white paper final2

7/31/2019 White Paper FINAL2

1/22

USFGoing GreenUSFGoing GreenFinancial Value vs. Environmental Valu

To: Professor F. Tobienne

By: Lindsay Haglund

Gonzalo Crivello

Kaitlin Connolly

Team: Gold vs. Green Value

Date: August 3, 2012


2/22

Gold vs. Green Value

Table of

Contents

Table of

ContentsExecutive Summary......3

Introduction................3

New Research

& Methods....................4-6

USF Campus &

Building Design...........7-10

Background.................4

Campus Insight...........11-12


3/22


Community Insight.......12-13

State Wide &

Political Opinions.........14

Cost-Benefit

Analysis........................15-17

Conclusion...................17

Works Cited..................19

AnnotatedBibliography................20-21

Glossary of Terms.........18


4/22


Introduction

Going green is about changing

methods, and allocating resources towards

a better system of sustainability. USF

President Judy Genshaft says sustainability

is dened as creating systemsenergy,

health, manufacturing, food, transportation,

or socialthat allow the planet and all those

who inhabit it to be healthy and prosperous

(Genshaft, 2010). To promote sustainability,

USF St. Pete focuses on the protection and

careful administration of all of its resources,including human capital and nancial capital.

There are many universities and

campuses around the nation that are giving

sustainability more thought and priority,

partially in response to the demands of students.

Some people view the going green movement

as a trendy waste of money (Genshaft,

2010) and perhaps this suggestion is not

completely unwarranted. Implementation

costs alone can be astronomical, not to mention

future sustaining costs. But being green

and promoting sustainability are becoming

higher priorities amongst cities nationwide.

Benets include conservation of energy and

valuable resources, reduction in pollution

and waste, tax incentives by state and federalgovernments, avoidance of high abatement

costs, and a positive community outlook. This

paper will discuss nancial vs. environmental

values of the going green initiative at

USF St. Pete, and the overall campus and

community insight into the green movement.

Executive

SummaryWhats the signicance of

environmental sustainability? Or more

importantly, what are the overall benets

achieved by these green methods? Going

green is no longer just trendy; its becoming

an important and imperative undertaking

throughout our cities, states and nation.

Specically, university practices to go green

are changing the way we teach and learn

within the higher education system. This paperfocuses on the nancial vs. environmental

costs of the going green movement, as adapted

by USF St. Petersburg campus, with a focus

on campus and building design elements.

In recent years, USF appears to be doing

everything in its power to reduce its carbon

footprint. We will explain the pros and cons

of specic going green projects, including

how they have beneted the campus, and

the overall costs to the university. The issue

is whether the going green movement is

worth the valuable resources invested by the

university, including time and funding. The

solution is to dissect a variety of projects

from an economic perspective, community

perspective, and apply an overall cost-benet

analysis. Important factors to consider:Is sustainability worth the valuable

resources and capital investment? Is the

community aware of USF St. Petes going

green projects? Are funds being allocated

appropriately? Is USF St. Petersburg doing

everything it can to improve sustainability?


5/22


Background

New Research& Methods

Its no secret that a university is a

business, and businesses are designed to

make money. Many universities are adapting

green policies to save money in the long

run. A campus can save energy costs by

turning off lights, computers and other

electronics when they are not being used.

Water conservation efforts and xeriscaping

can dramatically cut down on water waste

and high utility bills for the university.

But these changes come at a pricetimeinput, nancial costs, and obtaining overall

agreement for allocating resources, are just

a few of the important factors in making

green decisions and following through.

USF prides itself on following the

green movement. There are several green

projects that have been implemented on

campus, and community and campus

feedback on these projects is overall positive.

But there are multiple sustainability projects

that could be implemented on campus that are

still being overlooked. Student-led initiatives

are often the underlying motivation for green

projects, and USF is like any other school with

allocating nancial resourcesthey maintain

a tight grip. It is only through discussion andawareness that sustainability efforts can be

approached, and its through unveiling of the

nancial values vs. the environmental values

that sustainability changes will continue

throughout the future. Whether or not these

changes are viable is left for discussion.

