1

AB0401 - Changing our World: do we plant trees or create online courses? 

Sem 2 Group 4 The Tree Huggers

Team Members: Koh Chongyi

Esther Lim Keen Tze

Abigail Tan Huimin

Tan Yong Hwa

Rodion Lim Shi’Ang

2

• Calculating NTU’s Carbon Footprint

• Stakeholder Analysis

• 3 Initiatives to Reduce Carbon Footprint

• Evaluation of Initiatives

• Final Recommendation

• Executive Summary

Brief Overview

3

Calculating NTU’s Estimated Carbon Footprint

(Adapted from EUR case study and NUS Greenhouse Gas Inventory)

Scope Description Relevant Activities

1 Direct emissions resulting from direct combustion of fuel from sources owned

by the NTU

Departmental fleet owned by

NTU

2 Purchased heat and electricity consumed by

NTU

Energy consumption

3 Emissions that are not the result of university-owned

assets, but university’s activities

Public and private transport,

internal bus shuttle service

Methodology:

4

Key Statistics:

• NTU’s total population size in 2012 (undergraduates, graduates, staff and faculty) = 39,598

• Energy consumption in FY 12 = 164 million kWh

Calculating NTU’s Estimated Carbon Footprint

(Adapted from ISCN Gulf Charter Report NTU 2013 and NTU website)

5

Scope Categories Assumptions

Scope 1 Departmental fleet - 65 departmental cars (derived from N TU’s annual report 2012)

Scope 2 Energy consumption NTU

- Figures taken from ISCN Gulf Charter Report NTU 2013 are accurate

Scope 3 Public transportation

- Students and staff take MRT from City Hall to Boon Lay, and take Bus 179 into NTU

Calculating NTU’s Estimated Carbon Footprint

Assumptions:

6

Calculating NTU’s Estimated Carbon Footprint

Assumptions:

Scope Categories Assumptions

Scope 3

Private transportation

- Students and staff travel from City Hall to NTU- 566 student season parking and 114 staff season parking rights are issued- Students travel to NTU for 90 days in 1 sem- Staff travel to NTU for 251 days in a year

Scope 3

Internal shuttle bus service

- Average waiting time of 15 mins

7

Calculating NTU’s Estimated Carbon Footprint

Scope 1, 74.3 Tons,

0%Scope 2,

70,520 Tons, 77%

Scope 3, 20,630 Tons, 23%

CO2 in Tons (NTU) as seperated into 3 scopes

8

Total estimated carbon footprint for NTU = 91,224 tons of CO2

Scope Categories Carbon Emissions (kg)

Scope 1 Departmental fleet 74,300 kg

Scope 2 Energy consumption NTU

70,520,000 kg

Scope 3 Public transportation

19,392,105 kg

Scope 3 Private transportation

1,210,109 kg

Scope 3 Internal shuttle bus 27, 814 kg

Estimated total 91,224,328 kg

NTU’s CO2 Emission Output For 2012:

Calculating NTU’s Estimated Carbon Footprint

(Breakdown of figures are shown in notes)

9

Stakeholder AnalysisStakeholders

Key Interests

NTU To nurture future sustainable leaders

Students To develop a holistic education and an understanding of sustainability issues

Government To encourage organizations to promote sustainable practices

Community To secure theirs and their future generation’s well-being by sustaining the environment

10

3 Initiatives To Reduce Carbon Footprint

1)From Classroom to E-learning

2)Buying Carbon Offset Credits

3)Alternative Measures

11

Decision Criteria:

• Reduction in Carbon Footprint

• Cost/unit over Time

• Impact on Stakeholders

• Viability in the Long Term

3 Initiatives to Reduce Carbon Footprint

12

1) From Classroom to E-learning Reduction in Carbon Footprint

Assumptions:

• Neither students nor staff stay in hall

• Seminar (50 pax) is approximately 3h long

• Significant proportion = 7 lessons

13

1) From Classroom to E-learning Reduction in Carbon Footprint

Classroom• Usage of air-con, lights, screen

projectors and LED TVs (2) per room for one classCarbon Footprint= 4kg + 2kg = 6kg

• Emission of CO2 from travelling

Carbon Footprint= approx. 7kg/student

• Printing cost (approx 20 pages)Carbon Footprint= 20 X 50 = 1,000 pages

• Total carbon footprint for one class = 6kg + (7x50)kg of CO2 = 356kg and some trees

• Total carbon footprint for 7 lessons = 356 kg X 7 = 2,492 kg and more trees

E-learning• Each computer/ laptop used

consumes 0.05417kg of CO2/hour =0.05417 X 3h = 0.16251kg of CO2

• Consumption of Electricity (in terms of CO2) in the room they are in, assuming usage of 1 fan and 1 light for 3 hrs =0.07kg +.0125kg =0 .0825kg of CO2

• Total carbon footprint for one class : 0.24501 X 50 = 12.25kg

• Total carbon footprint for 7 lessons = 12.25kg x 7= 85.75kg of CO2

*Reduction of 2.41 tons of CO2

14

• Study conducted by the Open University found that production and provision of distance learning courses consumed nearly 90% less energy and produced 85% fewer CO2

emissions per student than conventional campus-based university courses.

