As awareness of climate change grows, so do the efforts to counteract the damage society has done to the environment. With increasing frequency, countries throughout the world have begun to develop policies meant to encourage environmentally conscious behaviors. These changes often either focus on the proper use of natural resources or the implementation and monitoring of existing or developing technologies. Political actors play a crucial role in determining the success of these policies through the way they design, support, and enforce them. By considering existing policies, as well as the amount of support in the political atmosphere for CCS, our group has analyzed the feasibility of establishing a CCS project on campus.
The issue of climate change has been a significant point of discussion in the political atmosphere for years. The year 1997 marked the first time the development of political action occurred to reduce environmental impacts on a global scale. Although it was not enforced until 2005, the Kyoto Protocol “set binding emissions reduction targets for developed countries only, on the premise that they were responsible for most of the earth’s high levels of greenhouse gas emissions” (Denchak, M., 2018, n.p.). Unfortunately, while numerous countries agreed to the goals stated, a percentage of them dropped out before the Protocol’s initial expiration date in 2012. The second push for climate change came from the Paris Climate Agreement. Developing the deal had the intent of replacing the Kyoto Protocol and is directed towards all countries with the goal “to substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in an effort…to limit the [climate temperature] increase to 1.5 degrees” (Denchak, M., 2018, n.p.). The United States has failed to support both of these agreements adequately and, most recently, is at risk of completely withdrawing its commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement. The country’s lack of success in making significant contributions to global efforts has, however, inspired states, organizations, and institutions to take action on their own accord.
Within Pennsylvania, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) (About DEP, 2019, n.p.) plays a significant role in dictating specific regulations for state-based companies and institutions. Similar to many other states in the US, Pennsylvania has joined the effort to develop better environmental-climate policy by creating a Climate Action Plan of its own. The document was published initially in 2009 and remains in use, having been updated most recently in 2019. According to its executive summary, “The Pennsylvania Climate Change Act (Act 70 of 2008, or Act) provides for a periodic report on potential climate change impacts and economic opportunities for the commonwealth” (Pennsylvania Climate Action Plan, 2019, p.14). It requires the DEP to continually evaluate the impacts of climate change on Pennsylvania (Shortle, J., 2015, p.6 ) and conduct an inventory of greenhouse gases every year (2018 Pennsylvania Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 2019, p.5 ) as a means to track progress. As of 2018, the most recent inventory revealed that Pennsylvania is past halfway to achieving its 26% emission reduction goal, set for 2025 (2018 Pennsylvania Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 2019, p.5). The updated Climate Action Plan also added adaptation-focused goals, hoping to create the ability to “anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to changing conditions and withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly form climate-related disruptions” (Pennsylvania Climate Action Plan, 2019, p.36). The progress resulting from the state’s Climate Action Plan provides a positive atmosphere for environmental change and encourages other organizations to follow suit. Lafayette College would benefit from looking at the recommendations and data published in these documents as it moves forward with its own Climate Action Plan. Although their scope may be different, some of the solutions mentioned for the state of Pennsylvania – such as improving agricultural or forestry practices – remain applicable and transferable to the college.
But while governing bodies approach the issue of excess greenhouse gas emissions by developing a variety of legislations, environmental groups use more direct methods to create change. Often, these organizations focus on education and raising awareness, or taking action through various projects (Siddons, S., n.d., p.1). Recently, with the strong push for carbon capture techniques, these organizations are turning their efforts towards developing ways to maintain and improve natural land conditions to help with farming and reforestation efforts. The Nature Conservancy, for example, is a global climate action group that dedicates its efforts to address the most pressing environmental issues. Originating in the United States, there are numerous branches throughout the country, including Pennsylvania. Currently, the organization focuses on four sectors: city development, food and water sustainability, resource conservation, and stopping climate change (What We Do: Our Priorities, 2019, n.p.). By coordinating their projects, and working with external partners (including government officials), The Nature Conservancy has been able to make a positive impact within each of these sectors. Of the many techniques in use, the Nature Conservancy applies carbon capture strategies, arguing that “cutting forests contributes to climate change. But restoring nature—in all kinds of landscapes—is a powerful tool in the race to stop climate change” (Jenkins, M., 2018, n.p.). Even though the scope remains too big, the Nature Conservancy has already assisted in reforestation projects. It will be a beneficial resource for Lafayette if the school moves forward with plans for reforestation.
The Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture (PASA) is another influential organization. Unlike the Nature Conservancy, which is more action-based, much of PASA’s work focuses on raising awareness to “build a more economically-just, environmentally-regenerative, and community-focused food system” in the farming sector (About PASA, 2019, n.p.). Among the variety of their sponsored projects, PASA produces annual reports to convey their research and findings to a general audience. In its most recent publication, a study done by PASA and Cornell Soil Health Lab, with support from an NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant, actively brought together local farmers and investigated the best management strategies to building healthy soils (PASA, 2019, p.7). PASA’s efforts and publications can provide helpful insight that Lafayette can use to further improve upon farming techniques already used at and around LaFarm.
Climate mitigation efforts have increased due to the involvement of political actors as they continue to fund projects and education efforts. These efforts become particularly influential when they focus on community involvement, as seen with the Nurture Nature Center (NNC). The NNC is an Easton-based organization that endeavors to engage with the Easton community in the daily dialogues about environmental issues. In creating the NNC, the goals were to discuss the city’s history of flooding and the risk that they still face. Over time, it has broadened its programs towards encouraging community engagement and educating visitors on additional topics such as climate change and food access (Welcome, 2019, n.p.). Although the organization is smaller than the previously mentioned examples, the NNC’s knowledge about the Easton community and the city’s unique problems makes them a valuable local resource, especially as Lafayette contemplates which actions are best for its campus and the city of Easton.
The Political Context for Lafayette
The political climate outside of Lafayette has been crucial to environmental change for more significant industries and communities. Still, it has also permitted the college the ability to develop its own plan for change. For Lafayette’s CAP to be a success in the future, both external and internal actors need to show support and aid in the efforts continually.
The development of Lafayette’s Climate Action Plan started in 2008 after the acting college president, Dan Weiss, signed the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment. By agreeing to join the ACUPCC, Lafayette pledged to “eliminate its contribution to global warming” by creating a campus-wide plan (Dautremont-Smith, J., 2009, p.3). All institutions who sign the deal are required to calculate their initial GHG emission production rate before developing their course of action. The expectation is to continue to report on progress and reevaluate their plans to continue to promote growth (Dautremont-Smith, J., 2009, p.30). The first CAP motivated noticeable changes in Lafayette’s sustainability initiatives, leading to a twenty percent reduction in the school’s emissions since its establishment (2019 Climate Action Plan, 2019, p.6). Several years later, President Byerly signed the “We Are Still In Commitment,” joining numerous schools in their protest of the US’s potential withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement. By doing so, Lafayette agreed to not “take [the US’s] retreat from the global response to the climate crisis lying down” (We Are Still In, n.d., n.p.) and continue forward in their attempts to reduce emissions. As a result, Lafayette College implemented the Climate Action Plan 2.0 and the goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2035.
Since Lafayette first committed to minimizing its environmental impact, there have been numerous changes in campus policies to promote and support the goal of carbon neutrality. For example, the development of the Campus Energy Policy was to ensure that any new buildings constructed on campus reach the appropriate sustainability goals (Energy Policy, 2019, n.p.). The Campus Facilities Master Plan is another development which discusses changes that could be made to the school’s layout to promote a greener campus (2009 Campus Master Plan, 2009, n.p.). The CAP 2.0 is, however, the most recent development. It will have significant changes in Lafayette College standards and alter the way the school grows and funds its sustainability efforts in the coming years. The growing presence of sustainability efforts on campus has led to an increase in support for projects such as the carbon storage project at LaFarm and Metzgar field. Current carbon capture techniques range from carbon sequestration to reforestation, with various types of farming methods that fall in between these options. Although most known CCS techniques have been successful in the past, they are not all meant for the scope of Lafayette, given limits on funding, technical abilities, and political feasibility. Of the existing techniques, industrial carbon capture is perhaps the least feasible technique for Lafayette due to uncertainties in both the technical and legal spheres. Since Lafayette’s CAP does not consider the alternative, so we will not discuss it in further detail within the political context.
The use of better agricultural practices as a means to increase the amount of carbon stored in organic matter is a highly feasible option for the college. LaFarm already uses techniques meant to improve soil quality, which in turn helps with carbon capture and plant growth capabilities. Although LaFarm lacks the certification as an organic farm, the majority of LaFarm’s practices follow organic regulations. Organic farming certification requires farms to meet and maintain strict standards. As long as the farm remains certified, National Organic Program will continuously regulate the farm (National Organic Program, n.d., n.p.). If Lafayette College wanted to achieve this certification, LaFarm would need to meet all requirements and be free of any prohibited practices or substances, which the organization’s webpage lists many options (Organic Regulations, n.d., n.p.). While achieving an organic certification might have benefits, LaFarm has been successful in making a positive impact with its given qualifications and should continue to focus on implementing CCS techniques.
