ST.  OLAF  COLLEGE  STUDENT  GOVERNMENT  ASSOCIATION  

St.  Olaf  Environmental   Programming  Report   Fall  2013     The Sustainability Subcommittee, Student Government Association John Bruer (Chair of Committee, Student Activities Committee Coordinator), Stephen Crouser (Faculty Governance Committee Senator), Benjamin Swenson-Klatt (Thorson Hall Senator), Shane Allen (Pause CoCoordinator), Mara Stutzman (Hilleboe-Kittelsby Hall Senator), Nathan Webster (Ellingson Hall Senator), Sonja Smerud (Environmental Senator)  

1

Tasked with an objective of determining where the SustainAbilities program should reside, our Senate Subcommittee, through examination of sustainable policies and practices in effect here at St. Olaf, realized general continuity and community across sustainable sectors was lacking. We broadened our research to six, small, private, liberal arts colleges similar to St. Olaf in many aspects. We researched the following colleges due to their leadership in sustainability in higher education across the country, comparable liberal arts structure or goals, similar application profiles according to incoming student statistics, and proximity: Luther College, Colorado College, Oberlin College, Dickinson College, Macalester College, Concordia College, and Duke University. Our subcommittee feels confident that these colleges could provide strong foundational models for sustainability at St. Olaf College. We compiled this information into a report classified into eight major sections of college sustainability: Residence Life, Sustainability Office, Student Government, Transportation, Food, Student Work, Curriculum, and Land Use & Energy Consumption. Through comparison of sustainable structures at St. Olaf and the six colleges we studied, we have developed a preliminary set of suggestions for the college to advance sustainability. As expressed in a FirstYear student survey conducted by Jim Farrell in the fall of 2012, 94% of St. Olaf students expect to “learn how to live sustainably in the residence halls.” As the issue of sustainable living grows rapidly, we suggest that the college take a more prominent role in addressing sustainability in the sections outlined in our report. To ensure accuracy, our subcommittee conducted two focus groups with the key faculty, staff, and students who currently lead sustainable efforts on campus. Per our discussions, this report was revised and improved to provide the most current and relevant information on the topic. Our report’s suggestions reflect the interests of these key members and the organizations they lead. Below is a summary of our findings, paired with suggestions for St. Olaf’s future in an attempt to address the larger issue beyond the scope of the SustainAbilities Program. Each section in this report includes a brief summary of what other schools are up to, what St. Olaf is doing, and preliminary suggestions to move St. Olaf forward. Residence Life A common type of programming found among the eight colleges mentioned is residence life sustainability programing. One such program is that of Eco-Reps, which can be found on college campuses across the country. The Eco-Reps are sustainability leaders in their respective halls on campus. The schools that we looked at do not pay these students or offer any type of stipend; it is a volunteer position. The Eco-Reps provide programing for the halls as well as act as a source of information or contact for residents. Examples of Eco-Rep programming: green hall room audits, maps to recycling dumpsters, auditing the presence of dual flush toilets, taking responsibility for the hall’s composting efforts, or planning sustainable events for the hall residents. Eco-Reps at other colleges do receive a small amount of money with which to put on these events and they attend meetings to share updates with each other. At Luther College, the residence life staff is responsible for incorporating sustainable focused events into their programming. These can include tours of local farms, apple picking, energy tours, and outdoor events such as hiking. In the fall they hold a free plant giveaway and in the spring they conduct a competition among the halls with the goal of lowering the energy and water consumption of the college. We also found this type of programing at Oberlin College, called Ecolympics. Oberlin’s contest lasts for three weeks and is part of the Campus

2

Conservation Nationals program, through which about 150 colleges and universities hold competitions in the effort to reduce electricity by one gigawatt hour. Several schools have dedicated sustainability halls or houses. Students who live in these halls pledge to live sustainably. In 2010, Oberlin College built a LEED NC Silver certified first year residence hall. At St. Olaf St. Olaf College has SustainAbilities Representatives, which are similar to Eco-Reps at many other liberal arts institutions. SustainAbilities attempts to integrate sustainability into St. Olaf life and teach practical steps leading toward a more sustainable society. There are 10 SustainAbility Reps, one for each hall, and one SustainAbilities Coordinator. The team added a few more positions this year - a Campus Events Coordinator, Marketing & Communications position, and an Information Development position. SustainAbilities meets weekly with Pamela McDowell, the Associate Dean of Students & Director of Residence Life. Most campus sustainability programs end with individual action, but St. Olaf’s SustainAbilities goes the extra step, helping students to practice the systems thinking that allows for institutional action as well. By getting to know the St. Olaf campus and the staff who make it work so well, students learn how one particular institution converts ideals to action. This is concretely accomplished through at least one event in each residence hall per month, varying campus events about once every two months, and the upkeep of a website which includes a master calendar for environmentallyrelated events. Many of SustainAbilities’ events are similar to programming at other schools. SustainAbilities is funded by a grant from the Margaret A Cargill Foundation, which St. Olaf “for environmental studies at St. Olaf College,” meant to mean more than just the Environmental Studies Department. The grant funding runs out at the end of the year. Through the grant, SustainAbility Representatives receive a small stipend of approximately $350 for the year, varied this year and last, and are given additional programming money of approximately $1000 for the year. A paid residence hall position addressing sustainability is unique among comparable institutions. Despite being impressed by the performance of St. Olaf’s faculty and students, the Foundation did not invite St. Olaf to apply for additional funding in the past year due to the limited enthusiasm received from some sectors of administration. Other colleges were awarded up to an additional one million dollars for future environmental and sustainability related efforts. This is also the pilot year of St. Olaf’s Green hall program. Hilleboe Hall is the designated ‘green hall’ on campus; however, not all residents in Hilleboe this year have pledged to live sustainably. There is also a Green Honor House at St. Olaf, similar to the past three years, which works closely with the Green Hall Project. Kittelsby Hall, connected to Hilleboe, is the home of the first-year Environmental Conservation program, which is being piloted this year. This conversation program is unique from others on campus in that it focuses specifically on community living, engaging residence hall programming in addition to academic engagements. In a couple years, Kittelsby will undergo renovations. The Environmental Conversations classes will incorporate planning and suggestions for these renovations into their curriculum over the next few years. The program encourages students to start thinking about environmentallyfriendly living early on in their college experience; it was purposely placed in Kittelsby because of the hall’s proximity to Hilleboe, the Green House, and their environmentally-focused programs. The three form a “green corner” of sorts.

