UC Berkeley vs University of Richmond: A Comparative Analysis of Two High-Ranking “Green” Institutions

Introduction

Despite the urgency of the ongoing climate crisis, the unfortunate reality is that many people in positions of power either do not recognize or are indifferent to its severity and thus continue to place addressing environmental issues low on their list of priorities. Many institutions of higher education continue to enact performative, superficial, and/or maladaptive initiatives in regards to addressing climate change. Nevertheless, the importance of youth activism is especially pertinent in the calls for effective, meaningful action to acknowledge the current climate crisis. Across college campuses, students have led and continue to lead the way in putting pressure on university officials, administrators, and trustees to commit to consequential and constructive measures to both mitigate and adapt to climate change and its consequences.

I will analyze both the ambition and effectiveness of the sustainability action plans of the University of Richmond and University of California – Berkeley while also considering the significance of student activism in urging meaningful climate investment. The framework I will use to assess these two universities is primarily the

Association for the Advancement of Sustain ability in Higher Education’s (AASHE) Sustai nability Tracking Assessment and Rating Sy stem (STARS), focusing specifically on these institutions’ commitment to sustainability, indicated goals and targets and the integration of sustainability in academic curriculums.

Background

Including graduate students, Richmond has a student body of approximately 4,000 students, while UC Berkeley has a student body of about 43,000 students. UC Berkeley has fourteen schools and colleges; Richmond, on the other hand, has six schools.

UC Berkeley is located in California, while UR is in Virginia; California’s susceptibility to the severe consequences of climate change (wildfires, heat waves, etc) may perhaps be a motivating factor in UC Berkeley’s comprehensive plans to confront and mitigate climate change.

Berkeley’s Office of Sustainability is led by a team of three individuals as well as several student fellows who specialize in various initiatives including zero waste and clean energy. Similarly, Richmond’s Office of Sustainability is led by a team of three individuals with several student interns who assist with the office’s needs (i.e. graphic design, academic support, etc). The presence of this office at both institutions, as well as the involvement of environmentally conscious students, demonstrates an example of climate investment; by having employees who are dedicated solely to implementing solutions for becoming greener is a clear commitment to the environment.

University of Richmond’s Sustainability Action Plan

For starters, the time frame of the current plan is 2019-2025. One element of the plan that drew my attention was the mention of Richmond’s achievement of a ‘Silver rating from STARS in 2013 and 2016 (5). It is imperative to emphasize that the STARS rating system is a flawed, unreliable mechanism for evaluating the ‘sustainability performance’ of an institution, as it claims it aims to do. For instance, the University of Richmond currently has a Gold rating, which seems like a substantial, commendable achievement; in reality, we actually have a numerical rating of 69! 75

This problematic way of rendering ratings is quite misleading; for anybody who is not well-versed in sustainability or familiar with the STARS ratings, UR would seem like an institution that is unwavering in its commitment to the climate and sustainability, which I argue is not necessarily the case. Furthermore, the breakdown of how the rating was decided is also worrisome. For instance, UR chooses not to report on ‘Committee on Investor Responsibility,’ ‘Sustainable Investment,’ and ‘Investment Disclosure,’ resulting in an automatic 0 in the category of ‘Investment and Finance.’ This is an example of climate disinvestment; as students and other members of the UR community go back and forth with the administration regarding divestment from harmful corporations, the decision to not selfreport on finances highlights this institution’s lack of willingness to reassess where its dollars go. I would argue that it’s difficult to view an institution as committed to sustainability if it actively supports industries that continue to pollute and harm the environment.

Additionally, Goal 4.1 of the Sustainability Plan states, “Build UR’s capacity to achieve Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) Sustainability Assessment, Tracking & Rating System (STARS) Gold by 2021 and STARS Platinum by 2024,” (33). I am skeptical of the ambition in this goal; we have achieved this Gold rating with a score of 69, which is just barely better than a failing grade, if this were to be an assignment.

