second biennial progress report 2008 s u s ta i n ability f o r c a l p o ly f a c i l i t i e s & o p e r a t i o n s d e v e lo p e d by fac i l i t y s e r v i c e s . fac i l i t i e s p l a n n i n g & c a p i ta l p r o j e c t s a n d i n c o o p e r at i o n w i t h t h e s u s ta i n a b i l i t y a dv i s o r y c o m m i t t e e 1 a c o n c e p t o f s u s ta i n ability Sustainability refers to ways that we as individuals and as a community can use natural resources to meet current needs without jeopardizing the needs of future generations. At Cal Poly, we strive to be responsible stewards of our lands, water, energy and other natural resources. This stewardship occurs in the context of furthering our principal academic mission and must reflect financial reality. Thus, sustainable operations and development can be viewed as a triad of interrelated forces that must become mututally supportive. The goal of a sustainable campus involves balancing Environmental Protection, Academic Program Needs and Financial Viability. Environmental Protection Program Needs 2 Financial Viability “ As a polytechnic university, it is at the core of our mission to examine the ways in which knowledge may be applied to improve society, manage scarce resources and protect and preserve our environment. Sustainability is a high priority for the University and a key issue that should cut across all we do, including ” teaching, research and the practices we engage in on the campus. — President Warren Baker 3 The Bonderson Engineering Projects Building was awarded “Best Overall Sustainable Design in New Construction” by the UC / CSU / CCC Energy Efficiency Partnership Program in 2008. declaration 4 s u s t a i n a b i l i t y in facilities & operations 6 i n d i c a t o r s of change 7 e n e r g y use 8 t r a n s p o r t a t i o n 11 w a t e r resources 13 t h e ta l l o i r e s & recycling 17 g r e e n h o u s e gas emissions 18 l a n d u s e & development 19 o p e r a t i o n s sustainability plan 22 s u s t a i n a b i l i t y awards 25 5 a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s 25 s o l i d wa s t e t h e t a l l o i r e s d e c l a r a t i o n university presidents for a sustainable future talloires declaration 1. increase awareness of environmentally sustainable development Use every opportunity to raise public, government, industry, foundation and In response to the problems of university awareness by openly addressing the urgent need to move toward an environmental pollution and deg­ environmentally sustainable future. radation, and the depletion of natural resources, university leaders from around the world have recog­ 2. create an institutional culture of sustainability nized that universities have a ma­ Encourage all universities to engage in education, research, policy formation and jor role in the education, research, information exchange on population, environment and development to move toward policy formation and information global sustainability. exchange necessary to address these issues. The Talloires Declaration articulates key actions that are es­ pecially relevant to institutes of higher education. 3. educate for environmentally responsible citizenship Establish programs to produce expertise in environmental management, sustainable economic development, population and related fields to ensure that all university graduates are environmentally literate and have the awareness and understanding to be ecologically responsible citizens. 4. foster environmental literacy for all Create programs to develop the capability of university faculty to teach environmental literacy to all undergraduate, graduate and professional students. 5. practice institutional ecology Set an example of environmental responsibility by establishing institutional ecology policies and practices of resource conservation, recycling, waste reduction and environmentally sound operations. 6 s i g n e d b y c a l p o ly p r e s i d e n t wa r r e n b a k e r april 23, 2004 6. involve all stakeholders Encourage involvement of government, foundations and industry in supporting interdisciplinary research, education, policy formation and information exchange in environmentally sustainable development. Expand work with community and nongovernmental organizations to assist in finding solutions to environmental problems. 7. collaborate for interdisciplinary approaches Convene university faculty and administrators with environmental practitioners to develop interdisciplinary approaches to curricula, research initiatives, operations and outreach activities that support an environmentally sustainable future. 