3

Our Suggestions We believe if and when new halls are built on campus, they should be built as close to carbon neutral as possible and learning communities that strive for sustainable living should continue to exist. The steering committee for the Cargill Grant’s foundation was comprised of Environmental Coalition, the primary student environmental organization on campus, and SGA’s Environmental Senator, among others. The SustainAbilities program was distinctly designed by students, and housed in Residence Life on purpose. This student focus is important, but also limits work by SustainAbilities due to time constraints and knowledge. Since its conception, we believe a disconnect between sustainability programming and SGA has arisen, and a stronger link between the two organizations should be formally established, especially with regards to creative event planning and finances. This may include the Environmental Senator sitting in on SustainAbility meetings in the future. However, we do not necessarily believe SustainAbilities should be funded through SGA. After speaking with Pamela McDowell, we understand that Residence Life is willing to absorb the SustainAbilities program and fund it through a $3000 allotment currently dedicated to organization and leadership training. The program will look different in the coming years. Residence Life would like to lessen the number of representatives on campus to around 5-8. The Reps will focus on multifaceted programing in all halls. Fewer representatives will allow the SustainAbilities staff to better feed off each other and allow more money for programming. We additionally believe the SustainAbilities Rep position should be a reformatted, staffed position, which already exists with the Residence Life structure, rather than an entirely new programming position. We originally suggested restructuring the Building Assistant position, however after speaking with Pamela McDowell and considering the specific skills needed for each position we now believe a JC or RA would be a better option. This would also be beneficial in that we suggest the SustainAbilities Representatives be present at all Residence Life meetings for their halls and be trained in the same way as other Residence Life staff. We believe this position should be funded, as funding a position creates more warrant for expectations. While we find residence life integration an important part of making sustainable practices accessible to all students, and sustainable communities a vital aspect of student life, confining our approach to sustainability at this college merely within the realm of Residence Life will result in a loss of other sustainability opportunities at the college. We believe that while we should continue our sustainability programming in the halls, we should look towards more systemic avenues as well to make St. Olaf a more environmentally-friendly campus. Sustainability Office Many colleges have some sort of sustainability office to strategically address sustainability on campus. At Dickinson, the Center for Sustainability Education is a department that oversees most of the programs on campus with the exception of student organizations. Some schools use their sustainability office to track emissions data and energy usage in accordance with target goals outlined under their climate action plans. Other schools have strong support of sustainability in the form of staff members working to identify and implement sustainable practices on campus. A full-time staff member would need an office. Lewis and Clark’s staff member in charge of their sustainability office proved to be an excellent resource and sustainable investment almost immediately: “I bet she saved the school enough money to pay her salary during her first year”. A staff member has worked proven effective at

