• Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • STRENGTHS: Strong beginning, with good stakeholder analysis, and professional effort to estimate carbon footprint AND report on current efforts to reduce it. The review of alternatives lacks depth, although the decision criteria are sound, and the comment on negative externalities is not linked to decision and action. Hoped to see the impact of each alternative on our carbon footprint.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Toward a carbon neutral campus Epsilon  Slide 1
  • 2. Summary of Contents 1. Background Information i. ii. iii. What is carbon footprint? Calculation of carbon footprints Limitations in calculation 2. Stakeholders Analysis 3. Estimation of NTU’s carbon footprint 4. NTU’s carbon reducing initiatives Epsilon Slide 2
  • 3. Summary of Contents 5. Suggestion #1: Online learning to replace classroom teaching 6. Suggestion #2: Buying of carbon offset credits 7. Suggestion #3: CNG Powered Buses 8. Suggestion #4: Promote environmentalism through Earth-link Epsilon Slide 3
  • 4. Summary of Contents 9. Decision Criteria & Matrix 10. Other evaluations 11. Executive Summary 12. References Epsilon Slide 4
  • 5. Background Information  What carbon footprints are all about Epsilon Slide 5
  • 6. Definition  “The carbon footprint is a measure of the exclusive total amount of carbon dioxide emissions that is directly and indirectly caused by an activity or is accumulated over the life stages of a product. “ - Wiedmann and Minx (2007) Epsilon Slide 6
  • 7. Roadmap of Carbon Footprint Epsilon Slide 7
  • 8. How are Carbon Footprints measured?  CO2 emission = Activity data x Emission factor  Example: Amount of paper used (in kg) Epsilon Amount of CO2 emitted per kg of paper used Slide 8
  • 9. Limitations  Impossible to exactly calculate the carbon footprint of an Organization (Too many possible sources of emission)  Lack of information to know who contributed to the carbon footprint of an Organization I.e. In NTU, difficult to allocate emissions between research and education Epsilon Slide 9
  • 10. Stakeholders Analysis  Who are the parties of interest? Epsilon Slide 10
  • 11. Stakeholders’ Interests Stakeholders Interests Students Lower School Fees, Convenience, Effective and Fun Learning. Staff Higher Pay, Convenience in the delivery of lessons, intangible satisfaction from imparting lifelong knowledge and values in students. NTU Brand Name, hence will be concerned with CSR. Lower Costs, Effective education of students. Government Reduction in Carbon emissions. Would want Businesses to be environmentally sustainable and competitive with the world. Public Reduction in costs, improvement in the convenience of daily activities. Would be moderately concerned about the environment. Future Employers Would be interested in hiring students that are not just critical thinkers, but also aware of the importance of the triple bottom line in the sustainability of a business. Slide 11 Epsilon
  • 12. NTU’s Carbon Footprint  How well is our campus fairing? Epsilon Slide 12
  • 13. Steps to estimate Carbon Footprint 1. Design a Process Map 2. Set boundaries for analysis 3. Collect the necessary data 4. Calculate Carbon Footprint Epsilon Slide 13
  • 14. Design Process Map  Identify all activities and processes that contribute to the product or service life cycle:  through breaking down the product’s functional unit into its individual constitutional parts Epsilon Slide 14
  • 15. Boundaries for Analysis  Which life cycle stages, inputs and outputs should be included: Epsilon Slide 15
  • 16. Necessary Data  Quality data should be:  Relevant & Faithfully represented  Specific to the region  Complete and consistent  From reliable sources Epsilon Slide 16
  • 17. Calculate Footprint  Key formula  Activity Data (Waste/Materials/Energy) x Emission Factors  Concept of Mass Balance:  Total mass flowing into a process = Total mass flowing out Epsilon Slide 17
  • 18. NTU Yearly Carbon Footprint Estimate Scope Source CO2 Emissions (kg) 1 Campus Generated Electricity 2 Purchased electricity 3 Faculty commuting 3,000,000 Student commuting 9,000,000 Faculty air travel 2,500,000 Negligible 52,000,000 Paper Consumption 120,000 Waste 180,000 Campus Transport (Tong Tar Transport) Total No. of Students 80,000 66,880,000 32,986 No. of Employees 6,612 Total per student 1,590.84 Slide 18 2,178.55 Epsilon employee Total per
  • 19. NTU’s carbon reducing strategies  What’s currently being done Epsilon Slide 19
  • 20. Campus Initiatives  Member of the International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN) since 18th August 2012  The School of Art, Design and Media (ADM) & Cleantech One are currently among the better performing energy efficient buildings in Singapore Epsilon Slide 20
  • 21. Energy Efficiency Minus 10  Initiatives to reduce energy costs in NTU by 10%  Airtightness in buildings and doorways  Increasing air-con set points  Shortened air-con hours  Energy reduction for ventilation units  Reducing unnecessary and excessive lightings  High energy efficiency lighting system  Ownership of costs by departments  Re-engineering of ductwork  Solar PV systems Epsilon Slide 21
  • 22. Online Learning  Suggestion 1 Epsilon Slide 22
  • 23. The Advantages  Quantitative Factors:  Reduced travel costs and time (students & profs)  Reduced human resources usage  Reduced paper wastage  Reduced utilities & maintenance costs  Qualitative Factors:  Convenience  Instill value of self-discipline Epsilon Slide 23
  • 24. The Disadvantages  Quantitative Factors:  Increased costs for IT infrastructure  Carbon footprint (paper wastage, utilities) transferred from school to households  Qualitative Factors:  Students still carrying traditional classrooms mindsets may feel uneasy  Over-reliance on technology Epsilon Slide 24
  • 25. Buying Carbon Offset Credits  Suggestion 2 Epsilon Slide 25
