Hi Ralph,

Thanks so much for this question, and it's great to know your committee is evaluating the ACUPCC. Your questions about the spirit and intent of the Commitment around the climate neutrality date is a good one; the Commitment is to make a plan to pursue climate neutrality and to reporting on progress of that plan - as long as the plan is completed and submitted, and transparent updates are provided every other year, the institution has fulfilled its promise to pursue climate neutrality as part of the ACUPCC. The plans can and should be iterative, and through each iteration the target dates for neutrality and interim targets can be adjusted as circumstances change - if dramatic changes to the culture, behavior, technology, policy, etc. take place faster or slower than anticipated target dates can be moved closer or pushed out accordingly.

With regard to offsets, while some contend that investments in offsets would be better spent on further internal reductions, others feel that this internalization of the more of the true costs of carbon emissions will do more to accelerate internal reductions, and that on a dollar-per-ton basis high-quality offsets can be more effective than further investments internally after a certain point. Either approach is perfectly acceptable under the Commitment, and investing in offsets does not necessarily need to be a part of climate action plans. Many share the hesitation around the offset markets, or even the whole concept of offsets, and we see the ACUPCC network as tremendous force for improving those markets. The first step in doing so came through the development of a voluntary offset protocol by a large and diverse group of representatives from ACUPCC institutions and offset experts: http://www.acupcc.org/resources/guidance-documents/offset-protocol.

Here are a few examples of ways some are thinking about this:

1. Julian Dautremont-Smith wrote a great blog post a couple of years ago that explores different ways of approaching this planning process: by forecasting from what seems possible today or by "backcasting" from a future target we know to be necessary to avoid dangerous climate disruption: http://www.aashe.org/blog/setting-campus-climate-targets-necessity-vs-feasibility. A comprehensive approach would employ both strategies - backcasting from a vision of future success and also using forecasting to plan and prioritize shorter-term actions)
2. The University of Colorado Boulder's approach to addressing this tension between the ultimate target and the need for short-term action stresses the importance of the latter in avoiding climate disaster (see the text in the "Climate Neutrality Target Date" section): http://acupcc.aashe.org/cap-report.php?id=100
3. The University of Florida (http://acupcc.aashe.org/cap-report.php?id=252) and Dickinson (http://acupcc.aashe.org/cap-report.php?id=185) have taken a "both / and" approach to offsets, setting target dates for climate neutrality that they intend to meet with offsets relatively early on, and including clear plans to continue to reduce internal emissions year over year thereafter so the annual investment in offsets is reduced, and hopefully, eventually eliminated.

The most important point, in my view, is that by leveraging the collective voice and collective action of the higher education sector through the ACUPCC, colleges and universities have a far better chance of having their leadership-by-example recognized, their market-moving investments actualized, and their policy-shaping potential realized, thereby successfully influencing other sectors of society to move towards climate neutrality. In doing so, the challenge of achieving climate neutrality within a meaningful timescale becomes more manageable and realistic for individual institutions as supply chains, utility grids, building designs, etc. become less carbon intensive as a result of the education, research, and operational changes in higher education. In this way, planning for climate neutrality at a time when it is difficult to imagine exactly what that will look like is not based on an idle hope that technologies and regulations will change, but an active participation in creating those changes.

I hope that makes sense and is helpful! Please let me know if it raises any further questions.

Best,
Georges Dyer, Second Nature