4

other schools as well, and could play a number of roles, ranging from working closely with the students, to working with the administration to pursue large-scale sustainable practices, allowing students to focus on keeping residential life sustainable, etc. Lewis and Clark also has a Sustainability Council made up of staff, faculty and students. This council helps several facets of the community discuss sustainability on campus. This council has a chair that is appointed by the president, and while there is no specific designated power in the council, it gets a modest fund and has a critical mass of students supporting it, allowing the council to have great influence over key debates on campus. Concordia College has a similar Sustainability Council, which meets with the president monthly to suggest sustainable projects other students put forward. While the model at Lewis and Clark has had much success, this does not mean that we should necessarily try to model it at St. Olaf. What we should try to emulate is the basic foundation on which Lewis and Clark has created its system: an organization with representation from all aspects of campus life that is visible to the campus and is well-organized in the manner it approaches sustainability. At St. Olaf Although SustainAbilities is strongly supported by the college, SustainAbilities currently does not have a legitimized, physical space in which to address sustainability from a programming perspective. Notably, the Environmental Studies Department also does not have a designated office space. There is one faculty member who is supposed to serve as the “Environmental Catalyst” at St. Olaf College. This position is subsidized by the Cargill Grant, and as such will no longer exist following this year. From what we have been able to discover, we do not know of a college employee beyond this grant-funded position with sustainability explicitly in its job responsibilities. Current student organizations, including SustainAbilities, also have no formal means of contact with Administration such as the Sustainability Council at other schools. With high student turnover, this creates a haphazard approach to sustainable action. Additionally, although St. Olaf has an overall fairly successful sustainability program, the lack of a paid staff member has prevented the college from achieving top awards for sustainability ratings due to a nonexistent communication structure. As a result we are no longer a leader in the field of sustainability programming in higher education. Our Suggestions We believe sustainability efforts should be orchestrated through a legitimized office space with a paid staff or faculty member. We received an overall positive response on creating a Sustainability Office during the focus groups. We believe that an office is important for three main reasons: Continuity, Organization and Accountability. We recognize many sectors of college administration have been an innovative force in this area in the past, pushing sustainable spaces and programming forward. Yet, we believe a more strategically administered space should be planned for within the college. We recognize this requires placing this as a high priority in the context of many other competing interests, yet believe it will help provide continuity, organization, and accountability to the campus’ sustainability movement. Continuity is difficult to achieve in a student organization. Students have limited time at St. Olaf even if they are involved as first-years. Most members of organizations are upper-class students, and the turnover rate of people in charge means more time spent training the next group of leaders, and less time solving problems. A faculty member would be a more efficient solution to the lack of continuity in sustainable action on campus, and would help the retain continuity

5

within SustainAbilities. Sustainability projects, such as going Carbon Neutral, take many years, and therefore a sustainability position that could plan projects for years in advance is necessary. Organization of sustainability initiatives under a sustainability office would also help to connect with the administration, making long-term projects more plausible. The weight of the issues that student sustainability organizations tackle are large enough to require more administrative involvement. Faculty and students should also be a part of the process, but a connection to the administration is absolutely key. A centralized institution dedicated to sustainability efforts would have many benefits: it would legitimize student organizations and individuals who do such great work, provide a common place of contact for leaders on campus to coordinate with each other, centralize resources and decision-making, provide a location to track energy-use and research on SustainAbilities, would help maintain continuity (as discussed above), and would take accountability for sustainability issues. Accountability for sustainability is currently vague. Students and faculty are taking on most of the visible work-load. Students, however, are not fully qualified to be working on important sustainability projects such as carbon neutrality, as we lack the education, amongst other requirements. Faculty are better, but faculty are hired to teach the student body, not manage the college’s environmental impact. Both students and faculty have other obligations, and neither can dedicate the necessary time to head a sustainability office without detracting from their own obligations. A sustainability office would therefore need a hired staff position to head operations, one with sufficient education (graduate degree) to spear-head sustainable projects. In order to go about creating this office, a physical office space would clearly be needed, but there are also several other questions, the most prevalent of which is what the model for such an office would look like. We have a couple of ideas with advantages and disadvantages of each model listed below. The Piper Center: the main advantage of the Piper Center model is that the Piper Center is everywhere. They find their way into classrooms, meetings and week one activities. Almost everywhere you turn, you see the Piper Center. This advertisement makes the Piper Center very visible around campus, which is a huge advantage. The disadvantage, however, is that the Piper Center was created off of a large donation, and is staffed by several positions, which would be a very expensive operation. The Wellness Center: the Wellness Center has one staff member, which would be feasible for a sustainability office to provide, especially since most staff positions pay for themselves with regards to sustainable initiatives. The wellness center also has events they put on that are requirements for certain classes, and a similar model for SustainAbilities could help to educate students about environmental issues. The disadvantage to the wellness center is they are not as visible to campus as the other alternatives on this list. The Student Activities Office: The OSA is a middle-ground between the Piper Center and the Wellness Center, having a few staff positions, and good visibility amongst the student body at St. Olaf, although SGA does not reach out to students through classes or faculty. These are a few ideas for a model of a sustainability office, but other ideas are encouraged. A sustainability office could also serve as an office for the Environmental Studies Department, which currently has no reserved office space. This would help to incorporate faculty into the model, and could help pertinent information from the sustainability office find its way into the classroom. Other ideas include collaborating with Carleton to hire a staff member.

