1. Introduction (together)

2. General infomation on eco-footprint. (Ellen)

- what is sustanability? (issue)

-What is eco-footprint? (topic)

-How does sustanable + eco-footprint relate?

-How do we know about the result can tell us?

3. University (case study) (Kwan+Tan)

-RISD

-Sydney uni

-RMIT

-Swinburne

Organization (Tan+Kwan)

(Which organization they do the eco-footprint?)

4. Design Green (Lucy)

5. Statistic (pete)

6. Conclusion (together) 

(BEIJING, March 5) — The Olympic (Paralympic) Village, whose basic construction work is complete, is to begin receiving residents on July 27. Through a balanced union of humanism, architecture and environment, the village incorporates characteristics of the three major Beijing Olympic concepts of “Green Olympics,” “Hi-Tech Olympics” and “People’s Olympics.”

A green venue

The village adopts 36 projects to conserve energy and water and reduce pollution discharge, including a reclaimed water source heat pump system for heating and cooling; a concentrated solar power water heating system; light pipe illumination; rainwater collection system. Moreover, leftover steel pieces were used in paving the roads, and sediment water from the construction site was used to control dust particles.

Standard room

Numerous “green” materials meeting strict Olympic standards were used to ensure an ideal indoor environment. Construction materials, including cement product, concrete, wall material, building sanitation products, doors, windows, and waterproofing material, and decoration materials, including manmade products, paint, lacquer, glue, meet international E1 and E0 standards.

Only the highest quality, environmentally friendly paint that is long lasting and stain resistant was used on the walls. The paint contains lower levels of metal, VOC and formaldehyde than normal paint.

Solar powered street lamp

Moreover, water faucets in the village’s restrooms are equipped to instantaneously provide hot water when the hot water tap is turned on, thus eliminating the need to run the tap to wait for the hot water supply.

Saving energy and limiting pollution through technology

Green technology will be deployed to illuminate the village’s streets, courtyards and fields, with some 340 solar powered lamps, light pipes and LED.

The Olympic (Paralympic) Village widely adopts renewable energy resources like solar power and reclaimed water to limit the amount of pollution emissions. During the Games, the two energy sources will provide the village with 7.89 million kWh of power, equivalent to the energy produced by burning 3,077 tons of coal. These renewable energy sources would cut down on carbon dioxide emissions by 8,000 tons.

After the Games, the 6.7 million kWh of energy produced annually by the village’s renewable energy resources eliminate the need to burn 26,000 tons of coal, thus preventing 67,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually.

Building entrance

Heating and cooling through reclaimed water

The reclaimed water source heat pump system uses a heat exchange method, whereby reclaimed water is the source of the heat exchange. Reclaimed water circulates through the heat pump to absorb heat from the buildings in the summer and provide heat to the buildings in the winter.

The water source heat pump would provide the same amount of heat as burning 3,000 tons of coal in the winter, resulting in the prevention of 7,200 tons of CO2 emissions, 123 tons of SO2 and nitrogen oxide emissions, four tons of CO emissions and 33 tons of particle pollution.

In the summer, the heat pump system is anticipated to result in energy savings of 40 percent compared with ordinary air conditioning systems.

A 6,000-sqm concentrated solar power water heating system, located in the rooftop garden, will provide hot water to the apartments and auxiliary facilities, resulting in savings of about 500 kilowatt hours. Following the Olympics, the system will meet the daily hot water needs of 2,000 families.

Storing “cold” in the winter to use in the summer

Some ultra low-energy buildings inside the village that adopt 22 new technologies, including solar powered heating, hot water, dehumidifying, and lighting; wind power; ground source heating and cooling; vacuum glazing (a transparent thermal insulator); and intelligent control systems, will be converted into a nursery school following the Olympics.

Solar duct system under the rooftop garden

Beneath the future nursery school lies a 450-sqm pool that will be used to collect and store ice in the winter to be used for cooling purposes in the summer. The “cold” from the stored ice can meet up to 20 percent of the buildings’ air conditioning needs in the summer and result in anticipated savings of 16,000 kWh.

Covering 2,000 square meters, the ultra low-energy buildings will consume only 36 kWh of energy per square meter a year, one-third the energy consumption of currently energy-saving buildings (a savings of 140,000 kWh).