Many campuses are participating in the

American College and University Presidents

Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), which

is an effort to reduce a colleges impact

on the environment through student and

faculty ideas and innovation, projectimplementation, and overall leadership

in the community. The ACUPCC mission

is to accelerate progress towards a more

sustainable environment by encouraging

innovation and change (Presidents Climate

Commitment, 2012). USF President Judy

Genshaft signed the Commitment during the

Going Green Expo at the USF Sundome in

April of 2009. ACUPCC signatories agree to

implement several specic green policies on

the university campus, including: completing

a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

evaluation, taking immediate steps to reduce

emissions, integrating sustainability into the

schools curriculum, and creating an action

plan and progress reports of the overall

green policies and changes. These changesmay come at a cost to the school, but the

overall goal of sustainability is more than

nancial value. USF President Judy Genshaft

believes that no amount of tax money will

solve the underlying problem of complete

sustainability. As a state, Florida has been


6/22


smacked by the reality that it must change

course, and there are tensions between

the old economic model and the reality of

building an innovative economy, which

requires a substantial investment of time,money and human capital (Genshaft, 2010).

Yoichiro Matsumoto, vice president of the

University of Tokyo believes Universities

traditional contribution to society used to be

in a passive mannerproviding knowledge.

While still necessary, it is not enough for

universities in the 21st century. We need

to be more proactive by initiating actions

(Genshaft, 2010). And actions are exactly

what USF St. Petersburg claims to initiate.

The changes required by the ACUPCC

require large nancial expenditures, and

since USF is a state university, the state and

taxpayers largely fund it. The Presidents

Climate Commitment believes that efforts

to reduce pollutant emissions shouldbe viewed as investments rather than

costs, because they improve the quality

of life for the community and the overall

as cost-effective as possible (Presidents

Climate Commitment, 2012). USF

has taken a pro-active approach to

increasing sustainability on campus.

In 2008, the Sustainability Initiative SteeringCommittee was formed to help organize

the green initiatives, and the Ofce of

Sustainability was organized in 2009 to

coordinate these efforts. These groups

have worked together, along with numerous

other campus units and organizations, to

make USF a cleaner, greener place to live

and work (Brinkmann, et. al 2010). To

meet the standards set forth in the ACUPCC,

which includes specically measuring GHG

emissions on campus, the Climate Action

Plan was initiated in 2010. Steps were taken to

conduct detailed research and data collection

of harmful GHG emissions by both faculty

and student volunteers. By the year 2050, USF

plans to emit 80 percent less carbon dioxide

than it did in 2007 (Brinkmann, et al. 2010).

education experience for

students and faculty. There

is also a large amount of

evidence that shows attractive

and positive returns on

investment for emissions

reduction projects. Creating

a long-term plan that is

right for your campus and

situation is the best way to

ensure that these efforts are

Sources of Carbon Dioxide Emmissions, as reported

by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2012.


7/22


The Ofce of Sustainability at

USF operates under precise principles

regarding the USF campus. These principles

include green initiatives towards building

design, environmental academics, campustransportation, water conservation, energy

conservation and recycling on campus. The

Ofce of Sustainability is in partnership with

the Patel School of Global Sustainability.

Publicly, there is no direct link between

the USF Ofce of Sustainability and St.

Petersburgs campus. Nonetheless, USF

St. Pete has greatly increased its actions

towards going green since the formation

of the Sustainability Initiative Steering

Committee and the signing of the ACUPCC

(Patel School of Global Sustainability, 2011).

In 2006, Tampa Electric Company

(TECO) contributed a large donation to

USF as a foundation for the Ofce of

Sustainability. After this donation from

TECO Energy Foundation, the StudentGreen Energy Fund Council (SGEF)

developed. This council authorizes nances

received through the Student Green Energy

Fee, which allocates $1 per student per credit

hour towards the fund. This operation began

in late 2011, and is estimated to generate

over $300,000 in funds for renewable energy

and efciency projects on campus within 3

years. USF encourages student participation

by providing a site for students to propose

green projects and initiatives on campus.

USF St. Petes rst Gold LEED Certied

building, the Science and Technology Building,completed in 2009. Gold Certication is achieved

by earning 60-79 points on a scale of 100.


8/22


USF Campus

& Building

Design ElementsLEEDBuildingCertication

The LEED Certication (Leadership

in Energy and Environmental Design) is

redening building design. The U.S. Green

Building Council, a non-prot organization

committed to developing a prosperous and

sustainable future through green building

design initiatives, developed the LEED

Certication program. One of the most

important achievements for USF St. Pete was

achieving the rst Gold LEED Certication

on campus for the Science and Technology

Building, on January 25, 2010. The Gold

Certication is one of the highest certications

(Platinum being the highest) offered by the US

Green Building Council. This certication isbased on a system of earning points in several

categories including Water Efciency,Energy

Efciency, Sustainable Site Development,

Materials and Resources, and Indoor

Environmental Quality (U.S. Green Building

Council, 2011). The Gold Certication is

achieved by earning 60-79 points out of 100

possible points. Buildings that are eligible for

the LEED certication include ofces, retail

establishments, hotels, institutional buildings,

and residential buildings over four stories.

