2007 Campus Sustainablity Report Tables of Contents Introduction Social Indicators Environmental Indicators Economic Indicators The Way Forward Download the PDF version

We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.

The Earth Charter

This report could not have happened without assistance from a long list of MSU community members. Chelsea McMellen and Tremaine Phillips, undergraduate student members of UCSC, were key to tracking down data, developing the tables and graphs as well as important counsels for a number of decisions we made as a group. Sara Kay Barker, a graduating senior, was our able and creative design editor. Kurt Stepnitz, from Media Relations, assisted with photographs. Other UCSC members, including Laura DeLind, Bob Ellerhorst, Lynda Boomer, Diane Barker, Steve Frank, Laurie Thorp, Mary Lindsey-Frary, Ashley Miller, Maya Fischoff, Rebecca Meuninck, Stu Gage, Ruth Daoust, Laurie Barnhart, Judy Marteniuk, and Steve Troost, played significant roles: sometimes providing the data, but always helping shape the choice of indicators, asking thoughtful questions as we reviewed many drafts, and ultimately shaping the recommendations that you find within.

Finally, a special thank you to many people who not only helped us unearth the data, but many of whom spent significant time reviewing and discussing data and indicators – Dave Byelich, Karen McKnight-Casey, Gary Lindsay, Dennis Martell, Florene McGlothian-Taylor, Chris Hanna, Kathleen Fairfax, Ben Darling, John Parmer, Nathan Schuck, Gale Gower, Phil Gardner, Larry Sierra, Laurenza Riojas, Brian Watts, Ruth Kline-Robach, Ron Flinn, Debbie Gulliver, Marta Mittermeier, Todd Loeffler, Larry Hembroff, Rick Shipman, Kris Jolley, Roger Cargill, Pat Thompson, Karyn Pearl, Andrea Beasinger, Candie Sanchez, Jeff Brodie, Patrick Scheetz, Annie James, Lynette Forman, Mike Rice, and Phil Weinstein. Ellen Link provided a last minute review catching numerous grammatical errors, inconsistencies, and awkward language improving the final product. Any remaining errors or omissions rest solely with the editor of this report.

Photographs throughout the entire report are courtesy of University Relations.

Terry Link, Director
Office of Campus Sustainability
April 2007

Back to Top

On the inside cover of this report, we print the preamble to The Earth Charter. That document, which offers an ethical framework for both global and local sustainability, was endorsed by the University Committee for a Sustainable Campus (UCSC) in 2002. We find the call in that preamble inspiring and offer this report as one effort towards creating a sustainable future to bequeath to all the children.

The 2007 Campus Sustainability Report builds on our initial report from 2003. That groundbreaking report was in response to a key question asked when the UCSC was born in 1999: “Where do we stand?” Since we see sustainability as the interdependence between the social, environmental and economic components of the campus, we present the latest trends in these areas. Besides building trends using the same indicators from the 2003 report, in this report we have added a few additional indicators including student debt, layoffs, grievances, graduate salaries, workplace injuries by type and cost, etc.

Legitimate questions about what constitutes a trend (regardless of the direction), or what might or should trigger concerns that we need to address cannot be neatly proscribed. We have included many indicators with short comments on their apparent trends, plausible explanations for those trends, and examples of activities underway that might impact those trends. One common question we heard after we released our first report was, “So what should we change?” In response to that frequent question, we have made some recommendations for campus consideration around ten key indicators that we believe deserve particular attention. For these indicators we offer recommendations listed in the final chapter, “The Way Forward.” With each we propose one-year, five-year, and ten-year goals we should aim for as we move forward to meet the challenges that could lead us and our heirs either toward a creative and sustainable future or one bereft of much hope or promise.

As with the earlier report, this report is the work of the 18 members of UCSC. It is a consensus report. In the process of putting it together we had numerous conversations within the community and with each of the units that provided us with the data. We take full responsibilities for any errors of fact or interpretation.

As you look through the report, we would ask you to think about the interplay between indicators. Sustainability is about wholes, not simply discrete parts. While the temptation might be to skim the report looking for particular indicators of interest, the significance of this report is its systemic approach. The university is a system embedded in larger systems. If we can better understand the relationships between indicators, we might be more effective in nurturing the growth of multiple positive indicators while diminishing the negative indicators.

We would also ask that readers keep in mind the larger systems we are part of and how we are both shaped by them and in turn shape them. We believe that the preparation of the report and the conversations we hope will follow its release will help the university community take notice of both troubling trends we might try to slow or reverse and those positive trends that we want to continue to stimulate. We are hopeful that this report will assist the community in assessing our status and provide suggestions for new directions as well as maintenance of current positive trends. It is in this spirit that we offer this report to the community.

Back to Top

When we tell folks that we’re involved with “campus sustainability,” the most frequently asked question is, “What is sustainability?” While there are websites and scholarly articles written on that question, the most common definition flows from the 1987 report of the UN Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, which defined “sustainable development” (sustainability) as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Embedded in that definition are two important elements: 1) a long-term view (generations), and 2) a systemic or ecological sense of life.

