Concept paper on a curriculum initiative for energy, climate change, and sustainability at Boston University

[Summary] Boston University has made important contributions to the interconnected challenges of energy, climate change, and sustainability (ECS) through its research, teaching, and campus operations. This work reveals new opportunities to expand the scope of teaching and research and place the University at the forefront of ECS in higher education. This paper describes the framework for a University-wide curriculum initiative that moves us in that direction and that complements the University’s strategic plan. The central curricular objectives are to provide every undergraduate the opportunity be touched in some way in their educational program by exposure to some aspect of the ECS challenge, and to increase opportunities for every graduate student to achieve a focused competence in ECS. The initiative has six cornerstone initiatives. The first is the Campus as a Living Lab (CALL) program in which students, faculty and staff work together and use our urban campus and its community to study and implement ECS solutions. The second is a university-wide minor degree that helps students develop an integrated perspective of the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability. The third is one or more graduate certificate programs open to all graduate students. The fourth is an annual summer faculty workshop that develops new ECS curriculum and CALL opportunities. The fifth is web-based resource that underpins the construction of a vibrant knowledge network for the BU community and beyond. Finally, an enhanced sustainability alumni network will augment professional opportunities and generate other benefits. The learning outcomes of this initiative will be realized through the collaborative work of faculty, students, and staff from all 17 colleges and schools. The initiative will leverage existing BU student resources such as the Thurman Center, Build Lab, and Innovate@BU. Benefits of this initiative, beyond the curriculum, include acceleration towards the goals of our Climate Action Plan; improving the “sustainability brand” of BU; enhancing the ability to attract students and new faculty; strengthening our alumni and campus communities; deepening our ties with the city of Boston; and the potential to spin off new social and technological innovations.Published versio

Energy and Economic Growth

Physical theory shows that energy is necessary for economic production and therefore growth but the mainstream theory of economic growth, except for specialized resource economics models, pays no attention to the role of energy. This paper reviews the relevant biophysical theory, mainstream and resource economics models of growth, the critiques of mainstream models, and the various mechanisms that can weaken the links between energy and growth. Finally we review the empirical literature that finds that energy used per unit of economic output has declined, but that this is to a large extent due to a shift from poorer quality fuels such as coal to the use of higher quality fuels, and especially electricity. Furthermore, time series analysis shows that energy and GDP cointegrate and energy use Granger causes GDP when additional variables such as energy prices or other production inputs are included. As a result, prospects for further large reductions in energy intensity seem limited.

Carbon Free Boston: Waste Technical Report

Part of a series of reports that includes: Carbon Free Boston: Summary Report; Carbon Free Boston: Social Equity Report; Carbon Free Boston: Technical Summary; Carbon Free Boston: Buildings Technical Report; Carbon Free Boston: Transportation Technical Report; Carbon Free Boston: Energy Technical Report; Carbon Free Boston: Offsets Technical Report; Available at http://sites.bu.edu/cfb/OVERVIEW: For many people, their most perceptible interaction with their environmental footprint is through the waste that they generate. On a daily basis people have numerous opportunities to decide whether to recycle, compost or throwaway. In many cases, such options may not be present or apparent. Even when such options are available, many lack the knowledge of how to correctly dispose of their waste, leading to contamination of valuable recycling or compost streams. Once collected, people give little thought to how their waste is treated. For Boston’s waste, plastic in the disposal stream acts becomes a fossil fuel used to generate electricity. Organics in the waste stream have the potential to be used to generate valuable renewable energy, while metals and electronics can be recycled to offset virgin materials. However, challenges in global recycling markets are burdening municipalities, which are experiencing higher costs to maintain their recycling. The disposal of solid waste and wastewater both account for a large and visible anthropogenic impact on human health and the environment. In terms of climate change, landfilling of solid waste and wastewater treatment generated emissions of 131.5 Mt CO2e in 2016 or about two percent of total United States GHG emissions that year. The combustion of solid waste contributed an additional 11.0 Mt CO2e, over half of which (5.9 Mt CO2e) is attributable to the combustion of plastic [1]. In Massachusetts, the GHG emissions from landfills (0.4 Mt CO2e), waste combustion (1.2 Mt CO2e), and wastewater (0.5 Mt CO2e) accounted for about 2.7 percent of the state’s gross GHG emissions in 2014 [2]. The City of Boston has begun exploring pathways to Zero Waste, a goal that seeks to systematically redesign our waste management system that can simultaneously lead to a drastic reduction in emissions from waste. The easiest way to achieve zero waste is to not generate it in the first place. This can start at the source with the decision whether or not to consume a product. This is the intent behind banning disposable items such as plastic bags that have more sustainable substitutes. When consumption occurs, products must be designed in such a way that their lifecycle impacts and waste footprint are considered. This includes making durable products, limiting the use of packaging or using organic packaging materials, taking back goods at the end of their life, and designing products to ensure compatibility with recycling systems. When reducing waste is unavoidable, efforts to increase recycling and organics diversion becomes essential for achieving zero waste. [TRUNCATED]Published versio