(BEIJING, Jan. 28) — The National Aquatic Center has a beautiful nickname — the “Water Cube.” This is an architectural building that literally embodies the water theme. The blue “bubbles” made by the ETFE membrane fully showcase the grace and sensitivity of water.

The design feature of the “Water Cube” is the “bubbles.” The membrane structure of the “Water Cube,” which is composed of more than 3000 pneumatic die cushion with a coverage area of 110, 000 square meters, is the largest in the world. The “Water Cube” is also the only public building that is fully made of a membrane structure.

The advantages of the ETFE membrane are numerous:

Each of the 3000 bubbles can resist the weight of a car.

The outer wall of the “Water Cube” is composed of 3000 irregular “bubbles,” which make up the ETFE membrane structure. The ETFE membrane has good ductility and crushing resistance. After aeration, every piece of membrane can resist the weight of a car. It also has good resistance against fire and intense heat.

The “Water Cube” can breath

Eight fans which discharge the air naturally are set on the roof and the body of the “Water Cube.” After fresh air enters the building, it can be discharged through the cavum in the roof. This is how the heating within the building is released.

The “Water Cube” can “wash its face” by itself

The ETFE membrane is self-cleaning in nature. Since the friction coefficient of the material is small, dust does not easily attach onto the structure. Even if dust does collect on it, as long as it rains, the surface is washed by rain water.

The nightscape of the ‘Water Cube’

(BEIJING, January 28) — The construction of the National Aquatics Center, or the “Water Cube,” topped off today. The “Water Cube” was built in accordance with a water-saving design concept to be a gigantic green architectural wonder.

The venue’s membrane structure, covered by ETFE (Ethylene Tetrafluoroethylene) air cushions, is not only the first of its kind in China and the world’s largest and most complex ETFE project, but it is also an economical and water-saving creation.

The blue-colored “hubble-bubble” material is much lighter than conventional glazing structures with the same lighting effect. So the cost of its supporting steel structure was reduced considerably, said Zheng Fang, the top designer of the Chinese-side design company.

ETFE material made by a German company would have cost 400-500 Euros per square meter, but the same material manufactured through a joint venture was only 2,000 yuan per square meter. The conventional glass covering will cost about 500 to 600 Euro.

In addition, the “Water Cube” was designed with water-saving and environmental protection efforts. According to statistics, the outer surface and roof facade can “collect” 10,000 tons of rain water, 70,000 tons of clean water and 60,000 tons of swimming pool water annually. And the venue can also save 140,000 tons of recycled water a year.

Other environmental design efforts covered an air-conditioning system, surface water exploitation and ventilation system.

“Tokyo” as defined here is a conurban region that includes the 23 wards of Tokyo Metropolitan Government and the surrounding prefectures of Kanagawa, Chiba and Saitama (Yokohama city is therefore included within Kanagawa prefecture.)

With this definition, Tokyo population was 26.6 million for 1995. The total population of the country was 125.1 million (1995). The total land area of Japan is 377, 700 sq km. (37,770,000 ha) (habitable land is equal to 125,500 sq km or 12,550,000 ha, approximately 33% of the total land).[ OneWorld ]

1. According to the Earth Council report, “Ecological Footprints of Nations” a biologically productive area of 1.7 ha is available per capita for basic living. This means that for sustainable living, the people in Tokyo alone need an area of 45,220,000 ha – which is 1.2 times the land area of the whole of Japan. If mountains and other regions are discarded and only habitable land included, then this becomes 3.6 times the land area of Japan.

2. From the same report, taking the country as a whole, Japan has a demand for 6.25 ha per capita (for resources such as energy, arable land, pasture, forest, built-up area, etc.). But the supply has been 1.88 ha per capita. This leaves a ‘ecological deficit’ of 4.37 ha per person that has to be met from outside the country. For Tokyo alone, this is equal to 116,242,000 ha or 3.07 times the land area of Japan.

