a scheme, the number/price of allowances change

in order to incentivise carbon reductions. This is one of the regulatory means by which the

aims of the Climate Change Act are achieved.

In addition, and within the Scottish Act, S.44 outlines the duties of public bodies with respect

to climate change (the University of St Andrews falls under the definition of a public body for

the purposes of this Act). Specifically, this section requires public bodies to exercise their

functions in a way “best calculated to contribute to the delivery of the targets … to help deliver

any programme laid before the Scottish Parliament … in a way that it considers is most

sustainable” (section 44(1), subsection (a) – (c)).3 This duty underlies the creation of the

Universities and Colleges Climate Commitment for Scotland (see

http://www.eauc.org.uk/universities_and_colleges_climate_commitment_fo2), itself

delivered through the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC4)

(http://www.eauc.org.uk/home and http://www.eauc.org.uk/scotland). This Commitment

requires that its signatories “improve Scotland’s natural and built environment: (i) through

their primary role as educators, skills trainers and researchers; (ii) as owners and operators of

large and complex estates; and (iii) as the focus of many local communities”. The University

of St Andrews signed this declaration on 21st of January 2009.

The final regulatory element that affects the University of St Andrews emerges through the

outcome agreement process between the Scottish Funding Council and higher education

institutions in Scotland. Outcome agreements state the aims and subsequent achievements

of individual institutions, as well as the sector as a whole, across a variety of domains that are

of interest to Government, including those related to carbon performance and sustainability

(in a financial and ecological sense).5 The University of St Andrews outcome agreement for

2 In 2015/16 the University of St Andrews paid £337,376 for carbon allowances (Source: the University of St Andrews Outcome Agreement 2015-16). 3 See, for example, Adaptation Scotland (2013) for user focused summary of the implications of this section of

the legislation. 4 The EAUC is the environmental and sustainability champion within Further and Higher Education in the UK. 5 See Universities Scotland (2016) for a review of the process. Outcome agreements are in the public domain –

see http://www.sfc.ac.uk/funding/OutcomeAgreements/OutcomeAgreementsOverview.aspx.

6

2016/17 contains information on institution wide carbon management plans as well as

providing details on the ambitions with respect to the Guardbridge site and the DHP.

Regardless of various regulatory requirements, it is also the case that the University of St

Andrews has sought to address its climate change impacts. This process has been given

impetus by its organisational logic as manifest (among other aspects) in strategy and policy

documents and management processes. One such project has been a commitment to pursue

carbon neutrality in terms of energy consumption (see Table 1.1) with this commitment being

realised, among other things, by the Guardbridge development. In brief, the aim of the DHP

(see http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/about/sustainability/guardbridge/) is to redevelop an ex-

paper mill site (some five miles west of St Andrews at Guardbridge) to incorporate a biomass

heat plant to produce hot water for heating the University estate. Currently, gas is used to

supply heat and this creates a carbon impact. Given that biomass is zero-rated by the

Government in terms of carbon emissions a change in fuel source will reduce reported

emissions. The substitution of energy source, prima facie, supports both the United Kingdom

and Scottish climate change ambitions (as will become apparent in Chapter Three, the

situation is more complex than this).

Table 1.1: Carbon neutrality commitment by the University of St Andrews

“University of St Andrews’s overall target for carbon reduction is to become carbon neutral in energy

consumption by the end of financial year 2015/16 (based on a baseline year of 2006/7). This equates to a

reduction of around 21,000 tonnes CO2e, and a cost saving of around £20 million, over the next 5 years”,

University of St Andrews Carbon Management Plan (http://www.st-

andrews.ac.uk/media/estates/documents/Carbon%20Management%20Plan%202012.pdf).6

Before moving to the research itself, a brief summary of the research methods employed are

outlined.

6 While this aspiration remains, the timing of achieving carbon neutrality has changed. In particular, issues

with the planning process around the proposed Kenly wind farm have pushed back the realization of this aspiration.

7

1.3 Research methods

In order to develop the evidence base for this report, the following activities were

undertaken:

1. A desk based review and analysis of the strategies and policy documents of the

University of St Andrews (acquired from the University’s website);

2. Interviews with members of the governance, management and operational teams of the

University of St Andrews (namely members of the Court; of the Principal’s Office and

those with insight into the development of climate change responsiveness in the

institution). Eight individuals were interviewed from this group and are coded as StA1;

StA2; etc in the text;7

3. Interviews with people external to the University of St Andrews who have

responsibilities for climate change responsiveness in the higher education sector in

general or at specific institutions. Seven interviews were conducted with this group and

are coded as Ex1; Ex2; etc in the text;8 and

4. Development of a consequential carbon account for the DHP so as to provide further

insight into the impact of that project (the details of what this carbon account entails are

contained in chapter 3).9

Before turning to the information generated by these means, clarity as to the meaning of

key terms and concepts that are going to be used in the report is offered.

1.4 Defining key terms and concepts

As noted above, global climate change is a multi-faceted challenge that emerges at different

scales (from global, regional, national to organisational levels). There are two distinct

responses to global climate change: mitigation (reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases)

and adaptation (responding to the effects of global warming that are/will be experienced

7 Given the relatively small number of University of St Andrews interviewees (and in order to maintain

anonymity), no identification of organisational role has been made in the interview quotes. In total 29 interviewees were invited to participate in this part of the study (giving a 27.5% participation rate). 8 The interview protocol used for all the interviews can be found in Annex I. All the interviews are covered by ethics approval # MN11356, from the School of Management, the University of St Andrews. 9 In addition, the initial findings of the project were tested at a workshop where members of the higher

education sector were present. The workshop was used to provide a check on the plausibility of the findings that emerged from the interviews as well as to debate the implications arising from the consequential carbon account.

8

given the current concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere). The activities

considered in this report focus on mitigation activities undertaken at the level of an

individual organisation (namely the University of St Andrews).

Organisational climate change responsiveness is a generic description that covers an array

of activities, which are conditioned by external forces (such as legislation, regulatory

processes and sector strategies) and factors internal to organisations (such as visions,

strategies and policy commitments, implementation plans, systems of control and

accountability as well as staff expertise). Table 1.2 outlines a variety of potential

organisational responses to the challenge of climate change.

Table 1.2: Organisational responses to global climate change (adapted from Bebbington

and Larrinaga, 2014, p. 202).

Organisational responses

Strategy analysis of the impact of mitigation and adaptation requirements

Planning processes for mitigation and adaptation (including emergency planning processes)

Environmental management (including supply chain management)

Investment appraisal (and ‘cost of carbon’ calculations)

Risk management processes with carbon considerations

Carbon accounting (in many forms including carbon footprinting)

Organisational learning for ongoing climate change responsiveness

Reporting

Financial statement disclosures (where climate change regulation generates financial effects)

Annual report disclosures (which might inform risk assessments by external parties)

Disclosures in stand-alone media/web reporting/non-financial reporting

Other forms of reporting (such as adaptation reporting)

Audit and verification of data

Professional authority for creation/verification of carbon reporting

These responses are underpinned by the provision of information about greenhouse gas

emissions (most usually with a focus on the basket of six greenhouse gases covered by the

United Kingdom and Scottish Climate Change Acts). These six gases differentially warm the

atmosphere and can be translated into ‘carbon dioxide equivalents’ or ‘CO2e’, which

represent the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide that would have the same warming

effect on the atmosphere over a specified period of time. The term ‘carbon’ is often used as

a shorthand expression for carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases more generally, though it

can also be used to refer specifically to the atomic element carbon, which is present in many

9

(but not all) greenhouse gases. Phrases such as ‘carbon accounting’ generally refer to

numerical estimates of greenhouse gas emissions (and removals).10

The term ‘carbon accounting’ refers to a range of different accounts. Table 1.3 should be

read from left to right with each column offering a series of options for carbon accounts

(respectively the measurement approach; greenhouse gas unit; type of emissions/removals;

the scale at which the account is created; and the purpose of the account). As a result, each

element in each column can be combined with each element from the rest of the columns

to produce a different form of carbon account: the permutations are considerable. Given

this myriad of options, it will be apparent that the issue is not creating a carbon account but,

rather, understanding which carbon account is being created and (relatedly) how such an

account might be understood and used.

Table 1.3: Scope of carbon accounting (adapted from Ascui and Lovell, 2011, p. 980).

Measurement approach

Measurement unit

Emission type Scale Status purpose

estimation calculation measurement monitoring reporting validation verification auditing

of

carbon carbon dioxide greenhouse gas

emissions to the atmosphere; removals from the atmosphere; emissions rights; emissions obligations; emissions reductions legal or financial instruments linked to the above trades/transactions of any of the above impacts of climate change impacts from climate change

at

gobal national sub-national regional civic organisational corporate project installation event product supply chain

level for mandatory or voluntary

research compliance reporting disclosure benchmarking auditing information marketing or other

purposes

The most common measurement unit used in carbon accounting is that greenhouse gas

emissions. This data is generated either directly (by measuring a greenhouse gas) or is

imputed by taking a direct measurement of activity and converting it to greenhouse gas

emissions by way of some published conversion factor (for example, imputing emissions for

electricity use is calculated using kWh measures for energy usage and a greenhouse gas

10 Emissions and removals are sometimes described as sources and sinks. Both sets of terms refer to the

production of greenhouse gases (emissions/sources) as well as the reduction of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere (removals/sinks).

10

emissions factor). In this project, the carbon accounts produced focus solely on the

measures of greenhouse gas emissions (and removals).

One potentially useful way of categorising and understanding the many different forms of

carbon accounting is through the distinction between: (1) inventories of emissions/removals

assigned to a specified reporting entity (whether a country, organisation, or community etc)

– called ‘attributional’ accounts; and (2) assessments of the change in emissions/removals

caused by a decision or action – called ‘consequential’ accounts. An important aspect of any

attributional inventory is the scope of the carbon account (that is, what emission sources

and sinks are designated as being within the reporting entity’s sphere of responsibility). A

common framework for identifying and sub-dividing the scope of an organisational carbon

account is set out in Table 1.4.

Table 1.4: Carbon accounts and their scope (source WBCSD/WRI, 2004)

Description of the focus of the account Name used for this account

Account of the emissions from sources owned or operated by the reporting entity, for example, emissions from owned gas powered boilers.

Scope 1 emissions

Account of the emissions associated with the generation of energy purchased by the reporting entity, for example, purchased grid electricity.

Scope 2 emissions

Other emissions that arise as a result of the activities of the reporting entity. This would include, for example, emissions along the supply chain of materials procured by the University in the course of conducting its business (such as those associated with computers, paper, and chemicals used in laboratories). Likewise, emissions associated with conference travel and travel to undertake research would be included in this category.

Scope 3 emissions

The rules as to how carbon accounts are to be calculated are variously defined. Some

accounts (such as those required under the CRC scheme) are defined by legislation. For

other forms of account, guidance is offered from non-state organisations which have no

formal legislative force (but whose methods are widely adopted). For example, the scopes

defined above were developed by a partnership between two non-governmental

organisations.

Not included in Table 1.4 are those emissions that arise as a result of someone’s

engagement with an organisation - such as the University - but which are deemed to be the

11

responsibility of the person who is undertaking the engagement. An example of this would

be emissions associated with student travel to and from university. This is not to say that a

university cannot influence emissions (for example, by ensuring teaching terms minimise

the need and opportunity to travel) but these emissions are usually viewed as being ‘out of

scope’/not within the boundary of the analysis.11 Analysis by Davies and Dunk (2015)

suggest that these emissions might be significantly large, hence it matter is they are

included (or not) within organisational accounts. There is, however, a sense that it is difficult

to uniquely place responsibility for such emissions on a university and, critically, for the

United Kingdom (where provision of education might be seen as part of its economic

strategy) the desire for a more international student body conflicts with climate change

ambitions.

The final issue that will be considered in this chapter is the possible meanings that could be

attached to the term ‘carbon neutral’.12 As will be evident from the commitment outlined in

Table 1.1, the University of St Andrews has undertaken to pursue carbon neutrality in its

energy use. ‘Carbon neutral’ is a term that has been attached to a variety of activities and

contexts including: products (ranging from wine to houses), activities (such as sporting or

cultural events), particular fuel sources (such as biomass), settlements (in terms of housing

developments, towns and cities), and tourist destinations (for a sample of literature in the

area see, Barthelmie et al., 2008; Gössling, 2009; Hektor et al., 2016; Kennedy and Sgouridis,

2001). The principles of carbon neutrality are conceptually straightforward. An activity can

be described as carbon neutral when its net carbon footprint is zero. The first aspect of this

idea is to note that this description relates to a net impact. That is, an activity could

generate carbon emissions but if there is some form of compensatory uptake of carbon that

‘offsets’ these emissions then it could be described as carbon neutral. Second, there are

technical challenges as to how to specify the time scale over which neutrality might be

attained; measurement of carbon uptake is problematic (and might not be permanent); and

11 This point is contested. Davies and Dunk (2015) suggest that ‘good practice’ would include these emissions

in any carbon account despite them not being formally mandated as having to be measured and disclosed. The determination of an appropriate boundary for analysis is something that plagues carbon accounting and becomes critical in the consequential carbon accounts developed in this report. 12 This phrase should also be distinguished from ‘zero carbon’, which is sometimes used as a synonym for

carbon neutral but which implies a subtly different meaning. Zero carbon implies no carbon will be produced from a process while carbon neutral implies that any carbon emitted will be ‘compensated’ for in some way (that is, zero net carbon will be produced). We will use the phrase carbon neutral in this report.

12

finally challenges exist around the boundary for any analysis of both emissions and uptake.

There are substantial literatures on each of these areas which are beyond the scope of this

report (some describe the situation as a “carbon neutral free-for-all”, Murray and Dey,

2009).