Carbon Free Boston: Offsets Technical Report

Part of a series of reports that includes: Carbon Free Boston: Summary Report; Carbon Free Boston: Social Equity Report; Carbon Free Boston: Technical Summary; Carbon Free Boston: Buildings Technical Report; Carbon Free Boston: Transportation Technical Report; Carbon Free Boston: Waste Technical Report; Carbon Free Boston: Energy Technical Report; Available at http://sites.bu.edu/cfb/OVERVIEW: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines offsets as a specific activity or set of activities intended to reduce GHG emissions, increase the storage of carbon, or enhance GHG removals from the atmosphere [1]. From a city perspective, they provide a mechanism to negate residual GHG emissions— those the city is unable to reduce directly—by supporting projects that avoid or sequester them outside of the city’s reporting boundary. Offsetting GHG emissions is a controversial topic for cities, as the co-benefits of the investment are typically not realized locally. For this reason, offsetting emissions is considered a last resort, a strategy option available when the city has exhausted all others. However, offsets are likely to be a necessity to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 and promote emissions reductions in the near term. While public and private sector partners pursue the more complex systems transformation, cities can utilize offsets to support short-term and relatively cost-effective reductions in emissions. Offsets can be a relatively simple, certain, and high-impact way to support the transition to a low-carbon world. This report focuses on carbon offset certificates, more often referred to as offsets. Each offset represents a metric ton of verified carbon dioxide (CO2) or equivalent emissions that is reduced, avoided, or permanently removed from the atmosphere (“sequestered”) through an action taken by the creator of the offset. The certificates can be traded and retiring (that is, not re-selling) offsets can be a useful component of an overall voluntary emissions reduction strategy, alongside activities to lower an organization’s direct and indirect emissions. In the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories (GPC), the GHG accounting system used by the City of Boston, any carbon offset certificates that the City has can be deducted from the City’s total GHG emissions.http://sites.bu.edu/cfb/files/2019/06/CFB_Offsets_Technical_Report_051619.pdfPublished versio

Carbon Free Boston: Energy Technical Report

Part of a series of reports that includes: Carbon Free Boston: Summary Report; Carbon Free Boston: Social Equity Report; Carbon Free Boston: Technical Summary; Carbon Free Boston: Buildings Technical Report; Carbon Free Boston: Transportation Technical Report; Carbon Free Boston: Waste Technical Report; Carbon Free Boston: Offsets Technical Report; Available at http://sites.bu.edu/cfb/INTRODUCTION: The adoption of clean energy in Boston’s buildings and transportation systems will produce sweeping changes in the quantity and composition of the city’s demand for fuel and electricity. The demand for electricity is expected to increase by 2050, while the demand for petroleum-based liquid fuels and natural gas within the city is projected to decline significantly. The city must meet future energy demand with clean energy sources in order to meet its carbon mitigation targets. That clean energy must be procured in a way that supports the City’s goals for economic development, social equity, environmental sustainability, and overall quality of life. This chapter examines the strategies to accomplish these goals. Improved energy efficiency, district energy, and in-boundary generation of clean energy (rooftop PV) will reduce net electric power and natural gas demand substantially, but these measures will not eliminate the need for electricity and gas (or its replacement fuel) delivered into Boston. Broadly speaking, to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, the city must therefore (1) reduce its use of fossil fuels to heat and cool buildings through cost-effective energy efficiency measures and electrification of building thermal services where feasible; and (2) over time, increase the amount of carbon-free electricity delivered to the city. Reducing energy demand though cost effective energy conservation measures will be necessary to reduce the challenges associated with expanding the electricity delivery system and sustainably sourcing renewable fuels.Published versio

Enhancing energy, climate, and environmental (data) justice in Boston

Published versio

Climate change and the prospects for the rapid decarbonization of energy supplies

Published versio

Can Nuclear Power Be Part of the Solution?

The author discusses the importance of incorporating the full costs of operating a nuclear power plant in the U.S., such as climate impact, risk of accidents, and safe disposal of radioactive waste. He argues on the need for changes in the country\u27s evaluation of nuclear power which include the elimination of subsidies, and the requirement to buy full-coverage insurance for accidents. The author further highlights the cost of greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power plants

Direct air carbon capture and storage market scan

Agmt dtd 5/26/2022 - Innovation Network for Communities; Innovation Network for CommunitiesOthe