6

Student Government Of the various colleges we examined, there were several unique approaches to connecting student government with sustainability. Virtually all had some degree of student participation, although the question of student government was less uniform. Luther and Carleton take an approach similar to St. Olaf with an Environmental Senator representing the environmental constituencies and the Environmental Advisory Committee, respectively, in the student senate. Oberlin has a slightly different approach: their student senate appoints two students to the Committee on Environmental Sustainability, which is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Oberlin College Environmental Policy. Dickinson’s sustainability work is primarily accomplished through their sustainability office, although some larger student organizations did have ties to the SGA. Colorado College likewise does not have a sustainability representative to the SGA, however two student representatives sit on the Campus Sustainability Council. Macalester took a more comprehensive approach by amending the constitution of their student government to stipulate that all student government activities and decisions adhere to a set of environmental ideals and standards. At St. Olaf At St. Olaf, the Environmental Senator represents environmentally-oriented interests in the Student Senate. The Environmental Senator is charged with sitting on the Environmental Task Force (consisting of relevant faculty and staff and the senator; it has been largely inactive in 2013), monitoring the environmental impact of SGA, acting as a board member of the Clean Energy Revolving Fund, serving as a liaison to the various environmental groups and organizations on campus, and representing student environmental concerns to administrators. Compared to the methods being employed by similar colleges, St. Olaf has taken an on par approach. However, adequacy is no reason to cease striving for exceptional work. By reassessing the question of student government and sustainability, St. Olaf has the opportunity to set the standard for other colleges as it has in the past. Our Suggestions If St. Olaf elects to create an Office of Sustainability, the Environmental Senator position should be refashioned to coordinate between senate and this office. The Environmental Senator could then help implement a sustainable vision for the college through Student Government. We do not believe this issue is something the SGA can address on its own, as processes within student government are time consuming and subject to multiple authorities. Nor do we believe creating a new branch is the right answer, as additional positions, committees, or branches simply consume more student’s time without a guarantee of measurable improvement. This is an extensive and varied issue the college needs to address and cannot be simplified into a mere facet of student life. It is also impossible to guarantee that members of student senate will be able to vote in an informed manner concerning sustainability due to the fact that they are intrinsically beholden to their respective constituencies and cannot be expected to acquire expertise in every field. Student Government should assuredly be involved in doing their part to promote conservation and limit energy use, but this is too large of a problem for them to address in its entirety. The Sustainability Subcommittee also cannot exist every year under the current executive design. The current Sustainability Subcommittee will help implement a strategy for student government to become knowledgeable on these issues each year, possibly by addressing this issue through a committee on internal affairs. This year the committee also intends to

7

introduce a few proposals to alter sustainability practices within SGA. However, the ability to ensure responsible interaction between student government and sustainability oriented interests lies beyond the scope of any senate sub-committee, rather, decisive action is needed by the administration and student body respectively. Transportation Transportation for colleges can add a huge impact to both sustainability and being environmentally conscious. Transportation that does not use fossil fuels or relies less upon it is most commonly referred to as alternative transportation. Common examples of alternative transportation found at other colleges consisted of car sharing, hybrid cars, and biking. Dickinson, Oberlin College and Luther all have bike shops that let students repair bikes and rent them. All had the ability to rent bikes for a day or even for the entire semester. This availability encourages students to bike more around campus and the neighboring area. Many colleges have also made an effort to purchase hybrid cars for their public safety officers. At Oberlin College, the Office of Safety and Security purchased two Ford Escape Hybrid vehicles in 2005. Luther College owns eight hybrid vehicles. Almost all of the colleges that we looked at work to promote carpooling among staff and students offering better parking spots or a small compensation. At St. Olaf At St. Olaf students have access these types of alternative transport: Enterprise Car-Share (formally WeCar), free buses to off campus activities, extra carpooling, VanGo, and EcoTrans. The college fleet has the potential to utilize our own biodiesel from Stav Hall waste as well, although the waste is currently being given to Thousand Hills. We also have a very limited supply of bikes available to check out from the library through Green Bikes funded and assisted by Administrative Decision-making, student partnership, and administrative staff at the library. Our Suggestions We have made admirable strides in sustainable transport thus far, but little is being said about the continued benefits. Promotion of alternative transport seems to be lacking at St. Olaf. Simply revamping marketing of the Movie Bus program through SGA increased participation three-fold. We believe such marketing efforts should be continued. Green Bikes has discontinuous turnover, and students coordinate the bulk of the program (along with a partnership with the library). A bike shop exists in the bottom floor of Ytterboe, but there are few spaces for students to interact surrounding alternative transport. Integrating and fostering management of the Green Bikes program under a sustainability office model may solve turnover issues. Recent efforts on the part of the Northfield Transit Initiative should also be noted – integrating these efforts would provide students with innovative civic engagement opportunities. Food The colleges we examined treat food-related environmental practices very seriously. From composting, to purchasing local foods, to creating campus gardens and farms, sustainable shifts have had a significant impact. Luther College’s Food, Purchasing, and Waste Committee, comprised of students and faculty, examines the habits of the college in regards to the purchasing of local food, food waste, and other practices. By composting in the dining hall