8. enhance capacity of primary and secondary schools Establish partnerships with primary and secondary schools to help develop the capacity for interdisciplinary teaching about population, environment and sustainable development. 9. broaden service and outreach nationally and internationally Work with national and international organizations to promote a worldwide university e?ort toward a sustainable future. 10. maintain the movement Establish a secretariat and a steering committee to continue this momentum, and to inform and support each other’s e?orts in carrying out this declaration. 7 s u s ta i n a b i l i t y Photo provided by Cal Poly in facilities & operations In 2004, President Warren Baker This report focuses on sustainability in the University’s signed the international Talloires facilities and operations. Starting in 2006, Cal Poly established Declaration (see pages 4 and 5) a number of indicators of campus environmental sustainability. which provides the framework and This is the second report on those metrics; future updates are direction for sustainability at Cal planned on a biennial basis. Poly in regard to academic programs, teaching and research, as well as The Facilities Services Department is responsible for most campus planning, development and operations, and land and of the operations and maintenance on the core campus. resource stewardship. However, several other departments are also engaged in functions important to the sustainable University: • Facilities Planning and Capital Projects oversees long-range physical planning and what’s new in this report The Sustainability Advisory Committee recommended a few new construction. • The College of Agriculture, Food and additions to the “suite” of indicators in the 2006 report. Environmental Science manages extensive Most notably, the importance of greenhouse gas (GHG) University lands in San Luis Obispo and emissions warrants its inclusion among the indicators. This Santa Cruz counties. report starts our tracking of overall emissions as well as the percentage of electricity provided through non-GHG emit­ ting sources. Also, wherever applicable, targets for the various parameters have been incorporated explicitly into the trend charts. • Environmental Health and Safety monitors water quality and air quality, as well as overseeing hazardous materials handling. • The University Police Department runs the parking operations and programs related to alternative transportation modes. • Housing and Residential Life manages the expanding on-campus residential facilities. • The Cal Poly Corporation operates a number of important functions for the University, including campus dining. Cooperation and coordination among these many functions is critical to a sustainable future, and this work is directed by the Campus Sustainability Manager. 8 i n d i c at o r s of change Variables that are linked to sustainable practices and outcomes, and that can be measured by a consistent methodology, are called indicators of environmental change. Cal Poly’s indicators suggest a comprehensive picture of how the campus as a system is changing. These variables can be measured consistently over time. Wherever possible, they are cal poly sustainability indicators Energy Use • BTUs per square foot of buildings • Percentage of electricity from renewable resources • Percentage of vehicles in the campus ?eet tied to other existing reporting requirements. using alternative fuels Transportation • Commuter parking permits sold per student • Public transit ridership • Percentage of student population living on campus Water Resources • Total domestic water use • Total domestic water use per square foot of building • Indoor water use • Pollutants in wastewater • Nitrates in groundwater monitoring wells • Fecal coliform in Stenner Creek Solid Waste and Recycling • Percentage of solid waste diverted from land?lls Land Use and Development • Percentage of campus square footage in LEED or CSUPER certi?ed buildings • Habitat restoration projects Greenhouse Gases • 2006 baseline for ongoing emissions monitoring • Percentage of electricity from non-GHG emitting sources 97 e n e rg y use Between 1999 and 2003, Cal Poly’s total energy use per square foot of building california state university (csu) executive order 987 The CSU Chancellor’s Executive Order space fell by about 13 percent due to dozens of energy-efficiency measures (see Figure 1). In 2003, the Cerro Vista apartments opened and total British Thermal Units (BTUs) per square foot of campus buildings began to rise slightly. Since then, energy efficiency has remained approximately stable: as several 987 directly addresses several issues re­ new buildings were opened during this decade, and as the campus population lated to sustainability. This Executive has grown, the energy use per square foot has not changed significantly. BTUs Order speci?cally: include both electricity and natural gas use. • Sets a goal of reducing total energy usage per square foot of building by Figure 1: BTUs per Square Foot of Building 15 percent between 2005 and 2010. 