The cost of the Science and Technology

center is estimated at $12 million, and it

spans two-stories and covers 35,000 square

feet. The building was funded by a state

program that pays for construction through

local taxes on utilities (Gadsden, 2010). It

can host over 76 classes in one semester,and accommodates over 60 students in the

larger classrooms. There are 5 research labs

for the College of Marine Science, 4 research

labs for the College of Arts and Sciences,

and 4 teaching labs used for science labs.

Classrooms in the building include smart

monitors at the lecterns and tiered tables

and chairs so each room can be reassembled

for different purposes (Gadsden, 2010).

This LEED Certied campus addition has

provided students and faculty with much

needed additional space and resources. In

addition to the recent Science and Technology

Center, St. Pete campus is in the nal

stages of the new Student Center building,

which is scheduled for ofcial inauguration

on September 6, 2012. This building isexpected to achieve at least a Silver LEED

Certication, but it will not be ofcially

declared until inspections are completed.


9/22


USF St. Pete is one university

campus in a pool of hundreds focusing on

going green practices and striving for LEED

certication status for new buildings and

campus structures. U.S. agencies like theGeological Survey and Energy Information

Administration are being more forward about

encouraging sustainability efforts in building

design. The operation of buildings across the

country accounts for over 75 percent of all

power generated by power plants in America,

and construction of buildings accounts for

60 percent of all materials used in the U.S.

These efforts were initially implemented for

cost savings, but they are also making an

impact on the environment through reduced

energy consumption. Motion sensor lighting

can save up to 40 percent of energy per room.All of the bathrooms on USF are equipped

with energy efcient hand driers, which are 18

times less costly than the use of paper towels,

and also reduce paper waste. Fluorescent bulbs

are being used instead of incandescent bulbs,

which save on average 75 percent in energy

per bulb, while producing 4-6 times the light

per watt, compared to incandescent bulbs.

Simple efforts like turning off computers and

classroom equipment when not in use can

make a large imprint on energy conservation.

for purposes other than food or

fuel (Kovac, 2011). If universities

can make the initiative to put a

dent in these numbers, perhaps

more businesses and communities

will follow in pursuit of a

greener and more sustainable

future.

Energy Conservation

Energy conservation is a top

priority for college campuses around the

country, and conservation efforts have been

part of USFs Strategic Plan since 2009.

Currently underway is a $250,000 grant

proposal from Progress Energy to install solar

panels on the rooftop of Harbor Hall, the

former Dali Museum (Murphy, 2012). Other

energy savings have been initiated through

simple measures such as increasing classroom

temperatures during class hours, turning

thermostats off on weekends and holidays,

and motion sensor lights in the bathrooms.


10/22


Water Conservation

The USF St. Pete Strategic Plan

does not designate particular funds to water

conservation efforts on campus; however, theMaster Plan Update does distinguish efforts

of storm water management, potable and

reclaimed water efforts, and conservation

goals to improve water, air and open space

quality on campus. The efforts of water

conservation are still developing at the St.

Pete campus, but according to the Ofce of

Sustainability, xeriscaping and storm water

irrigation are already in practice on USFs

Tampa campus. The Master Plan includes

a water conservation program (Section 9.6)

enacted to measure water consumption

through water measuring devices. Financial

statistics are currently unavailable since

this is a new water conservation program,

but prolonged benets could be a huge step

towards water conservation efforts. TheOfce of Sustainability states that xeriscaping

is required by USF policy, and is in the

process of implementation. Xeriscaping is

sustainable landscaping, designed to reduce

or eliminate the need for supplemental water

from irrigation. The potential nancial savings

through water conservation is exponential

(USF Facilities Master Plan, 2009).

Brandi Murphy, Student

Government Senator at USF St. Petersburg,

believes that sustainable practices

on USF St. Pete Campus are heavily

discussed, but often poorly implemented.

One example would be the failure to follow-

through with the xeriscaping on St. Petes

campus. These landscaping sustainability

efforts would implement a natural ecosystem

and native Florida habitat within the campusenvironment. This habitat includes native

Florida plants to provide natural shading,

which function as a passive cooling system.

Landscaping should focus on using minimal

fertilizers and pesticides and completely

natural irrigation or the most efcient

irrigation the system can sustain. These

landscaping efforts can be implemented

almost anywhere, and they transform

landscaping elements without tearing up

the environment. Strategically placing

owerbeds, plants and trees offers optimal

sustainability. This implementation would be

quite costly initially, and may not save money

in the long run since USF is a widespread

campus with large building structures.

