Extending the audit
This is a first attempt
The data presented in this audit are an initial attempt at quantifying DUSP's greenhouse gas emissions. Although the result is imperfect, it provides an initial guide for action and identifies further areas of study that could be carried out to make the audit more precise and comprehensive. This page recaps the limitations identified for each section in one place to help guide future audits - each limitation listed below is an opportunity for further study to improve the audit.
Visualization and comparative studies
This audit gives some indication of DUSP's emissions, but does not begin to present this information in interesting ways, either visual or data related (for example, the emissions associated with taking the MCP degree course for two years)
Comparative studies are also needed, to show how DUSP's emissions compare to other schools and institutions. For example, Tufts' carbon audit identifies the emissions at Tufts as 2.18 MTCDE per student1. 1. Tufts University's Green House Gas Emissions Inventory for 1990 and 1998. 2001 The equivalent measure for DUSP is over 5 MTCDE.
Long distance travel
Greenhouse gas emissions from flights are thought to be more damaging to the environment than other forms of emissions, because they are inserted directly into the upper atmosphere2. 2. For more information, see Rogers, H L et al. The impacts of radiation on the upper atmosphere, The Aeronautical Journal 2002. Further investigation could provide more accurate measures of the relative impacts of these emissions relative to others.
Flights for DUSP activities that were purchased through other routes are not counted (e.g. Dean's office, project sponsor). At least two classes this spring took flights that do not show up in the records, so these emissions are missing.
Train or bus travel is not included, though the low emissions from rail transport mean that this is probably not a large additional contribution.
No allowance is made for emissions due to ongoing projects within Boston or Massachusetts, e.g. Lawrence or Springfield. These collaborations involve frequent trips from campus on transit or in vehicles, though the overall level of emissions is far lower than the missing flights data.
Each DUSP student is allocated $250 per year to cover conference costs, which can be spent on travel. For students giving a presentation, $400 is provided. PhD students are able to make two trips. This means that there is at least one and possibly two trips per year per student taking place on DUSP funds that should be included (e.g. train travel).
"Trips home" is a contentious measure and should possibly be dropped from a revised version of the audit - if the purpose of the study is to highlight potential for change around the department, what should be inferred from the emissions due to students' personal travel? In addition to DUSP's evaluation of its greenhouse gas emissions, each student should be considering her own personal "footprint", which could include non-school trips to visit family.
Commuting
This analysis does not provide any adjustment for faculty who work part time, or students who come in more or less than five times per week. It also assumes that there is a single annual emission for each mode of transport, rather than a gradient depending on distance or modes chosen. More sophisticated analysis of the travel survey data could provide distance information, to be combined with emissions info from the MBTA or other sources.
Buildings
A more action-centric measure of energy would be entirely bottom up, assessing lighting fixtures, fancoil heating/cooling units, computers, printers, kitchen facilities etc. As part of this audit, data have been collected on the computing facilities of DUSP. The next step is to combine this with information or estimates on other energy uses to provde a bottom up assessment of energy consumption.
Material inputs
No accounting is made for faculty and staff printers - these are provided individually and are probably resource intensive due to poor economies of scale.
No accounting is made for photocopying on the department's own photocopies in headquarters or the CDD office.
The data for total pages in readers is an estimate. Further liaison with CopyTech is required to obtain accurate numbers for the total number of readers purchased and their total page count.
Toner and other printer supplies produce emissions. Given that we know the total page count per annum and the models of printers used, it should be possible to extent the scope of this section to include printer parts and consumables other than paper.
Although campus catering is shared by all MIT users and is not under the control of DUSP, some outlets such as the steam cafe have heavy use by DUSP members and therefore are entitled to providing input to the way it operates, including use of energy. The next stage of this audit should include campus food outlets.
Some catering is entirely within DUSP's control, including food at lunchtime seminars, student events, orientation, open house etc. The next stage of this audit should consider emissions from food purchased for DUSP events.
Waste disposal
No information was readily available on waste volume by building. The current data includes all waste MIT-wide, including dining waste and construction debris, so the per capita estimate used to generate DUSP's own waste footprint is probably high. DUSP might also be better or worse at recycling than the institute average.
The estimates for how MSW is treated are probably inaccurate. It should be possible to establish the type of landfill treatment given to MIT waste, and the resulting emissions that occur.
The emissions resulting from or avoided by recycling should be quantified, this information could be broken down by material type (paper, glass, plastics etc)
Top of page