100,000 • Requires campuses to achieve U.S. 90,000 Green Building Council’s 80,000 Leadership in Energy and 70,000 certi?cation or equivalent and to 60,000 strive for LEED Silver in all new buildings. • Establishes a purchasing policy with regard to energy-ef?cient appliances; the CSU has been an Energy Star partner since 1997. • Requires a minimum of 20 percent of energy purchases be from renewable resources by 2010. BTUs Environmental Design (LEED) 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1 -0 0 00 2 2 1-0 0 0 2 03 20 0 2 04 300 2 05 2 400 06 2 500 6 00 7 -0 2 Years • Sets a target of 50 MW on-campus electricity generation, system-wide, by 2010. energy conservation In 2007, Cal Poly retained Chevron Energy Services to conduct a campus- EO 987 also directs the CSU to develop a set of guidelines that will provide a meaningful alternative to LEED that is especially suited to university campuses. Known as the CSU Program for Environ­ wide energy audit, the largest undertaken in the CSU system. The first phase of the audit was recently completed. A variety of energy conservation opportunities have been identified, and approximately $6 million of projects approved. In many mental Responsibility (CSU PER), Cal Poly cases, the savings from lowered utility expenditures management, faculty and staff have been will recover the upfront capital costs within 15 years or participating in its development. sooner. The campus can expect an estimated 10-12 percent reduction in energy per square foot by the year 2010. 10 vehicle ?eet Figure 2: Percent of Campus Vehicle Fleet Using Electricity and Other Alternative Fuels The campus vehicle fleet is quickly converting to electricity and other alternative fuels. In 2007 more than 25 percent of all campus vehicles operated on fuels other than gasoline or diesel, including 87 electric cars and carts (see Figure 2). 30% renewable sources of electricity The CSU has set a goal that at least 20 percent of its electricity purchases should be from renewable sources by 2010. In 2005, Cal Poly received the bulk of its Percentage 25% 20% 15% 10% electricity from Arizona Power Supply. Approximately 17 percent of total electricity 5% was from “eligible renewable sources” at that time, which include biomass, 0% geothermal, small hydroelectric, solar and wind generators. Large hydro and nuclear power plants, although they do not produce greenhouse gases, are not counted 2003 2005 2007 Years among the eligible renewable sources. More recently, Cal Poly has contracted with technologies that do not emit carbon dioxide (see Figure 3). Photo provided by Cal Poly ?By 2007, one quarter of Cal Poly’s vehicle ?eet was electric powered. Biomass and Waste 4% Geothermal 3% Small Hydro 3% Solar 1% Wind 2% Large Hydro 12% Nuclear 24% Natural Gas 49% Coal 2% Total 100% le No Em n-G itt HG ing portfolio, however, so that almost one half of Cal Poly’s electricity is supplied by E Re ligib ne le wa b sources. PG&E includes significant amounts of large hydropower and nuclear in its Figure 3: Electric Power Mix 2007 Pe rce nt PG&E and receives about 13 percent of our electricity from eligible renewable Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No 13% No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 45% ? As of 2008, Cal Poly’s photovoltaic array on Building 21 is the largest in San Luis Obispo County. 11 the challenge of boundaries One challenge with evaluating a campus’s efforts at sustainability is that ecological variables do not stop at a university’s boundaries. Re­ sources such as air, water and housing-circulation systems all extend into the surrounding region. The issue of appropriate boundaries is especially relevant at Cal Poly where the Master Plan direction is to increase on-campus housing to reduce automobile commuting because of the attendant bene?ts to air quality, energy use and congestion reduction (as well as the cre­ ation of a stronger residential ambiance). But, when we track a vari­ able such as energy use on the campus, the addition of large-scale campus residential neighborhoods like Poly Canyon Village (PCV) will result in observable increases in natural gas and electricity con­ sumption. At the same time, however, energy use is also reduced as fewer students commute by car to campus. Certain metrics required by the CSU, such as total energy consumption on campus per build­ ing area, simply do not account for this more comprehensive view of energy use in the larger, regional energy-?ow system. Consider, too, that new construction such as PCV is certi?ed pursu­ ant to the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program and has environmental features such as a co-generation facility. This new on-campus hous­ ing is surely more energy ef?cient than almost all off-campus hous­ ing options. Thus, providing housing on campus will certainly result in net energy savings — but those savings might not be captured if the measurement is limited to electricity and natural gas consumed within the campus boundaries. This problem is even more apparent when one considers GHG emissions. Again, from the perspective of campus emissions alone, on-campus housing makes GHG levels higher for the university. But, those people would live somewhere, and off-campus locations would result in higher GHG production from auto commuting and less energy ef?cient housing options. A widely recognized mitiga­ tion for GHG emissions, in fact, is the development of housing within walking distance of jobs and schools. The challenge is to ascertain and maintain the proper perspective: viewing environmen­ tal impacts in the context of human ecological systems and at an appropriate scale. 12 t r a n s p o rtat i o n The University’s Master Plan sets a goal of reducing automobile commuting by Figure 4: Commuter Parking Permits Per Student 25 percent between 2002 and 2020. The number of commuter parking permits (that is, general and sta? annual and quarterly permits) dropped from 7,774 0.45 0.40 creases in student enrollment and faculty/sta? positions. Based on the number 0.35 Number per Student permits sold in 2002, to only 5,998 in 2007. This decline occurred despite inof permits sold per student, the decline over the past five years has already exceeded the 25 percent target (see Figure 4). The reduction in commuting since 2002 can be attributed to several 0.30 0.20 0.15 0.10 interrelated factors including more on-campus housing, higher costs for parking 0.05 permits, fewer parking spaces for commuters, improved transit routes and 0.00 02 20 other programs to encourage alternative modes, as well as rising gasoline and 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 07 20 20 Years (Fall Quarter) insurance costs. Master Plan goal is to stay below this line on-campus housing The Master Plan envisions Cal Poly becoming more of a residential campus, creating a stronger Figure 5: Percentage of Student Population Living On Campus 35% growth principles. Mixing housing with support 30% services and the learning facilities on the campus 25% reduces commuting — and attendant air pollution, noise and congestion. Since adoption of the Master Plan in 2001, the Cerro Vista student Percentage live-learn environment that accords with smart 20% 15% 10% apartment project has been built and opened, 5% providing accommodations to 800 students. 0% The much larger Poly Canyon Village project 2002 2003 2004 2005 will house 1,539 students starting in Fall 2008, and another 1,125 in Fall 2009. The Poly Canyon 2006 2007 2008 2009 Years Actual Under Construction Village not only includes apartments, but also a co?ee house, other food services, a small retail market, exercise facilities and meeting rooms. By 2009, with these new housing complexes, along with the older dorm-style facilities, approximately one-third of the University’s students will be living on campus (see Figure 5). In addition to student housing, the Cal Poly Housing Corporation completed 69 units for faculty/sta? in 2007. These townhomes are located at the northwest corner of Highland Drive and Santa Rosa Street, adjacent to the campus. 13 Rides per Year Figure 6: Cal Poly SLO Transit Ridership transit ridership All Cal Poly students, faculty and sta? can use the local transit system for 600,000 free thanks to a cooperative agreement between the University and the City 500,000 of San Luis Obispo. Cal Poly contributes approximately $330,000 each year 400,000 to the City to assist with transit costs; the sources of that contribution are 300,000 parking permits and parking fine revenues. Thus, automobile users are, in 200,000 e?ect, subsidizing bus use. Bus ridership has shown a remarkable increase 100,000 over the last few years (see Figure 6). 0 2 5 7 3 6 4 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 01 02 003 004 005 006 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 Years tdm e?orts Traffic Demand Management (TDM) encompasses a variety of strategies to reduce automobile use, especially during peak commuting times. Cal Poly has instituted the OPTIONS program that provides information and incentives for members of the University community to use carpools, vanpools and other alternatives to single-occupancy automobiles. Many sta? departments accommodate flexible work hours to allow employees to avoid peak commuting times. The U.S. EPA has recognized Cal Poly as one of the best commuter programs in the country. 