The environmental club on campus

(SEAS, Student Environmental Awareness

Society) has obtained student-initiated

grants from Sierra Club, donating native

Florida plants and shrubs. This is one

example of many student-led efforts.


11/22

Gold vs. Green Value |

The student government branch

at USF St. Pete has continued to promote

environmental sustainability, and the

Sustainable Initiatives Department has

been granted approximately $2,000-$4,000 in funds for green projects this past

year. These funds were allocated towards

the recycling bins, tree projects and

other miscellaneous projects on campus.

A new program titled The Student

Green Energy Fund, allocates $1 per credit

hour per student and places this money into

a fund overseen by a committee, led by the

Director of Sustainable Initiatives within

Student Government. This fund is drawn upon

for student-initiated green projects approved

within the government body, and it generates

over $100,000 annually. The Energy Fund

is very recent and the fund allocation is

still being debated over various proposals.

The proposals being considered include aplan for placing solar docks or charging

stations for electronics including laptops

and cell phones on campus (Murphy, 2012).

Murphy believes there is signicant room

for improvement regarding going green

initiatives within USF St. Pete campus. The

campus seems to be vocalizing sustainability

efforts, but failing to follow through with

signicant change. The campus is pushing

forward with expansion and growth,

and minimizing implementation efforts.


12/22


It appears that one of the largest

contributing factors to the nationwide

movement of university campuses goinggreen is student insight and opinion. Students

are paying particular attention to going green

efforts on campus, and initiating change

through course of action or proposals within

Student Government bodies, as well as social

clubs. Studies have reported that students are

likely to achieve both academic and social

gains with the inuence of green buildings

and green campus practices. Specically,

surveys conducted by rms such as Noel-

Levitz and organizations representing the

interests of physical plant administrators

such as APPA, have reported that students

consider the condition of campus facilities

a major inuential factor in deciding where

to seek their higher education (Kovac,

2011). Recent studies at the College ofWilliam and Mary in Virginia conrmed

that freshman are two times more likely to

choose their school based on sustainability

concerns compared to three years ago,

and these same students would be willing

to pay more to live in an environmentally

sustainable student housing (Kovac, 2010).

The University of Washington is

helping to lead the nationwide movement

towards a greener and more sustainable

environment on campuses, through various

programs and initiatives. Kathy Witkowsky

writes, In the long run, going green

Campus Insight saves money and can even make money.Sustainable practices promote better health,

less absenteeism, and more productivity.

Most importantly, sustainability efforts

attract students to the campus, which isessential for future survival. U of W may

even be a step ahead of the game. The dining

hall serves mostly local, organic and natural

foods in compostable packaging, alongside

compostable utensils. Well-placed signage

and student volunteers guarding trash cans

encourage fellow students and faculty to

sort their meal scraps between recyclable

goods and compostable food scraps. In 2009

alone, more than 500 tons of waste were

diverted from the landll to compost. They

also sell any waste oil from the fryers in

the dining hall to a company that converts

it to biodiesel. The custodial staff uses only

green cleaning supplies, and administrative

ofces buy only local ofce products and

require vendors to provide informationabout their internal sustainability practices.

All new state-funded buildings are LEED

certied, and they use a natural-gas-red

steam plant to heat the building during

the winter months. This university strives

for maximum sustainability, within the

internal and external campus environment.


13/22


UW president Mark Emmert says we have a

large footprint in Seattle. Its incumbent on all

large organization to do what they can to be

good corporate citizens. If we are going to be

leaders in the classroom and the laboratory,

it only makes sense that we try to be leaders

in practice its in many ways a perfect

teachable moment. (Witkowsky, 2009).

Community

Insight

Popular periodicals such as the

Princeton Review and Forbes have created

and assigned green ratings for colleges

and universities. Clearly, the public is on

the lookout for these green ratings if they

have been initiated by such popular sources.

Dr. Jason Kovac, executive director of

academic initiatives at Johnson County

Community College writes, it should be no

surprise, then, that a colleges commitment

to green building is becoming codied,

normalized, and captured in national media.

The simple structure and

groundbreaking of a green building is not

where it ends. Kovacs says life in green

buildings is different; it requires alertness,

an attention to detail, and a commitment to

considering the effects of every action. The

question remains, is this extra time, effort and

input of resources really worthwhile? If a

traditional practice fails to meet the standards

of the green and sustainable practice, new

ideas and methods must be discovered and

tried. Do students and faculty have the time

and resources to constantly try new methods

of sustainability? A university is like an

organism. It requires specic time, resources

and energy to function and survive. If the green

movement is initiated, but not supplied with

additional nurturing, the overall expenditures

of time and money could be a huge waste.

