In 2008, Campus Planning and Facilites Management (CPFM) contracted with Good Company, a research and consulting firm, to perform a greenhouse gas inventory for both the Main and J.J. Pickle Research (PRC) campuses. Please take this opportunity to review and comment on UT’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory (PDF)
Rev. 03/05/2009.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHG)
March 3, 2009 by brownab4
4 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Interested to review the GHG Inventory. Where is it? 4 Wed March ‘09
Comment by NIESSL — March 5, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
Inventory pdf was removed briefly for minor correction. It’s back!
Comment by Laurie Lentz — March 6, 2009 @ 8:38 am
On the “Student / Staff / Faculty Commute” I noticed that the commute emissions were absent for the thousands of bicycles ridden to campus everyday.
If bicycle emissions were included, it would be obvious that the cleanest and most efficient mode of transport to campus would be by bike.
And if UT is serious about reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, work would begin immediately to remove all parking on San Jacinto, 21st, and 24th (just to name a few) and create bike lanes.
Comment by Matt Akins — March 6, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
A few comments:
1) In Table 47, the number of miles walked to campus from other zip codes (outside of top 10) is indicated as zero. However, two zip codes not within the top 10 are adjacent to the campus zip code. There are likely walking commuters from 78722 and 78701.
2) The commute GHG inventory depends upon a commute survey. Some details are listed on p. 65 but there is no indication of the method to ensure an even cross-section of transportation modes. There is high potential for inaccuracies is voluntary surveys, as this survey appears to be. One indicator that the bicycle data is not very accurate is that this survey indicates just over 2,000 bicycle commuters (for year 2000), but current (2009) UT bicycle registration numbers show 7,600 persons with registered bicycles.
3) This assessment of UT’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory is not the same as an assessment of what UT’s effect on GHG emissions. An example of something that is left out is how decisions UT makes affects the surrounding City of Austin. For example, when given the choice, UT chose to cut off one of the most popular Austin bicycle routes to bicycle traffic. This route had probably the highest bicycle traffic of any street in the state. Most of this traffic was likely from individuals within the UT community, but some traffic was from those using the route to get past the UT campus. While motorists have the advantage of navigating high-motor-traffic routes over hilly terrain (Guadalupe & Red River), bicycle traffic does best with low-motor-traffic routes over gently terrain (Speedway). (San Jacinto, as a detour for Speedway, does not offer gentle terrain for many destinations.) The likely impact of UT’s decision to cut off bicycle traffic on a popular route was to incrementally discourage some people from riding a bicycle and instead use an automobile to make trips instead. This unfortunate decision to discourage Austin bicycle traffic is not reflected in an inventory of UT GHG’s.
Comment by Tom Wald — March 8, 2009 @ 7:15 pm