• This is approximately consistent with our calculations for the reduction in carbon footprint from the previous slide(Towards Sustainable Higher Education: Environmental Impacts of

Campus-Based and Distance Higher Education Systems Report)

1) From Classroom to E-learning Reduction in Carbon Footprint

15

1) From Classroom to E-learning Operating Costs Per Semester

• Electricity = 6 x 1.2x $0.12 = $0.864

• Transportation cost = $3.0/student

• Printing cost (approx 20 pages) = 20x50x$0.05 = $50

• Total cost for one lesson = $0.864 + 3x50 + $50 = $200.864

• Total cost for 13 lessons = $200.864 x 7 = $2,611.23

• Each computer/ laptop used= 0.16251 x 1.2 x $0.12 = $0.0234

• Consumption of electricity, assuming usage of 1 fan and 1 light = 0.0825 x 1.2 x $0.12 = $0.01188

• Total cost for one lesson = $(0.01188+0.0234) X 50 = $1.764

• Total cost for 7 lessons (e-learning) and 6 lessons (classroom) = $1.764 x 7+ $200.864 x 6= $1,217.53

Classroom E-learning

*Savings of $1,393.70

16

1) From Classroom to E-learning Impact on Stakeholders

Stakeholders

Pros Cons

NTU In line with NTU’s Mission of 3P-less i.e. Print-less, Paper-less, Pay-less

Reduces student-professor interaction which is key to University rankings

Students Lesser traveling time, flexibility of study hours

Learners with low motivation may fall behind, lesser peer-to-peer interaction

Government Lesser carbon emissions for Singapore in general

Make certain changes in the current robust education system

Community Better impression of NTU

Some may be skeptical about the results of this education method

17

1) From Classroom to E-learningViability in the Long Term

• Not feasible as it is not in line with NTU’s goal of nurturing creative and entrepreneurial leaders through a broad education in diverse disciplines , where the development of soft skills is an essential component

• E-learning does not facilitate the development of soft skills, including communication skills

• Minimal interaction among peers and professors

• Students do not get a chance to conduct presentations

18

2) Buying Carbon Offset Credits

• Definition: Measuring carbon emitted and purchasing carbon credits to offset environmental impact

• Carbon credits will be used to fund sustainable projects

• Assumption: Buying carbon credits from CO2 Australia

19

2) Buying Carbon Offset Credits

• Definition: Measuring carbon emitted and purchasing carbon credits to offset environmental impact

• Carbon credits will be used to fund sustainable projects

• Assumption: Buying carbon credits from CO2 Australia

20

Offset in Carbon Footprint (from earlier calculations)

• NTU’s 2012 carbon footprint = 91,224 tons of CO2

2) Buying Carbon Offset Credits

Cost per year

• Market price of carbon offsets (Voluntary purchase)

= $5.9 per ton of CO2 in 2012

• Total cost per year = $538,224

(Adapted from Bloomberg New Energy Finance Report 2013 for Voluntary Carbon Market)

21

2) Buying Carbon Offset CreditsImpact on Stakeholders

Stakeholders

Pros Cons

NTU Boost NTU’s reputation and other universities may even follow suit

Whole NTU population bear the increased cost, approximately $14 per year

Students Benefit from the enhanced school reputation

Not all students are willing to pay for the premium

Government Lesser carbon emissions for Singapore in general

Does not reduce but merely offsets carbon emissions

Community No clear benefit No clear detriment

22

2) Buying Carbon Offset CreditsViability in the Long Term

• Feasible as it is easily implemented and readily available in the markets

• By doing an estimate of the scope 1,2 and 3 emissions, we can reliably offset the total amount of carbon emissions produced by NTU

• Further evaluation can be found in our final recommendation

23

3) Alternative Measures

• Measures are targeted at 3 groups of stakeholders - NTU, students, and staff

• Designed to be implemented on a regular basis

• Measure highlighted in green is “recommended”