The University of Wisconsin in

Madison, WI was recently commended with

the Greenest American University Award

in 2011, due to its efforts in energy-saving

projects which resulted in a 16% decrease

in green house gas emissions. Although

impressive, these projects came with a price

tag of over $48 million. In addition, they

have decreased water use by 29% since

2005, and built environmentally oriented

residential hall living areas (The Daily

Green, 2011). Other colleges and universities

nominated for this award included Arizona

State University, Brown University,

University of Minnesota, and Yale University.

All of these schools are committed to

reducing their GHG emissions between 40-70

percent, within a time frame as early as 2020.


14/22

Gold vs. Green Value | p

The nationwide trends to go green

have encouraged many pro-environment

organizations to become involved with colleges

and universities regarding their sustainability

practices. The Sustainable Endowments

Institute, a non-prot organization engaged

in research and education to advance the

going green movement, developed the

Green Report Card as a tool to measure

commitment to environmental sustainability

within colleges and universities. USF has

continually increased efforts of sustainability

commitment after receiving a C grade on

the 2009 College Sustainability Report card.

As green efforts have continued to evolve,

USF raised their Green Report Card to a B+

in the 2011 statistics (Green Report Card,

2011). Although the program has since been

suspended, the Green Report Card results do

indicate signicant change in sustainability

practices. The Sustainable Endowments

Institute is now leading efforts to facilitate a

large-scale investment in energy efciency,

with its recent Billion Dollar Green Challenge.

This challenge encourages colleges and

universities to invest funds within the next

two years, for a combined amount of one

billion dollars nationwide. These green

revolving funds are to nance improvements

in energy efciency; the money saved is

then reinvested towards future sustainability

projects. USF is not yet participating in this

project (Green Billion, 2012). Universities

nationwide are at the forefront of substantial

changes toward sustainability on campus. The

Sustainable Endowments Institute is hopeful

that in the future, campuses will be able to

discern proper action towards sustainability

as opposed to continual inefciency.

As recognized by the Florida

GreenBuildingCoalition, the City of Saint

Petersburg was deemed Floridas rst Green

City. Former Mayor Rick Bakers orders

identify St Petersburgs specic ambitions to

lead as a seeker of alternative energy sources

and reduced GHGs. The Executive Order lists

detailed necessary actions for the community

of St. Pete. Carbon Scoreboard reporting is

required for all nancial incentives related

to GHG emission reduction. This includes

immediate assessment to quantify energy use

and resulting GHGs by all facilities. Another

assessment is necessary for all transportation

related activities within agencies. Leasing

is limited to ofce spaces that meet Energy

Star requirements, unless specically

certied by the mayor. Some more important

aspects of the Executive Order regard new

and old buildings adoption of U.S. Green

Building Councils LEED-NC Standards. It

also addresses individual projects, esteems

and responsibilities including the need to

develop the Citys website to incorporate a

summary of social initiatives and promote

public awareness (St. Petersburg Executive

Order, 2008). However, it is evident that

the Mayors orders from 2008, to provide

streamlined information for the public, have

not been completely fullled as of July, 2012.


15/22


State Wide &

Political Opinion

Statewide initiatives to designate

specic funding for green projects andincentives for sustainability are currently

increasing. The federal race to go green is

becoming more focused on the overall cost-

benets of projects but may be lacking in

generating new ideas for conservation and

raising social awareness. Research indicates

that the public is aware of the need to go green,

yet tax incentives to increase sustainability

on a personal level are not always well

known. The Database of State Incentives

for Renewables and Efciency includes:

Corporate Tax Credits for Renewable Energy

Production; Green Building Incentives;

Targeted Job Incentive Funds; Local Loan and

Rebate Programs; Pace Financing Programs;

Performance Based Incentives; Utility

Grants, Utility Loans, and Utility Rebates.

Each of these programs became policy

after being endorsed by public ofcials and

voted on by the public. One signicant program

that did not survive the political process of

sustainable change was the proposed high-

speed rail system within the state of Florida.