What is relevant for the discussion here, however, is realising that describing activities as

‘carbon neutral’ is not straightforward. Some of the perceived problems of carbon

offsetting, however, do not arise in the context of the University of St Andrews ambitions

because offsetting is not being used to achieve neutrality. Rather, in the two projects which

are critical for achieving carbon neutrality (Guardbridge DHP and the Kenly wind farm), the

University is seeking to generate heat and electricity in ways that result in reported

measurements of carbon emissions falling to zero. There is, however, considerable nuance

in this approach (which will be considered in depth in Chapter Three), and a number of

different ways in which carbon neutrality could be measured.

As already emphasised in this section, there are no lack of possible carbon accounts that

could be developed. Indeed, the converse is the case: there are many defendable carbon

accounts that can be developed around an activity/organisation of interest. What each

account might imply, the calculation rules associated with the account and the appropriate

actions that one might undertake as a result of any carbon account, however, is less clear

and caution must be exercised as carbon accounts are prepared for varied (but often very

specific) purposes.

1.5 Report summary

The chapter has sought to ground this report in the science, international governance and

national level legislation and policy initiatives that exist to encourage and require

organisations to tackle global climate change. Alongside such ‘top down’ initiatives,

organisations also make their own choices as to how they might respond to climate change

concerns and the level of ambition they adopt in that context. Carbon accounting is a part of

the armoury of tools and techniques that exists to support climate change responsiveness.

With these points in mind, Chapter Two focuses on exploring the responsiveness of the

University of St Andrews to climate change concerns in order to understand the impact of

‘top down’ and possibilities for ‘bottom up’ action. Chapter Three extends the analysis by

13

outlining a consequential carbon account for the Guardbridge DHP. In brief, three carbon

accounting methods are used to develop contrasting carbon accounts. These include: (1) a

corporate inventory approach that puts the organisation at the centre of analysis and

examines scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions (see Table 1.4); (2) a consequential life cycle

assessment approach that examines the whole system impacts of an organisational decision

(exploring the impact on what is called the ‘marginal system’); and (3) a project/policy

carbon accounting approach which is similar to the consequentialist life cycle assessment

approach but which has the added feature of allowing the calculation of carbon payback

periods. The implications that might be drawn from these various accounts are also

explored in Chapter Three. Finally, Chapter Four revisits insights from the two aspects of the

study, namely: (1) how does an organisation become responsive to climate change? and (2)

what might carbon accounts tell us about organisational carbon responsiveness? In

addition, this chapter also seeks to identify broader implications that might be pertinent to

the higher education sector more generally as well as for those championing climate change

responsiveness.

14

Chapter 2 – Climate change responsiveness

2.1 Introduction and summary of climate change actions

Three sources of information are used in this chapter, namely:

1. A summary of actions undertaken by the University of St Andrews in seeking to respond

to climate change concerns. This data has been developed from direct engagement with

staff who have responsibility for climate change;

2. A review of how climate change issues are reflected in University strategies and policies

and a reflection on the way in which climate change responsiveness seems to have

emerged from within and outside these more formal processes; and

3. Data from interviews with those both within and outside of the University of St Andrews

where an understanding of the potential for climate change responsiveness within

higher education was sought along with identifying the barriers to responsiveness.

Taken together this chapter seeks to provide insight into the actions on the ground that

constitute climate change responsiveness as well as articulating the context within which

these actions emerged.

Table 2.1 summarises the various actions undertaken by the University of St Andrews over a

number of years, with a particular focus on the last 12 years when a bespoke

environment/sustainable development team has been in place. Mirroring the ambitions

articulated in the Universities and Colleges Climate Commitment for Scotland,

responsiveness has been grouped according to the University’s core activities

(teaching/learning and research); operation of the University estate (including step change

projects and scope 3 carbon) as well as engagement with the wider community within which

the University operates. Moreover, the process of management that underpins these

activities is outlined. This includes planning, monitoring and reporting cycles.

15

Table 2.1: A summary of climate change responsiveness

University of St Andrews vision and ambition around climate change responsiveness (articulated in its Strategic Plan and managed through subsidiary strategies and policies) as well as the governance,

management and accountability routines to support the organisational vision

Carbon foot printing (updated annually) plus carbon management plan (refined over time and subject to review within the management structure)

Fostered and mentored by sector body membership (EAUC) and

supported by Scottish

Government impetus

through the Climate Change (Scotland) Act

(leading to policy

requirements and cascading

via Scottish Funding Council)

Actions undertaken by the Estates team:

Buildings refits (lagging, draft proofing, controls, boiler replacement)

New buildings and refurbishment incorporating highest carbon performance (including certification)

Energy management (in labs and buildings)

Travel plan

Electrical vehicle fleet

Staff and student business travel

Waste management and reduction

Food (and gardens) Supported by SALIX funding13 and own resources

Step change carbon projects:

Guardbridge DHP

Kenly wind farm Scope 3 carbon:

Procurement

Staff and student commuting

Waste and recycling

Water

Teaching and Learning:

Carbon issues within degrees (u/g; p/g(t); p/g(r)

Changing term times (to mitigate carbon impacts)

Research:

Carbon interests in various disciplines

Low carbon intellectual renewal

Psychology and incentivising behaviour change

The wider community:

Transition St Andrews

Student clubs and societies

Ethical investment of alumni funds (including carbon considerations)

Reporting: internal reporting to court; University annual accounts report; HESA Estates

Management report; Legal requirements (such as through CRC and Adaptation Reporting); website reporting; performance reporting against Outcome Agreements

13 SALIX is a publicly funded company whose role is to provide interest-free capital (in the form of loans) to

public sector organisations to improve their energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions. The costs of actions being undertaken can be part funded by the SALIX fund and this approach enables organisations to invest more in energy efficiency measures than they might otherwise have been able to. See http://salixfinance.co.uk/ for more information.

16

To place these actions in context, Table 2.2 provides the most up to date figures on the

University’s carbon footprint alongside the last three years of emissions and some measures

of activity data.

Table 2.2 University of St Andrews carbon footprint and selected activity data14

Gross greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e tonnes)

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Scope 1 Fossil fuel combustion in residential & non-residential properties

13,644

12,107

11,950

10,710

Fleet vehicles 112 129 86 129

Scope 2 Purchased electricity in residential & non-residential properties

10,593

11,901

11,615

10,977

Scope 3 Water & sewerage 293 285 289 281

Waste 236 246 327 357

Electricity transmission linked to residential & non-residential properties

1,017

1,033

959

993

Business travel 6,643 6,404 7,863 7,150

Total scope 1 – 3 emissions (excluding procurement) 32,538 32,105 33,089 30,598

Gross internal area (m2) 216,366 253,674 252,763 248,536

Staff headcount (Full Time Equivalent numbers) 2,114 2,257 2,259 2,326

Student headcount (Full Time Equivalent numbers) 8,020 8,219 8,501 8,626

Turnover (£ million) 183.898 193.88 212.406 221.386

Emissions of CO2e tonnes per staff FTE 15.39 14.22 14.65 13.15

Several observations can be made on the basis of this data. First, it is apparent that the

majority of the emissions identified come from either direct combustion of fossil fuels for

heating (scope 1) or from purchased electricity (scope 2). The realisation of the two ‘step

change’ projects (including the DHP) is, hence, pivotal for reducing the carbon footprint of

the University. Indeed, it is expected that the DHP will substantially reduce the scope 1

property related carbon (some 10,710 tonnes of CO2e or 35% of the scope 1-3 emissions in

2015/16).

Second, total carbon emissions have remained relatively stable (and on a slight downward

trend) with total emissions in 2015/16 falling by 6% against the 2012/13 baseline. This

decrease might be surprising when placed alongside the range of carbon reduction activities

identified in Table 2.1. Understanding this reduction, however, needs to be put in the

14 Data has been drawn from the HESA Estates Management Statistics as well as the University of St Andrews’

Outcome Agreement – 2016/17.

17

context of the activity data provided at the bottom of Table 2.2 (relating to gross internal

area; staff and student headcount; and turnover). Broadly speaking, over the last four years

the University has grown in terms of the size of its estate with a 15% increase in floor space

alongside a 20% increase in turnover, a10% increase in staff and a 7.6% increase in students.

These increases in activity will, other things being equal, increase emissions. As a result, the

array of activities undertaken in order to address carbon has to be set alongside this

increase in potential sources of emissions. Another way to appreciate carbon performance

over the last four years is to consider tends in relative emissions. In Table 2.2 emissions per

staff full time equivalent are presented and (assuming that staff numbers reflect the

combined research and teaching/learning activities and correlate with income and the

physical footprint of the built estate) in the four years to 2015/16 relative carbon emissions

have fallen 15%. While absolute reductions are required by legislation, relative emissions

data is also worth considering.

This sub-section has sought to outline both the University of St Andrews carbon footprint as

well as the actions that have been undertaken in an attempt to address carbon impacts. The

process by which the University generates emissions is relatively straightforward in that

people come to a location to work and study with the main carbon emissions being

generated from running an estate to achieve these outcomes. At the same time, employees

of the University travel for a variety of purposes (including conference and research travel

covered by the category business travel) so that they might deliver teaching/learning

services and conduct research. In order to reduce the carbon footprint associated with

these activities, University staff have undertaken various activities. These include actions

such as insulation and boiler replacement (‘hard’ measures) as well as those addressing how

the estate is used (the ‘soft’ measures). The outcomes from these various actions have

resulted in an absolute decrease in emissions against a background of growth in activity.

Carbon reduction activities are informed (at least in part) by formal management processes

and practices within the University and attention now turns to these aspects.

2.2 Strategies and policies review

This section of the report reviews the University’s strategy documents in order to gauge the

presence of formal climate change commitments. The purpose of the review is to create an

evidence base for a discussion of the management context for climate change responsiveness.

18

In addition to the review of strategy documents, this part of the report also outlines

sustainable development related policies (including those focused on carbon) and plots them

on a timeline alongside the strategic document review (see Table 2.3). Table 2.3 also provides

a measure of the level of carbon commitment expressed in each policy, dividing it into four

categories: (1) no mention of carbon; (2) some mention of carbon but stops short of making

any commitments; (3) carbon commitment expressed in narrative terms; and (4) a carbon

commitment is made in measureable (and often time bounded) terms. These categories are

not formally defined but reflect the judgement of the authors. The aim of the categorisation

is to explore the extent to which the University’s strategies and policies have developed a

more specific climate change/carbon focus over time.

Table 2.3: University strategies and sustainable development policy review

Date Strategic planning document Sustainable development policy document

No carbon mention

Carbon mention

Narrative carbon

Explicit carbon

Sept ‘06

Estate Strategy √

June ‘07

Carbon Management Plan (2007-2011)

√

May ‘08

Procurement Strategy √

Staff Strategy √

June ‘08

Strategic Plan (2008-2018) √

July ‘08

Academic Strategy √

Jan ‘09

Universities and Colleges Climate Commitment for Scotland

√

Nov ‘09

Drinking Water Policy √

June ‘11

Carbon Management Plan (2011-2016)

√

July ‘11

Sustainable Design Guide √

Jan ‘12

Sustainable Development Strategy

√

March ‘12

Knowledge Transfer Strategy √

Aug ‘12

Information and Communication Technology Strategy

√

Energy Strategy √

Sept ‘12

Employability Strategy √

June ‘13

Student Experience Strategy √

Student Study Abroad Strategy

√

Jan ‘14

Sustainable Investment Policy

√

19

Feb ‘14

Fair Trade Policy √

June ‘14

Learning and Teaching Strategy

√

Quality Enhancement Strategy

√

Sustainable and Ethical Procurement Plan (signed Aug ’13 and updated June ’14)

√

Oct ‘14

Postgraduate Strategy √

March ‘15

Strategic Plan (2015-2025) √

June ‘15

Travel Plan15 √

Several points can be drawn out from Table 2.3. First, the strategies linked to the core

business of the University do not reflect high levels of carbon responsiveness. This is

particularly the case in teaching and learning (and supporting) strategies where the focus of

the strategies is on the process of education and the experience of students. In particular,

climate change orientated education is not championed within these strategies. Likewise, the

Strategic Plan (2008) of the University articulates an aspiration “to achieve the highest

international standards of excellence in scholarship, manifested in the quality of its research

and of its graduates” but does not seek to articulate in that Plan (or any other document)

what particular research might achieve that aim (the University does not produce a research

strategy).16 As a result, there is no differential championing of climate change/carbon

research and teaching/learning activities (nevertheless, there are activities being undertaken

by staff within the institution).17 This is a theme that we will return to later in this chapter as

it was a topic discussed in the interviews undertaken for this project.

Second, and in contrast to strategies linked to core activities, other strategies/policies

demonstrate an awareness of climate change concerns which appear to lead to

responsiveness. For example, the ICT Strategy expresses a desire to “significantly reduce the

15 This is the most current Travel Plan (the first being published in 2010). Further, the staff travel survey results

suggest that single car occupancy has decreased from 46% (in 2006) to 39% in 2015. Staff travel surveys are conducted every three years. 16 Although this approach is common, not all universities adopt it. Some universities have funded and

supported expertise in climate change as a strategic investment in expertise and as a response to the perceived importance of the issue. 17 Indeed, the University’s Outcome Agreement highlights contributions within the broader framing of

sustainable development.