  • 26. The Idea  Paying CO2 Australia to reduce emission of CO2 to allow us to continue our emissions Epsilon Slide 26
  • 27. The Advantages  Quantitative:  Immediate reduction of carbon footprint  Carbon neutrality accurately measured and achieved  Cost savings on other green initiatives  Qualitative:  Effortless and convenient way to reduce carbon footprint  Current practices can be continued Epsilon Slide 27
  • 28. The Disadvantages  Quantitative:  Zero-Sum Game  No reduction of carbon emissions, only a transfer to CO2 Australia  Expenses to buy carbon credits do not bring tangible benefits to the campus  Qualitative:  Difficulty in ensuring CO2 Australia keeps to their end of the deal Epsilon Slide 28
  • 29. CNG Powered Shuttle Buses  Suggestion 3 Epsilon Slide 29
  • 30. The Advantages  Quantitative:  Reduced carbon emissions  Lower costs compared to petrol and diesel  Qualitative:  No need to reduce frequency of buses to reduce carbon emissions from transport Epsilon Slide 30
  • 31. The Disadvantages  Quantitative:  Slightly more costly than the average bus  Qualitative:  Clean natural gas itself is a non-renewable resource  Additional space and capacity required for gas cylinders Epsilon Slide 31
  • 32. Promote Environmentalism  Suggestion 4 Epsilon Slide 32
  • 33. NTU’s Earth-link Club  Initiatives:  EcoVenture  Environmental Awareness Campaign  E-waste Recycling Campaign  Recycling Drives  Bring your own bag Campaign Epsilon Slide 33
  • 34. The Advantages  Addresses the human factor of environmental conservation  Educating students on environmentally friendly practices will help reduce carbon emissions  Large impact since students are one of the main contributors of carbon emissions from a school Epsilon Slide 34
  • 35. Decision Criteria and Matrix  A short comparison of all suggestions Epsilon Slide 35
  • 36. Decision Criteria Cost The cost, both long and short term, required to execute the alternatives Long Term Carbon Reduction The effects of the alternatives on reducing CO2 emissions in the long run. This includes the Feasibility How possible and practical are the alternatives? Adaptability How versatile are the alternatives, can they be changed easily in the event of an unexpected occurrence? Epsilon Slide 36
  • 37. Decision Matrix Online Learning Carbon Offset Credits CNG buses Earth-Link Cost ✔ ✗ ✔ ✔ Long Term Carbon Reduction ✔ ✗ ✔ ✔ Feasibility ✗ ✗ ✔ ✔ Adaptability ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ Epsilon Slide 37
  • 38. Other Evaluations Epsilon  Slide 38
  • 39. Green-Washing  A form of deceptive Green Marketing tactic  Promote environmentally friendly policies without actual reduction in carbon emissions  Buying of carbon credits (as discussed earlier) is a form of Green-Washing tactic Epsilon Slide 39
  • 40. Tree Planting  A form of “carbon storage” solution  This solution is temporary as carbon stored will eventually be re-released into the environment  The most tangible benefit of this solution is its ability to give carbon emitters a peace of mind Epsilon Slide 40
  • 41. Negative Externalities  Carbon emissions as unintended consequences should be taken into account Epsilon Slide 41
  • 42. Executive Summary Being a member of the International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN), NTU is already mobilising the necessary resources to become one of the world’s leading universities in integrated sustainability education, research, energy efficient buildings and student involvement, reducing carbon footprints of the organisation to a minimum. However, more can be done to further improve the Brand of the school, and bring about benefits such as convenience towards its stakeholders. Being a School, the solution of educating students on reducing their individual carbon footprints has the most potential in changing the environmental scene on a macro scale. Taking a micro scale, our presentation explores the possibility of NTU further reducing its carbon footprints through E learning, buying of carbon offset credits and CNG vehicles to replace the shuttle buses. Carbon offset credits are not the way to go for NTU as it is a form of greenwashing. It will only give the perception that NTU is being environmentally friendly, when it is not reducing the amount of pollution it has. This will not bode well with the school’s values of being environmentally friendly. Also, the planting of trees does not have long term benefits as it only temporarily stores the carbon, and these trees will return the CO2 back to the environment when it is cut or burnt. E learning would not be a viable option as it will not be able to entirely replace physical classrooms and with notes still being printed during E learning, though it would be able to reduce a small portion of the carbon footprints by the NTU. The long term solution we propose would be to first continue with the current research in sustainable sources of energy by the full time staff. Next, NTU must continue striving in the education of the students on the importance of the planet component of the triple bottom line and its impact on businesses, as it is an intangible investment which would potentially affect their future employers and improve the carbon footprints of the world as a whole.
  • 43. References         Epsilon http://www.sustainapore.sg/events/ISCN_low_res.pdf http://clubs.ntu.edu.sg/earthlink/website/index.php http://www.co2australia.com.au/ http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuelefficiency/alternative-fuels/ngv4.htm http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/transit-busesfueled-by-natural-gas-more-viable-than-diesel-orelectric/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_natural_gas http://aggiehorticulture.tamu.edu/faculty/hall/publications/PAS2050 _Guide.pdf Calculating the carbon footprint of universities – Stefan Sprangers Slide 43