Rick Scott provided three reasons to deny

the Obama Administrations high-speed

rail funding of $2.4 billion dollars. (1) The

proposed Tampa-Orlando bullet train capital

cost over-runs could put Florida taxpayers

on the hook for an additional $3 billion

dollars (2) Ridership and revenue projections

are historically overly optimistic and could

likely result in ongoing subsidies that state

taxpayers would have to incur (3) If the

project became too costly for tax payers

and was shut down, the state would have toreturn the $2.4 billion dollars in funding. The

high-speed rail project had strong potential

to provide many jobs in Florida, while

increasing business statewide. The project

would have reduced carbon emissions while

easing intra-city transportation. Scotts

denial of Obamas procient sustainability

strategy could be due to political differences

regarding nancial expenditure. Many Florida

residents, including USF Professor Metzger

of Geography and Conservation, argue in

favor of the project, and believe that in all

likeliness the high-speed rail would have

succeeded if implemented (Database of State

Incentives for Renewables & Efciency,

2012).


16/22

Gold vs. Green Value | pg 10


Cost-Benefit

AnalysisTotal costs for the LEED Certied

Science and Technology building were

approximately $12 million. The building

is 35,000 square feet, which equates to

approximately $342.85 per square foot (U.S.

Green Building Council, 2011). The national

average construction costs for education

buildings in 2009 was approximately $206.00

per square foot, as reported by OPPAGA

(Ofce of Program Policy Analysis andGovernment Accountability, 2012). Although

this gure is an average, for comparability

it demonstrates that construction costs

of the LEED Certied Buildings may be

upwards of 60% higher. These costs are

implementation costs, and do no consider

the overall energy savings that will result.

According to the U.S. Energy Report

Administration, annual energy consumption

for a typical ofce building is 8.4 kWh/square

foot. Education buildings use approximately

65 billion kWh of electricity (consumed within

the building) each year, and the majority of this

electricity is used for lighting. The average

costs for energy consumption in education

buildings is $0.67/kWh. Using these gures, aregular 35,000 square foot education building

that does not implement energy conservation

efforts will use approximately 294,000

kWH annually, costing approximately

$196,980 for energy consumption each year.

(Annual cost = average annual consumption

x square footage x average kWH price). In

the case of the LEED Certied Science and

Technology building, we estimate 30 percent

energy savings annually, due to the Gold

standard certication, which amounts to

approximately $60,000 in energy savings per

year. This estimate may be on the low end.

Using a discount rate of 5%

(approximated to the ination rate the Fed

is taking as a goal for sustainable growth

plus real interest rate on funds borrowed to

complete the project), the LEED Certied

building cost approximately $4,790,000

more compared to an average non-certiededucation building of the same size. Using the

present value formula with the data provided,

and solving for the amount of years, it will

take approximately 33 years to recoup the

difference of $4,790,000 in the building


17/22

costs. Green buildings may be saving the

planet, but they certainly have their price tag.

The Strategic Planning for USF St.

Petersburg states that the cost of the new

Multipurpose Student Center will total over$29 million. This building will be 81,000

square feet in size, which yields a cost of

$358.50 per square foot, even higher than the

$342.85 per square foot for the Science and

Technology Center. The costs may be justied

regarding the direction that USF St. Pete wants

to take as stated in the Strategic Plan, and

the Stewardship Plan provided by the Ofce

of Sustainability. Bellow is a graph of the

reduction goals and the time frames extracted

from the Climate Action Plan written in 2010.

to nancially compare short-term costs

with long-term benets. According to the

data, it will take 33 years to recoup the

cost differences of constructing the LEED

Certied Science and Technology Center.Without proper discernment of nancial costs

vs. benets, it may be impossible to completely

evaluate the benets of sustainability within

campus and building design elements.

The USF St. Pete Strategic Plan

outlines the esteems of Environmental

Stewardship, to include the following:

Foster stewardship of the environment

and embody the values of sustainability;

enhance sustainability through energy

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070

MtCO2e

Offsets

Benchmark2: 20%Benchmark1:10%

Benchmark3:50%

Benchmark4:80%

Long term reduction plan for Carbon Dioxide emissions

USF St. Petersburg provides specic

details regarding the ambitions of campus

greening in the Strategic Plan of 2009-2012. Throughout this plan, green projects

such as Science and Technology Building

are mentioned and allotted specic funds

for implementation. However, the overall

benets of sustainability are still lacking

in clarity, since the University has failed

conservation and recycling;

support student organizations

in environmental awareness

in reducing, reusing, and

recycling; continue the

development of energy savinginitiatives and the greening of

facilities on campus; continue

evaluation and modication

of energy green plan; create

a community that champions

environmental awareness and sustainable

living; engage student organizations and

residence halls in environmental awareness;

facilitate community partnerships focused

on environmental concerns; and support

interdisciplinary research that focuses

on environmental concerns (USF St.

Petersburg Strategic Plan, 2009).



18/22

Conclusion

Unfortunately, full nancial disclosure

regarding the going green efforts at USF St.