20

ICT carbon footprint in the face of rising energy costs” but does not make any additional

specific commitments of how that might be achieved. As that Strategy has been implemented,

however, carbon considerations have clearly come to the fore. For instance, the 2013 review

of IT operations noted that “… On the environmental front, we rolled out a number of power-

saving technologies in collaboration with colleagues in Estates and our ongoing work to

reduce the impact of IT was recognised when we received the Green ICT Award and when we

gained participant status in the EU Code of Conduct for Data Centres” (emphasis added). It is,

therefore, possible to suggest on this evidence that engagement across the University by a

proactive Estates Team as well as ‘hooks’ in formal strategies can lead to enhanced carbon

performance. We would characterise this approach as one where implementers enact change

rather than change being driven by a ‘top down’ process. This is a theme that we will return

to in this chapter as it is one that also arose in the various interviews undertaken in the

project.

The third point emerges from the previous one and relates to the central role of the Carbon

Management Plan and the team in Estates activating ‘hooks’ found in other strategies to

support climate change responsiveness. In brief, the Carbon Management Plans are framed

using sustainable development as the overarching objective. In this respect, the Plans tie

themselves to the broader strategic context of the institution and to the Strategic Plan in force

at that time. The implementation of the Carbon Management Plans was also supported by

the Sustainable Development Strategy, which was written to dovetail with the 2008 Strategic

Plan. As such it would not be accurate to depict the process of strategy formulation in the

University as a ‘cascade’ with higher level strategies/policies informing latter work. Rather,

the process is more organic and fluid. For example, while the Sustainable Development

Strategy took some time to formulate, it informed other strategy work even while it was being

developed and then retrospectively provided support for earlier commitments, as their

saliency increased.

Fourth, carbon management activities also sit within a broader context including the: Scottish

Climate Change Act; European Union Energy Performance of Buildings Directive; The United

Kingdom CRC Scheme; as well as the Universities and Colleges Climate Commitment for

Scotland and the Outcome Agreements with the Scottish Funding Council. As such, there is

scaffolding around the Plan of legal drivers; regulatory programmes; sector actions as well as

21

(critically) the University’s strategic initiatives. Given this approach, the Carbon Management

Plan in force at any point in time becomes the critical delivery apparatus for University

strategies as well as providing the detailed mechanisms by which carbon reductions are to be

achieved. Moreover, there is a clear management control context in which the pursuit of a

Carbon Management Plan can be understood. Ultimately the Sustainable Development

Working Group has oversight of carbon and other sustainable development performance

alongside other committees that execute particular aspects of carbon management. It may

well be the case that the nature of the Carbon Management Plans, alongside external

reporting demands for carbon emissions and the strength of the estates team, mean that

climate change action could be taken even though the strategic context is not fully developed

(this proposition was further explored in the interviews).

Finally, it is important to contrast the 2008-2018 and 2015-2025 Strategic Plans (see Table

2.4) in terms of the level of engagement with climate change issues. In both of these Strategic

Plans climate change concerns are placed within the broader context of the pursuit of

sustainable development. This is in keeping with the aim of the Sustainable Development

Strategy of 2012. In addition, the reach of sustainable development (including carbon) issues

across the core of teaching/learning, research, knowledge transfer (in the 2008-2018 Plan),

and operations (‘how we behave’ in the 2015-2025 Plan) are acknowledged. In the latter

Strategic Plan, however, the particular impact of this ambition in research, facilities and within

the wider community has been specifically highlighted. We would argue that this reflects a

growing confidence within the University about what such commitments mean in practice,

which is drawn (at least in part) from an ability to frame the ambitions in the 2015-2025 Plan

as a continuation of recent actions and achievements (which themselves arise from the

playing out of commitments in the Carbon Management Plan). What remains, however, is a

reluctance to specify any particular direction of travel in the areas of teaching and learning or

in research, presumably for reasons highlighted above.

22

Table 2.4: Comparison of carbon responsiveness in Strategic Plans

Strategic Plan (2008-2018) Strategic Plan (2015-2025)

Challenges and Sustainability18 “In addition, the University accepts the challenge of taking an integrated approach to sustainable development that includes use of renewable energy sources, energy efficiencies, attention to the environmental impact of its activities and development of distinctive programmes of teaching, research and knowledge transfer in sustainable development that are recognised as of international excellence” (section 1.3.4).

Our Approach “We will continue to promote sustainable development throughout our community, in what we research, in what we teach and in how we behave”. Our Research “Climate Change continues to present one of the most significant challenges facing mankind. As part of our contribution towards finding solutions to this, the University will become carbon neutral for its energy. The challenges however go even further than energy, with the efficient use of resources as important as sustainable energy around the world”. Our Facilities “In recent years, the University has striven to achieve the highest standards in building sustainability with, for example, our most recent major science investment, the Wellcome Biomedical Science Research Complex being awarded BREEAM Outstanding, the first of such buildings to be given this rating in the UK. We will continue to demonstrate excellent sustainable development practice in our new buildings, in our refurbishments and in the way we use our buildings, continuing to improve energy and water efficiency even after carbon neutrality has been achieved”. Our Community “We will continue to assist and engage with the community in which we flourish. Our investments in becoming carbon neutral for our energy through the Biomass plant at Guardbridge and Kenly turbines will assist in reinforcing the energy infrastructure of the town and North east fife, lessening the risk of future power shortages and protecting jobs”.

In summary, a review of strategies and policies prompts a number of observations. First, it is

clear from these documents that there is some degree of climate change responsiveness

within the University and that sustainable development is used as a way to frame this

responsiveness. Second, over time the University has produced (in the public domain via

18 ‘Sustainability’ in this context refers to general sustainability, not sustainable development.

23

these formal strategies and policies and, critically, its Outcome Agreements with the

Scottish Funding Council) more detailed climate change commitments and has also devoted

more space in these documents to articulate how climate change is viewed. This suggests a

growing experience of and confidence in drawing attention to climate change issues within

the institution. Third, climate change aspects are not well articulated in strategies and

policies that are linked to teaching/learning activities. Having said that, the most recent

strategic plan is more articulate about climate change issues across the core activities

(namely, research, facilities and community). As strategies and policies are renewed this

creates the opportunity for more climate change focused aspects to be highlighted.

These observations have to be placed in the context of the actions and carbon performance

of the University which has emerged from what could be described as an ‘implementer led’

process. The number of climate change related initiatives and the progress made on

emissions measurement and management has been led by a proactive estates team working

in partnership with all parts of the University. With this in mind, analysis now turns to the

findings drawn from the interviews undertaken for the project. These interviews were

designed to elicit more nuanced understandings of climate change responsiveness in the

University of St Andrews as well as the Scottish higher education sector as a whole.

2.3 Developing responsiveness

The above review of what is said about climate change in formal strategies and policies

provides one glimpse into the views of the University with respect to climate change and

how it seeks to respond to the challenge of mitigating carbon emissions. A document

analysis, however, cannot provide in-depth insight into the complexity of an organisation’s

thinking. With that in mind, 15 interviews were conducted with individuals within the

University of St Andrews as well as others in the higher education sector in Scotland who

have responsibility for developing, implementing and reviewing climate change

performance. This section reviews findings from these interviews and draws out how

responsiveness to climate change concerns emerge and how this fits with broader

institutional processes.

Interviewees were clear that responsiveness develops (at least in part) from the policy

context in which the organisation exists. For example, one interviewee suggested that the

24

Scottish Climate Change Act is helpful as it “gives clarity on what the agenda is” (Ex6). At the

same time, this interviewee recognized that responsiveness also relies on organisations

themselves, observing “I think [the importance of the commitment] comes down to senior

management… I think it needs, if it’s not the Principal, it needs a Vice Principal… that drives

the agenda forward” (Ex6). In a similar vein, an interviewee with insight into the University

of St Andrews suggested that responsiveness is not purely driven by the Climate Change Act.

Rather they suggested it is “driven by professional requirements and moral sounding… I

would guess most people [in senior management and governance] are driven by an

awareness of the impact of climate change… [as much as] they were by any legislation”

(StA2). Further, the cost considerations involved in bringing future energy prices within the

control of the University was identified as a driver for responsiveness by a number of

interviewees (StA2, 5, 6, 7 and 8).

Responsiveness within organisations, therefore, can be suggested to emerge as a result of

complex processes and interactions. One interviewee characterized the chain of action that

enables responsiveness thus: the “agitator makes the case… [which in due course] has to be

supported by senior hard hitters” (Ex4). For the institution that this interviewee worked in it

was perceived that it “wanted to be world leading (because we are at all things – whatever

that means) and make a step change (whatever that means) in sustainability (whatever that

means)” (Ex4). Two observations emerge from this quote. First, there is an articulation of a

responsiveness that is linked to the organisations self-perception (as world leading) as well

as an inherent vagueness of that aspiration. Second, the quote demonstrates that rhetorical

strategies are used to support climate change responsiveness. The motivations of the higher

education sector were also perceived by the interviewee (who has only recently moved to

the sector) as being hubristic. In particular, it was noted that the “hubris is odd… but hubris

can also be useful… we can wear down resistance because we can find an example [of good

practice] somewhere prestigious enough to encourage proactivity” (Ex4, emphasis added).

In addition, this interviewee noted that it mattered who made suggestions about

responsiveness with the implication being that without some senior championing, an action

might not get as far as it could otherwise do. For example, a situation was described where

an individual was “saying the right thing at a grade five but [action was] unlocked by a senior

lead saying it” (Ex4). Indeed, this same point was made by a University of St Andrews

25

interviewee who noted that “sometimes they [estates] need some academic input… people

in the ‘hierarchy’ sometimes respond much better to a senior academic having a chat”.

Within the University of St Andrews, and specifically with respect to carbon neutrality,

similarly multifaceted process could be seen in play. For example, one interviewee observed

that there was a “drive from estates and I think there was an element within the Principal’s

Office which do believe this is a good way to go… [but that this interviewee didn’t] get the

sense of this being driven from the top” (StA1). Another interviewee observed that they

were “not sure I could tell you [where carbon neutrality came from]… I think the student

body in particular played a large role… you also have a number of individuals in the

institution… employees, who are themselves keen on the agenda” (StA2). Both

interviewees understood the process to be more organic suggesting that “something like a

university has much more of a bottom-up view on what we want to do… [and then] you

have to play this into a receptive body and I think the University of St Andrews is reasonably

receptive” (StA2). At the same time others noted that carbon neutrality was closely linked to

the likely future cost of energy as well as a sense of ambition that “it was something that we

felt could be done and has now been accepted across the University” (StA6).

Interviewees also expressed views as to who were the drivers of ambition at the University

of St Andrews and attributed the impetus for change to estates staff. For example, one

interviewee noted, “things happen because of the quality of Estates… a lot of carbon

neutrality has to do with Estates” (StA3). Another interviewee noted, “some of the things

that we did probably made that [carbon neutrality] more possible and thinkable but it is the

carbon guys [estates] that thought it first. I didn’t know it was possible [until they suggested

it]” (StA8). An external interviewee also noted that responsiveness is often “based heavily

on personal relationships and very little on strict, mandated top-down change” (Ex1). This

emphasises the importance of the skills of and actions undertaken by Estates staff. Indeed,

this observation resonates with another interviewee who noted, “as senior management

changes… each time that there is a new intake you have to go back and almost reset the

terms of the debate” (StA8). This suggests that institutional memory regarding climate

change responsiveness rests with operational staff. This observation increases the

importance of the quality of strategy and policy documents, the presence of a detailed

26

carbon management plan and the documentation of climate change ambitions in outcome

agreements because these mechanisms become more critical in terms of continuity of focus

and performance as staff change.

This pattern of evolution of ideas did not seem unusual for the sector. For example, an

interviewee observed “If I look at where sustainability strategies have come from across the

sector, it's come from one of two places: either it's had a start in the Estates department

and was very focused on energy efficiency and at a later date rebranded as carbon

emissions management but really it's the same people doing the same kinds of stuff… Or it's

come from the other side, where academic colleagues are coming at it from a much broader

perspective. But right now, a lot of institutions I think are trying to figure out how to marry

those two things up, there's a gap in the middle” (Ex1). In reflecting on that dynamic in their

own institution they observed: “we have a very good Estates team who understands what

good business practice looks like… We have a leader who knows the vision of where we're

going, and somewhere in the middle are our academic leaders who have their own silos of

research or academic practice and ideas or understandings that they're interested in. But all

of that is still not quite gelling together into one big institutional group” (Ex1). This suggests

(as does the previous observation about the need to re-inform senior management of a

longer term strategy) that continuity and/or consistency of actions across all scales is

potentially fragile.

Such observations prompt questions about how sustained responsiveness arises in the

particular setting of a university (see also M’Gonigle and Starke, 2006). On the one hand,

interviewees outlined what they saw as an appropriate role for universities. For example, “I

do believe that universities are engines of societal change, that we are the driving force for

improving society. If we are not that, then we are failing our responsibilities” (StA3); “the

University should be at the front of all these sorts of issues [climate change]… we should be

leading the debate” (StA4); and “these are all things which help carbon neutrality in the

society that we have to live in… to me that's what a university should aspire to do… not just

for itself… but showing how this can be unfolded” (StA5).

At the same time, however, there was an acknowledgement of institutional barriers to

engagement and innovation by the academic staff in developing climate change

27

responsiveness. For example, one interviewee noted, “we are reluctant to meddle too

much. We hire excellent academics and leave them alone to get on with it… we don’t hire

excellent people who can complement and work with other people and collaborate” (StA4).

This arises because “we’re very individual people… [and that the University rewards]

individualistic behaviour” (StA4). These observations were echoed by an interviewee outside

of the University of St Andrews who suggested that “there's a missing middle… what could

be very good collective action falls apart because you're not really sure [who is leading it]… I

don't think the academic community is very good at crossing boundaries and working

collectively for the institutional benefit” (Ex1).