To aim for a Gold rating is insufficient, especially when the breakdown of the rating is analyzed and it becomes apparent that we scored pretty low, or didn’t receive a score at all, in a number of categories (i.e. employee educators program, food and beverage purchasing, among others) for opting out of selfreporting.

There are other goals in the UR Sustainability Plan that are also worth discussing. Firstly, in analyzing the plan under the previously mentioned framework, it’s encouraging that the Office of Sustainability has clearly indicated goals that the Plan aims to achieve by Spring 2025. I would consider this an example of climate investment as well; it’s one thing to claim a commitment to the environment. However, an accessible, clear denotation of targets indicates a desire to take action and not just make insignificant, sweeping statements and empty promises. Goals one and two, “Integrate sustainability into a University of Richmond education” and “Increase understanding of sustainability issues and provide resources and opportunities for individuals and groups to enact sustainable behaviors on campus” are ambitious goals; however, in my experience as a student at this institution, they have fallen short of achieving this (17, 21). The implementation plan indicates that the foci of the current time period (Phase 2: Summer 2020-Spring 2023) includes, “[Providing] more sustainability educational and training resources for students, faculty, and staff,” (Sustainability Implementation Plan), which I do not believe has been achieved. 76

Since the overall time frame of this plan goes to 2025, some leniency can be granted here; nonetheless, it’s rare for curricula outside of the Sustainability, Geography, and Environmental Studies departments to address sustainability. I consider this a shortfall of the University because a) it highlights the fact that sustainability and environmentally conscious learning is not so much of a priority, and b) this puts students and other members of the community at a disadvantage because this is knowledge worth gaining and yet it’s not widely accessible unless you seek it out.

Another aspect of the Sustainability Plan that I think deserves attention as well is Goal 3 and more specifically 3.9, which state, “Implement sustainable practices in campus operations and services that steward the natural world and support human well-being… Research and implement sustainability procurement standards for vendors,” (40). While I applaud the ambition of these goals, I do not believe it has been achieved. According to ReThink Waste, sustainability efforts are often met with resistance from Grubhub and Pepsi. He noted how much waste results from ordering from campus dining locations (i.e. receipts, take out containers) as well as the vast number of plastic water bottles that are on campus courtesy of the university’s partnership with Pepsi. Both of these examples demonstrate that efforts to accomplish Goal 4 are stifled and thus inhibiting its potential to change our campus. However, I do not have criticism for the Office of Sustainability regarding the inability to carry out Goal 4; rather, I am critical of those in charge of our liaisons with Grubhub and Pepsi and can nudge them in the right direction.

Money talks, and I believe if UR leans on them to change their practices on our campus or risk losing the university’s money, they may reconsider their practices.

UC Berkeley Sustainability Action Plan

One aspect of Berkeley’s sustainability website that immediately stood out to me was the presence of five different active plans that addressed the various objectives of the Office of Sustainability: the UC Berkeley Sustainability Plan, Berkeley Clean Energy Campus –Integrated Resource & Activation Plan, 2025 Carbon Neutrality Planning Framework. I consider this to be a great example of climate investment; not only does this demonstrate a clear commitment to environmental initiatives, but it also establishes a desire to follow through and act on indicated targets. The specificity that the distinguished, separate plans indicates also illustrates more nuanced, as opposed to generalized, objectives.

For starters, UC Berkeley Sustainability Plan indicates earlier on in the text that they are aiming to adjust their goals in order to meet the standards of the STARS rating system. This plan was published in 2020, and upon looking into UC Berkeley’s standing within the STARS system—which was published in 2021—I discovered that they are performing significantly better than Richmond with a numerical score of 85.72, which landed them a Platinum rating. Upon looking through Berkeley’s STARS report to see how the institution scored in each category, I was impressed to find that they did not abstain from reporting in certain categories, unlike Richmond. 77

One notable element of Berkeley’s report relative to Richmond’s is their cooperation in self-reporting regarding their “Committee on Investor Responsibility,” “Sustainable Investment,” and “Investment Disclosure,” which they earned 2/2, 3.19/5, and 1/1 in, respectively. A willingness to divulge this information is commendable enough; their high ratings in each category is even more impressive. Furthermore, when you consider the size of Berkeley and the number of students this institution serves, this feat is all the more admirable.

