by Rob Kuper & Meredith Hegg
On Temple’s main web page and on billboards over I-95, the Temple T accompanies the tagline, “because the world won’t change itself.” Of course, the world is changing, largely due to fossil fuel consumption and other human-driven degradation. What we faculty teach in classrooms may prepare students to “change the status quo and play a major role in changing the world for the better,” as Temple’s main web page states, but where we teach, in our campus buildings and landscapes, and what Temple invests in must also change in response to the climate crisis.
Temple leadership appears to know things must change, but stark differences in detail exist between Temple’s 2010 and 2019 Climate Action Plans. Under President Ann Weaver Hart, Temple became a signatory of the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment and released its 2010 Climate Action Plan.
The plan set an emissions reduction target of 30%—relative to fiscal year (FY) 2006—by 2030, which would require a 1 to 2% annual reduction in emissions. Recommendations included energy conservation measures for campus buildings and utility plants as well as energy supply changes. These supply recommendations included generation of solar, wind, and geothermal energy, use of biofuels, and implementation of a system for combined heat and power. Each of these recommendations included project and payback timelines, annual cost, energy, and emissions savings.
By contrast, the 2019 Climate Action Plan (released following the 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C) targeted carbon neutrality for 2050 but included none of these details. Additionally, the plan showed a 17% increase in energy use relative to FY 2006 and targeted an 18% annual reduction in building energy use, relative to FY 2017, by 2030, while in the four annual sustainability reports released since then, reductions in building energy use have equaled only six, one, five, and seven percent.
How far does Temple have to go to reach zero emissions?
Between FY 2006 and 2023, emissions reportedly totaled 3.49 million metric tons of CO2 (t CO2). However, this is likely an underestimate. The embodied emissions associated with the construction of the Charles Library and at least 8 other projects since 2009 were not included.
Temple’s 2023 Gold rating from the American Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) STARS Program is encouraging. But these standards may not be aggressive enough to make higher education truly sustainable. For example, AASHE does not require documentation of certain “scope 3” emissions (for example, those from diesel-powered construction equipment and extraction, processing, and installation of building materials related to campus development). AASHE awards points only for “scope 1” and “scope 2” net emissions reductions. Generally, scope 3 emissions are the most difficult to estimate, but are also the highest.
How significant is Temple’s impact? Humans collectively emit over 36 billion t CO2 each year; thus, Temple’s contribution is relatively small. However, as the IPPC states, “every tonne of CO2 emissions adds to global warming.” Refereed scientific literature shows that for every ton emitted, 3 square meters of summer Arctic sea-ice—and its reflective capacity—are lost. At $51 per t CO2, the Biden administration’s estimate of the social cost of carbon, Temple’s 2023 emissions impose $7.67 million in costs on global society.
If we instead use Rennert et al’s 2021 figure of $185 per t CO2 (as published in the journal Nature) this amount goes up to $27.82 million. More costly are human lives. Two papers authored by Parncutt reported that one future person is killed with every 1,000 tons of carbon burned (3,370 t CO2 emitted). And Bressler showed that for every 4,434 t CO2 emitted, one temperature-related death will occur between now and 2100. Temple’s impact is not negligible, and neither is an individual’s.
Temple is pursuing net zero and its close kin, carbon neutrality. Both are inadequate goals for at least four reasons. First, net zero shifts the focus of emissions reductions to the future. Reductions must happen now. Second, net zero is reliant upon equipment that is costly and may not be deployable at a global scale. For example, direct air capture of one t CO2 now costs between $200 and $1000. Third, net-zero targets rely upon “nature-based solutions,” i.e., trees, to sequester and store carbon. Trees possess many benefits but grow slowly.
The amount of deforestation since the 1750s makes it impossible to preserve and plant enough trees to account for centuries of emissions and for decades of fossil fuel combustion. Finally, net-zero targets rely on carbon offsets, which are extraordinarily difficult to verify, are too cheap to work effectively, and distract from actual emissions reductions. As per the United Nations High-Level Expert Panel report, “Integrity Matters,” Temple and other institutions “cannot buy cheap [carbon] credits that often lack integrity instead of immediately cutting their own emissions across their value chain.” Temple must pursue real or true zero emissions.
