Introduction

“We see ourselves as responsible for good stewardship  of the natural environment  and seek to take a leadership role in exercising this responsibility, affirming our commitment to use educational activities to promote environmental awareness, global thinking and collaboration on the local  level.”

 

--Environmental Statement of the College of Saint Benedict  and Saint John’s University

January 11, 2001

“Why should the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University build green?”  The answer to this question stems from the Benedictine value of stewardship , a principle that both educational institutions were founded on and continue to practice.  On January 11, 2001 Mary E. Lyons, President of the College of Saint Benedict, and Dietrich Reinhart, OSB, President of Saint John’s University, issued an official environmental statement for both institutions. This statement established a commitment to the natural environment  through education, land stewardship , and institutional operations.

The institutions have already made strong commitments to sustainable  development through a wide variety of efforts. CSB has committed itself to a recycling  program which was established in 1989 under the supervision of Larry Shug. Recycling bins are placed strategically across campus, as well as in the residence halls. All materials are sorted by student workers and taken to facilities for recycling. At Saint John’s, the arboretum has provided the strongest example of sustainable development and practice. The arboretum, established in 1997, has adopted a land management plan in which forests are sustainably harvested, natural diversity of plant and animal communities are sustained or enhanced, and education is valued.  The arboretum was also established as a SmartWood  operation, meaning that the arboretum was recognized for sustainable practice in forestry. 

Benedictine stewardship is based on the themes of humility, stability, and frugality. Saint John’s Abbot John Klassen in his essay, The Rule of Benedict and Environmental Stewardship , speaks about the three themes and how they directly relate to responsibility for the natural environment .  Humility is equated with the word truth.  In this campus setting, the truth of our actions and our humanity must be taken into consideration. Recognition of the truth of our relationship with the environment is embodied in the theme of humility. The theme of stability relates to a sense of place and a commitment to that place.[i] CSB and SJU commit themselves to their location, and as such, have a responsibility to preserve their local  environment .

The final value is that of frugality, which is central to the idea of consumption and is the key to sustainable  practices. Abbot Klassen illustrates how consumption in the United States and the evolution of the “consumer culture” is a result of our productive economy. This “culture” has resulted in confusion between wants and needs, as consumers are bombarded with advertisements for cheap products. Frugality, in contrast to consumerism, advocates more sustainable alternatives, such as basing consumption on needs rather than wants.[ii] Careless consumption does not coincide with frugality, or the stewardship  value to which these institutions are committed.

 Adopting a green building  policy at CSB and SJU would hold significant benefits including: decreased consumption of fossil fuel s and other non-renewable  energy forms; decreased releasing of harmful greenhouse gases on our campuses; increased indoor air quality and occupant health through the use of safe materials for humans and the natural environment ; and reduced energy costs. A green building policy may also yield an increase in habitat for many plant and animal species, contributing to the diverse plant an animal life we are fortunate to have. There are distinct advantages to be gained by the institutions, as well as the CSB/SJU community, if a green building policy were implemented. CSB and SJU are rooted in the Benedictine tradition, they are committed to an environmental statement of stewardship  and sustainability , and they have a concurrent obligation to craft and implement a green building strategy evaluate.

Why Green Building ?

Residential and institutional buildings are major sources of fossil fuel  consumption in the United States.  The population of the United States accounts for 4.5 percent of the total world population yet consumes 25 percent of the world’s energy.[iii] Building structures account for two- thirds of all electricity use in the United States.[iv]  Through the process of burning the fossil fuels, harmful toxins such as mercury  and sulfur  are being released into the atmosphere. As a by-product of fossil fuel consumption, carbon dioxide is also released into the air, thus contributing to global climate change . Since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ has increased by 31 percent.[v]  Carbon dioxide is a gas which, when released into the atmosphere, traps heat in a process known as the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide and other gases contributing to the greenhouse effect are known factors affecting global climate change. Additionally, the release of toxins such as sulfur compounds and mercury are poisoning the air and water on which we depend for survival. Mercury is emitted into the air largely as a result of the burning of coal to generate electricity. Saint John’s University  operates a coal fired power plant near Stumpf Lake, which is directly impacting the water ecosystems and mercury concentrations in fish.[vi]