8

as well as purchasing local food for their dining hall, Luther is effectively reducing its carbon impact. In addition, the college is maintaining many college gardens, three of which are connected to residence halls. Other colleges across the country are following suit and engaging in sustainable practices. Similar to Luther are Dickenson College & Oberlin College. Dickenson runs an organic farm that provides food to the cafeteria as well as reusing its vegetable oil by converting it into fuel. Oberlin, enacting some of the same practices as Luther, has gone trayless in two of their dining halls, provides fair-trade coffee to its students, maintains an herb garden and also composts paper and food waste. Similar to St. Olaf, Oberlin has eliminated the use of bottled water in all of its facilities and vending machines. Colleges across the nation continue to develop new practices for enacting sustainable behavior, and for starters, many turn to the college’s food service. At St. Olaf St. Olaf is doing a great job partnering with local farmers. The school donates its biodiesel to a local, environmentally-conscious farmer (Thousand Hills). We compost from Stav Hall, King’s Hall, the Cage, and the Pause[2] , but the industrial composter currently does not have the capability to accommodate other locations on campus. It would be ideal to be composting from all the Residence Halls, but students currently generate too much food waste. Despite efforts to educate students all of last year through SustainAbilities and Environmental Coalition’s Clean Plate Campaign, food waste actually went up in October. The SustainAbilities program tried integrating composting solutions in the residence halls under the direction of Oles Compost and through the use of Green Cones, a solar compacting system, last year. Student participation was simply too large to make the cones a successful solution – food was not composting quickly enough. Additionally, confusion is still present on campus about what can and cannot be recycled. Student groups have tried addressing these issues but have not been overly successful, despite continued efforts. The reusable mug program still exists in the Cage, which was started by Environmental Coalition two years ago, as well as the bag lunch program. Mugs for the program are donations from students, faculty, or staff, and typically run out quickly. Notably, St. Olaf still has trays in Stav Hall. Trayless campaigns, run by environmental organizations at other schools, have been largely successful. Similar campaigns at St. Olaf have received extensive pushback, due primarily to student desires for convenience, and because students wish to take their food with them to meetings or language tables. Currently, about 80% of St. Olaf students use trays. Trays assist in generating approximately 30% more food and water waste, as students take more than they can eat or drink. Our Suggestions We want to applaud Bon Appetit, and St. Olaf’s support of Bon Appetit, for its work in raising awareness about food with a heavy carbon footprint and in promoting and purchasing local, sustainably raised foods. We hope they continue in this sustainable approach. SustainAbilities have also hosted a number of events on sustainable agriculture, per student interest. We think composting at St. Olaf needs to be re-addressed, as it is a relatively simple solution to the generation of waste on campus. However, composting is not something student groups alone can address. Many colleges include a compost bin next to their garbage and recycling, which we would also appreciate. Increasing compost generation on campus would require a way to process the increased compost and/or a reduction in food waste to account for

9

compost generation in other sectors of the college, i.e. the Residence Halls. With sufficient funding sources in the long-term, an additional industrial composter may prove a viable solution. Removing trays from the cafeteria could also reduce food waste, as a systemic decision on the issue would simply remove the convenience of tray use. Reducing food waste generation on campus is a behavioral shift that will require continued tenacity. Student Work Student work in developing a sustainable campus is (in all of our examples) facilitated by an administrative branch. Workers usually direct or carry out projects that promote sustainable on-campus living (e.g. campaigns, hall representatives, data gathering/analysis) or effect sustainable change in on-campus facilities (e.g. garden, bike store). Oberlin’s Facilities department employs 10 students to be part of the Resource Conservation Team. The RCT works on a wide range of resource-use reduction initiatives and manage Oberlin College’s comprehensive recycling program. Also at Oberlin, the Campus Dining Service employs a few students to work primarily in the dining halls and initiate wastereducing projects such as waste audits, assessment of packaging options, and a composting program. The CDS Recyclers educate students and staff in the dining halls about reducing resource use in particular through reducing food and packaging waste. Dickinson staffs their Center for Sustainability Education with 12 students. The Sustainability Office at Macalester employs 11 students. Student workers across campus are also involved in the sustainability Student Worker Network, where up to 25 student workers in 11 different departments work on sustainability issue across the campus. At Luther, the Center for Sustainable Communities offers work study positions in the college gardens, in the sustainability office (promoting sustainable habits and organizing events both on campus and in the community and doing research), in the halls (as representatives to answer questions, organize residence hall events, etc.), and in waste diversion (composting and recycling). At St. Olaf There is currently no office at St. Olaf that would obviously employ students to work under the sustainability banner, or formal outline for student work relating to sustainability. Rather, sustainability initiatives on the part of students have been largely volunteer based. Environmental Coalition has encompassed a number of initiatives in the past, including the Take Back the Tap Campaign, the Clean Plate Campaign, Oles Compost, Carbon Neutral St. Olaf, Recycling at St. Olaf, among others. A number of sustainable food-related sub-organizations or initiatives have also existed under Environmental Coalition’s umbrella or through EC’s members. In recent years, EC initiated the reusable mug program in the cage and the reusable lunch bag program, analyzed buying practices by Bon Appetit through the Real Food St. Olaf campaign, and helped Bon Appetit with their Carbon Diet Days. EC also organizes volunteer opportunities at local farms or otherwise, which civic engagement courses and/or ES 137 occasionally take advantage of, and organizes tours of local facilities. Beyond EC and somewhat affiliated to it, other active environmental organizations on campus include OUTS (Oles in the Sun), which organize outdoor adventure opportunities, and CERF (Community Energy Revolving Fund), which consists of a fund that grants startup monies to sustainable projects that are also financially sustainable and will thereby repay the fund. There are other groups on campus that are student led (Student Naturalists, SustainAbilities, Green House and Wendell

