EAC Meeting Minutes, Spring Term 2022, Meeting #2

Location: Sayles Hill, 253

Time: 2:00 p.m.

EAC Members in Attendance: Aaron Swoboda (co-chair), Martha Larson (co-chair), Arjendu Pattanayak, Erica, Zweifel, Kate Meyer, Elliot Hanson, and Ella Stack.

Guests: Peter Sallinger

Secretary: Beck Woollen

Agenda:

CSA Updates

  • CSA carbon neutral 2030 resolution going before the Senate on Monday evening.
  • Reviewed resolution contents and made appropriate changes to the wording.

Second Nature Update

  • The second Nature proposal for CCCE and CSA Sustainability Working Group (CAC Offset Project) is headed to advanced review.
  • An expert will be contacted to review the project further.
  • Example of an in-house project.

Carbon Offset Draft Policy

A PDF version of the policy proposal is available here:

  • Draft EAC Carbon Offsets Proposal for final review.
  • Will go to Eric Runestad by the end of the year.
  • Even if we offset Scope 3, there will still be residual Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
  • Scopes 1 and 2, use data to highlight our progress in recent years; for Scope 3, we need to use FY19 numbers because these emissions are more affected by COVID-19.
    • Text will emphasize Scopes 1, 2, and 3.
    • The table below should show details/a more in-depth breakdown.
  • IPCC framing: now that the target has shifted, our approach (CAP) needs to be updated. Main point: we need to move even faster.
    • How do we incorporate other details (e.g., 100-degree F days, wildfires, etc.)?
  • Members may need to go back into the Current Context section and update it in the coming week.
  • Listed two offset vendors in the memo since we want to give the College a roadmap for the first year, to prevent stall-out in the early implementation phase.
  • A base goal (Step 1), stretch goal (Step 2), and big ask (Step 3) are all included in the memo.
  • Step 1 = reduce the first half of Scope 3; Step 2 = reduce the second half of Scope 3; Step 3 = reduce additional emissions to reach carbon neutrality.
  • Updated language in Step 2 about the matching fund.
  • Step 3 would include future costs of buildings and further fees for future activity.
    • This policy must not stagnate our action once we buy offsets. Rather, we need to frame the tax as an incentive to keep reducing carbon emissions on campus, as best we can.
  • Management procedure reviewed, which includes factual updates, majority vote to change the vendor, and other logistics. 
    • To what extent do we worry about fluctuations in the social cost of carbon (e.g., with a new Presidential administration…)
  • Are details about not letting up on reduction fitting in the policy, or should they be moved into the appendix?