Highlights: The 2012-2013 academic year marked an exciting time for sustainability efforts at Ohio University:
Executive Summary
In September 2012, the university published its first sustainability report.
In November 2012, President McDavis formally adopted the university’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), officially dissolving the Presidential Advisory Council for Sustainability Planning, putting implementation oversight into the hands of the entire university.
In January 2013, the university established its formal reporting body, Sustainable Ohio University Leaders (SOUL). This was created to streamline the sustainability implementation and communication processes at the university and to allow for complete transparency in sustainability and carbon-neutrality progress.
This issue of Ohio University’s Sustainability Report is the first to feature reporting progress made on both the Sustainability Plan (adopted in Summer 2011) and the Climate Action Plan (adopted in Fall 2012).
Note on Reporting Data: In an effort to offer a timely report, the inclusion of quantitative data in this report is, most commonly, post -dated. That is to say that this report reflects quantitative data such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and procurement data from FY12 and the qualitative, or programmatic, data from FY13. Since reporting for quantitative data (particularly GHG emissions) requires a significant amount of time, the completion of that data is not ready for reporting until January the following year. Where possible, we have noted the date discrepancies.
Interpreting the Sustainability Report: The Sustainability Report offers highlights, progress narratives, roadblocks and next steps for each of the 35 Benchmarks of the Ohio University Sustainability Plan. For ease of comprehension, each Benchmark has been allocated at least one full page for reporting purposes (several Benchmarks required additional space). Changes from FY12 Report: The Sustainability Report that was published in October 2012 contained “progress bars” which showed a level of completion that had been attained for each benchmark. Feedback provided from the campus community suggested that such a reporting tool was both difficult to interpret and lacked scientific verification of the assessment (since some of the benchmarks are qualitative and others more quantitative). In response to this feedback, the progress bars have been removed in this issue of Ohio University’s Sustainability Report.
4