10

Berry House), yet are either paid or living-based, while the organizations listed above are strictly volunteer-based. SustainAbilities is one form of student work, and is an organization staffed and managed by students that focuses on sustainable living habits. SustainAbilities is funded by a two-year grant budgeted to run out this year. Please see the Residence Life Section for more information on this topic. Students can be funded through the CIR (Center for Integrative Research) to conduct their own research, which can be focused on environmental issues on campus. Our Suggestions Though there is no Sustainability Office at St. Olaf, Facilities and Bon Appetit have the capacity to form and supervise student work positions. The work can either be practical or research-based. Students at St. Olaf are very interested in research experience, and many students are considering a career in environmental activism. The natural lands, and many surrounding St. Olaf lands, have served as hubs for research relating to sustainability. Farmers leasing St. Olaf lands must meet certain sustainable standards, and students in varying independent research projects have studied water and soil quality in these fields. Ecological research has also been conducted on the prairie, forest restorations, and waterways in the surrounding area. Faculty and students have engaged other notable research projects with an environmental focus (Arctic climate research, trout streams, green chemistry, science education in elementary schools, algae usage and biofuels, historical research, among others). Research has also been conducted within the Environmental Studies Department. Providing a venue for students to do research that benefits the campus environment could be hugely beneficial for both the school and the student workers. Curriculum Curricular approaches to sustainability vary greatly among colleges. The American Association for Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE)’s STARS program, similar to many other ranking divisions for sustainable efforts in higher education, divides institutional design of sustainability education into the following categories: sustainability course identification, focused courses, related courses, sustainability courses by department, sustainable learning outcomes (often represented as the proportion of students with a related degree or certificate), an undergraduate program in sustainability, graduate program in sustainability, an immersive sustainability experience (either a program or study abroad), a sustainability literacy assessment, and incentives for the development of sustainability courses for professors. A sustainability course is generally one that educates students about the interconnections and interdependency of ecological, social, and economic systems and development; engages participants in inquiry and empowers students to apply knowledge in the service of solving climate and environmental issues or in incorporating ethical sustainable practices into their professional and civic life. Many, like Dickinson and Luther College, have classes with a specific sustainability focus and a rating scale for those classes. Professors are able to use the Center for Sustainability Education at Dickinson to edit curriculum to incorporate this sustainable focus. The idea of “living laboratories” for learning is a common focus in institutional education design as well. Duke University is a leader in this effort, offering many living laboratories for diverse educational experiences in sustainability. Some examples of living laboratories have included the “Home Depot Smart Home,” where students living in the home use and develop

11

“smart technology” and where courses are offered on sustainable living topics such as “Smart Home Technology Development” and “Sustainable Structures.” The Duke Campus Farm, the Duke Forest which holds up to 50 research projects at a time, researching disposal of nontraditional recyclables, SWAMP which acts as an outdoor classroom and field laboratory for wetland restoration, and the Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative are all examples of Duke’s “living laboratories.” Dickinson College includes the following organizations or groups, many of which were initially begun by student interns, and which are run through the Center for Sustainability Education: Organic Farm, Alliance for Aquatic Resource Monitoring (ALLARM), Green hall, Bike Shop, Biodiesel plant. New projects funding for Dickinson’s living laboratory comes from the “Ideas Fund.” Living laboratory models also often provide students with the opportunity to do recognized undergraduate research. At St. Olaf St. Olaf’s primary response to sustainability education is currently through the Environmental Studies major and concentration. This major has a specific interdisciplinary focus. Beyond the major, 2013-14 is the pilot year of the Environmental Conversations program. The program allows students to learn and focus on specific environmental courses along with other interested students. The students are required to live in Kittelsby Hall which started a “green hall” initiative. The program focuses on writing and religion courses with off-campus tours of environmentally conscious locations. The “Green Building/Green Remodeling” course offered this fall, taught by Paul Jackson and Pete Sandberg, serves as a similar model to “living laboratories” at other colleges. The course “Sustainable Development,” taught by the new ENVST/ECON faculty member, Seth Binder, during the spring, also serves as a “living laboratory” design. The Environmental Studies Department offers a number of courses with relatively similar models, including Academic Civic Engagement Courses. The Green Building course this fall is the first in recent years that includes a member of facilities as a co-educator. Beyond courses, SustainAbilities has helped advance approaches to curricular sustainable. SustainAbilities emphasizes “practical steps to a sustainable society,” engaging routine information sessions, lectures, and accessible events to initiate sustainable literacy on campus. At its initial conception, the SustainAbilities program also completed a full course evaluation of St. Olaf’s curriculum called the “Green Course Listing,” ranking and marking courses as either green focused or green related (sustainabilities.stolaf.edu/green-course-listing/). Our Suggestions St. Olaf is currently doing a great job when it comes to curricular sustainability. However, eight-five percent of first-year Oles think that environmental literacy is an important part of a college education, and 58 percent support a general education requirement for environmental literacy (Farrell, J. “Sustainability Across the Curriculum Workshop” – St. Olaf College, June 13-14). A sustainability GE would be an excellent way of ensuring all Oles learn to be not only ethical global citizens of the world, but also ethical ecological citizens while in college. The sustainability GE could model itself off of the WRI/ORC model, where it could be added to a given course’s syllabus, rendering it minimally cumbersome for students. The Green Course Listing would provide an excellent foundation for implementation, as there are many St. Olaf courses that would already qualify with a sustainability GE. We suggest the curricular committee within Senate consider revamping this aspect of the general education curriculum.