Petersburg is not readily available. A nancial

analysis of the green movement and its

long-term benets are necessary for properevaluation. Lack of ambition to implement a

cost-benet analysis of the campus greening

efforts regarding overhead costs, appropriated

funds, implementation costs, and long-term

benets puts a large dent in the evaluation

of the going green efforts. Increased

focus on the cost-benet of individual

sustainable projects is crucial to increase

the sustainability of USF St. Pete campus.


The going green movement is

redening the future of sustainability.

USFs green efforts require a thorough cost-

benet analysis to determine future projects

and funding options. Recent advancement

with green projects at USF is largely

attributed to student efforts and overall

trends among universities nationwide.

This assessment explains the benets of going

green, which include energy and resource

conservation, waste and pollutant reduction,

governmental tax incentives, and a positive

community outlook. The costs incurred

require substantial years to recognize pay-off, which is an important factor to consider.

According to President Judy Genshaft,

Going Green conotates the constant

change of methodology and efcient

allocation of resources to promote a system of

sustainability. Universities across the nation

are implementing their own plans for

green project implementation in order to

save money in the long run. Other benets

include, conservation of energy, reductionin pollution, and federal and state tax

incentives. However, some impediments to

this goal include time, nancial feasibility,

and acceptance of the allocation of specic

resources. The successful addition of a green

building requires a University to analyze

many factors, and ultimately weigh the costs

and benets of each. Despite these obstacles,

organizations such as the Sustainability

Initiative Committee are actively funding and

assisting in the development of these projects.

The Sustainability Initiative Committee

analyzes potential reduction in GHGs, creates

goal-centered action plans, and develops

progressive reports. In order for a building to

achieve the designation of green, the LEED

certication. certain requirements must be met.Despite the potential energy saving benets,

nancial benets are not as easily visible.

However, it is the goal of perpetuating

environmental awareness and sustainable

living that is at the forefront of the movement.


19/22

Glossary of Terms

Abatement Costs: costs incurred to mitigate pollution, including the costs of the technology

necessary to clean the emissions. i.e. the scrubbers in the smoke stacks in coal power plants.

Carbon Footprint: a measure of the partial or whole amount of greenhouse gases or carbon

emissions emitted and usually expressed as grams of Carbon Dioxide.

Energy/EnvironmentalEfciency: using less energy to provide the same level of energy service.

Emissions: substances such as gases or particles discharged into the atmosphere as a result of

natural processes of [human] activities in an environment.

GoingGreen: changing aspects of society in an attempt to get closer to sustainability orenvironmental efciency; frequently used to indicate attempts of consideration for the environment.

GreenhouseGas(GHG):Gas in the atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the

thermal infrared range of the atmosphere; any gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect.

Primary GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Human

productions of carbon dioxide primarily derive from coal, natural gas, wool and oil.

Irrigation: the watering of plants.

Renewable Energy: any source of energy that can be used without depleting its reserves. These

sources include sunlight (solar energy) and other sources such as wind and waves. Also may

include food, resources, or materials that can be regrown or recycled using minimum amounts of

new input.

Solar Energy/Power: the radiant energy of the sun; solar radiation that is converted into other

forms of energy including heat or electric energy.

Sustainability: involves recycling the maximum amount of resources within any process. It is also

considered development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of

future generations to meet their own needs.

Xeriscaping: landscaping or gardening in ways that reduce or eliminate the need for supplemental

water from irrigation.



20/22

Works Cited

Brinkmann, et. al. USF Climate Action Plan USF Ofce of Sustainability Site, 2010: 1-75.

Web. 25 July, 2012. < http://rs.acupcc.org/site_media/uploads/cap/607-cap.pdf>

Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efciency. U.S. Department of Eergy Site.

2012. Web. 25 July, 2012.

Genshaft, Judy. The New Space Race: Global Sustainability. Presidency. Spring 2012, Vol 13

Issue 2: 23-26. Web. 20 July 2012.

Kovac, Jason. Campuses Can Take the LEED in Going Green. Diverse: Issues in Higher

Education. 1 Sept. 2011, Vol 28 Issue 15: 22-22. Web. 24 July, 2012.

Murphy, Brandi. USF St. Petersburg Student Government Senator and S.E.A.S. Vive President.Interview. 24 July, 2012

Ofce of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. OPPAGA site, 2012. Web.

25 July, 2012. < http://www.oppaga.state..us/>

St. Petersburg Executive Order. 2008. Web. 25 July, 2012.

