University of Calgary receives STARS Gold Rating for sustainability achievements



CALGARY, ALBERTA–(Marketwired – Oct. 21, 2013) – The University of Calgary has earned a STARS Gold Rating from the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) in recognition of its sustainability achievements and is currently the top scoring institution in Canada.

“Sustainability is a core value and a key objective for us at the University of Calgary, and we are very proud to have achieved a STARS Gold Rating for our sustainability accomplishments,” says President Elizabeth Cannon. “This is an important milestone in our commitment to excellence and leadership in advancing the pursuit of sustainability in teaching, research, community service, and operations.”

The Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS), is a program that measures and encourages sustainability in all aspects of higher education. At the University of Calgary, sustainability is a core value in the Eyes High strategic vision and is one of seven academic priorities in the 2012 Academic Plan.

Today the university is proud to not only have a gold rating but to also be a leader in the country with the highest overall score achieved to date and the 4th highest score in North America within the category of Operations.

“This outcome is the result of the leadership and the collective effort of many individuals including our students, faculty, and staff as well as partners in the community. Our campus community’s commitment to sustainability and enthusiasm towards making change happen is inspiring,” says Joanne Perdue, University of Calgary’s chief sustainability officer.

AASHE’s STARS program is the only one of its kind that involves publicly reporting comprehensive information related to a college or university’s sustainability performance. Participants report achievements in three overall areas: 1) education and research, 2) operations, and 3) planning, administration & engagement.

Unlike other rating or ranking systems, this program is open to all institutions of higher education in the U.S. and Canada, and the criteria that determine a STARS rating are transparent and accessible to anyone. Because STARS is a program based on credits earned, it allows for both internal comparisons as well as comparisons with similar institutions. There are also 45 international institutions participating in a STARS international pilot program.

STARS reports for all participating institutions are accessible through the AASHE website.

October 21-25th is Sustainability Awareness Week at the University of Calgary. The university will release its 2012-13 Institutional Sustainability Report in late November.

About the University of Calgary

The University of Calgary is a leading Canadian university located in the nation’s most enterprising city. The university has a clear strategic direction to become one of Canada’s top five research universities by 2016, where research and innovative teaching go hand in hand, and where we fully engage the communities we both serve and lead. This strategy is called Eyes High, inspired by the university’s Gaelic motto, which translates as ‘I will lift up my eyes.’

For more information, visit ucalgary.ca. Stay up to date with University of Calgary news headlines on Twitter @UCalgary and in our media centre at ucalgary.ca/news/media.


University of Calgary

Other Recent News | Printer Friendly Version

“More Agreement than Not” — Canada’s Premiers in 2012

by John Brian Shannon

It was heartening to see Canada‘s Premiers working together today on the challenges facing Canada, it’s provinces and citizens. A provincially-led era of common-sense has appeared across the political spectrum in this country. How reassuringly Canadian.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall felt comfortable enough to make the statement that between the provinces, there is “more agreement, than not.” New Brunswick Premier Robert Ghiz standing beside him indicated his full agreement.

Why can’t politics always be like this?

And I was pleased to see a high level of cooperation between the provinces on the topic of health-care. The Premiers want to lower costs for patients, enhance health-care  and harmonize their somewhat disparate systems. As I said, heartening.

Downplaying Northern Gateway pipeline tensions

British Columbia Premier Christy Clark quite rightly states that BC will be taking all of the risk where the Northern Gateway pipeline is concerned, while so-far receiving little benefit under the present proposal.

In fact, the number of Canadians who will actually benefit from this pipeline over its proposed 30-year lifetime are surprisingly few.

It must be said that during the one-year pipeline construction period, a few thousand temporary jobs would be created. But no more than a handful of oil executives will benefit, but benefit they will — handsomely. And it’s not rocket science to do the math on oil and pipeline company stock market shares, as American citizens own far more of these stocks than any other national group. Less than 15% of the total stock in this market segment are owned by Canadians.

From the British Columbia standpoint, does it really matter to BC citizens if some Ontario or Texas oil executive can afford to buy yet another Bentley at Christmas?

Especially when the risk of damage to wildlife, citizens and to the economics of the region could be catastrophic. Tourism, fishing, forestry, farming and real estate values can dramatically change for the worse in the case of only one major spill. Taken together, these sectors represent billions of dollars per year for the people of BC.