12

Other than the GE, current efforts of sustainability education at St. Olaf are admirable. We fit many of the outlined requirements by AASHE to receive a ‘gold star’ in this category. Additional incentives for faculty development of sustainability topics may be one area in which we could improve, although most faculty integrate these topics per their own interest without incentives anyway. Although the college’s vision forward is to emphasize people and programs, addressing sustainability through curriculum should not be the only avenue of future development of a sustainable model for St. Olaf. Solidifying the environmental conversations program could be a large step for getting more students involved in conversing about living sustainably. Land Use & Energy Consumption Attempts to limit energy use on college campuses are varied and robust. Colleges around the country have implemented biodiesel, wastewater treatment, solar, wind, and geothermal strategies for more effective resource use. Oberlin has been a particular leader in these efforts. Oberlin College helped launch the green building movement of the mid-1990s and has used innovative green building systems since in many locations and settings, including the Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies (AJLC). The Living Machine in AJLC processes wastewater into reusable grey water. Students operate the machine. Oberlin has also recently installed a new solar parking pavilion adjacent to the existing photovoltaic (PV array on the roof of the AJLC). Dickinson College uses biodiesel generated from their campus cafeteria’s use of vegetable oil. Colorado College has completed a campus de-lamping campaign, has put in occupancy sensors, has an electric vehicle charging station, and a passive solar greenhouse. Effective land use on college campuses has also been a particular area of effort. Oberlin college’s native ecosystems surrounding the AJLC have a restored wetland which incorporates 50 emergent and open-water wetland plants native to the Ohio region. Development of a diverse and multi-species assemblage is encouraged. Many college’s energy or resource use strategies are guided by climate action plans. Dickinson will be climate neutral by 2020, Oberlin by 2025, Lewis & Clark by 2018, Colorado by 2020, Macalester by 2025, Luther by 2030, Carleton by 2050, and Duke University by 2024. Most of these plans include a centralized and dedicated group of people ensuring the college adheres to target and long-term goals of the plan. Many climate neutrality plans nationally are guided by the President’s Climate Commitment, which outlines a manner of strategizing that is conducive to the given signatory, including: creating institutional structures that can develop and implement a plan within the first two months of signing, conducting a comprehensive inventory of GHGs within the first year, submitting an action plan outlining better ways to manage energy, increase energy efficiency and conservation, and transition to renewable energy sources, carrying out tangible actions while the plan is being developed, creating interim targets for goals and actions, taking actions on research and toward progress, and finally establishing mechanisms for evaluation. Colorado College, for example, has focus on adopting an energy efficient appliance purchasing policy, requiring all new campus construction to be at least LEED Silver standard, and supporting sustainably responsible proposals at companies where the institution’s endowment is invested.

13

At St. Olaf St. Olaf’s natural lands represent Olaf’s most responsible use of land. In addition to a 300-acre campus, the college owns nearly 700 acres of land adjacent to the campus. The college, principally through the Biology and Environmental Studies Departments, has conducted extensive natural habitat restoration projects – over 40,000 tree seedlings and nursery stock trees have been planted on approximately 90 acres in an effort to re-establish the dominant Big Woods forest originally found in this area, over 150 acres of native tall grass prairie has been reconstructed, 17 wetlands have been restored, and a bluebird trail of 64 houses has been established through the woodlands and prairies. A primary goal of the Natural Lands, in partnership with Facilities, has been the restoration of wetland areas from previously agricultural lands. The natural lands restoration is guided primarily through the Curator of the Natural Lands, under whom the St. Olaf Student Naturalists also work. Student Naturalists provide educational and casual opportunities for students to better understand and enjoy the natural lands. In addition to land use, campus energy usage has seen a long-term commitment to sustainability over the last 25 years. Facilities has taken a “closed-loop” approach to adjustments in energy infrastructure, trying to keep waste, water, and energy use localized on campus property. This has been accomplished through substantial renovations and revamping, including, among other efforts, the installation of a high efficiency boiler for the natural gas fired steam system on campus. The wind turbine is of note with regards to energy usage, which provides the equivalent energy of approximately one-third of the electricity used by the college. As of 2013, St. Olaf sells the energy generated by the wind turbine back to Xcel Energy for 3.3 cents, then buys it back for 7 cents. St. Olaf has also installed LED lights outdoors and in many buildings on campus, significantly reducing energy costs. Despite adding a substantial amount of additional square feet since 2001 (about 250,000 gross square feet), energy usage per student has not substantially increased (students currently use approximately 5.5 tons of CO2e per year, and British thermal units (BTUs) per student per degree day stayed the same throughout new construction). This is in contrast to some other schools, like Oberlin, which has high energy consumption as it limits old building remodels. St. Olaf’s carbon usage is also largely below other schools (Luther: 6.0 CO2e per student per year; Gustavus: 8.2; Colorado: 8.6; Carleton: 10.9 as of 2011). St. Olaf has been building to a very high standard for years, and codified much of its work in the “Sustainable Design Guidelines” from 2005-2006. Regents Hall has a Platinum LEED certification, yet the design guidelines used in Regents have guided and will guide other renovations and design work throughout campus. Tostrud, Dittman, Buntrock, Regents NS, Regents MSCS, Tomson, Hall of Music, Alumni Hall, the latest library addition, Ytterboe, Hoyme, and Ellingson have all been guided by LEED Gold standards in line with the college’s Framework and Utility Master Plan. St. Olaf received a “Top Ten” award in energy conservation from Xcel Energy in 2009. Facilities hopes to install modern energy monitors in the coming years in the Residence Halls. This summary represents just a snapshot of the expansive work Facilities, and other aspects of the college, have done to maximize efficient energy use on St. Olaf’s Campus. Our Suggestions St. Olaf is a leader in energy and land conservation, and should be recognized as such. Our primary suggestions in this section thus stem from an interest to keep information updated and accessible to students in readable formats. This report’s primary focus was not necessarily to complete a full energy audit of St. Olaf’s campus, and our suggestions are thus not as extensive