24

3) Alternative Measures – NTU

Measures Reduction in Carbon Footprint

Cost Savings

Feasibility in Long Term

Promote use of bicycles and reduce shuttle bus frequency

Medium-High Medium

Medium

NTU Green Hour – switch off unnecessary lights once per week from 8-10pm

Low Medium High

Loan tablets to students to reduce printing of notes

Medium Low Low

25

3) Alternative Measures – StudentsMeasures Reduction in

Carbon Footprint

Cost Savings

Feasibility in Long Term

Practice the 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle)

Medium Medium

Very High

Reduce – Make an effort to print double-sided notes

Low Low High

Reuse – Clubs can organize textbook fleas to reuse old textbooks

Low Low High

Recycle – Classify waste and recycle them at recycling bins in school

Low Low High

26

3) Alternative Measures – Staff

Measures Reduction in Carbon Footprint

Cost Savings

Feasibility in Long Term

Introduce an annual Green Innovation Award for the employee who comes up with the best method to reduce energy consumption

Low Low High

27

Evaluation of InitiativesFactors E-learning

(Ranked 1-3, 1 being the

best)

Buying Carbon Credits

(Ranked 1-3, 1 being the

best)

Alternatives

(Ranked 1-3, 1 being the

best)

Cost of implementation

1st 3rd 2nd

Offset/Reduction in CO2 emissions

1st 2nd 3rd

Feasibility 3rd 1st 2nd

Overall Ranking 1st 2nd 3rd

28

Evaluation of InitiativesBuying Carbon Offset Credits

• Fallacy that the no. of credits will offset the amount of carbon one generates

• However, reduction usually spreads over the life of the project. At times, reduction in greenhouse gases may only start upon successful completion of the project

• Inconsistent verification and auditing procedures on information provided by offset providers

• Calculation of greenhouse reductions depends on how much carbon would have been emitted without the project, which can be subjective

• Land purchased for growing trees can be put to better productive uses (opportunity costs incurred)

29

Evaluation of Initiatives

Alternative Measures

• Population in NTU may not be receptive to the proposed changes , e.g. reduced shuttle bus frequency

• 3Rs are often encouraged but there are no substantial actions taken to practice what we preach

• Difficult to justify how much we can reduce for our carbon footprint

30

Final recommendation

Combination of E-learning & Buying Carbon Offset Credits

• E-learning’s carbon savings might be minute compared to NTU’s total carbon emission

• However, it tackles the root cause by preventing carbon emissions in the first place

• This will create the opportunity for potential scalability (greater reduction) in the future

• Carbon emissions that cannot be prevented will be mitigated partially with purchasing Carbon Offset Credits

• Alternatives will be implemented in tandem

31

Executive Summary:The key to a carbon neutral future of NTU is to implement more of its lessons in e-learning weeks, doing it for 3 weeks per semester instead of existing arrangements and buying carbon offset credits from a provider to offset the amount that cannot eliminated. This approach tackles the root cause of carbon emission and demonstrate commitment to the environment.

As of 2012, NTU is producing 91,224 tons of CO2 per year and this is contributing to the global warming crisis and the consequent climate shift. If left unchecked, it would have dire consequences for mankind.

Therefore, we believe that it is an opportunity to showcase strength in numbers. The entire NTU population could play its part, especially the management, by adopting our recommendations. NTU could be a pioneer in Singapore by advocating a more proactive e-learning approach, instead of reserving the strategy for lesson delivery during times for crisis. NTU could also champion efforts to do more for the environment and be an exemplary role model in encouraging universities to do the same.

The advantage of such a strategy is that NTU would be able to control and monitor the implementation of the programme, instead of sole reliance on buying carbon offsets from providers such as CO2 Australia as well as share its expertise on the delivery methods.

We strongly believe that our recommendations would lead to a more sustainable path for NTU development and confident that the $538,217 invested to roll-out our strategy will be a good investment.

32

References• http://

forest-trends.org/publication_details.php?publicationID=3960

• http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/22/us-australia-carbon-idUSTRE77L1AF20110822

• http://news.hiltonworldwide.com/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/22177

• http://www.ntu.edu.sg/odfm/usefulinfo/greenWebsite/Pages/NewBuildings.aspx

• http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/3p-less/ourgreeninitiatives.asp

• http://www.distancesfrom.com/sg/travel-from-Boon-Lay-MRT-to-pasir-ris-mrt/TravelFromHistory/1172494.aspx

• http://www.nus.edu.sg/oes/resources/carbonfootprint_calculator.html