What can the campus do about it? Who's responsibility???

4. Devise 2 strategies that ANU or NUS could implement to reduce their footprint, and enhance sustainability. Who is responsible? Individuals changing their behaviour, the university changing the way it conducts business, or both? Why?


The first strategy we propose would require the way the university changes the way it conducts its business. Changes to the campus facilities can only be achieved by the university. This includes putting in place motion sensors in the campus to ensure more efficiency in energy consumption. These sensors would be able to switch off lights, fans and air-cons if it detects no motion for a certain period of time. In the same way, it would be able to sense motion and respond accordingly. Air-condition systems should be altered from a central control to one that allows individual controls in lecture theatres and classrooms. A system should be in place to ensure the air-cons are switched on during the allocated class period instead of letting it run the entire day. Air-cons should also have a default setting of 25 degrees Celsius and it should not be adjusted unless necessary. Such sensors requires a large capital to be put in place, but it helps the university to save energy in the long run and ensures energy is being used efficiently. In addition, the campus should consider allowing students to open the classroom windows in campus if the weather is not too hot and humid.

The second strategy would involve both a change in individual’s behavior and the way the university runs its businesses. We propose having Green Weeks throughout the year. This would have to be supported and put in place by the university, while the students have to believe in the importance of it and participate actively. During Green Week, students are to bring their own Tupperware, and canteen vendors are not allowed to use plastic containers. In addition, there will be an additional carbon tax on all cars using the school’s carpark. This is beyond their current season parking and carpark charges. Carpark fees will also be doubled to encourage students to use the public transport. These are some examples of disincentives to deter students from using resources inefficiently. It facilitates the idea that there is a price to pay for convenience and we should never take such resources for granted. On top of incentives, incentives can be introduced to encourage the students to carry on the habit of being environmentally friendly. One example may be to award students with points whenever they bring their own Tupperware and carriers, and these points can be accumulated to obtain a free meal. The logic behind such a campaign will be so that students will at least get STARTED with leading an environmentally friendly life, to let them know that it is POSSIBLE. Such an idea is taken from another concept implemented by the Singapore government on schools. On Civil Defence day, school canteens stop selling food and only provide sweet potato porridge. This is so that students can understand how it feels like when there is war and there’s a lack of food supply. Similarly, Green Weeks are to get students to understand how being green feels like.

As the saying goes, it takes 2 hands to clap. Therefore, we need both parties’ (school and students) support in order to make our approaches operationalised and effectively implemented. Without an adequate support of the students to empower these approaches, measures can be deemed useless to our green goals as well as redundant and ineffective. Moreover, legislation and implementation might only look like a rigid, hierarchical top-down approach which can be regarded as a lip service paid to the tree huggers and also the pragmatic global competition for achieving green campuses and in aid to be environmentally relevant.

On the other spectrum, the targeted result will also be inconclusive when there is an evident absence of the school authority to push ways for green measures. Armed with financial backing and by harness its relationships with relevant green enterprises and local government, the school can be a significant potent entity to execute green projects and also able to monitor their sustainable progress over a long period of time. Not to forget, tertiary institutions are the breeding grounds for future leaders and therefore this emphasizes the pressing urgency for them to engage, appreciate and inculcate green measures and estimating potential damages as soon as possible. This also presents the need for present students to have a comprehensive and multi-disciplinary idea of how environment has a huge stake in our present as well as future and generate genuine concern for the nature most importantly.

Looking at the scale of influence, the university changing the way it runs its business have impact and influence on all its students, who will eventually spread the environmentally friendly lifestyle as they mix with other people. Whereas looking at the scale of an individual, it is pretty difficult to influence a large number of people to follow a green lifestyle. For example, a society called SAVE (mentioned above) in NUS, have extremely environmentally friendly members. They adhere by strict rules, such as by limiting the use of plastic bags and containers; they do not package or bring their food out of the canteen, so that reusable utensils can be used. However, even though some of our friends are from that society, as an individual, they have less impact on influencing our mindset and actions. However, if the school bans the use of plastic disposable packaging, an immediate effect will be visible.

In conclusion, with only intermixing synergies and enthusiasm that can be generated from the school’s authority and students can we able to pursuit reduction in carbon footprint and improve sustainability. Besides, it is also pivotal that both parties can engage in open dialogue and be transparent in order to forge a genuine attempt to help the environment.

What do you guys think about this question? =)