14

as a full sustainability audit may warrant. Information on current land use and energy practices was taken from the St. Olaf website’s “Campus Sustainability” page and further conversations with members of Facilities. It has been many years since parts of these pages were updated, and we believe this is telling of St. Olaf’s approach to sustainability generally. To students, it appears as though the campus had a surge in sustainable activity around 2008 when Regents Hall was built, yet otherwise forgot the issue. Seen through Facilities extensive efforts that go largely unnoticed by students, this is not the case. A mechanism of more transparent reporting of sustainability activity, and student involvement in energy use analysis (i.e. through student work), may help mitigate this confusion. We believe the website on campus sustainability should be updated to reflect the college post-Regents Hall’s construction. Additionally, although Regents and other buildings on campus are built to high green building standards already, we believe St. Olaf should continue to engage energy efficient building standards, particularly as the goals and regulations of the field of green building design become more advanced. Providing more mechanisms to keep sustainable practices at St. Olaf salient and available to students is extremely important – a college campus is an excellent site for students to learn about how to conduct sustainability audits, perhaps of use at their future workplaces. St. Olaf needs to make the data available for such research, like through a more efficient monitoring system that could accurately reflect energy usage. Many competitive energy monitoring systems today offer the availability to track data live – student interest and involvement in energy conservation on campus may increase greatly if a screen tracked their energy usage right in the front of their residence hall or in the entrance of an academic building where they have class. The televisions used for the tightrope system could be an excellent way to transfer this information accordingly. In addition to transparency, we hope St. Olaf can institute a mechanism of ensuring sustainable action on the part of Facilities, and with the Natural Lands, remains relatively consistent. Turnover in positions often causes information to be lost, leading to extra effort as staff must reinvent the sustainable wheel. Codifying administrative guidelines on ways to implement sustainable energy or land use mechanisms through position descriptions or otherwise would help alleviate problems caused by turnover. This subcommittee would like to further put forth a few specific suggestions for Kildahl’s upcoming renovations, perhaps to be modeled in other renovations as well. Photovoltaics (solar panels) are now less expensive than they used to be, and partnership with differing organizations or seeking out specific donors could allow for the implementation of solar energy on hall roofs (or adjacent to halls). Although we recognize the financial constraints of remodels, there are some aspects of renovation that may not require any substantial funding differentiation and could make a large difference. We believe any additional bathroom renovations should include dualflush toilet systems such as those in Regents, limiting water use. Low-flow showerheads, if reasonably usable, should also be formally installed where students cannot remove them as has occurred in the past. Specific metering for each hall should also be installed. In addition to energy monitors for the whole hall, individual monitors that reset after each use for one sink and one shower per hall could allow individuals to track their own energy contributions, creating a positive feedback of sustainable behavior. The organization Architecture 2030 would be an excellent resource for additional suggestions of sustainable remodeling, in addition to St. Olaf’s own students, faculty, and staff. Lastly, we suggest a task force to track energy flows on campus. Stronger statistical analyses of campus energy use will help create goals for future sustainable action, especially in

15

light of budget cuts within Facilities operating budget. Student involvement in such a task force, in a way that does not allow information to fall through the cracks with high student turnover, like through a Sustainability Office, would make this process even more powerful. We hope the task force would additionally outline ways in which the college can move forward with larger plans for energy mitigation, such as the addition of other renewable energy sources (another wind turbine and photovoltaics). Conclusion St. Olaf has been a leader in sustainability efforts for many years. This committee hopes that the suggestions offered in this report will help St. Olaf to continue to be a leader. As sustainable living becomes more and more popular in the United States and the world, prospective students will increasingly look at St. Olaf’s sustainable practices in comparison with other schools’ to make their college decision. In light of both past and recent forward-thinking approaches by the Northfield community and Carleton as well, a more strategic approach to collaboration could provide a means for effective action as well. We believe increased visibility and dedication to, and communication about, the college’s sustainable practices will make a difference for current and future students, staff, and faculty.