Similar points emerged from the interviews when the desirability of aligning

teaching/learning and research activities to the climate change agenda was discussed. On

the one hand, one interviewee suggested, “I have always had the view that the most

significant thing in terms of universities and colleges is how you affect core business”

(Ex6)19, while also noting that this “does mean… universities gearing themselves explicitly to

that agenda when they think about research priorities” (Ex6). Further, the interviewee said,

“there should be more energy efficient campuses… but the most important thing will be

what sort of research are you doing? What sort of graduates are you producing? And how

will that affect Scotland, the wider world and its capacity to deal with these issues” (Ex6).

Taking the broader picture into account, this interviewee also noted “it may well be the case

that within the university’s estate carbon is going up. But if we can offer something like

‘we’ve just discovered some great new carbon capture and storage’ or ‘we released a

thousand new graduates who will transform society’ – well that’s worth a few carbon atoms

surely” (Ex6). Another interviewee expressed the same view but also noted “these second

order impacts don’t get us off the hook [in carbon terms] but we need to deliver real change

and add value from these core activities” (Ex4).

This point also invites the question of how to make other aspects of core business more

carbon responsive. Two examples were discussed that link to this theme. First, one

interviewee observed, “when you look at our complete emissions, the emissions associated

19 Indeed, this point is consistent with the vision for universities and colleges expressed by the EUAC.

28

with students coming from Indonesia, Canada and New Zealand… far outweighs the

emissions from our heating of our buildings. So maybe we should be looking at the positive

impact of our curriculum internationally” (Ex1). This point harks back to the earlier point

about producing graduates that might transform society. Second, another interviewee

noted, “there are things we can do to reduce unnecessary carbon impacts… [for example]

the conference industry as something that for academics is just part of the scene… you

wonder about the scale of that impact and if there might be a different way to do those

things. I think you can do things about that without destroying your research profile and

capability… [but also] I think we’re going to have to live with some of that [that is, emissions

to enable research]” (Ex6). This latter quote demonstrates that (and in a similar way to

educating students) carbon emissions are associated with core business processes (in the

case of conference travel linked to intellectual renewal).

This sense of seeking to bring climate change responsiveness into core business (that is,

teaching/learning and research) considerations was not unanimously held. For example, an

interviewee at the University observed “yes, our research agenda will fit the broader

sustainability agenda. Should we be focusing on that? My answer would be no. I don’t think

we should be controlling people’s research… the University is developing its research,

teaching and academic excellence… and it’s slightly uncoupled from a carbon approach… it’s

not a core value” (StA3). This quote suggests that not everyone thinks it appropriate to

systematically develop research or teaching practices to be synergistic with organisational

carbon activities (despite, in the words of one interviewee, that “successful research… [is]

much more powerful than a successful estate” (Ex1)). Moreover, and reiterating the theme

that academic life is often individualistic, this interviewee noted that creating this synergy

has to rely on the “success of particular academics and researchers” (Ex1), rather than being

a self-conscious aim of the institution.

Finally, the extent to which some academics don’t realise that estates departments could be

allies in teaching/learning and research was touched upon. An interviewee observed that he

“was pretty shocked [on starting to work for a university]... I thought I'll have access to

these great minds, and I'll get a chance to ask questions, and people will want to share their

knowledge… I think particularly if you come from an Estates department, you're seen

29

generally as someone who... [gets] phoned up if we need you to fix our toilet... It's that sort

of cultural mind-set” (Ex1). This was also reflected from the academic side where one

interviewee noted “we’re pretty siloed… I think that the issue with doing that [enabling an

Estates-academic engagement] is the immediate preconceptions that you are likely to meet

from most academics about Estates… there is a big respect issue to be overcome” (StA3).

As will be apparent in this section, there are varied understandings about how universities

in general (and the University of St Andrews in particular) become responsive to the

demands of climate change. Interviewees noted that individuals can make a substantive

difference to responsiveness because in many ways the university setting provides

opportunities for strategy to be led by implementers as well as being open to stakeholder

concerns (with the student body being particularly important). While seeing this relative

openness to influence as a potential source of innovation, there was a belief that

universities are also resistant to change, especially if change affects core values such as the

freedom to teach and research what the academic community sees as being important. As a

result, climate change responsiveness is unlikely to become a core institutional value

beyond a focus on estate operations.

2.5 Conclusions

This chapter sought to understand how the University of St Andrews came to be responsive

to climate change concerns with three sources of data being used to illuminate the inquiry.

First, the actions taken to address climate change concerns have been described alongside a

presentation of the current carbon footprint of the University. Actions have been

undertaken across the range of teaching/learning, research and operational activities with

both organisational participants (staff and students) and the wider community (such as, the

town of St Andrews) in order to systematically address carbon emissions. One observation

that is relevant to make here is that keeping the University’s carbon footprint relatively

stable during a period of growth and expansion (see Table 2.2) is in itself an achievement.

Alongside an examination of climate change related actions (and the carbon footprint

measures) this chapter also examined University strategies and policies to understand how

the organisation formally articulates its response to climate change. Interviews with

members of the University (and others within the sector in Scotland) constituted the third

30

data source for understanding how climate change responsiveness might emerge in higher

education settings.

A number of observations arise from this work. Universities present a particular

organisational challenge with respect to change because institutional cultures, in general,

are non-directive and agency is left largely to individuals. We hypothesize that this

background culture plays through in terms of climate change responsiveness in quite

particular ways, namely: if people are proactive (and belong to multiple formal and informal

networks) and the governance context is not hostile, carbon responsiveness can arise even

with a lack of formal policy support. This leads to multiple sites of innovation and

experimentation that are likely to be beneficial (in terms of organisational responsiveness

and emissions’ reductions). It also appears to be the case (from a review of St Andrew’s

strategies and policies) that as an institution develops some expertise in responding to

climate change it is more likely to articulate commitments to further reducing carbon.

Progression to more proactive engagement with climate change concerns, however, will

only be sustained by the efforts of committed individuals who manage to mobilise

institutional capital to advance change. These changes are sometimes (but not always)

supported from the ‘top’ (another form of institutional capital) either by appointing people

with remit and power to drive low carbon transitions or through more formal plans and

targets (that is, moving beyond general commitments in policy settings).

We hypothesise that larger scale systemic consideration of climate change impacts require

more than a coalition of the willing working beyond their specific remits because once the

‘low hanging’ carbon gains are attained more strategic considerations come into play. In

addition, consideration of climate change within universities’ core activities

(teaching/learning, research and external engagement) can only arise if those responsible

for these functions allow or encourage (or at least don’t block) climate change

considerations ‘spilling over’ into these domains. Support in this area is not straightforward

because to ‘champion’ climate change as a subject area of teaching/learning, research and

external engagement might be seen as constituting preferential treatment. This concern

seems naïve when placed within the context of global concern that failure to address

climate change might lead to humanity collectively crossing over a tipping point in terms of

planetary boundaries. At the same time, it is a logical outcome of the underlying

31

organisational and sectorial culture of individualism. Likewise, any questioning of the model

of education that entails students being drawn from across the globe (as universities

become sources of foreign exchange and internationalise) is difficult without some strategic

consideration of the carbon dilemma this presents (see especially Davies and Dunk, 2015).

There are good arguments for retaining the education models that we have, but they do

require engagement by senior academic managers and (most probably) self-conscious

conversations about emissions that are currently ‘out of scope’ (in a regulatory sense). The

management of estates for lower carbon outcomes remain relevant but reflects narrowly

drawn boundaries around a sub-set of issues that warrant consideration.

Where actions in the estate require changes in existing operational models (for example, to

bring energy production ‘in house’) strategic support is also required. As will be evident

from the foregoing, much can (and is) being achieved in terms of a transition to a lower

carbon higher education sector (noting that there is no clear articulation of how low a ‘low’

carbon university sector might be). Indeed, the University of St Andrews’ aspiration of

carbon neutrality with respect to energy use within the estate is an example of a step

change in climate change responsiveness. The next chapter of this report focuses on the

Guardbridge DHP and explores in more depth the carbon implications of the project, using a

variety of carbon accounts.

32

Chapter Three – Accounting for carbon20

3.1 Introduction

Part of the remit of this project was to produce an updated estimation of the change in

greenhouse gas emissions caused by the development of the Guardbridge DHP. This chapter

sets out the background context/motivations for this task, the methods used, the results,

and a discussion of the findings. The chapter also provides a number of conclusions and

recommendations related to methods used for quantifying emissions, and for mitigating

some of the possible negative outcomes from the use of bioenergy. Indeed, a contribution

of this work is to provide a consequential life cycle assessment for the DHP. Consequential

Life Cycle Assessment is an accounting method that suggests how an action undertaken by

an organisation might affect the system within which the action takes place. Carbon

accounts of this nature are not routinely undertaken. As such, this work extends our

understanding of the impact of the DHP as well as being academically and practically

innovative.

Initial estimates of the emission reductions anticipated from the DHP were undertaken by

the University of St Andrews and the project design team based on an early-stage

specification of the biomass plant: respectively indicating emission reductions of

approximately 8,000 tCO2e/yr (University of St Andrews 2014) and 5,000 tCO2e/yr (Cullinan

Studio et al., 2014). These estimates were preceded by a number of scoping studies

(Hutchinson 2008; Palmer and Tamburrini 2009) which also indicated that the use of

biomass would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, there is recognition within the

University of St Andrews team that not all affected emission sources were included in these

estimates. For example, the embodied emissions of the DHP itself were not included, nor

the supply-chain emissions associated with the natural gas displaced by the DHP. One of the

motivations for the present study, therefore, is to provide an updated and more

comprehensive assessment of the change in emissions achieved by implementing the DHP.

20 This chapter contains more technical detail than the preceding two chapters. In order to keep the material

digestible, many of the references in this chapter have been relegated to footnotes. In addition, in several places it is noted that more technical detail on this material can be obtained from the authors.

33

The background academic literature on bioenergy also suggests the need for a

comprehensive assessment of the greenhouse gas impacts of biomass produced energy.

Some studies and reports suggest that bioenergy can be expected to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions, relative to a fossil fuel alternative.21 However, there are also a number of studies

which show mixed results for bioenergy, suggesting that in some cases bioenergy may

increase rather than decrease emissions,22 particularly when the time-dimension of

emissions is taken into account, with the emissions payback period extending over decades

to hundreds of years.23 Given this range of findings it is important to explore a wider array

of possible outcomes from the DHP.

3.2 Carbon accounting methods

In order to estimate the impact of the DHP three different greenhouse gas accounting

methods were applied. This approach also enabled the sensitivity of the results by method

used to be considered. The three methods used were:

1. A corporate greenhouse gas inventory approach using the GHG Protocols’ Corporate

Accounting and Reporting Standard (WBCSD/WRI 2004). The approach used by the

University of St Andrews for the initial estimate of emission reductions has a number of

similarities to this method. This greenhouse gas accounting method is widely used by

companies and organisations to report their emissions (WBCSD/WRI 2011a), and is the

method underpinning Defra’s guidance on company reporting (Defra/DECC 2012) and

the proposed requirements for public bodies to report their emissions under the Climate

Change (Scotland) Act (Scottish Government 2015).

2. A consequential life cycle assessment (CLCA) using the guidance in Ekvall and Weidema

(2004), and Weidema et al., (2009), with the general structure for the CLCA taken from

the International Reference Life Cycle Data System Handbook (European Commission et

21 See, Bright et al., 2012; Daigneault et al., 2012; Department for Energy and Climate Change 2012; Djomo et

al., 2011; Favero and Mendelsohn 2013; Giuntoli et al., 2015; Latta et al., 2013; Njakou Djomo et al., 2015; Petersen Raymer 2006; Thornley et al., 2009; Torssonen et al., 2015; UK Government 2012; Whittaker et al., 2011; Wihersaari 2005; Ximenes et al., 2012. 22 See, Adams et al., 2013; Agostini et al., 2013; Cherubini et al., 2009; Chum et al., 2011; DECC 2014; Jonker et

al., 2014; Lippke et al., 2011; Marland and Schlamadinger 1997; Matthews et al., 2014; Repo et al., 2014; Zanchi et al., 2012. 23 See, Bernier and Paré 2013; Buchholz et al., 2014; Haberl et al., 2012; Haberl et al., 2013; Holtsmark 2012;

Holtsmark 2013; McKechnie et al., 2011; Schlesinger 2014; Schulze et al., 2012; Searchinger 2012; Walker et al., 2010; Wilnhammer et al., 2015.

34

al., 2010). The majority of the studies on the greenhouse gas impacts of bioenergy use

some form of life cycle assessment, and CLCA is generally considered to be the most

appropriate form of life cycle assessment for quantifying the total change in emissions

caused by a given decision or intervention (Plevin et al., 2014). CLCA involves identifying

the product systems that change (often referred to as the ‘marginal’ systems) in

response to a given decision, and quantifying the emissions/removals associated with

those product systems. The marginal system impact may be different from the direct

product consumed (in this case biomass). For example, if an organisation uses locally

produced biomass, this may mean that an existing/alternative user of that biomass has

to use a new source of biomass (or use an alternative product altogether). The new

source of biomass/product is the marginal system, and its associated emissions are

those caused by the original organisation’s decision to use biomass.

3. A project/policy accounting approach using ISO 14064-2 (ISO 2006), the GHG Protocol

for Project Accounting (WBCSD/WRI 2005), and the GHG Protocol’s Policy and Action

Standard (WRI 2014). The method used by the Guardbridge Energy Centre design team

for their estimation of emission reductions has a number of similarities to these

methods. Although project and policy accounting methods are codified in separate

guidance documents, previous research suggests that these methods have essentially

the same structure and can be treated as a single method (Brander 2015). The basic

structure of the method is illustrated in Figure 3.1 and involves quantifying the level of

emissions/removals for the scenario in which the decision is not implemented (that is,

the baseline), and also the scenario in which it is implemented. Subtracting baseline

emissions/removals from the decision scenario emissions/removals derives the total

change in emissions caused by the decision.