3. Lets take another viewpoint, based on the write-up, “London’s Footprint” in OneWorld. 26,600,000 people live in Tokyo. Area required for food production is 0.2 ha per person. For Tokyo, this will be a total of 5,320,000 ha … ⁽¹⁾ Similarly the forest area required by Tokyo for wood products is 0.109 ha per person. Tokyo’s value is 2,899,400 ha. … ⁽²⁾ Land area that would be required for carbon sequestration (=fuel production) is 1.5 ha per person This is 74,214,000 ha for Tokyo … ⁽³⁾ The total of 1, 2 and 3 is 108,528,000 ha – 2.14 times the land area of the whole of Japan!!

Each of the above methodologies give different multiples of Japan’s land area needed to sustain the population of only Tokyo, the world’s largest city. The key point to understand here is the sponge that an urban area is, in soaking up the earth’s natural resources.

But environmental footprints are not an ‘exact science’. As we saw above, different definitions can provide different footprints. It also depends on issues of scale in which it is measured – city, nation, region. Besides, excess footprints for small, developed nations are inevitable.

Footprints are useful, however from three points of view:

• to shock, to generate awareness – focussing on urban lifestyles and living, resource utlization etc.
• to build scenarios: if criteria used to define the footpirnts are changed, or resource utilization reduced, how does it affect the footprints?
• to evaluate and monitor policies and programmes. What footprints have particular policies and programmes generated? If their structure is changed/modified, or new policies put inplace, how are footprints affected?

REDUCING SCOTLAND ‘S FOOTPRINT

Scotland, like other developed countries, is using an unfair and unsustainable share of the world’s resources.

An ecological footprint is an estimate of the land and sea area needed to provide all the energy, water, transport, food and materials that we consume. In 2001, the average Scot had an ecological footprint 2.4 times the global average. If everyone on Earth lived the same way, it is estimated that three planets would be needed to sustain us.

The actions and commitments in the strategy will help us to reduce the size of that footprint.

We will achieve these changes in Scotland only by learning and embracing new approaches to the way that we go about things

We must all learn to:

• respect the limits of the planet’s environment, resources and biodiversity
• use resources as efficiently as possible – including reducing the need for them in the first place
• get much better at thinking about the long-term consequences of our actions – and their global as well as the national and local consequences

Businesses in Scotland can reduce their footprint by taking action to improve their productivity and competitiveness by using resources more efficiently. There is huge scope for improvement in Scotland. An estimated £1.3 billion is lost to the Scottish economy every year through energy wastage. In addition, the unproductive use of resources costs the manufacturing sector in Scotland around £300 million every year, which could be reduced by waste minimisation.

As consumers we need to consider the social, economic and environmental consequences of the products that we buy. Many of us are familiar with the power of the Fair Trade movement to change the social and economic impact of our spending in other countries. We also need to think about the climate change consequences of the products we buy from overseas. Most of the goods that we purchase are now manufactured in other parts of the world. The energy use and greenhouse gas emissions might be generated overseas but still reflect our choices, with consequences across the globe.

We need to build on people’s growing awareness of social and environmental concerns, and the influence they have as citizens and consumers. One approach is to use the ecological footprint as a tool for increasing understanding of unsustainable consumption and learning how to make more sustainable choices. The Executive will continue to support the work of WWF and partner organisations to roll out this footprint approach to local authorities and schools across Scotland.

As part of the broader communication, education and engagement strategy the Executive will work with the UK Government, NGOs, retailers and others to encourage informed public debate around the environmental and social consequences of the goods and services consumers buy, supporting initiatives such as Environment Direct, a proposed new consumer information service, which is expected to be launched across the UK in late 2006.

We will commission an independent study of Scotland’s footprint in 2008 (in advance of the next strategy).

MAKING THE LINKS: WHAT INDIVIDUALS/HOUSEHOLDS IN SCOTLAND CAN DO

Individuals, families and households can make a positive contribution to sustainable development in very practical ways by taking steps to reduce the size of their environmental footprint. Individuals can also use their power as consumers, investors and electors to demand more sustainable goods and services. They can get involved in action to improve their local environment or make their community a healthier, more vibrant place to live.

Individuals and households can

Take practical steps personally, and by influencing others, to reduce the size of their environmental footprint by:

• reducing, reusing and recycling waste
• reducing energy use, for example by using energy efficient products
• buying renewable energy
• making different travel choices – walking and cycling more, reducing carbon emissions by flying less or using public transport instead of the car

Use their power as consumers, investors and electors to demand more sustainable goods and services

Take part in and support improvements to their local area

Make their voice heard: debating the issues, helping to raise awareness, supporting the demand for change.