14 wat e r resources Cal Poly’s source for domestic (treated) water is Whale Rock Figure 7: Annual Domestic (Treated) Water Use Reservoir, located near Cayucos. Cal Poly shares that water with 600 the California Men’s Colony and the City of San Luis Obispo (see 500 Cal Poly also uses untreated water delivered from the Salinas Acre-feet Figure 7). Reservoir, located upstream from Santa Margarita, for various 400 300 200 100 agricultural purposes. This water is less expensive than the 0 01 00 treated water. The amounts delivered from the Salinas Reservoir 20 20 02 20 04 20 Years 03 20 are deducted from Cal Poly’s Whale Rock allocation. Figure 8 05 20 06 20 07 20 shows Cal Poly’s total water use (excluding on-campus wells and small ag-related reservoirs). The safe annual yield is the Figure 8: Total Delivered Water amount of water that can be delivered to Cal Poly each year 1500 1300 conditions. Cal Poly’s demand remains substantially below its 1100 supply capacity. 900 water conservation Water demand is closely linked to weather. During wet years, irrigation use declines; in dry years, the need for stored water increases. Rainfall during 2006 and 2007 was considerably below long-term averages (see Figure 10). Thus, although the trend Acre-feet without jeopardizing future water availability, even during drought 700 500 300 100 0 00 20 01 20 02 20 04 20 Years 03 20 among the previous years showed a general decline in water use, 05 20 06 20 07 20 Safe Annual Yield this was reversed during those two years. Looking at indoor water use gives a picture of how water conservation measures, apart Figure 9: Total Indoor Water Use from landscaping and agricultural use, are performing (see Figure 9). 140,000 120,000 as well as a dry winter, indoor water use declined to its lowest 100,000 level in five years during 2007. Gallons Despite new campus buildings and a growing campus population, 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 Years 15 water quality Figure 10: Water Use versus Rainfall Cal Poly monitors water quality in its creeks, in groundwater and in Percent Di?erence from Mean 40% 20% wastewater entering the sanitary sewer system. Water quality monitoring 0% is conducted by the University’s Department of Environmental Health and -20% Safety, which submits regular reports to the Central Coast Regional Water -40% Quality Control Board. -60% In cooperation with the City of San Luis Obispo, the University checks -80% -100% the water quality of its sewage e?uent as it leaves the campus and enters 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 the city-wide collection and treatment system. Of particular concern are Years pollutants that may adversely a?ect treatment. Figure 11 shows the number Water Use Rainfall of times Cal Poly has exceeded usual water quality standards each year for a variety of constituents; tests are conducted monthly. Figure 11: Wastewater Pollutants Number of Exceedances 12 the challenge of weather 10 8 Short-term changes in many sustainability indicators can be signi?cantly in­ 6 ?uenced by weather. Consider that in unusually warm years, air condition­ 4 ing demand rises above long-term averages, while in unusually cool years, 2 heat demand increases. These ?uctuations obviously affect energy use. An­ other important weather variable, especially here at Cal Poly which has such 0 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 Years Ammonia BOD Copper Zinc All Other Metals Oil/Grease Suspended Solids a large agricultural and grazing component, is rainfall. Wet years reduce the need for water for crop production, livestock and landscaping. Dry years, of course, result in increased use of water from reservoirs. Figure 10 shows the percentage difference from long-term averages both in rainfall levels and water use over the last few years. In general, there is a strong negative correlation: when rainfall is below average, demand increases; and demand dips when rainfall levels rise. Notice that 2007 was an unusually dry year, and that water demand increased after a longer term downward trend. For variables such as water, it is the longer-term trend that is more illustrative than annual spikes and valleys. 