It might interest you to know that under the Canadian Constitution, resources are owned by individual provinces on behalf of the citizens of those provinces. As the owners of these resources, citizens nowadays have precious little say in how they are accessed, developed or sold — and to which entity they are sold. Let alone have any say on the per-tonne selling price of those resources for decades of time.

Premier Christy Clark of British Columbia, acting with parallel support from the leader of BC’s official opposition party, the Honourable Adrian Dix, has questioned the present situation and both politicians have called for an examination of risk/net benefit for British Columbia’s citizens in this matter.

The next logical step is to hire the most reputable, global, petroleum-wise accounting firms available, to have them determine the cost to repair damage to the environment and to cover employment and profit losses resulting from the worst-case oil spill at sea — or wherever the pipeline route crosses the interior of this scenic province.

Whatever the full cost happens to be for a full clean-up and remediation along with the full compensation costs for affected individuals and businesses, that should be the minimum price of admission in order to receive the necessary permissions and permits to build and operate an oil pipeline route  through BC — or through any province for that matter.

A worst-case scenario security-deposit is what all British Columbian‘s should require of companies wishing to cross BC territory with oil pipelines or oil shipping terminals located in the province.

If the appropriate deposit is paid in full and in advance, at that point, even I will put up with an oil pipeline and trans-shipment terminal in BC. Especially if the highest standards and practices are put into place to ensure lower risk for British Columbia.

When a pipeline gets taken out of service (and removed) after years of successful operation (without a single spill) the security deposit — principal only — should be returned to the company.

You’d think that insurance companies would be all over this.

If these proposals were passed into law, it might encourage oil execs to direct their teams to build world-class pipelines which never leak and require the use of double-hulled supertankers as part of their corporate policy. Double-hulled tankers are the law in the EU (since 1996) and the U.S.A. (since 1990) and both have in place, severe penalties for non-compliance. In the GCC nations and Japan it is long-standing convention (but not law) that double-hulled tankers are required anywhere close to the coastline.

Canada, with the most scenic coastline on the planet located here in the province of British Columbia, has no such law nor convention. Pathetic.

IF the price formula outlined above seems too high for pipeline or shipping companies, that’s too bad. We don’t need it. We’re not getting anything from it except risking the wealth and beauty of our province, so take it somewhere else. No really, please. Take it somewhere else.

We can’t jeopardize British Columbia’s pristine coastline, wilderness, rivers, creeks, lakes, farmland and ranchlands. Nor can we risk BC’s entire multi-billion dollar tourism, fishery and forestry industries and the hundreds of thousands of jobs they provide, because comparatively small numbers of people in Alberta, Ontario and the U.S. want a shiny new car next year.

John Brian Shannon writes about green energy, sustainable development and economics from British Columbia, Canada. His articles appear in the Arabian Gazette, EcoPoint Asia, EnergyBoom, the Huffington Post, the United Nations Development Programme – and other quality publications.

John believes it is important to assist all levels of government and the business community to find sustainable ways forward for industry and consumers.


Check out his personal blog at: http://johnbrianshannon.com
Check out his economics blog at:
https://jbsnews.wordpress.com
Follow John on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/#!/JBSCanada

How Does China Do It?

by John Brian Shannon

Why do all the jobs keep going to China? Everyone wants to know.

The Western nations are short of jobs. At present, 150 million jobs have left Europe and North America over the past 40 years and have been relocated to Asia.

This trend has been in play for a few decades, but it began in earnest back in 1973 when the Arab Oil Embargo caused millions of Americans to purchase economical Japanese cars instead of Detroit’s offerings at the time – the thrilling but thirsty American gas guzzler.

Since that time, not only Japan but South Korea too have exported cars to the Western democracies by the millions. The market share of imported cars registered in 1960’s North America was microscopic but now sits at over 50%. China is now exporting cars worldwide and they are increasing their market share in Western nations.

That about covers the automotive market discussion.

But it is not the entire story. There are other factors at play some of which I will cover below and in future blogs. It’s a big topic… trust me.

For another example, when the West decides to design, engineer and build a new fighter plane at a cost of 100 billion U.S. dollars (a hypothetical number, just for comparison purposes) up to one-third of that money is diverted to corporate profit and doesn’t influence the final product.

When communist China decides to design, engineer and build a new fighter plane at a cost of the equivalent of 100 billion U.S. dollars (a hypothetical number, just for comparison purposes) all 100% of that investment goes towards the design, engineering and build quality of the fighter plane.