Supported in Scotland by:

Investment in the infrastructure that will make these choices easier:

• more recycling facilities
• better public transport
• safe paths to walk and cycle
• more energy efficient buildings and products

Better consumer information

Opportunities to learn how to live more sustainable lives

Focus on action at community level

Opportunities to get involved through a network of partner organisations across Scotland.MAKING THE LINKS:

WHAT BUSINESSES IN SCOTLAND CAN DO

Business has a crucial role in helping Scotland make the successful transition to a low-carbon economy. Considerable reductions in emissions can be achieved through better energy efficiency and increased use of renewable sources of heat and power. In responding to the imperative of climate change many businesses are finding that not only have they reduced their impact on the environment but they have made considerable financial savings into the bargain. For many businesses there are additional gains to be made by responding to market opportunities from changing patterns of demand.

Businesses can:

• improve productivity and competitiveness by using resources more efficiently
• develop a clear environmental policy for the company which is well understood by all employees
• explore market opportunities for new, greener products and technologies
• work to identify and reduce their impact on the external environment and, where appropriate adopt good neighbour agreements with their local communities
• improve access to your premises and reduce the environmental impacts of staff commute to work and business travel by developing and actively promoting a Travel Plan
• routinely monitor resource use and environmental impact, report publicly on them and invite feedback from stakeholders
• consider how they might work more closely with other local businesses to share experience and reduce collective impact
• introduce training programmes to raise awareness and develop skills.

Supported in Scotland by:

• implementation of the green jobs strategy
• improvements to the way in which resource efficiency support is delivered
• the work of organisations such as WRAP, the Energy Saving Trust, Envirowise, SISP and others
• information, guidance and best practice on corporate social responsibility from partner organisations (SCDI, Scottish Business in the Community, the Business Council for Sustainable Development, CBI, FSB and others).

By Jane Mundy

15 March 2002

Researchers in the School of Physics have carried out the world’s first compre-hensive case study of a university’s environmental impact.

Dr Manfred Lenzen and third-year student Richard Wood have conducted a holistic assessment of the “ecological footprint” (EF) of the School of Physics, using methodology developed by Dr Lenzen and Shauna Murray from the School of Biological Sciences based on economic input-output analysis. This footprint is expressed as the total area of land required to support the operation of the institution indefinitely.

The School of Physics was found to have an ecological footprint of about 800 hectares – or 6.8 hectares per employee. This figure can be compared with the ecological footprint of the average Australian, which is 7.2 hectares per person.

“However, comparing our footprint with the global available space of 1.7 hectares per person shows that we are by far exceeding our equitable share”, said Mr Wood.

The largest impact was from electricity use (14 per cent), followed by air travel (four per cent), electricity used by other campus services such as administration, security, or catering (three per cent), and electricity used by manufacturers to make electronic equip-ment that is bought by the School. Paper and books accounted for only 0.1 per cent of the EF.

The researchers also applied their footprint method to the Sustainable Ecosystems Department of the CSIRO (CSE), so that they could compare a research institution with a technological focus and a research institution more dependent on human resources. CSE’s ecological footprint amounted to about 1400 hectares, but on a per employee basis, it was only 4.8 hectares. Electricity use accounted for 27 per cent of this EF, followed by the physical impact of the large CSE site (five per cent) and the emissions impact of air travel (four per cent).

The study identifies all contributing indus-trial input paths into the School of Physics’ final environmental impact. Amongst these are complicated supply chains, such as the land used for beef cattle grazing which is required for producing food used in catering and hospitality. The complexity of these supply chains means that as much as 75 per cent of the impact occurs at three or more levels of separation away from the School of Physics, and is spread out across the whole of Australia and even overseas.

Dr Lenzen said previous studies have not been comprehensive because they have cut off the calculation at the first level of suppliers, and have not explored higher-order impacts. This results in a serious underestimation of the ecological footprint, he said. But input-output analysis can be used to provide a comprehensive picture of an institution’s impact, and presents the material and energy flows in a transparent way.

