Queens' Environmental Policy Discussion
Discussion forum for the proposed new environmental policy for Queens'.
The Recycling committee at Queens' was recently converted to the Environmental Committee. The idea of the environmental policy is to quantify the role of the committee, help judge the success of its decisions and to guide the setting of further targets.
While this may seem unnecessarily bureaucratic, having an official policy such as this would help to hold college to its environmental commitments. The majority of the requirements of the policy have either already been fulfilled or are in the the process of being addressed by college, and as such, the policy is also way of recognising this officially and ensuring that the work towards these goals continues.
Relative to other colleges, Queens' is quite strong environmentally, but has been unfairly ranked quite low on university surveys. On a number of occasions, this has been because those assessing have been unable to discern a distinct college policy and as such have assumed that college just doesn't really care.
I have attached a draft version of the policy, if you have any thoughts or comments please post them below.
Thanks
Emil, JCR Environmental Officer
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Model College Environmental Policy.pdf | 64.04 KB |
Just having a quick look over it seems to cover all of the issues. Good work Emil! When will we get college to sign up to it?
The policy looks very good for the most part, and covers a good range of issues. Just a few things I would like to point out:
-Do you want to have any specific targets in this policy? I.e. numerical targets, to be met by a certain date, e.g. for reduction in water usage? I did see that part (7.d) mentions 'measurable targets', so I see that maybe these targets would not be put in the general policy.
-Perhaps part (2.b) could be rephrased - 'appreciate' doesn't imply actually taking any action.
-Regarding part (3.c), locally produced food is not always the most environmentally friendly: it can actually use more energy to grow food in heated glasshouses in the UK than to grow it outdoors in a hot country and then fly it here. Perhaps the emphasis should be on seasonal local food.
Other than these points, I agree with what has been said in the policy.
Thanks for the suggestions.
Just to clarify, we recently managed to get the college to establish an Environmental Committee and this policy is a way of outlining the responsibilities and aims of the committee. As such, once it accepted as college policy, the idea is that we can then get college to agree on specific targets and to work towards them. (i.e the targets would be agreed and drawn up later)
Currently, there can be a lot of resistance from certain college departments, etc. when the idea of specific targets are mentioned, as they are seen as avoidable inconveniences rather than necessary steps to improving the college.
Looking through these are my comments:
1 d) is redundant due to it everyone having to do this by law anyway.
2 b) Why do you have to buy from new renewable source what is wrong with old renewable sources?
2 c) The wording of this is just asking for the reply "we looked into it but no".
How about put double glazing into Cripps and maybe improve the sealing on windows?
3 c) Do you realize what this would do to the cost of food?
5 d) College don't own the washing machines
Apart from that it looks ok.
Hi Emil! Really good job on producing this; it seems really comprehensive.
I just have a few points to add also.
3c. (Looking like this is going to be contentious already!) I agree with Helen and to an extent with James. I think the aim of this policy is to set our foundations on which we build hence why part 7 focuses on reviewing the policy. With this in mind, I feel we should keep 3b in the policy but re-phrase it to give ourselves more modest goals in the short-term and try to expand further in the long-term. Maybe it should read:
"Endeavour to purchase food that has been produced and delivered with minimal impact on
the environment"
This leaves scope in terms of costing for buttery but also removes contentious issues such as the impact of locally grown foods on the environment and the sustainability of free range products.
My other 2 points are:
1) The inclusion of steps towards the improvement of the glazing in Cripps Court including draught exclusion. (As mentioned by James)
2) I agree with Helen in the necessity of setting targets; though I realise this may be hard to do and will be done at a later date anyway.
Good luck!
Looks good in general. I think point 2d is perhaps a little strongly worded; there are still some applications for which energy efficient lightbulbs are not (yet) up to scratch, for example architectural or aesthetic lighting (of which Cambridge colleges tend to have quite a lot!). Maybe you could say something like "use energy efficient lightbulbs where appropriate", and then set out in the list of targets exactly where they are to be used. On that point: do we have a mechanism for disposing of CF bulbs? WEEE recommends (but does not require) private individuals to return them to the manufacturer. I'm not sure what the law is as regards large institutions, but in any case given that we must get through quite a few bulbs we ought to make sure they don't end up in landfills.
I'd like to second (third?) the double glazing suggestion, but it would be nice to see older buildings weatherproofed too. Obviously we can't double glaze Dokett, for example, but we could refurbish the windows to make them less draughty (and some draught excluders on the swing doors wouldn't go amiss either).
A couple of people have touched on the cost issue with regard to locally-sourced food. Given the state of the economy, there is a danger that environmental concerns will go out of the window as college (and students!) put more emphasis on saving money. You mentioned that some departments are viewing the Environmental Committee as something of an imposition; I expect that this is in no small part because many departments have had their budgets slashed and are struggling to avoid laying off staff. I'm not saying that environmental concerns are not important, just that we need to make sure that we don't concentrate exclusively on them and let other important concerns fall by the wayside. For example, (old fart alert) in the Lent '07 open meeting we resolved by a overwhelming majority to pressure college to increase the minimum wage for staff, bearing in mind the high cost of living in Cambridge. That policy is up for renewal next year but I'd hope that most people would still support it.
So if we want to improve our environmental standing without sacrificing our other principles we are probably going to see an increase in room rents. It's not sexy to talk about money but unfortunately it is the single biggest obstacle to getting many of these proposals accepted. This is in no way a criticism of this document, and I'm aware that I'm hijacking the comment thread - but when you come to write the detailed list of targets, I'd like to see an idea of how much it's going to cost before voting on it. I'm aware this is harder for some things than others, but it should be relatively easy to figure out, for example, how much switching to an electricity supplier who buys from renewable sources would increase the average electricity bill.
Good luck!