35

Figure 3.1: Illustration of the key components of the project/policy accounting method

One methodological feature of both the CLCA and the project/policy approach (referred to

collectively as the ‘consequential’ methods) is the use of scenarios for modelling the

different possible marginal systems affected by the decision in question. Seven scenarios,

and fourteen sub-scenarios were modelled in the present study, and are summarised in

Table 3.1.

Baseline

scenario

Decision

scenario

Reduction

achieved by

decision

Emissions

(tCO2e)

Time (years)

36

Table 3.1: Details of scenarios for the marginal systems affected by the decision (used in the CLCA and the project/policy method)

Name of scenario Description Name of sub-scenario Description

1. Overseas production Increase in demand for wood chips

increases world wide production. Supply

in the UK is constrained and so the

marginal supply is overseas production.

1.1. Sustainable forest

management

The harvested forest is replanted.

1.2. Unsustainable forest

management

The harvested forest is not replanted.

2. Local production Increase in demand for wood chips is met

from local wood resources that would

otherwise not be harvested/utilised, for

example, harvesting of shelter belts,

small farm woodlands, wooded steep-

sided gullies.

2.1. Local production without co-

products

Whole trees are harvested and used for wood chips.

2.2. Local production with co-

products

Part of the tree is used for wood chips and the

remainder is used for pallets and construction. In

order to make the transportation of the co-products

to the saw mill economically viable the trucks

backhaul biomass to the DHP.

3. Thinnings Increase in demand for wood chips

makes increased thinning of existing

productive forestry economically viable.

3.1. Without co-products There is no change to the proportion of harvested

stem wood that can be used for pallets and saw logs.

3.2. With co-products (marginal

saw log displacement)

Thinning changes the proportion of harvested stem

wood that can be used for pallets and saw logs.

Reduction in plastic pallet production and marginal

saw log production.

37

Name of scenario Description Name of sub-scenario Description

3.3. With co-products (cement

render displacement)

Thinning changes the proportion of harvested stem

wood that can be used for pallets and saw logs.

Reduction in plastic pallet production and use of

cement render.

4. Fencing Increase in demand for wood chips

displaces the use of wood for fence posts

and increases the production of concrete

posts.

4.1. End of life combustion The wooden posts would have been combusted for

energy at their end of life.

4.2. End of life decay The wooden posts would have decayed aerobically

at their end of life.

5. Pallets Increase in demand for wood chips

displaces the use of wood for pallets and

increases the production of plastic

pallets.

5.1. Without freed-up biomass

displacement

The reduced demand for wooden pallets due to the

longer lifetime of plastic plastics does not have

further displacement effects.

5.2. With freed-up biomass

displacement

The reduced demand for wooden pallets due to the

longer lifetime of plastic plastics increases biomass

availability and displaces natural gas combustion.

6. MDF Increase in demand for wood chips

increases biomass market demand for

wood fibre and reduces production of

medium density fibreboard (MDF), and

increases the production of plasterboard.

7. Particle board Increase in demand for wood chips

increases biomass market demand for

wood fibre and reduces the production

of particleboard, and increases the

production of breeze blocks.

7.1. Breeze block lower estimate A lower emission factor for breeze blocks is used

(Hammond and Jones 2008).

7.2. Breeze block upper estimate A higher emission factor for breeze blocks is used

(DECC 2014).

38

Table 3.1 requires elaboration. Each scenario provided describes an alternative ‘marginal’

system. For example, in the case of the first scenario, the use of biomass within the DHP

might mean that ultimately other users of biomass have to satisfy their needs from an

overseas source. For this scenario, the overseas source might be sustainably/not sustainably

produced. The carbon account then, estimates the carbon impact of this overseas sourced

biomass. Other scenarios address more complex arrays of interactions. For example, in sub-

scenario 3.3 the move to bioheat may mean that it becomes economically viable to use tree

thinnings for woodchip (because the price of biomass increases with increased demand).

The increased thinning of trees might also lead to the tree stem being of better quality and

as such it can now be used for building construction and the production of wooden pallets.

In the case of wooden pallets, if the alternative to these pallets is plastic pallets then the

changed used will be a reduction in the production of plastic pallets. It may now start to be

apparent as to why consequential accounting is a complex task, the outputs of which can be

difficult to interpret, let alone use as a guide to action.

To help ensure the robustness of the scenario formation, the selection was informed by a

number of principles and heuristics from the CLCA guidance. For example, the marginal

processes must be unconstrained (for example, saw mill residues are constrained by the

level of saw log production, and so mill residues cannot be the marginal system); the

marginal processes are likely to be the least-cost form of production in an growing market;

and markets are assumed to be linked unless there is evidence to the contrary (Ekvall and

Weidema 2004; Weidema et al., 2009). The selection of scenarios was also based on a range

of information: published studies (for example, Lamers et al., (2014) and Lauri et al., (2014)

indicate that the marginal supply will come from increased overseas production);

interviews;24 and government greenhouse gas accounting tools (for example, DECC’s

Biomass and Counterfactual Model (2014) includes both overseas production and material

substitution effects).

An assessment of the probability of each of the scenarios has not been undertaken in the

present study, though all of the scenarios modelled are considered to be plausible. It should

24 For example, information from the University of St Andrews and local forest managers suggested increased

local production as a possible marginal system; industry reports (for example, the Wood Panel Industries Federation, 2010) suggests the marginal effect will be material displacement and substitution.

39

be noted that the actual change caused by the decision may involve combinations of these

scenarios/marginal systems, and therefore the presentation of individual scenarios is a

simplification of a more complex reality. Furthermore, the scenarios modelled are not

exhaustive, and alternative scenarios are also possible. The scenarios are best viewed as

“selective illustrative examples”, following the approach in Zanchi et al., (2012).

3.3 Carbon accounting findings

This section presents, in turn, the results from the application of the: (1) attributional

corporate inventory approach, (2) CLCA, and (3) project/policy method.

Corporate greenhouse gas inventory/attributional accounting

Figure 3.2 presents the results for scopes 1, 2, and 3 of the corporate inventory and suggests

that there is a very small initial increase in emissions due to the embodied emissions and

construction of the DHP (reported under ‘capital goods’ in scope 3, (WBCSD/WRI, 2011b),

before there is a reduction in emissions due to reduced natural gas combustion.

Figure 3.2: Corporate GHG inventory – scopes 1, 2 and 3

The accounting rules for corporate inventories state that biogenic CO2 emissions (that is,

CO2 emissions from the combustion of biomass) should not be reported within scopes 1, 2,

and 3, but should be reported separately. Figure 3.3 presents the results for scopes 1, 2, 3,

and biogenic emissions. This alternative version of the inventory shows the same initial

spike in emissions, but also an underlying increase in total greenhouse gas emissions as the

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

20

33

20

34

20

35

20

36

20

37

20

38

20

39

20

40

tCO

2e/

yr

Years

Baseline With decision scenario

40

release of biogenic CO2 is greater than the baseline release of fossil CO2 from natural gas

combustion. This arises because natural gas has lower point-of-combustion CO2 emissions

per unit of energy, and the overall efficiency of natural gas boilers tends to be higher than

biomass boilers. However, the results in Figure 3.3 should be interpreted with caution as

although the upstream emissions from the production of the woody biomass are included in

the inventory (reported under ‘fuel and energy related activities’ in scope 3 (WBCSD/WRI,

2011b), the sequestration of CO2 that occurs during the growth of the biomass is generally

not included in the emission factors used for corporate greenhouse gas accounting (for

example, see Defra, 2013). If this sequestration were included then the results would be

identical to those in Figure 3.2.

The overall conclusion from this account is that the use of an attributional corporate

inventory would support the decision to implement the DHP, with an average reduction in

emissions of 7,083 tCO2e/yr, or 177,070 tCO2e over the 25 year lifetime of the plant

(assuming the otherwise continued use of natural gas).

Figure 3.3: Corporate GHG inventory – scopes 1, 2, and 3 + biogenic CO2

Consequential Life Cycle Assessment

Figure 3.4 presents the results from the CLCA, which, by convention, are expressed in gCO2e

per functional unit, that is, gCO2e/kWh of delivered heat. There are wide variations in the

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

20

33

20

34

20

35

20

36

20

37

20

38

20

39

20

40

tCO

2e/y

r

Years

Baseline With decision scenario

41

results, depending on the scenario modelled. All the scenarios with emissions lower than

281 gCO2e/kWh (the natural gas reference case) entail that the DHP will reduce emissions,

and all the scenarios with emissions higher than the reference case indicate the DHP will

increase emissions. That is, all bars above 281 gCO2e/kWh represent an increase in

emissions when compared to the current technology (heat from natural gas). All bars below

281 gCO2e/kWh represent a reduction in emissions. Scenarios 1.1, 2.1, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2 and 6.1

all result in fewer emissions than is currently the case. The results for Scenario 3.3

(increased thinning with the additional availability of sawlogs replacing cement render)

show net negative emissions as the emissions avoided by the substitution of cement render

are greater than the emissions from the rest of the life cycle under this scenario. As such, it

is the only scenario that results in a ‘carbon negative’ position.

Figure 3.4: Results from the CLCA

197

876

102

290

529

1,102

-686

192 125

829

167

563

740

281

-800

-600

-400

-200

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

gCO

2e/k

Wh

del

iver

ed h

eat

42

Project/policy-level accounting

Figure 3.5 presents the results from the project/policy-level method. The results are for the

total net change in emissions/removals caused by the decision to implement the DHP.

Negative results (below the horizontal axis) indicate that the decision creates a net

reduction in emissions, and positive results (above the horizontal axis) indicate that the

decision creates a net increase in emissions. The scenarios that create increases or

reductions in emissions are the same as those from the CLCA, though it is important to note

that the presentation of the results is slightly different. The outputs from the project/policy

method already show the total change in emissions caused by the decision (baseline

emissions/removals minus decision scenario emissions/removals), and no further

subtraction of a comparator product’s emissions are required.

In addition to the total net change in emissions/removals, the project/policy level method

also provides information on the distribution of emissions and removals over time, as both

baseline and decision-scenario emissions/removals are calculated as a time-series.

Consideration of temporal information is proposed in dynamic life cycle assessment (Collet

et al., 2013; Collinge et al., 2012; Helin et al., 2013; Levasseur et al., 2010;), however

conventional (that is, static) CLCA is used in the present study as this is the approach set out

in the existing guidance literature (Weidema et al., 2009).

43

Figure 3.5: Results from the project/policy level method

The time-series output from the project/policy method is illustrated in Figure 3.6 and shows

the distribution of emissions/removals over time for Scenario 1.1. There is an initial increase

in emissions due to the embodied emissions of the DHP, followed by a period of high

emissions due to the higher point-of-combustion emissions from biomass compared to

natural gas. After the assumed 25 year life time of the DHP the underlying trend in forest

regrowth becomes apparent, and the level of sequestration in the decision scenario is

greater than in the baseline. The emissions payback point (that is, the point at which the

decision scenario emissions/removals equal the level of emissions/removals in the baseline)

is reached in year 75.

-76,082

506,108

-154,497

9,213

210,787

585,926

-830,877

-92,673 -150,556

468,510

-99,330

240,205

392,272

-1,000,000

-800,000

-600,000

-400,000

-200,000

-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

tCO

2e

44

Figure 3.6: Project/policy method times-series results for Scenario 1.1 (overseas

production with sustainable forest management).

Table 3.2 shows the results from the project/policy level method, including the emissions

payback period for the scenarios that incur an initial carbon debt which is compensated for

by subsequent reductions in emissions/enhancements in removals. The payback periods

range between 1 and 103 years, and are determined by a number of factors such as the

regrowth rate of the forest and the embodied emissions of the products displaced by the

production of forestry co-products in the decision scenario (which is the reason for the

payback period of 1 year for cement render displacement in Scenario 3.3).

-15,000

-10,000

-5,000

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1 8

15

22

29

36

43

50

57

64

71

78

85

92

99

10

6

11

3

12

0

12

7

13

4

14

1

14

8

15

5

16

2

16

9

17

6

18

3

19

0

19

7

tCO

2e/y

r

Years

Baseline Decision scenario

45

Table 3.2: Net emissions and carbon payback periods from project/policy level method

(negative values indicate a reduction in emissions, positive values indicate an increase in

emissions).

Scenario Sub-scenario Net emissions from

intervention (tCO2e)

Emissions breakeven

point (years)

1. Imports

1.1. Imports - sustainable forest management

- 76,082 75

1.2. Imports - unsustainable forest management

+ 506,108 NA

2. Local production

2.1. Local production without co-products

- 154,497 93

2.2. Local production with co-products

+ 9,213 NA

3. Thinnings

3.1. Thinning - without co-products + 210,787 NA

3.2. Thinning - with co-products (saw log displacement)

+ 585,926 NA

3.3 Thinning - with co-products (cement render displacement)

- 830,877 1

4. Fencing

4.1. Fencing - end of life combustion - 92,673 56

4.2. Fencing - end of life decay - 150,556 58

5. Pallets 5.1 Pallets - displacing plastic pallets

+ 468,510 30

6. MDF 6.1 MDF - displacing plasterboard - 99,330 103

7. Particle board

7.1. Particle board - breeze block lower estimate

+ 240,205 NA

7.2. Particle board - breeze block upper estimate

+ 392,272 NA

Range of values for sub-scenarios

+585,926

to

-830,877

103 to 1 year

46

Comparison of results from the different methods

The three methods used tend to present their outputs using different metrics. For example,

CLCA tends to present results in units of CO2e per functional unit (that is, unit of product)

with the value for the displaced comparator product presented separately, while the

project/policy-level method provides a number of metrics, including net emissions per year,

and total lifetime change in emissions/removals. In order to allow direct comparison

between the results a common metric is required. Table 3.3 presents the results from the

different methods in terms of lifetime change in emissions/removals. The corporate

inventory provides a single result as this method accounts for the emissions (including

supply chain emissions) associated with the direct physical biomass combusted, and

therefore does not have to model alternative scenarios for the marginal systems affected by

the increased demand for biomass. It is also worth noting, as above, that the results for the

CLCA and the project/policy method are largely the same, with small differences due to the

use of temporally dynamic emission factors for the project/policy method. The corporate

inventory indicates that the DHP will reduce emissions, whereas the two consequential

methods show a range of possible outcomes, including increases in emissions.