16 In 2007, most of the pollutants did not exceed Figure 12: Stenner Creek Fecal Coliform standards. Suspended solids exceeded the limits only 1,000 once, a significant decline from earlier in the decade. traced to certain cleaning products, and subsequent changes in maintenance protocols reduced this pollutant in the waste stream. Two parameters, ammonia and copper, continue to show relatively high concentrations. This persistence is thought to be linked, in these cases, not to especially high levels of 800 Particles High zinc levels discovered a few years ago were 600 400 200 0 6 6 6 07 07 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 4 4 00 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 20 20 . n. p. c. ar. n. p. c. ar. n. p. c. ar. n. r a u M Ju Se De M Ju Se De M Ju Se De M J 2 c. De Years in Quarters the materials, but to lower volumes of e?uent due to Quarterly Samples Standard water conservation measures. Environmental Health and Safety is working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to revise the monitoring methodology to measure mass levels of these potential pollutants rather than simply their concentrations. This may give a more meaningful picture of changes in the amounts of these materials entering the waste stream over time. water quality management plan and storm water pollution prevention plan Cal Poly regularly monitors the water quality in Perhaps the most important policies for water quality protection are Stenner Creek, focusing on fecal coliform, a measure contained in the Cal Poly Water Quality Management Plan. This of bacterial contamination. That pollutant can enter document lists numerous Best Management Practices, or BMPs, that the stream from water draining from streets and prescribe how water resources will be protected. The Water Quality parking lots, farm and livestock operations, sewer Management Plan includes measures related to grazing, farm opera­ or septic system leaks and other sources. Quarterly sampling over the last four years does not indicate any regular trend or seasonal pattern (see Figure 12). For over a year in 2005-06, fecal coliform levels did tions, construction, erosion control and storm water drainage. For example, all new construction projects must utilize water pollution prevention measures such as barriers to capture sediment laden run­ off. These are now standard, mandatory practices on all projects. not exceed acceptable standards, only to spike again The principal goal of the Water Quality Management Plan is to in late 2006 to early 2007. One possible explanation “preserve, protect and enhance the quality of water of the Cal Poly may be low rainfall levels during the 2006-07 winter, Campus and surrounding areas.” The plan covers both point sources lowering stream flow volumes, thereby increasing of pollution (speci?c locations that may generate polluted ef?uent) concentrations of this pollutant in the water that did and non-point source pollution which is generally associated with run­ remain in the creek. off into streams. The University also operates under a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) approved by the Regional Wa­ ter Quality Control Board. The SWPPP speci?cally covers measures to reduce or prevent pollution carried by rainfall. 17 Photo: Katie Korgan ? Chumash Creek, once denuded of vegetation, is the site where grazing BMPs were developed and tested under a 10-year program. Successful practices are now being applied on other campus creeks as well as elsewhere in the Morro Bay Estuary watershed. Cal Poly also monitors its Figure 13: Nitrates in Groundwater groundwater, tracking especially Nitrates (mg / L) 12 nitrate, a pollutant that can come 10 from sources like animal manure, 8 certain fertilizers and leaking sewage 6 or septic systems. Figure 13 shows 4 nitrate levels as groundwater enters 2 the campus and then as it moves o? 0 campus. Nitrate levels generally rise 1 1 07 07 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 06 06 00 00 00 00 20 r 20 r 2 r 2 r 20 r 20 r 20 r 20 r 20 r 20 r 20 r 20 r 20 r 20 r 20 r 20 r e e te me int m inte me inte me inte me inte me inte me inte me in m m W m W um W m W m W W Sum W W Sum Su Su Su Su Su S Sample Date as water flows under the campus, but have not exceeded standards at the downstream campus edge. Nitrate Levels Entering Campus Nitrate Levels Leaving Campus Allowable Level air quality 18 Cal Poly lies within a much larger air basin which generally meets as the Animal Nutrition Center where different grains and other nutri­ state and federal standards for most air pollutants. One area that has tional items are mixed for animal food) are subject to point source permits been a problem, however, is particulate matter — dust and ?ne sol­ from the Air Pollution Control District. Large construction projects ids. Cal Poly’s contributions to regional particulate pollution arise must generally comply with a list of standard practices to reduce dust, primarily from larger construction activities and from farming op­ such as watering during grading operations and covering materials sus­ erations (such as cultivating ?elds). A few facilities on campus (such ceptible to being wind borne. Overall, air quality in our area is good. s o l i d wa s t e & recycling The majority of Cal Poly’s solid waste is currently recycled or otherwise re-used. Cal Figure 14: Percent of Solid Waste Diverted From Landfill Poly has a sta? position devoted specifically to recycling operations. 