U.S. Energy Information Administration Site. EIA, 2012. Web. 25 July, 2012. < http://www.eia.

gov/emeu/consumptionbriefs/cbecs/pbawebsite/education/educ_howuseelec.htm>

U.S. Green Building Council Site. U.S. Green Building Council, 2011. Web. 25 July, 2012.

USF Facilities Master Plan, 2009. USF Website, 2012. Web. 25 July, 2012.

USF St. Petersburg Strategic Plan, 2009: 1-42. Web. 25 July, 2012

Witkowsky, Kathy. Going Green: Environmental Steawrdship is a Top Priority at the University

of Washingon. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. March 2009:

19-25. Web. 22 July, 2012.



21/22

Photographer: Gonzalo Crivello and Lindsay Haglund

Creative Contractors Inc.

Bastian, Nathanial and Timothy Trainor. Going Green at West Point: Is It Economically

Benecial? A Cost-Benet Analysis of Installing a Wind Farm at the United States Military

Academy. Engineering Management Journal. Sep 2010, Vol. 22 Issue 3: 12-20. Web. 20 July

2012.

This source dissects a going green project to be initiated at West Point, and discusses the cost-

benet analysis of the project. The project is a wind farm, to be established at the United States

Military Academy. This source was used to guide us in the overall format of a cost-benet ap-

proach, as well as implementing specic nancial statistics. It is very detailed and specic with

regards to calculating wind energy costs, cost savings, total power produced per month, imple-

mentation costs, and time necessary to complete the project. The relevant data from this source is

not the nancial specics of the wind project, but the methods and reasoning for the cost-benet

analysis.

Gadsden, Sandra. New Science and Technology Building Helps Transform USF-SP.

Tampa Times. 24 Jan 2010: All. Web. 25 Jul 2012.

.

This source provided background for one of the biggest projects completed by USF-St. Peters-

burg. It includes relevant details to the building process of the Gold LEED-Certied Science and

Technology building. We pulled nancial data from the article regarding the building and fund-

ing of this project.

Metzger, Christopher. Questionnaire via e-mail. 24 July 2012.

Christopher Metzger is a Global Conservation professor at USF Tampa. He was interviewed

to offer some community and faculty insight regarding the going green movement within USF

Campuses. He has a high level of understanding regarding the green movement and the overall

costs and benets resulting from specic project implementation. He helped us to narrow our

focus and provided additional insight about comparing USF green efforts to statewide green ef-

forts.

Annotated Bibliography

Photo Credits



22/22

Patel School of Global Sustainability Site. University of South Florida, 2011. Web. 25 July 2012.

This source includes initiatives outlined by USF sustainability afliates, including: Overall

Environment and Campus design elements, and increasing attempts at environmentally sound

campus design. These include the following: Academics, increasing the study of environmental

sustainability, departmental focus, and course focus on environmental policy; Transportation,reducing the impact of campus transportation (bicycle programs, biodiesel buses, transportation

courses geared towards sustainability); Water, building water metering, storm water management

programs, non-potable water usage/irrigation, xeriscaping, and on-campus weather informed

irrigation; Energy, monitoring, commissioning, and conservation, green lights program, recov-

ery and renewables. Each of these elements will be integrated into our synopsis of going green

projects related to campus and building design. We will focus on the green campus design, water

and energy practices.

Perry, Nick. How Green is my Campus? Colleges Woo Students with Environmental

Initiatives. The Seattle Times. 1 January, 2010: All. Web. 20 July, 2012.

This is a brief source that details some of the going green efforts implemented at the University

of Washington, one of the most green and sustainability-focused campuses in the country. The in-

formation mentions new research methods and ndings within the going green movement within

the University system. Specically, the goals set and reached by UW. The article lists the high-

lights of the sustainability efforts including composting, LEED certied building design, water

conservation efforts, energy conservation and implementing student awareness on campus.

Santos, Annette Taijeron. Going Green: The Impact On Higher Education Institutions.

Journal Of International Business Research. (2009): 95. EDS Foundation Index. Web. 25 July2012.

This source provides insight into the necessity of environmental changes regarding Universities.

It provided clarity and insight towards the overall picture of going green in academia.

Whiteford, Linda. Executive Summary of the Sustainability Report. USF Ofce of Sustainabil-

ity, 13 October 2009: All. Web. 25 Jul 2012.

This report is provided by the Ofce of Sustainability and provides details to the early functions

of sustainability at USF. We will compare the initiatives detailed in this source to the efforts ofsustainability currently occurring at USF. This document also provides relevant graphing data

and distinguished goals in visual formats. We will include similar versions of the simplistic

charts and ideas to a more recent comparison of the going green movement.


white paper final2

Documents