47

Table 3.3: Comparison of lifetime change results from the different methods (negative

values indicate a reduction in emissions, positive values indicate an increase in emissions).

Total lifetime change in emissions/removals (tCO2e)

Scenario

Corporate

inventory CLCA

Project/policy

method

1.1. Imports - sustainable forest

management

- 177,070

- 72,538 - 76,082

1.2. Imports - unsustainable forest

management + 509,653 + 506,108

2.1. Local production without co-

products - 153,407 - 154,497

2.2. Local production with co-products + 7,745 + 9,213

3.1. Thinning - without co-products + 212,158 + 210,787

3.2. Thinning - with co-products (saw

log displacement) + 704,276 + 585,926

3.3 Thinning - with co-products

(cement render displacement) - 829,416 - 830,877

4.1. Fencing - end of life combustion - 76,414 - 92,673

4.2. Fencing - end of life decay - 134,298 - 150,556

5.1 Pallets - displacing plastic pallets + 469,691 + 468,510

6.1 MDF - displacing plasterboard - 98,149 - 99,330

7.1. Particle board - breeze block lower

estimate + 241,386 + 240,205

7.2. Particle board - breeze block

upper estimate + 393,453 + 392,272

Range of values for sub-scenarios -177,100

+704,276

to

-829,410

+585,926

To

-830,877

48

3.4 Discussion and implications

This discussion is structured around the following topics: the implications of the findings for

corporate greenhouse gas inventories; the convention of treating emissions from the

combustion of biomass as zero; the caveats and limitations associated with the CLCA and

project/policy method; and the implications of the findings for the use of bioenergy as a

climate change mitigation option.

Implications for corporate greenhouse gas inventories

A first point to note is that the corporate inventory method does not appear to be sufficient

for informing decisions on climate change mitigation. By comparison with the CLCA and

project/policy method it is clear that the emission sources/sinks (that is, emissions and

removals) included in the corporate inventory do not reflect all the sources/sinks affected

by the decision at hand.

As an illustration of this, Figure 3.7 illustrates a causal-chain map for Scenario 4.2 in order to

illustrate the limited scope of the corporate inventory method. The emission sources/sinks

indicated with the solid border are those included within the operational boundary of the

corporate inventory (including all relevant scope 3 emission sources). The remaining

elements in the figure are those that this particular method doesn’t capture.

49

Figure 3.7: Causal-chain map for Scenario 4.2

Embodied emissions of

bioheatplant

Bioheatplant

Increase in demand for

wood

Decrease in use of wood for fencing

Increase in use of

concrete fence posts

Further decrease in use of wood for fencing

due to long-lived

concrete

Decrease in end-of-life decay of wooden

posts

Increase in availability of wood for bioenergy

Decrease in the

combustion of natural

gas

Decrease in natural gas

use

Decrease in productionof wooden

fencing

Decrease in end-of-life decay of wooden

posts

Increase in emissions

from combustion of biomass

Increase in emissions

from combustion of biomass

Increase in electricity consumpt-

ion for pumping

Scope 3

Scope 2 and 3

Scope 3

Biogenic – out of scope

Scope 1

50

This limitation with corporate greenhouse gas inventories is recognised to some extent in

the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard , which states that “some companies may be able to

make changes to their own operations that result in GHG emissions changes at sources not

included in their own inventory boundary” (WBCSD/WRI 2004, p.61). However, the

Corporate Standard also states that corporate GHG inventories “provide business with

information that can be used to build an effective strategy to manage and reduce GHG

emissions” (WBCSD/WRI 2004, p.3) and that accounting “for emissions can help identify the

most effective reduction opportunities” (WBCSD/WRI 2004, p.11), without the

accompanying caveat that corporate inventories are not designed to capture the total

consequences of the reduction options under consideration.

From the perspective of the University of St Andrews, the design team’s initial estimations

are in line with the method described by the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and hence

will suffer the drawbacks of that method. In particular the extent to which the decision on

the DHP might create wider systems effects (and especially those that might increase

emissions) cannot be captured by this method. One solution is to complement inventory-

type methods, such as the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, with consequential methods

which aim to capture the total changed caused by the decision in question. If the results

from the consequential methods show a range of possible outcomes, as is the case for the

DHP, it is also possible to use the consequential scenario analysis to identify ways of

mitigating the negative possible outcomes, and increasing the likelihood of positive

outcomes. For example, through its procurement policy for biomass the University of St

Andrews can seek to increase the use of forest thinnings (if that would not have occurred

anyway), and to increase the production of timber co-products that are used for building

construction.

Convention of treating emissions from the combustion of biomass as zero

Understanding the wider system impact of using biomass for energy is further hindered by

the common convention of treating emissions from the combustion of biomass as zero. This

convention appears to have originated within national greenhouse gas accounting practice,

based on the rule that the emissions from harvesting forests are accounted for under the

category of “Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use” (Penman et al., 2006), and these

51

emissions are not also accounted for at the point-of-combustion in order to avoid double-

counting. The convention has also been used within the field of product life cycle

assessment (for example, British Standards Institute, 2008), where it is assumed that the

emissions from the combustion of biomass are effectively neutralised by the level of

sequestration during the plant’s growth phase. To some extent the convention has been

institutionalised within mitigation planning practice, as evidenced by the scoping studies for

the University of St Andrews (Hutchinson 2008; Palmer and Tamburrini 2009), which give no

consideration to the emissions from bioenergy. The effect of this convention is to make

emissions from the combustion of biomass invisible within greenhouse gas assessments,

and as a result not taken into account. The detrimental impact of the convention on the

accuracy and relevance of greenhouse gas accounts is increasingly recognised ( Agostini et

al., 2013; Haberl et al., 2012), and more recent product life cycle assessment guidance now

requires the explicit quantification of both biogenic emissions and removals (British

Standards Institute 2011; WBCSD/WRI, 2011c).

Caveats and implications of the consequential results

Although the appropriateness of consequential methods for information decision-making is

increasingly recognised, there are a large number of caveats and uncertainties associated

with these approaches and their results:

1. A large number of assumptions and modelling choices are made when implementing

these methods, and the selection of alternative parameter values will alter the results;25

2. The range of scenarios tested is not exhaustive, and there are many other plausible

scenarios that could be modelled (for example, a scenario in which wind-blown trees are

utilised, or in which increased demand for biomass can be assumed to increase tree

planting - see, Daigneault et al., 2012; Favero and Mendelsohn 2013; Latta et al., 2013);

3. The results are presented for each individual scenario, whereas in reality there is likely

to be a mix of marginal systems affected by the decision (Ekvall and Andræ 2006;

Mathiesen et al., 2009), and also a transition between combinations of scenarios over

time;

25 Nevertheless, the findings from the sensitivity analysis (available from the authors on request) indicate that

although the results for individual scenarios vary with alternative parameter values, the overall finding of large differences in the possible outcomes from the DHP remains.

52

4. The relative probability of each scenario is not quantified, and it is not possible to infer

that one scenario or outcome is more likely than another (although an initial review of

the evidence suggests a strong case for increased overseas production); and

5. The analysis focuses solely on the decision to implement the DHP, and does not include

consideration of possible future decisions that are enabled as a result of the DHP (for

example, new technologies which could use the Guardbridge to St Andrews pipe-work

after the DHP is decommissioned).

These caveats are not sufficient reason not to use consequentialist methods, they do

however point to a need to be careful about any conclusions that might be drawn from data

generated this way.

Implications of the findings for the use of bioenergy

Notwithstanding the numerous caveats with the consequential results, it is still possible to

draw some conclusions from the findings, especially when the range of possible outcomes is

itself recognised as a key finding (Borjesson and Gustavsson 2000). Normative decision

theory suggests that decision-making must be based on an understanding of the

consequences of the decision in question (Lasswell and Kaplan 1950). At the same time, the

results of this carbon accounting work suggests that the emissions impact of the DHP is

unknown (that is, it could be positive or negative). There are several responses that might

emerge in this context.

First, and as noted above, it might be that some aspects of the marginal system impacts

could be made more or less likely in the longer term. For example, through its procurement

policy for biomass it may be possible for the University of St Andrews to increase forest

thinnings, and to increase the production of timber co-products that are used for building

construction, and therefore increase the likelihood of achieving Scenario 3.3 in which the

total reduction in emissions is 830,877 tCO2e.

Secondly, another possible reaction with faced with the uncertainty inherent in the biomass

scenarios is to prioritise climate change mitigation options where marginal impacts are

known to be less complex and/or to produce small ranges of impacts. For example, studies

suggest that technologies such as wind energy or geothermal heat pumps may not involve

53

as large a range of possible outcomes (this is a point we will return to in the concluding

chapter).

In addition to the finding of uncertainty, the finding that there are potentially long emission

payback periods for the DHP (see Table 3.2) is also decision-relevant information.26 If we are

near to a tipping point in the system (see, Lenton et al., 2008) then the timing of emissions

reductions become more critical. This might mean that mitigation options with shorter

payback periods might be preferred over those with longer ones (for example, wind energy

may be preferred over bioenergy).

These points should not be construed to mean that the decision to pursue the DHP is

‘wrong’, but rather that additional interventions are required (such as a carefully managed

procurement policy) to increase the likelihood that the DHP will achieve its intended

emission outcomes. These points also highlight the need for moving beyond inventory-type

carbon accounting methods for informing decision-making to ensure that system-wide

impacts, ranges of possible outcomes, and the distribution of emissions/removals over time

are considered when making decisions.

3.5 Concluding comments

The purpose of this chapter was to test the robustness of existing carbon accounts of the

impact of the DHP at Guardbridge and extend the range of possible carbon accounts of the

project. The additional carbon accounts developed are more complex than ‘standard’

accounts produced in these circumstances (the inventory model) and tell a different ‘stories’

about the carbon impact of the DHP. In addition, this part of the research project seeks to

demonstrate the application of accounting methods in a real world setting, thereby making

an academic contribution in its own right.

From a practice based perspective, it is important to attempt to estimate the total change in

emissions/removals caused by climate change mitigation actions in order to identify and

seek to avoid unintended consequences from well-meaning decisions. The use of corporate

greenhouse gas inventories is not sufficient for this purpose, as it does not necessarily

26 This result tallies with the findings of numerous other studies (Bernier and Paré 2013; Holtsmark 2012; Holtsmark 2013; Jonker et al., 2014; McKechnie et al., 2011; Mitchell et al., 2012; Pingoud et al., 2012; Schulze

et al., 2012; Walker et al., 2010; Zanchi et al., 2012).

54

include all the emission sources/sinks affected by the decision under consideration. CLCA

and the project/policy method both aim to reflect the total system-wide impacts of

decisions, with the project/policy method also presenting the distribution of impacts over

time. In addition to the above discussion on the decision-relevance of the temporal

distribution of emissions/removals, this information may also allow further forms of analysis

and interpretation (for example, the application of time-preference or discount factors, or

temporally-specific carbon prices in a cost-benefit analysis of the available mitigation

options).

The results from the consequential methods show a wide range of possible outcomes from

the DHP, from large increases to large reductions in emissions. As noted, it may be possible

to undertake actions to ensure that positive outcomes are more likely (and to mitigate the

negative outcomes). One possibility is to identify sources of biomass that would genuinely

not be utilised in the absence of the DHP demand (for example, biomass from small local

woodlands, or windblown trees that would otherwise be left to decay).27 However, there

are likely to be higher costs associated with accessing otherwise unused biomass (if the

resource were easy to access it would be being used). It is also important to note that many

of the possible consequences from the DHP are indirect or mediated through market

interactions (for example, the decreased use of cement render due to the increased

availability of saw logs) and are therefore difficult for the University of St Andrews to

influence. The identified marginal system over which the University of St Andrews could

most reasonably be expected to have some direct control appears to be increased local

production, though ascertaining whether that production would have occurred anyway in

the baseline cannot be determined with certainty (that is, baselines are always hypothetical

constructs, and cannot be directly monitored or observed).

27 Equivalent approaches have been suggested for biofuels for transportation, such as utilising degraded land or increasing crop yields, to avoid indirect land use (van de Staaij et al., 2012).

55

Chapter 4 – Conclusions

4.1 Project recap and conclusions

This project had two aims, namely to:

1. Document and understand the process by which the University of St Andrews became

responsive to climate change concerns, one aspect of which is the development of a

DHP at Guardbridge (itself part of an ambition to be a ‘carbon neutral’ university); and

2. Measure the impact of the DHP using three carbon accounting techniques and in

particular to estimate the possible wider effects of using biomass using a CLCA and

project/policy approach to carbon accounting (in contrast with corporate inventory

method).

This project, therefore, has organisational focused conceptual findings as well as more

technical accounting findings with broader ramifications for organisational actions being

drawn from those calculations.