70% Almost all landscape green waste is either used on campus or is sent to o?-campus 60% facilities. Building contracts require that a significant portion of materials left over from demolition and waste from construction be recycled or re-used, rather than simply dumped in a landfill. Cal Poly’s state-mandated target is to divert at least 50 percent of its solid waste from landfill disposal. For the last several years, Cal Poly Percentage composting facilities. Paper, aluminum, glass and plastics are taken to recycling 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% has exceeded this goal (see Figure 14). 0% 03 20 At Cal Poly, one of the largest sources of solid waste is manure from the various 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 Years agricultural facilities. Most of that yard waste is composted and sold as fertilizer Percent diversion should remain above this line as a Cal Poly Corporation enterprise operation in cooperation with the College of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Science (CAFES). More recently, Campus Dining in cooperation with the CAFES has been composting most food waste. Almost one ton of such waste is being diverted from the landfill to on-campus composting sites each day, including a significant amount of postconsumer waste. Campus Dining also recycles its waste cooking oil into bio-diesel fuel and uses bio-diesel in its vehicles, saving about 260 gallons of conventional fuel each year. Campus Dining has converted from polystyrene packaging to recyclable or compostable products; this adds up to over 800,000 cups, boxes, bowls and plates in a typical year. ? Campus Dining delivers hundreds of pounds of post-consumer food waste and compostable food containers to on-campus composting facilities on a daily basis. Photo provided by Cal Poly 19 greenhouse gas emissions The consequences of climate change — as projected by many Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-05 which sets scientists, including those involved in the United Nations a target of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — will be levels by mid-century. These are among the most ambitious significant and unprecedented in history. Human contributions standards in the world. to global warming are associated with the emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG), primarily carbon dioxide, but also The CSU has been charged with meeting these targets as a other substances such as methane. system; progress is being tracked cumulatively across the 23 campuses through monthly reports to the Chancellor’s Office. Cal Poly’s primary mission in meeting this challenge — which As part of the CSU system, Cal Poly has joined the California is truly global in scope — is to provide the best, appropriate Climate Action Registry (CCAR) and is using the CCAR education we can to our students, and to support faculty protocols for measuring GHG emissions. and student research into the causes of, and solutions to, global warming. As a polytechnic university, we are especially The Chancellor’s Office is computing baselines for each well situated for this role and we have had notable progress campus. Because this is a new program, the data needs and in this regard. The Academic Senate and its Sustainability uniform methodologies are still being worked on as of this Committee, for example, have been working on approaches writing (spring 2008). However, based on a preliminary analysis, to increasing the emphasis of sustainability in the curriculum. Cal Poly’s “baseline” GHG emissions for 2006 were estimated as the equivalent of about 24,000 tons of carbon dioxide. In addition, Cal Poly is working on measuring and reducing its own GHG emissions (see Figure 15). In 2006, California The CSU does not require campuses to take into account enacted AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. This law emissions associated with the transportation sector. Cal Poly, sets a statewide target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 however, has voluntarily agreed to monitor this importan