The lack of decisive action could also hurt Temple’s future more directly. Penn State, one of Temple’s 10 peer institutions as identified by the Provost’s Office, acknowledges in its December 2021 Report from the President’s Carbon Emissions Reduction Task Force, that the “University’s legitimacy and enrollment reputation are tied” to carbon management. Failing to act “decisively now” carries the risk of making a school less desirable in the eyes of students relative to other institutions. Eight of these peer institutions have climate action plans; one has called for a plan, and another is developing one. All eight that have plans have target dates at least a decade earlier than Temple’s 2050 date. Of the 37 institutions listed in the University of Delaware’s 2022 Sustainability Plan, 26 have target dates at or before 2030.
Transforming campus infrastructure will be costly, but it may save the university money in the long term. Penn State estimates implementation costs equal to $750 million over 14 years. The University of California at Davis estimates $1 billion over 17 years for their Fossil Fuel-Free Pathway. While startling, Penn State also estimates that “possible carbon tax scenarios between $10 and $70 per ton would amount to $4 million to $28 million per year,” and that a savings of $15 million per year from reduced maintenance and operating costs, following implementation, could begin in 2035. UC Davis reports that a 10-year delay in implementation would double the costs.
Planning for decarbonization at Temple now is timely
Temple has employed the services of Sasaki, an interdisciplinary design firm, to create a ten-year comprehensive (“master”) campus plan. As per the IPCC’s 2018 recommendation, Temple’s 2034 plan should reflect an emissions reduction of 56%, relative to 2010 levels. As of May 2023, the Boundless Temple Work Session Analysis stated that “70% of campus emissions come from building operations.” Many of Temple’s facilities date to the 1960s and 1970s, have “growing deferred maintenance,” and “need major renovation.” Some of these “may be reaching the end of their anticipated lifecycle.” Moreover, Temple is at a “critical juncture with energy” and needs to “implement new infrastructure that will last 50-100 years.”
Who must act? Staff in facilities management ensure smooth, efficient campus operations. We take their knowledge, skills, dedication, and hard work—regardless of weather or time of day— for granted, though we should not. Their support, insight, experience, and direction are necessary to guide Temple through the required transformation. Temple Administration, in consultation with the Office of Sustainability, will oversee decarbonization. However, any real action depends on direction from The Board of Trustees.
The Board of Trustees must set into motion major transformations in energy and finance. We recommend that the university immediately solicit the creation of an equitable energy descent action plan with a real zero target. Transforming existing energy infrastructure, prioritizing adaptive reuse of buildings, and powering all future development with strictly renewable energy are necessary components. As per the current AASHE report, Temple generates only 2.05% of its energy from clean and renewable sources. Again, the UN’s Integrity Matters report states that Temple and other non-state actors “cannot claim to be net zero while continuing to build or invest in new fossil fuel supply.” Doing so constitutes greenwashing.
Temple must also direct the (outsourced) chief investment officer from Strategic Investment Group to divest now from all fossil fuels in the Endowment Pool and Retirement Funds. Five of Temple’s 10 peer institutions have divested (NYU, Rutgers, Syracuse, UCLA, & Maryland). Two peer institutions have active student-led efforts to persuade the universities to divest (Penn State and Pitt). Another, Arizona State, is ranked #1 in finance and investment according to AASHE. (Temple’s recent AASHE rating does not include an evaluation of the sustainability of our investment portfolio.) To make Temple accountable, we need public disclosure of direct and indirect ownership of securities of companies in the fossil fuel industry.
In accordance with its mission statement, Temple University must take this “transformative opportunity” to responsibly engage the climate emergency, support human rights, and uphold and illustrate the University’s ideals. Decarbonization is an “act of service” and an opportunity to participate in shared leadership and governance across constituencies in “Philadelphia, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the nation and the world.” We must decarbonize, because the world won’t change itself.