Organisational climate change responsiveness

As noted in Chapter Two, universities are unusual organisations in that they are

simultaneously open to and resistant to change. The University of St Andrews conforms to

this pattern. The University committed to the goal of carbon neutrality with respect to

energy as a result of a longstanding process of measuring, monitoring and reducing its

carbon emissions across its activities. This work was undertaken by the Estates team

working in partnership with various Units across the University under the oversight of a

variety of institutional level committees who guided the work. The ‘on the ground’ work was

supported by elements within University strategies and policies, with these documents

evolving over time to be more responsive to climate change concerns (central to this were

the Carbon Management Plans). At the same time, however, the core activities of

teaching/learning and research remained relatively untouched by climate change concerns.

This is not to say that there are no teaching/learning or research activities that address such

concerns. Rather, there is no self-conscious desire institutionally to champion this work. This

reluctance reflects reservations about ‘interfering’ with what academics decide to focus on

in their work (this reservation was noted by interviewees across the sector).

56

We would argue that climate change responsiveness at the University of St Andrews focuses

on the second element in the Universities and Colleges Climate Commitment for Scotland

(to “improve Scotland’s natural and built environment… (ii) as owners and operators of large

and complex estates”) rather than being engaged with the first element of the Commitment

(“… through their primary role as educators, skills trainers and researchers). As noted above,

this outcome can be expected where institutions are relatively reluctant to pro-actively

shape teaching/learning and research agendas (perhaps relying on external agencies to

identify and fund ‘grand challenges’ research). While these are understandable and widely

held norms, they can also be frustrating if one believes these grand challenges are epochal

in nature and require sustained joined up effort. Some of the individuals interviewed for this

report expressed a belief that teaching/learning and research are core to higher education’s

response to climate change while also recognising the issues with differentially championing

work in this area.

Carbon accounting methods and results

This research study also sought to contribute to thinking about climate change

responsiveness through the use of carbon accounting tools that highlight and prompt

questions about whole system impacts of organisational decisions and hence also whole

systems transformations to lower carbon economies. The issue with carbon accounting is

not the lack of available carbon accounts but that there are many possible carbon accounts,

each of which imply different conclusions. This has been illustrated through the

development of a set of alternative carbon accounts for the Guardbridge DHP illustrating

that beyond organisational boundaries there are potentially material positive or negative

carbon impacts arising from the DHP. These findings do not mean that the decision to

implement the DHP plant will have negative impacts, but rather that additional activities

may be needed, such as careful management of biomass procurement, in order to increase

the likelihood that the intended outcomes are achieved.

Indeed, a finding of this work is that there is inherent uncertainty and complexity associated

with the use of biomass, which may favour the use of alternative climate change mitigation

options that are more certain in their outcomes. Given that conclusion, a consequential

57

carbon account of the proposed Kenly windfarm development is being prepared and in due

course will be able to be read alongside this report.

In summary, the Guardbridge DHP was at the heart of this project and supports two sets of

conclusions. First, the DHP became ‘thinkable’ within the University of St Andrews as a

result of institutional entrepreneurship by a group of individuals, operating within a

relatively supporting environment. The carbon neutral aspiration (of which the DHP is an

essential component) emerged from a broader set of activities that are largely focused on

the estate but which have also imbued some aspects of teaching/learning, research and

community engagement. There is, however, scope for more sustained engagement from

those within the institution who are responsible for ‘core business’ to better understand the

future ramifications of the climate change agenda (see also Table 4.1).

The second part of the project focuses more closely on how one might measure carbon

impacts using carbon accounting techniques. The contribution of this research is to

introduce a number of ways in which the impact of the DHP might be understood using little

utilized (but important) carbon accounting approaches, that of consequential accounting

(which includes two approaches that create similar results: CLCA and project/policy

approach). The conclusions drawn from this aspect of the study include the realisation that

standard approaches to carbon accounting (which are required by regulatory authorities

seeking to understanding higher education emissions profiles) provide but a partial

snapshot of the potential impacts of organisational decisions.

4.2 Broader implications

This final section of the report seeks to draw out implications for the higher education

sector from this case study of carbon responsiveness and specifically considering the climate

change landscape post the Paris Agreement.28 Commentators are starting to outline: (1) the

challenges that face higher education as the world seeks to limit climate change to the 1.5o

of warming committed to in the Paris Agreement; (2) the implications that arise from the

Agreement for the world economy. The most focused contribution to this debate comes

from Friends of the Earth (see Table 4.1) who produced a briefing on United Kingdom

28 See http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/195-countries-adopt-the-first-universal-climate-agreement/. The

Declaration comes into force on November 4th, 2016. Exactly how the process will evolve is not yet known.

58

academic institutions’ response to the Paris Climate Agreement, drawing from responses

from the sector as well as their own analysis.

Table 4.1: Recommendations from Friends of the Earth briefing (see

https://www.foe.co.uk/page/how-can-universities-respond-climate-change).

1. Promote a strong, positive vision of how the world can meet the Paris goals

2. Focus emission reduction research on how to meet the Paris 1.5 degree goal

3. Move away from research leading to extracting more fossil fuels

4. Implement a climate change education programme for all students, also available to staff and residents

and businesses in the city

5. Be part of a global network of Universities committed to meeting the Paris climate goals

6. Deliver a timetable plan to go zero-carbon across all operations

7. Divest from all funds from companies involved in fossil fuel extraction by 2020

8. Ensure only companies with a 1.5 degree-compatible business strategy can attend careers-fairs

9. Implement a strategy to cope with the climate impacts which can no longer be avoided

10. Embed responsibility for delivery of this strategy with the University Senior Leadership Team

Many of these aspirations find resonance with the actions and ambitions outlined in this

report (and especially Chapter Two). For example, carbon related disvestment is in its final

stages (number 7), pursuing carbon neutrality is well advanced (number 6 – noting the

earlier distinction between zero-carbon and carbon neutral) and adaptation reporting is

starting to be developed (number 9). At the same time, this research project has identified

some impediments to more whole-system, joined-up thinking and these also relate to

points in Table 4.1 (for example, strategic leadership in this area and focusing effort on

research and teaching - numbers 2, 3, 4 and 10). This suggests that this report might be a

timely contribution to debates within the University of St Andrews and the sector as a whole

as to how best higher education institutions can support wider action on climate change.

In the area of developing visions for what the world might look like post-Paris (item 1 in

Table 4.1) it is possible to imagine a situation in the medium-term when carbon emissions

are more constrained across the globe. When that becomes the case, the choice of students

to travel to other countries to undertake degree studies might be curtailed (thereby offering

a challenge to the current education model in Scotland and the United Kingdom more

broadly). At the same time, however, the benefits of face-to-face education models where

59

students are brought into sustained contact with people from different regions and

traditions will still be valued and valuable. A low carbon educational offering in this context

might involve the morphing of a four year degree in the following ways (or a mixture of

these ways).

1. An adoption as a norm for a degree of a mixture of face-to-face and distance sessions

which would allow engagement between students while also enabling study to take

place where students reside (with the added possibility of students being a part of two

learning communities, the distance one as well as a mixed community of learners based

where they are);29

2. A change in the pattern of study with a rolling three semester year where students can

either condense their studies such that they only travel from home/location of study

once or twice during their degree programme rather than the current norm of eight

times (twice a year over a four year degree);30 and

3. A market offering that includes something like the current study pattern but with a

structured programme of internships for international students to understand how

Scotland is tackling climate change (through the Act as well as how public and private

organisations are being transformed). This approach would build on the potential for

Scotland to use its experience as an early mover in climate change responsiveness as

part of its broader intellectual (and hence economic) offering to the world.

These ‘for instances’ are offered as ways to conceive of an international market in higher

education within a lower carbon context and more self-consciously involves linking

university actions to wider societal and governmental agendas. Of course, individual

institutions are likely to navigate their own way through a post-Paris world. This research

report provides insight into the current status of one such journey for one organisation, the

University of St Andrews.

29 This would be a logical extension of the sectors’ current provision of distance learning as well as overseas

campus education. 30 We are not underestimating the impact on academic and professional services of any such move.

60

References:

Adams, P. et al., 2013. Understanding Greenhouse Gas Balances of Bioenergy Systems,

Manchester. Available at: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/503461/7/N503461CR.pdf.

Adaptation Scotland 2013. Five steps to managing your climate risks: A guide for Public

Bodies in Scotland. Edinburgh: Adaptation Scotland.

Agostini, A., Giuntoli, J. and Boulamanti, A., 2013. Carbon accounting of forest bioenergy,

Available at: http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/bf-ca/sites/bf-

ca/files/files/documents/eur25354en_online-final.pdf.

Ascui, F. and Lovell, H., 2011. As frames collide: making sense of carbon accounting,

Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 35(3), pp. 130-138.

Barthelmie, R., Morris, S., and Schechter, P., 2008. Carbon neutal Biggar: calcluating the

community carbon footprint and renewable energy options for footprint reduction.

Sustainabability Science, 3, pp.267-282.

Bebbington, J., and Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C. 2008. “Carbon trading: accounting and reporting

issues”, European Accounting Review, 17(4), pp.697-717.

Bebbington, J., and Barter, N., 2011. Strategic Responses to Global Climate Change: A UK

analysis. London: Chartered Institute of Management Accountants.

Bebbington, J., and Larringa, C., 2014. Accounting and Global Climate Change Issues, pp.199-

212, chapter in Bebbington, J., Unerman, J., and O’Dwyer, B. eds Sustainability Accounting

and Accountability, 2nd edition. London: Routledge.

Bernier, P. and Paré, D., 2013. Using ecosystem CO2 measurements to estimate the timing

and magnitude of greenhouse gas mitigation potential of forest bioenergy. GCB Bioenergy,

5(1), pp.67–72.

Borjesson, P. and Gustavsson, L., 2000. Greenhouse gas balances in building construction :

wood versus concrete from life-cycle and forest land-use perspectives. Energy Policy, 28,

pp.575–588.

Brander, M., 2016. Transposing lessons between different forms of consequential

greenhouse gas accounting: lessons for consequential life cycle assessment, project-level

accounting, and policy-level accounting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112(5), pp.4247-

4256.

Bright, R.M. et al., 2012. A comment to “Large-scale bioenergy from additional harvest of

forest biomass is neither sustainable nor greenhouse gas neutral”: Important insights

beyond greenhouse gas accounting. GCB Bioenergy, 4(6), pp.617–619.

61

British Standards Institute, 2008. PAS 2050:2008 Specification for the assessment of the life

cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services.

British Standards Institute, 2011. PAS 2050:2011 Specification for the assessment of the life

cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services, London: British Standards Institute.

Buchholz, T. et al., 2014. Mineral soil carbon fluxes in forests and implications for carbon

balance assessments. GCB Bioenergy, 6(4), pp.305–311.

Cherubini, F. et al., 2009. Energy and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy

systems: Key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,

53(8), pp.434–447.

Chum, H. et al., 2011. Bioenergy. In O. Edenhofer et al., eds. IPCC Special Report on

Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Cambridge, UK and New York,

USA: Cambridge University Press.

Collet, P. et al., 2013. How to take time into account in the inventory step: a selective

introduction based on sensitivity analysis. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,

19(2), pp.320–330.

Collinge, W.O. et al., 2012. Dynamic life cycle assessment: framework and application to an

institutional building. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(3), pp.538–552.

Cullinan Studio et al., 2014. Stage D Report, London.

Daigneault, A., Sohngen, B. and Sedjo, R., 2012. Economic Approach to Assess the Forest

Carbon Implications of Biomass Energy. Environmental Science and Technology, 46,

pp.5664–5671.

Davies, J. and Dunk, R., 2015. Flying along the supply chain: accounting for emissions from

student air travel in the higher education sector. Carbon Management, 6(5-6), pp.233-246.

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2013. Environmental Reporting

Guidelines: Including mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reporting guidance, London:

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Defra/ Department of Energy and

Climate Change, 2012. 2012 Guidelines to Defra/DECCS GHG Conversion Factors for

Company Reporting. London: Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs/

Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Department of Energy and Climate Change. 2014. Biomass Emissions and Counterfactual

Model. London: Department of Energy and Climate Change.

62

Department for Energy and Climate Change, 2012. UK Bioenergy Strategy supplementary

note : Carbon impacts of forest biomass, London: Department for Energy and Climate

Change.

Djomo, S., Kasmioui, O. and Ceulemans, R., 2011. Energy and greenhouse gas balance of

bioenergy production from poplar and willow: a review. GCB Bioenergy, 3(3), pp.181–197.

Ekvall, T. and Andræ, A., 2006. Attributional and Consequential Environmental Assessment

of the Shift to Lead-Free Solders. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(5),

pp.344–353.

Ekvall, T. and Weidema, B., 2004. System boundaries and input data in consequential life

cycle inventory analysis. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 9(3), pp.161–

171.

European Commission, 2015. EU action on climate. Available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/brief/eu/ [Accessed June 8, 2015].

European Commission, Joint Research Centre and Institute for Environment and

Sustainability, 2010. International Reference Life Cycle Data System Handbook, Luxembourg:

European Commission.

Favero, A. and Mendelsohn, R., 2013. Evaluating the Global Role of Woody Biomass as a

Mitigation Strategy, Milan, Italy.

Giuntoli, J. et al., 2015. Domestic heating from forest logging residues: environmental risks

and benefits. Journal of Cleaner Production, 99, pp.206-216.

Gössling, S., 2009. Carbon neutral destinations: a conceptual analysis. Journal of Sustainable

Tourism, 17(1), pp.17-37.

Haberl, H. et al., 2012. Correcting a fundamental error in greenhouse gas accounting related

to bioenergy. Energy policy, 45-222(5), pp.18–23.

Haberl, H. et al., 2013. Response: complexities of sustainable forest use. GCB Bioenergy,

5(1), pp.1–2.

Hammond, P.G. and Jones, C., 2008. Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE).