Yet another aspect of the Berkeley Sustainability Plan that I found notable was the lack of a sunset date for listed objectives as well as a commitment to both follow through with UC-wide goals in addition to indicated goals for just the institution. This gives me the impression that they are interested in sustainability beyond mandated UC objectives. One area of the Sustainability Plan where the distinction between UC goals and Berkeley goals is significant is the “Culture and Learning: Academics and Research” section of the Sustainability Plan. While the overall University of California system’s goal is to merely attain a Silver Rating and aim for a Gold by 2023, Berkeley has a more nuanced, ambitious plan:

“Support the development, expansion, and participation in sustainability and climate degrees and courses; expand opportunities for experiential environment and sustainability learning and student research; maximize the points available in the Academics and Research categories of STARS,” (32).”

Not only does Berkeley have these clear goals that go above and beyond what the UC system has in place, but they also list various strategies they plan to use in order to realize these objectives. This is an example of climate investment. It’s easy enough to make promises that don’t get fulfilled; clear, concise means to make these goals reality indicate actionable steps.

One stark contrast between UC Berkeley and Richmond’s sustainable campus operations is Berkeley’s aim to eliminate ‘single-use foodware.’ One strategy for the ‘Elimination of Single-Use Plastic’ under the “Sustainable Services: Waste” section of the Sustainability Plan is: “Implement with partners the elimination of single-use foodware and bag plastics per policy, including researching and helping to source the viable alternatives,” (25). Richmond’s Plan, on the other hand, states, “Implement and promote reuse strategies across campus and develop measures to minimize prevalence of single use disposable items,” (29). Evidently, Berkeley’s goal is substantially more ambitious than Richmond’s.

One element of the Berkeley Sustainability Plan that took me by surprise was the strategies that are underway to pursue their objectives for “Culture and Learning: Academics and Research.” One of these strategies states, “Evaluate options for conducting an assessment of the sustainability literacy of students,” (32). I found this notable because it reminded me of the Bystander Education and Wellness 100 courses that Richmond students need to complete before we graduate.

Just like those courses are treated as extracurricular requirements because of the importance of the education being imparted, sustainability should be treated the same way.

Although it’s not implemented just yet, the fact that Berkeley is taking steps towards having a more environmentally aware campus is truly remarkable. Sustainability education is important, and it’s imperative that we the youth are aware of the significance in making more sustainable and eco-friendly choices in our day to day lives.

Conclusion

All in all, Richmond and Berkeley both have well-fleshed out sustainability plans; however, Berkeley offers more nuanced, ambitious objectives that Richmond falls short of. The feat is remarkable considering how much larger Berkeley is, both in student body and in physical campus size. The Richmond Office of Sustainability could certainly draw inspiration from the UC Berkeley Plan if it wants to really be deserving of its title as a “green” campus. ***

Contributors

Editor’s Note: To protect privacy, ensure freedom of speech, and emphasize our collective unity regarding the issues we write about, Counterculture does not use bylines in individual articles, instead including a contributors list at the end of each issue.

Writers

Amal Ali

Olivia Gondoek

Sogona Cisse

Ryan Doherty

Sydney Dwyer

Maddie Fellner

Abby Green

Makayla Hamlin

Christian Herald

Tsion Maru

Kristine Nguyen

Walter Ostrowski

Shelby Richards

Jessy Taylor

Cover Design and Social Media Team

Grace Brogan

Lily Dubrovich

Christian Herald

Taylor Levy

Alexia Tonelli

Cover Photo

Grace Brogan

Cover Model

Lila Casati

Executive Board

Founder and Editor in Chief

Christian Herald

Managing Editor

Sydney Dwyer

Editorial Board

Amal Ali

Sogona Cisse

Maddie Fellner

Head Photographer/ Social Media Manager

Grace Brogan