Vision for a Net Positive Energy and Water Campus: Through an Incentive Program for Maximizing Resource Efficiency

Recently submitted my proposal for the UBC Alternative Energy X contest. I am not sure if this is what they are looking, because my plan is pretty boring from a PR perspective, and its implementation would be an administrative nightmare. Nevertheless, I think it’s what UBC and other major institutions need:

Vision for a Net Positive Energy and Water Campus: Through an Incentive Program for Maximizing Resource Efficiency

UBC is in desperate need of an overarching institutional framework that creates incentives for efficient and disincentives for inefficient resource usage. Rather than focusing on ad hoc improvement projects, it is more important to establish a system that generates innovative ideas everyday, not just when there’s a contest.

The problem is the broken chain of accountability. With the cost of fossil fuel, carbon offsets, and carbon taxes piling up, UBC will very soon pick up a sizable tab for its share of environmental responsibility. However, I doubt most students and faculties will make significant changes because neither incentives nor disincentives are in place. The stick and carrot stop at UBC as a collective, not passed down to departments, faculties, and individuals as it should. An incentive program can fix this by distributing the share of responsibility effectively and align interests in every level. The result is an institutional framework that focuses on maximizing resource use efficiency.

How such program could work in UBC:

1. UBC sets its annual targets for a number of resources, which may include natural gas, electricity, water, waste, and etc.
2. Allocate the quotas for each building based on the number of people it serves.
3. Track the building’s heating, electricity, water, and waste generation on weekly basis. Produce reports showing if it is below or exceeding the quota.
4. At the end of the year, buildings or departments that operate below the quota receive a portion of the saved money from fuel, offsets, and taxes. The money could be spent on buildings upgrades, distributed within departments, or even in the form of tuition reduction. On the other hand, those that use resources inefficiently could face budget cuts or tuition increase.
5. Efforts on the reduction of emission and energy consumption by students within or outside of the campus could be counted as credits.

Under this system, departments, faculties, and students are obligated (not just encouraged) to take proactive roles because their efforts are measurable (through weekly usage report), comparable (against the targets and other buildings), and would directly affect them. Since the key indicator is the resource use efficiency (measured in, for example usage / person hour), it takes into account building size and user number, and gives a comparable ratio throughout the campus. While some buildings are built more efficient than others, it is unfair to give them preferential treatments. It should be up to the users to come up with plans for decrease consumption or increase usage. For example, a classroom is twice as efficient when it is used by 20 people instead of 10.

While I believe the incentive program will produce innovative solutions for efficient resource use, there are several specific improvements that could be adopted immediately.

1. Smarter heating control: computerized heating control that allows automatic shutoffs when a classroom or building is not used. It could be determined through motion sensors or course schedule. Alternatively, timers could be installed that automatically shuts off heater.
2. Smarter lighting control: similar to heating, lights from unused sections of a building should be shut off automatically, through motion sensor, course schedule, or timer.
3. Upgrade insulation for windows especially to minimize escape heat.
4. Install two levels flush toilets, collect rainwater for plant operations
5. For campus residences, make utilities non-inclusive and send out usage stats. People will be more aware of their consumptions.
6. Leverage talents within campus for improvement projects.
7. Financial support for paying upgrade costs in installments

With a proper incentive program in place, UBC could foster a culture of active participation in innovation. The program would not only encourage great ideas but more importantly, great results.

Shaking Off the Guilt of Flying

I have a confession to make, for I have sinned. I took a 13 hrs flight across the Pacific Ocean to Taiwan.

I find it difficult, even unrealistic, to convince anyone not to fly, myself included. In most cases, there is simply no reasonable alternative other than not going. I bet even the environmental activists fly to the Amazon to defend the rainforests. Sure they fly to defend the nature, and maybe their efforts would have offset the CO2 their flights emit, but how about the parents who take their kids to a trip of their lifetime? or a girl working abroad for years decides to go home for Christmas? or a sales manager whose family depends on his income has to fly to a trade show?

My point is that, everyone has a good reason to fly. Even for someone who cares about the environment, the value of flying usually exceeds the cost of the fare plus the guilt disincentive.

While I believe it is futile to persuade people not to fly, a few things I hope to see:

Airlines integrate carbon offsets plans. Make it mandatory, opt-out, or at least available for opt-in. If flying is a necessary sin of modern life, please have means of redemption ready. Passengers can buy offsets as an option with the ticket, or they could be sold on-site (well packaged of course).

An increase in price will lower demand. Perhaps a tax that goes toward technological innovation or public improvement to offset emission. People will consider the alternatives if the price isn’t right, like picking a closer destination or a mean of transportation that was more expensive without the tax. Most will still fly, but at least part of the fare will go toward offsetting the emission.

I’m not a climate scientist, use a unit I can understand. Only the hardcore activists understand what “15 tonnes of GHG” means. I still have to Google to get an idea. Tell me how many km of driving equivalent, or how many trees I need to plant to offset it (forget the technical details for now). The point is to get people thinking.

Everyone Should Drive Less Except Me

Consider the following questions:

Do you think the government should do something about climate change?
Yes

Do you think industries should adopt sustainable business practices?
Yes

Do you think we should drive less and drive more fuel efficient vehicles?
Yes

Do you think we should keep gas price low?
Yes

People consume less when price is high, and consume more when price is low. I don’t see how low price and low consumption would be magically compatible in this case, but apparently plenty of people do (or wish it is).

All of us drive less in response to high gas price, by planning our routes carefully, carpool, taking public transit, driving a smaller car.

When price drops, we may not consciously drive more. Instead, we’ll just “not drive less”, and maybe get back to our old habits.

Why would anyone drive less when bus fare cost as much as gas price? Why would industries do anything different in turbulent times if the old ways cost much less again? Why would the government do anything if voters oppose long term solutions?

To illustrate, consider the following questions:

DO you agree that polluters should pay tax?
Yes

Do you agree that carbon dioxide is a major pollutant that causes climate change?
Yes

Would you support carbon tax on gasoline?
HELL NO!

It pisses me off when people blindly oppose carbon tax, saying that it will push up gas price. Hmm.. No shit! That’s the whole point. How else would everyone drive less?
 
 
Perhaps now is the best time to implement brave carbon tax policies, before people start whining about gas price again.