Hektor, B., Backéus, S., and Andersson, K., 2016. Carbon blance for wood production for

sustainably managed forests. Biomass and Bioenergy, 93, pp.1-5.

Helin, T. et al., 2013. Approaches for inclusion of forest carbon cycle in life cycle assessment

- a review. GCB Bioenergy, 5(5), pp.475–486.

Holtsmark, B., 2012. Harvesting in boreal forests and the biofuel carbon debt. Climatic

Change, 112(2), pp.415–428.

63

Holtsmark, B., 2013. The outcome is in the assumptions: analyzing the effects on

atmospheric CO 2 levels of increased use of bioenergy from forest biomass. GCB Bioenergy,

5(4), pp.467–473.

Hutchinson, E., 2008. Detailed Biomass Feasibility Study for The University of St Andrews -

North Haugh Site.

ISO, 2006. ISO 14064-2: 2006 - Specification with guidance at the project level for

quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal

enhancements, Geneva: International Organisation for Standardization.

Jonker, J.G.G., Junginger, M. and Faaij, A., 2014. Carbon payback period and carbon offset

parity point of wood pellet production in the South-eastern United States. GCB Bioenergy,

6(4), pp.371–389.

Kennedy, S., and Sgouridis, S., 2001. Rigorous classification and carbon accounting principles

for low and Zero Carbon Cities. Energy Policy, 39, pp.5259-5268.

Lamers, P. et al., 2014. Global solid biomass trade for energy by 2020: an assessment of

potential import streams and supply costs to North-West Europe under different

sustainability constraints. GCB Bioenergy, p.n/a–n/a.

Lasswell, H.D. and Kaplan, A., 1950. Power and society: A framework for political enquiry,

New Haven: : Yale University Press.

Latta, G.S. et al., 2013. A multi-sector intertemporal optimization approach to assess the

GHG implications of U.S. forest and agricultural biomass electricity expansion. Journal of

Forest Economics, 19(4), pp.361–383.

Lauri, P. et al., 2014. Woody biomass energy potential in 2050. Energy Policy, 66, pp.19–31.

Lenton, T.M. et al., 2008. Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(6), pp.1786–1793.

Levasseur, A. et al., 2010. Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global

warming impact assessments. Environmental science and technology, 44(8), pp.3169–74.

Lippke, B. et al., 2011. Life cycle impacts of forest management and wood utilization on

carbon mitigation: knowns and unknowns. Carbon Management, 2(3), pp.303–333.

Marland, G. and Schlamadinger, B., 1997. Forest for Carbon Sequestration or Fossil Fuel

Substitution? A Sensitivity Analysis. Biomass and, 13(6), pp.389–397.

Mathiesen, B.V., Münster, M. and Fruergaard, T., 2009. Uncertainties related to the

identification of the marginal energy technology in consequential life cycle assessments.

Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(15), pp.1331–1338.

64

Matthews, R. et al., 2014. Carbon impacts of using biomass in bioenergy and other sectors :

forests.

M'Gonigle, M. and Starke, J., 2006. Minding place: towards a (rational) political economy of

the sustainable university. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24, pp.325-348.

McKechnie, J. et al., 2011. Forest bioenergy or forest carbon? Assessing trade-offs in

greenhouse gas mitigation with wood-based fuels. Environmental science and technology,

45(2), pp.789–95.

Mitchell, S.R., Harmon, M.E. and O’Connell, K.E.B., 2012. Carbon debt and carbon

sequestration parity in forest bioenergy production. GCB Bioenergy, 4(6), pp.818–827.

Murray, J. and Dey, C., 2009. The carbon neutral free for all, International Journal of

Greenhouse Gas Control, 3, pp.237-248.

Njakou Djomo, S. et al., 2015. Impact of feedstock, land use change, and soil organic carbon

on energy and greenhouse gas performance of biomass cogeneration technologies. Applied

Energy, 154, pp.122–130.

Palmer, D. and Tamburrini, M., 2009. Carbon Management Energy Efficiency Report -

Assessment of Energy Saving Opportunities for North Haugh, Glasgow, UK.

Penman, J. et al., 2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 2006.

Petersen Raymer, A.K., 2006. A comparison of avoided greenhouse gas emissions when

using different kinds of wood energy. Biomass and Bioenergy, 30(7), pp.605–617.

Pingoud, K., Ekholm, T. and Savolainen, I., 2012. Global warming potential factors and

warming payback time as climate indicators of forest biomass use. Mitigation and

Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 17(4), pp.369–386.

Plevin, R.J., Delucchi, M. a. and Creutzig, F., 2014. Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment

to Estimate Climate-Change Mitigation Benefits Misleads Policy Makers. Journal of Industrial

Ecology, 18(1), pp.73–83.

Repo, A. et al., 2014. Sustainability of forest bioenergy in Europe: land-use-related carbon

dioxide emissions of forest harvest residues. GCB Bioenergy, 1, p.n/a–n/a.

Schlesinger, W., 2014. Problems with burning wood from Southern US forests to generate

electricity in the UK. Available at: http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/0ee06ecc-d3ae-

11e3-8d23-00144feabdc0.pdf.

Schulze, E.-D. et al., 2012. Large-scale bioenergy from additional harvest of forest biomass is

neither sustainable nor greenhouse gas neutral. GCB Bioenergy, 4(6), pp.611–616.

65

Scottish Government, 2015. Climate Change ( Scotland ) Act 2009 Consultation on Proposed

draft Climate Change ( Reporting on Climate Change Duties ) ( Scotland ) Order 2015 :

Requiring specified public bodies to prepare annual reports on compliance with climate

change duties, (May). Available at: https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/energy-and-climate-

change-directorate/compliance-with-climate-change-

duties/supporting_documents/361245_Climate Change_p4.pdf.

Searchinger, T., 2012. Sound principles and an important inconsistency in the 2012 UK

bioenergy strategy. , pp.1–12.

Van de Staaij, J. et al., 2012. Low Indirect Impact Biofuel (LIIB) Methodology, Available at:

http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/12-09-03-liib-methodology-version-0-july-2012.pdf.

SPICe, 2016. Implications of Leaving the EU - Climate Change. Edinburgh: SPICe.

Thornley, P. et al., 2009. Integrated assessment of bioelectricity technology options. Energy

Policy, 37(3), pp.890–903.

Torssonen, P. et al., 2015. Effects of climate change and management on net climate

impacts of production and utilization of energy biomass in Norway spruce with stable age-

class distribution. GCB Bioenergy, p.n/a–n/a.

United Kingdom Government, 2008. Climate Change Act 2008, Available at:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/pdfs/ukpga_20080027_en.pdf.

United Kingdom Government, 2012. UK Bioenergy Strategy, London, UK. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48337/51

42-bioenergy-strategy-.pdf.

Universities Scotland, 2014. Delivering for Scotland: The third round of outcome agreements

for higher education. Edinburgh: Universities Scotland.

University of St Andrews, 2014. Carbon Footprint Reduction Project - Bid to the Scottish

Funding Council,

University of St Andrews, 2012. University of St Andrews - Our Energy Strategy, St Andrews.

Available at: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/estates/documents/Energy Strategy.pdf.

Walker, T. et al., 2010. Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study, Brunswick, Maine.

Available at: http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/renewables/biomass/manomet-

biomass-report-full-hirez.pdf.

66

WBCSD/WRI,31 2004. Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting

Standard, Geneva, Switzerland and Washington, DC, USA: World Business Council for

Sustainable Development and World Resources Institute.

WBCSD/WRI, 2005. GHG Protocol for Project Accounting, Geneva, Switzerland and

Washington, DC, USA: World Business Council for Sustainable Development and World

Resources Institute.

WBCSD/WRI, 2011a. GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) and Product Life Cycle

Standards (Scope 3). Available at:

http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/public/Factsheet.pdf.

WBCSD/WRI, 2011b. Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting

and Reporting Standard, Geneva, Switzerland and Washington: WBCSD/WRI.

WBCSD/WRI, 2011c. Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting

Standard, Geneva, Switzerland and Washington: WBCSD/WRI.

Weidema, B., Ekvall, T. and Heijungs, R., 2009. Guidelines for application of deepened and

broadened LCA. Available at:

http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/publications/calcas_report_d18.pdf.

Whittaker, C. et al., 2011. Energy and greenhouse gas balance of the use of forest residues

for bioenergy production in the UK. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(11), pp.4581–4594.

Wihersaari, M., 2005. Greenhouse gas emissions from final harvest fuel chip production in

Finland. Biomass and Bioenergy, 28(5), pp.435–443.

Wilnhammer, M. et al., 2015. Effects of increased wood energy consumption on global

warming potential, primary energy demand and particulate matter emissions on regional

level based on the case study area Bavaria (Southeast Germany). Biomass and Bioenergy,

81, pp.190–201.

Wood Panel Industries Federation, 2010. Make Wood Work, Grantham, UK. Available at:

http://www.makewoodwork.co.uk/GalleryEntries/Manifesto_and_Reports/Documents/M

WW_Manifesto.pdf.

WRI, 2014. Greenhouse Gas Protocol Policy and Action Standard: An accounting and

reporting standard for estimating the greenhouse gas effects of policies and actions,

Washington: WRI.

31 WBCSD/WRI stands for the World Business Council for Sustainable Development/World Resources Institute.

67

Ximenes, F. et al., 2012. Greenhouse Gas Balance of Native Forests in New South Wales,

Australia, Available at: http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/3/3/653/ [Accessed July 17,

2015].

Zanchi, G., Pena, N. and Bird, N., 2012. Is woody bioenergy carbon neutral? A comparative

assessment of emissions from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fuel. GCB

Bioenergy, 4(6), pp.761–772.

68

Annex I: Interview pro-forma questions

It is important to note that during the project the questions about a ‘zero-carbon’ university

morphed into a discussion about ‘carbon-neutral’ university. In addition, the distinctions

between zero-carbon and carbon-neutral were discussed.

Interview plan (University of St Andrews interviewees)

1. Strategic planning process

How do issues enter the strategic planning process? How do they exit it?

How are carbon linkages from strategic planning to operations established?

Is carbon considered as an ‘issue’ in the University’s strategic planning process?

Since when? How has its ‘profile’ (as far as strategic planning) changed over time?

How are strategic planning policies evaluated? How is a given policy’s usefulness as

a guiding document rated?

2. Control context for carbon

Are there control mechanisms in place to ensure that strategic planning guidelines

are applied on the ground? How is accountability established for aspects identified

as important in the planning process?

How are you (as an employee) evaluated with regard to carbon (if at all)?

Who do you evaluate with respect to carbon performance (if anyone)?

Who has responsibility (in your mind) for the carbon strategy?

Are there tensions in decision making with regard to carbon? Do trade-offs arise

frequently? If so, how are they managed/negotiated?

3. Carbon and strategy

Have you come across this extract before (see below)? Is the information in it

otherwise familiar to you?

What implications does it have for you and your role in the organisation?

Do you know what the Carbon Management Plan is? Have you read it? Have you

used it as guidance for a particular decision or action?

Carbon Management Plan extract: “the University accepts the challenge of taking an

integrated approach to sustainable development that includes use of renewable energy

sources, energy efficiencies, attention to the environmental impact of its activities and

development of distinctive programmes of teaching, research and knowledge transfer

in sustainable development that are recognised as internationally excellent”.

4. Zero-carbon University – an exploration

69

Have you encountered the term or idea of “zero carbon”? If so, where and when?

What do you believe it means? Could you define it?

What important does it have for you and for your role within the organisation?

Have you encountered any problem with it? If so, what problems and at what level?

What do you perceive to be the motivation for the University in having this as a

goal?

Who do you believe would be interested in this happening? Who would have a

stake in a zero carbon university?

Do you perceive this to be an issue limited to the Estates office? Is it considered

important in more academic parts of the organisation?

Interview plan (carbon managers at other Universities)

1. Carbon and strategy

Is carbon a strategic issue for your university?

If it is, when did it become one? How did it do so?

How is carbon evaluated as an issue?

Are there any carbon policies in your university? If so, how is their usefulness as a

guiding document rated?

2. Carbon governance

Are there control mechanisms in place to ensure that carbon guidelines are applied

on the ground? How is accountability established for aspects identified as important

in the planning processes?

Are there tensions in decision-making with regards to carbon? Do trade-offs arise

frequently? If so, how are they managed / negotiated?

Who has responsibility in your mind for the carbon strategy?

How are you evaluated regarding carbon? If you evaluate someone, how do you

evaluate him / her?

3. Zero-carbon University – an exploration

Have you encountered the term or idea of “zero carbon”? If so, where and when?

What do you believe it means? Could you define it?

Have you perceived any interest from your university in zero-carbon? Why or why

not (in your opinion)?

Who do you believe would be interested in this happening? Who would have a stake

in a zero carbon university?

Interview plan (external participants with a policy interest in low carbon universities)

1. Carbon and universities

70

Do you believe that carbon is an important, relevant topic for university? Why

so?

Should carbon be a strategic issue for universities?

Who has responsibility, in your mind, for carbon in a university?

How do you think carbon should be evaluated as an issue? How should progress

be measured?

In your experience, what has been the progression of carbon importance for

universities? Where do you think we are headed?

Who are the stakeholders involved at the intersection between universities and

the carbon agenda? Who has something to gain in this interaction?

Is there a “pressure” to act surrounding carbon? If so, where do you believe it

comes from?

What, in your opinion, would an exemplary university be committing to doing

with regards to carbon?

2. Zero-carbon University – an exploration

Have you encountered the term or idea of “zero carbon”? If so, where and

when?

What do you believe it means? Could you define it?

Have you perceived any interest from universities in zero-carbon? Why or why

not (in your opinion)?

Who do you believe would be interested in this happening? Who would have a

stake in a zero-carbon university?