This is but one example which can be demonstrated many times over. It’s not just fighter jets. Every military ship, airplane, vehicle, guns, ammunition, along with civilian cars and trucks, industrial mining equipment, farm machinery, electronics, railway cars, locomotives and even the railway tracks can be built for less in China.

Communist corporations which do not have to make accommodations for profits have an advantage over ones that must make accommodations for profits. On the hypothetical American example above, 30% of 100 billion U.S. dollars is… drum roll please… 30 billion dollars! That is a lot of R&D money diverted to corporate profit from product testing, build quality – or marketing and advertising which almost always results in more sales.

Anything we can manufacture, China can manufacture at a lower cost when compared to the Western manufactured item. Thirty percent is just the beginning as some items can be manufactured for 1000% less than comparable products in Europe or North America.

During a telephone interview in February, a sitting Member of the Parliament of Canada told me that it is much cheaper for North American oil companies to dig up the tar sands in Alberta, Canada, transport that material to China for refining and then transport it back as finished products to North America.

It’s easy to do some quick math here. The Canadian Enbridge Northern Pipeline is projected to cost over 5 billion dollars if it gets built. The plan is to pipeline the material to Canada’s west coast (highly diluted with petroleum condensate) and ship it across the ocean to China where it can be refined into pure gasoline, motor oil, diesel fuel and other products normally made from conventional petroleum.

Super-tankers will pick up the tar sand/condensate mixture, which is called ‘dilbit’ once it is mixed together into a consistency which will flow through the pipeline system and transport it in that form to China, where new refineries are being built to receive the dilbit material. New Chinese oil refineries cost 1 – 2 billion Canadian dollars (equivalent), while new North American refineries with their higher land, construction, permitting, labour and emission control costs are estimated in the 12 billion Canadian dollar range – which is why no new refineries are planned for North America.

New SuezMax super-tankers cost between 500 and 900 million dollars a copy, depending on how many barrels of oil they carry and whether they are single-hulled ships or an infinitely safer design – the double-hulled super-tanker. Some super-tankers carry over 1 million barrels of toxic dilbit. Expect China to run 24 – 32 new super-tankers between the west coast of Canada and China 365 days per year.

After refining in China, SuezMax super-tankers will return the finished products to North America for distribution throughout the western United States and Canada’s western provinces.

Even with all these additional transportation costs and other activities – the gasoline, diesel and other products will cost 30% less than when compared to Canadian or American oil refineries performing the same refining operations here.

It remains to be seen whether the oil companies will pass along those cost savings to consumers.

John Brian Shannon writes about green energy, sustainable development and economics from British Columbia, Canada. His articles appear in the Arabian Gazette, EcoPoint Asia, EnergyBoom, Huffington Post, the United Nations Development Programme – and other quality publications.

John believes it is important to assist all levels of government and the business community to find sustainable ways forward for industry and consumers.

Check out his personal blog at: http://johnbrianshannon.com

Check out his economics blog at: https://jbsnews.wordpress.com

Follow John on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/#!/JBSCanada

Braid: Redford has many more promises to keep | MY COMMENT

Braid: Redford has many more promises to keep The Calgary Herald
By: Don Braid January 12, 2012

MY COMMENT — The Premier of Alberta, Alison Redford is barely on the job 100 days. We should cut her some slack, don’t you think? Would you accept judgement after your first 100 days at a new job? Really?

Ideologue politicians are just as bad for their province as good for their province, it seems. This Premier doesn’t strike me as on of those, refreshingly, she seems to be a pragmatist.

Give her a fair chance to succeed and she will.

Now, what about those oil sands?

Do you agree we should highly-refine the oil sands in Alberta keeping all those jobs in western Canada?

Or should we just extract oil sands, and then just pipeline it away? “Look fast — there goes all the jobs!”

If we keep those thousands of permanent jobs here, (jobs which are not temporary pipeline construction jobs) it helps Alberta and BC in three important ways;

1) Many value-added products are created in western Canada, translating into thousands of jobs for Albertans.

2) The problem of pipeline or supertanker spills are completely eliminated.

3) Environmentalist’s will better accept modern, world-class refineries producing low-toxicity products relatively near the oil sands site – in exchange for eliminating toxic crude oil pipeline and supertanker spills. (Not all environmentalist’s, but most)

The world’s largest petroleum exporter, Saudi Arabia, is already doing this and creating thousands of permanent jobs:

http://arabnews.com/economy/article514179.ece

It’s your call.