Racing the clock

Chico State’s motto “today decides tomorrow” has resonated with a class of environmentally conscious students. For Natalie Kinney, it means the university must make decisions now to ensure a better future for the planet and generations to come.

Though the university pledged in 2007 to become climate neutral by 2030, Kinney and her peers feel that Chico State is not keeping its promise, with a new campus building, Siskiyou 2, serving as a prime example.

So, they decided to do something about it, gathering more than 1,500 signatures to put an initiative on the student ballot that asks the Associated Students to encourage the university to reaffirm this pledge, the American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment, made by former President Paul Zingg and other university presidents. The students suggested starting with Siskiyou 2, which they believe isn’t adequately eco-friendly.

Last week, the campus sent administrators a clear message: 86 percent of the student body voted in favor of their initiative.

Siskiyou 2, a three-story, $101 million facility, is projected to emit the equivalent of 664 metric tons of carbon dioxide (MTCO2E) annually—a relatively small amount when compared with the campus’ total output of more than 30,000 MTCO2E—relying on electricity, mainly, and natural gas for heating and cooling. It will serve as the university’s new physical sciences building.

“This building is better than the buildings we have now, but it’s still not the best,” Kinney said. “Let’s be before the curve … how is this building going to help, versus adding more emissions into the atmosphere?”

The problem is that the university already scheduled construction for this fall. University President Gayle Hutchinson explained in a letter to students that construction cannot be delayed because that would “cost millions of dollars” and “result in increased carbon emissions.”

Sisikiyou 2 is “at the cutting edge of what can be done to reduce the energy demand and climate impact of a laboratory science building,” wrote Hutchinson, who recommitted to the climate neutrality pledge two years ago.

The net impact will be less than it seems, added David Hassenzahl, dean of the College of Natural Sciences. The building will essentially replace two others—Siskiyou Hall is planned for demolition, and Siskiyou 2 will house the offices and classrooms of the current Physical Science Building, though its future use is unknown. Combined, the two buildings emit about 970 MTCO2E.

The issue is bigger than just one building, however. Students have criticized the administration for its approach toward sustainability. Climate neutrality is unattainable, they say, given the university’s reliance upon nonrenewable energy, like its natural gas-powered boiler-chiller plant (most recently updated/expanded last summer) and the addition of several nonclimate-neutral buildings in the last 10 years.

The latest greenhouse gas emissions report (released Wednesday by Second Nature, the organization backing the university presidents’ climate commitment), shows the campus’ emissions increasing from 26,869 MTCO2E in 2011 to 30,820 MTCO2E in 2015. There was a spike in 2013, with levels reaching 41,338 MTCO2E.

Though Chico State has achieved a gold ranking in the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS), there are some sections of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education program that show room for improvement. Notably, 0.87 percent of the campus’ energy is consumed from clean and renewable sources—that’s less than 1 percent. However, Fletcher Alexander, sustainability coordinator for the university’s Institute for Sustainable Development, noted this doesn’t include the 33 percent of renewable sources from PG&E’s grid. “We’re aware that expanding renewable generation is a priority,” he said.

Alexander also pointed out the university’s strengths in the STARS report, which include a near-perfect score in curriculum, and perfect score for outreach and innovation/leadership. Also, building energy consumption decreased by about 7 percent per unit of floor area.

Moving forward, the university is updating its 2005 master plan, which establishes guidelines for the campus’ physical growth. Part of it will detail how it will get to climate neutrality by 2030. The A.S. sustainability coordinator, a student position, will be part of the development process. A.S. President Alisha Sharma said in the fall she’ll bring the climate initiative to the A.S. board of directors, which will decide if it wants to prepare any recommendation for the university.

Getting to the 2030 goal isn’t going to be easy, Hassenzahl acknowledged. “To get there, we’re going to have to be using an electrical grid that is not reliant upon fossil fuels. … And then we need to figure out how we offset our use of natural gas. I think even if we had all the financial resources in the world right now, it would be really hard to do it. The technology is not there.”

Maggie Scarpa, A.S. Sustainability Affairs commissioner, isn’t convinced the university is doing enough. The campus needs to lower its emissions, explore more solar options and make long-term investments in green infrastructure, she said.

“We have a lot of education around sustainability, we have this huge conference around sustainability, which is amazing, but our actions don’t represent what our actual mission is, and it’s disappointing,” Scarpa said.