An important application of the methodology developed by the Sydney researchers is its potential as a policy and planning tool for the sustainable development and operation of institutions. It can be used to both monitor and improve the effectiveness of an institution’s environment management system.

“An EF can provide very useful information, especially for commercial and public organisations that can control and direct their own purchasing,” said Dr Lenzen. “This is particularly true for universities, which, along with exerting control over expenditure, have a particular responsibility in being role models for best environmental practice.

“By incorporating the EF into an environmental management system and monitoring it over time, it would be possible to see whether more sensitive environ-mental policies – such as a commitment to green energy sources, an increase in video-conferencing to reduce air travel, an increase in recycling facilities to reduce the quantity of garbage, and switching to recycled paper – result in a reduction in environmental impact.

“The University of Sydney has committed to environmental change through the formation of a draft environmental policy in 1999, and a study of this nature can reveal whether actual change is occur-ring in real terms.”
Contact: Jake O’Shaughnessy

Phone: +61 2 9351 4312 or 0421 617 861

By Jane Mundy

15 March 2002
Researchers in the School of Physics have carried out the world’s first compre-hensive case study of a university’s environmental impact.

Dr Manfred Lenzen and third-year student Richard Wood have conducted a holistic assessment of the “ecological footprint” (EF) of the School of Physics, using methodology developed by Dr Lenzen and Shauna Murray from the School of Biological Sciences based on economic input-output analysis. This footprint is expressed as the total area of land required to support the operation of the institution indefinitely.

The School of Physics was found to have an ecological footprint of about 800 hectares – or 6.8 hectares per employee. This figure can be compared with the ecological footprint of the average Australian, which is 7.2 hectares per person.

“However, comparing our footprint with the global available space of 1.7 hectares per person shows that we are by far exceeding our equitable share”, said Mr Wood.

The largest impact was from electricity use (14 per cent), followed by air travel (four per cent), electricity used by other campus services such as administration, security, or catering (three per cent), and electricity used by manufacturers to make electronic equip-ment that is bought by the School. Paper and books accounted for only 0.1 per cent of the EF.

The researchers also applied their footprint method to the Sustainable Ecosystems Department of the CSIRO (CSE), so that they could compare a research institution with a technological focus and a research institution more dependent on human resources. CSE’s ecological footprint amounted to about 1400 hectares, but on a per employee basis, it was only 4.8 hectares. Electricity use accounted for 27 per cent of this EF, followed by the physical impact of the large CSE site (five per cent) and the emissions impact of air travel (four per cent).

The study identifies all contributing indus-trial input paths into the School of Physics’ final environmental impact. Amongst these are complicated supply chains, such as the land used for beef cattle grazing which is required for producing food used in catering and hospitality. The complexity of these supply chains means that as much as 75 per cent of the impact occurs at three or more levels of separation away from the School of Physics, and is spread out across the whole of Australia and even overseas.

Dr Lenzen said previous studies have not been comprehensive because they have cut off the calculation at the first level of suppliers, and have not explored higher-order impacts. This results in a serious underestimation of the ecological footprint, he said. But input-output analysis can be used to provide a comprehensive picture of an institution’s impact, and presents the material and energy flows in a transparent way.

An important application of the methodology developed by the Sydney researchers is its potential as a policy and planning tool for the sustainable development and operation of institutions. It can be used to both monitor and improve the effectiveness of an institution’s environment management system.

“An EF can provide very useful information, especially for commercial and public organisations that can control and direct their own purchasing,” said Dr Lenzen. “This is particularly true for universities, which, along with exerting control over expenditure, have a particular responsibility in being role models for best environmental practice.

“By incorporating the EF into an environmental management system and monitoring it over time, it would be possible to see whether more sensitive environ-mental policies – such as a commitment to green energy sources, an increase in video-conferencing to reduce air travel, an increase in recycling facilities to reduce the quantity of garbage, and switching to recycled paper – result in a reduction in environmental impact.

“The University of Sydney has committed to environmental change through the formation of a draft environmental policy in 1999, and a study of this nature can reveal whether actual change is occur-ring in real terms.”
 

Contact: Jake O’Shaughnessy

Phone: +61 2 9351 4312 or 0421 617 861