The Tree Huggers Sem 2 Group 4 Rodion Lim Shi'Ang Koh Chongyi Tan Yong Hwaa Abigail Tan Huimin Esther Lim Keen Tze

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
1

2. Brief Overview
• Calculating NTU’s Carbon Footprint
• Stakeholder Analysis
• 3 Initiatives to Reduce Carbon Footprint
• Evaluation of Initiatives
• Final Recommendation
• Executive Summary
2

3. Calculating NTU’s Estimated
Carbon Footprint
Methodology:
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
(Adapted from EUR case study and NUS Greenhouse Gas Inventory)
3

4. Calculating NTU’s Estimated
Carbon Footprint
Key Statistics:
• NTU’s total population size in 2012 (undergraduates,
graduates, staff and faculty) = 39,598
• Energy consumption in FY 12 = 164 million kWh
(Adapted from ISCN Gulf Charter Report NTU 2013 and NTU website)
4

5. Calculating NTU’s Estimated
Carbon Footprint
Assumptions:
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
5

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 - Average waiting time of 15 mins
bus service
6

7. Calculating NTU’s Estimated
Carbon Footprint
CO2 IN TONS (NTU) AS SEPERATED INTO 3 SCOPES
Scope 3,
20,630
Tons, 23%
Scope 1,
74.3 Tons,
0%
Scope 2,
70,520 Tons,
77%
7

8. Calculating NTU’s Estimated
Carbon Footprint
NTU’s CO2 Emission Output For 2012:
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
Total estimated carbon footprint for NTU = 91,224 tons of CO2
(Breakdown of figures are shown in notes)
8

9. Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholders
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
9

10. 3 Initiatives To Reduce
Carbon Footprint
1)From Classroom to E-learning
2)Buying Carbon Offset Credits
3)Alternative Measures
10

11. 3 Initiatives to Reduce Carbon
Footprint
Decision Criteria:
• Reduction in Carbon Footprint
• Cost/unit over Time
• Impact on Stakeholders
• Viability in the Long Term
11

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
12

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 class
Carbon Footprint= 4kg + 2kg = 6kg
Emission of CO2 from travelling
E-learning
•
•
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
•
•
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
13

14. 1) From Classroom to E-learning
Reduction in Carbon Footprint
• 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)
14

15. 1) From Classroom to E-learning
Operating Costs Per Semester
Classroom
•
•
•
•
•
Electricity = 6 x 1.2x $0.12 = $0.864
Transportation cost = $3.0/student
Printing cost (approx 20 pages) =
20x50x$0.05 = $50
E-learning
•
•
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
*Savings of $1,393.70
15

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 Make certain changes in
Singapore in general
the current robust
education system
Community
Better impression of NTU
Some may be skeptical
about the results of this
education method
16

17. 1) From Classroom to E-learning
Viability 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
17

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
18

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
19

20. 2) Buying Carbon Offset Credits
Offset in Carbon Footprint (from earlier calculations)
•
NTU’s 2012 carbon footprint = 91,224 tons of CO2
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)
20

21. 2) Buying Carbon Offset Credits
Impact on Stakeholders
Stakeholders
Pros
Cons
NTU
Boost NTU’s reputation and Whole NTU population
other universities may even bear the increased cost,
follow suit
approximately $14 per year
Students
Benefit from the enhanced
school reputation
Government
Lesser carbon emissions for Does not reduce but merely
Singapore in general
offsets carbon emissions
Community
No clear benefit
Not all students are willing
to pay for the premium
No clear detriment
21

22. 2) Buying Carbon Offset Credits
Viability 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
22

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”
23

24. 3) Alternative Measures – NTU
Measures
Reduction in
Cost
Carbon Footprint 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
24

25. 3) Alternative Measures – Students
Measures
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
25

26. 3) Alternative Measures – Staff
Measures
Reduction in
Cost
Carbon Footprint 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
High
Low
26

27. Evaluation of Initiatives
Factors
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
27

28. Evaluation of Initiatives
Buying 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)
28

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
29

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
30

31. Executive Summary:
The key to a carbon neutral future of NTU is to implement more of its lessons in elearning 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 31
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-carbonidUSTRE77L1AF20110822
http://news.hiltonworldwide.com/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/22177
http://www.ntu.edu.sg/odfm/usefulinfo/greenWebsite/Pages/NewBuil
dings.aspx
http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/3p-less/ourgreeninitiatives.asp
http://www.distancesfrom.com/sg/travel-from-Boon-Lay-MRT-topasir-ris-mrt/TravelFromHistory/1172494.aspx
http://www.nus.edu.sg/oes/resources/carbonfootprint_calculator.html
32