Reforestation is perhaps the option that has the highest chance of success for Lafayette. Many other colleges with climate action plans have turned to a similar solution partly because forests act as a significant carbon sink, but also because of the relatively low establishment cost. Additionally, there are numerous organizations and policies in existence that support forest maintenance. Reducing Emissions From Deforestation And Forest Degradation In Developing Countries (REDD+) is among the various forest preservation policies that have created “a demand for carbon sequestration or adaptation services… and incentivize reforestation” (Locatelli et al., 2015, n.p.). Its goal is to reduce the destruction of forests by working with developing countries to use better foresting techniques, reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, as well as improve carbon-stock and forest management techniques (REDD+, 2019, n.p.). With a history of success and a high level of external support for this alternative, a reforestation project holds a lot of promise for Lafayette, especially in combination with LaFarm’s practices, as long as it receives the necessary on-campus support.
The success of the Climate Action Plan 2.0 relies on the implementation, but also on the support, funding, and attention it receives. Fortunately, due to the growing awareness on campus, there is a wide variety of individuals and groups willing to help with the development of this plan. Firstly, the Sustainability Office and the Sustainability Committee are two different groups but have both had a vital role in the making of the CAP. As the college begins to progress forward with its plan, the Office of Sustainability will continue to be one of the most prominent leaders and a key player in the CAP’s success. Less involved parties, but still relevant, include the Board of Trustees, which holds the responsibility of making the majority of decisions regarding changes on campus, and alums and donors. Without their support, many of the proposed goals become unattainable or will lack the necessary funding. This goes to show that success relies on gaining support not only from those who are directly involved but from those who do not have as prominent of a role.
The last and most valuable player in the CAP’s success consists of student, staff, and faculty members who each play a role by reducing their impact on the environment. A large number of on-campus, student-run organizations, however, have a higher impact capacity by acting as implementing structures for efforts directed toward carbon neutrality. The Society of Environmental Engineers and Scientists (SEES), for example, is an organization that researches to help solve current environmental science and engineering problems (SEES, 2019, n.p.). Along with the sustainability office, it could act as a technological infrastructure team that researches what technologies are the best methods. As the farming and reforestation technologies evolve and new challenges appear, it’s critical to evaluate the new options and decide which ones are more feasible, both technically and financially. Students with strong science and engineering backgrounds from SEES can assist this process.
Aside from the technical team, student clubs in the outreach and information branch can work toward providing the necessary motivation, understanding, resources, and acknowledgments for the campus and Easton community. EcoReps are a peer environmental group that act as role models and educators on campus. They help execute campus-wide events and promote sustainability through outreach and action; as a result, they would likely be active players in bridging carbon storage projects and campus education in the coming years (EcoReps, n.d., n.p.). LAFFCO, the organization that works towards becoming the liaison between the greater student body and LaFarm (Horowitz, 2015, n.p.), could also play an important role by working towards promoting student involvement at Lafarm and Metzgar field. Lastly, LEAP (Lafayette Environmental Awareness and Protection) is a group working towards campus sustainability by encouraging discussion and awareness of local and national environmental issues and organizing students to action (LEAP, 2019, n.p.). They play an essential role in community outreach and engagement in cooperation with the LANDIS center. They would be another active contributor to creating a connection between the college, the community, and upcoming environmental projects.
So far, the efforts to create a climate action plan have been successful. Lafayette has been able to gain support and now is working towards implementing the desired aspects of the CAP. The last thing to consider before each phase starts is the impact. In the case of using CCS technologies at the Metzgar Athletics Complex, those who will feel the most notable effect participate in Lafayette College’s Athletics Program. Due to their heavy reliance on Metzgar Field, any changes to the complex will affect athletes and could result in potential push back if the alterations are too troublesome. LaFarm, on the other hand, will face a different impact because no significant changes will take place in the implementation of farming techniques on the farm. However, LaFarm serves a wide variety of people, including the students and staff at Lafayette, independent farmers who rent the land, and even the city of Easton. Although their level of involvement in LaFarm varies, these broader groups will still feel the impact and will rightfully want to be involved. This dynamic mirrors the procedure of policy implementation in the way that only the upper tier of policy actors determine what can happen. Only after a change do the real impacts become evident, which is why it remains essential to consider all contexts before implementing such a decision.
To read about how the CCS technologies will be used at Lafayette College, click here and continue to the next section.