Thus, sustainability is about the interdependence of living organisms and communities (both human and nonhuman) over the long haul. Instead of seeing environmental, social and economic needs as a collection of discrete characteristics or problems, sustainability looks at them as interdependent and connected. Each has an impact on and consequences for the others.

Much of the time spent studying in college is spent looking at parts of the whole (e.g. agriculture, law, medicine, history). Rarely is our attention directed toward the whole, complex system. Sustainability brings the parts together and the whole into focus. It helps us to ask a series of essential questions.

For example, let’s take a look at something very familiar to all of us on campus – copy paper.

In the best of sustainable worlds, we would like to use the paper with the greatest post-consumer recycled content. But how do we balance this desire with the reality of economic cost? Are we willing to pay 5%, 10%, or 20% more for our paper? If everything else were equal would it matter where our paper came from? Are we better off purchasing paper made in the Midwest, close to home, or in Portugal thousands of miles away? The Midwest seems to make more sense, energy-wise. But what if the Midwest producer was involved with clear cutting forests and endangering native wildlife? What if the Midwest factory were a major polluter of air and water resources? Would this make the paper from Portugal a better buy despite the distance? Then again, what if the Portuguese factory did not treat its employees fairly or instituted practices that destroyed longstanding cultural traditions within the surrounding community? Would the Portuguese paper still be a better choice? Clearly there are no simple answers. Sustainability is neither simple nor easy. Rather, it is a matter of awareness, of understanding relationships, and of balancing many, often contradictory, variables. It is a way of thinking about how we behave and consume on a daily basis. It is important for us to see the connections between our individual choices and the bigger picture and to consider what our responsibilities are to our local and global communities. When we multiply this individual action by 55,000 we can have an enormous impact, one that is strong enough to shift local markets and reverberate across local, state, national and international boundaries. As you’ll see later in the report, MSU consumes well over 150,000,000 sheets of paper a year. What we do matters!

By looking and reflecting on the data collected and shared in this report, we invite the campus community to reflect on what really matters. How are we doing? How can we optimize the best of what we do and minimize the negative impacts so that the generations who follow will find their quality of life as least as promising as our own? Ultimately sustainability is not some magical final destination; it’s a process, and as knowledge and wisdom unfurl over time we will need to continually rethink and recalibrate our definition of sustainability.

In 2002, the University Committee for a Sustainable Campus (UCSC) unanimously endorsed the Earth Charter. The Earth Charter lists sixteen principles that in our view paint a picture of a sustainable future. The sixteen principles of the Earth Charter are divided into four categories: Respect and Care for the Community of Life, Ecological Integrity, Social and Economic Justice, and Democracy, Nonviolence and Peace. Please consider joining us in affirming and aspiring to these principles. The EC has evolved as a worldwide, grassroots, ethical framework for living more sustainably. While it is not a magic bullet, it does provide an excellent framework for thinking about the work before us as we struggle to build our own sustainable community here on the MSU campus and beyond.

Back to Top

This report updates our initial report, published in 2003. How are we doing across the social, environmental, and economic components of Michigan State University? Are we moving towards being a more sustainable institution, one that will be operating as well 150 years from now as we have during our first 150 years (celebrated in 2006)? Perhaps it is serendipitous that 150 years is a close approximation of seven generations, the long-term lens used by the elders of many native peoples of North America in making decisions for their communities. We believe that keeping an eye on the long-term direction of the university simultaneously across social, environmental, and economic indicators is a useful guide towards a more sustainable future.

This report lists 88 indicators for which we could provide at least a few years worth of data. No single indicator trumps any other. We urge readers to look at the whole, not simply the parts. Consider the relationships and interdependencies of them. Can we improve multiple indicators at the same time by understanding how they might connect?

There are many indicators that are improving substantially, due to the dedication and efforts of many in our community:
• Diversity of students and faculty
• Number of workplace injuries
• Number of accidents
• Efficiency of building standards
• Recycling
• Amount of fertilizer and pesticide use
• Research funding
• Employee contributions
• Bus ridership
• Number of serious crimes
• Service Learning involvement
• Nutrient management
• Study abroad participation

After our first report in 2003, we were asked by many in the community what we thought was most important, or what we would recommend needs addressed. UCSC determined beforehand not to make judgments or recommendations in that report. In this report, we have chosen to respond to those who asked what we, as a group of 18 members of the community, think are indicators that perhaps need our more thoughtful attention. The indicators that we find needing more immediate attention of the community are:
• Student debt
• Student health
• Graduate student enrollment
• Student/faculty ratio

• Employee Wage Gaps
• Greenhouse gases/energy
• Solid waste
• Procurement
• Water consumption
• Transportation

Our recommendations can be found in the “This Way Forward Section”. We invite the community to review all of the trends noted in this report and become part of the necessary conversation and actions to improve the quality of life for all. We offer this report as our small contribution to that conversation.

Back to Top