By Molly Hoffman, Guest Columnist
This year, Gettysburg College received a gold rating from the STARS Report for its sustainability efforts.
The STARS (Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, and Rating System) Report is a self-reporting framework that allows colleges and universities to track their sustainability performance. Colleges are given a rubric with different categories that each have a total number of possible points a school can earn. Participating colleges submit data regarding sustainability on campus to the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), which then evaluates the data and determines a score for each category. The total number of points is 100, and schools can earn a bronze, silver, gold or platinum rating depending on the number of points earned.
Gettysburg College achieved a gold rating with a score of 67.33. Among various subcategories, the college fared best in “Academics” and “Engagement.” This means that students have many opportunities to learn about sustainability in the classroom and pursue co-curricular or service opportunities related to sustainability.
The college improved its sustainability performance since the last STARS Report in 2016. That year, the college received a silver rating with 60.18 points. Over half of the new points the college has earned since 2016 came from the “Waste Minimization and Diversion” category. Between 2016 and 2022, Servo went trayless and both recycling and trash bins were placed in all dorm rooms. Previously, dorm rooms only had recycling bins, which students often used as trash bins.
These efforts contributed to the college’s higher rating, but there is still a lot of work to be done. After all, a 67% grade on a test is just a D+, even if the STARS Report calls it gold. The college fared the worst in the “Investment & Finance” and “Purchasing” categories. The college received 0.12 points out of 6 possible points in “Investment & Finance” because it does not make its investment holdings public, nor does it have a sustainable investment policy. As for purchasing, the college has no sustainable procurement policy to ensure money is spent on sustainable products.
Still, leaders on campus who are pushing for sustainable changes are told that it costs too much. It is true that many initiatives, especially regarding renewable energy, require a high upfront cost, but they are more cost-effective in the long term. Other improvements do not require any upfront cost and will start saving the college money as soon as they are implemented. Developing a sustainable procurement or investment policy are two examples. Coincidentally, these are the categories that the college scored the lowest in, meaning they would be a huge step in the right direction if implemented properly.
Making sustainable changes at a school like Gettysburg is possible despite financial complications. Dickinson College, a school with a similar curriculum, student body, and endowment size, is consistently recognized as a top performer in AASHE’s Campus Sustainability Index. It ranks second overall in the “Air and Climate” category and number one among baccalaureate institutions. We can do better, Gettysburg.
As we look to make sustainable changes on campus, we should use the STARS Report as guidance, but cannot use it as the standard. The report provides a baseline framework and gives points for doing the bare minimum. For example, a school is given the same number of points for providing sustainability events at orientation as a school that requires all students to attend such an event. Gettysburg would certainly decrease its carbon footprint to a greater extent if it required all first-year students to learn about reusable Commons cups, the compost bin at the Painted Turtle Farm, and other initiatives as opposed to just providing the opportunity to do so as it currently does. The college would decrease its environmental impact even if it doesn’t receive more points for this act in the STARS Report.
Another non-consequential act that many schools take is the use of carbon offsets that allow colleges to continue operating with a high carbon footprint by decreasing it somewhere else. The majority of Gettysburg College’s carbon emission reductions have come from carbon offsets, and the STARS Report rewards this inequitable and economically unsustainable practice. A better solution would be to decrease our emissions in the first place with renewable energy.
The STARS report shows that students are concerned about sustainability and are frequently engaged in sustainability initiatives. However, the students can only do so much. The report shows it is time for more impactful changes on the administrative level. In his executive letter submitted with the STARS Report, President Iuliano stated, “We recognize our collective responsibility as stewards of the environment and we take seriously the need to make Gettysburg College a cleaner, greener, and more sustainable institution.” I hope that recognition results in quick and meaningful action to develop and implement campus-wide programs that decrease Gettysburg College’s carbon footprint.