The use of innovative design , alternative building materials, and efficient building systems are just a few ways to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Simple design strategies, such as placing more windows  on the southern side of a structure to optimize lighting  or using more efficient insulation  in the wall and roof cavities, can make a large difference in the heating and cooling demands of a structure.  Whether a building is heated and cooled by gas or electricity, it is important that it acts as a separate sealed environment .  The more sealed-off a facility is, the more efficiently it can be cooled and heated.  Building code  dictates the appropriate insulation value determined by regional climates and other needs. In every building, the minimum value must be met in order to comply with local  code requirements ; however, using even more insulating materials will increase the performance of a building, reduce structure costs, and reduce fossil fuel  consumption and its association with negative environmental impacts.

An additional benefit of green building  and design is the increased air quality inside the structure. Indoor environmental quality includes ventilation, lighting , thermal comfort, and air quality. In a traditional building, thousands of chemicals  are used in paints, adhesives , carpeting, furniture,  and other indoor amenities. Many of these chemicals contain organic solvents which release gases within the structure.[vii]  When initially developed, these chemicals were formed without any consideration for how their exposure would affect human health.  Due to the widespread use of these chemicals within structures, buildings can actually make their occupants sick.  Health problems associated with poor indoor air quality include: asthma, proneness to chemical hypersensitivity disorder, and allergies. Additionally, poor air quality affects occupant performance by causing dizziness, nausea, headaches, and fatigue.[viii]

The move toward quality indoor air environments has been increasing over the past twenty five years.  Choosing materials that have low level volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and have low off-gassing rates are an important addition to green construction .  By eliminating potentially toxic  materials and improving ventilation, a space can become much healthier for occupants. As an institution, we have committed ourselves to excellence in education and teaching. In order to retain this commitment, CSB and SJU must jointly ensure that the indoor teaching and learning environments are healthy for students, staff, and faculty alike. The institutions have already taken steps toward improving indoor air quality through the establishment of the Environmental Health and Safety Department, and through the Safety Policy Statement issued by Abbot John Klassen in December of 2000.

Numerous materials are used for the completion of a building, and everything from the adhesive that holds down flooring  to the paint choices on the wall, impacts the local  environment .  It is important to choose the best materials possible for the appropriate functions of a structure.  With new and current technologies, it is easy to find green products that function as well as, or even better than their antiquated counterparts.  Another bonus of green products is that they are typically much easier for contractors to work with.  The products do not smell as dreadful, they do not off-gas VOCs , and they are much easier to clean up.  

In terms of indoor environments and impacts on the surrounding site , green design techniques make better buildings. Overall, green construction  may be slightly more expensive than traditional practices; however, the amount of energy conserved offsets the upfront costs.  Many green building  examples today show that initial expenses are minimal compared to the figure of long-term savings. 

Industry Building Green

Commercial industries are in a powerful position to implement a shift towards sustainable  development. Industry has the available capital to undertake green building  and many companies are already experiencing distinct benefits as a result of implementing this change.  In Southeastern Amsterdam, a 538,000 square-foot bank was built on a site  chosen by the employees of the company.  The building itself is an architectural masterpiece consisting of ten individually designed towers connected by an undulating internal street.  

The design of this bank, the new ING Headquarters, illustrates how alternative strategies are more energy efficient, healthier, and generally superior to traditional building methods. During the design phase of the building, architects worked with employees to understand their needs and to educate them on the alternative building processes. The designers not only felt the importance of being environmentally responsible but also the importance of accommodating the occupants. With the new design, absenteeism has plummeted fifteen percent and productivity is on the rise.  The natural sunlight in workspaces and the high air quality create a positive work environment .  The building offers both indoor and outdoor garden s irrigated by the grey  water  wastes from the building.  The building’s design also allows for passive solar heating and ventilation systems.

Directors of the bank are very pleased with the green design, not only because they have more productive employees, but also because of the financial bottom line, including a reduction in energy costs. In fact, the building paid for its green system upgrades in only three months. ING Headquarters uses 92 percent less energy than a nearby bank constructed at the same time. ING saves $2.9 million dollars a year in operating costs and has been recognized as the most efficient building in Europe since 1999.  Since the completion of the building, it has become one of the most recognizable spaces in Holland.  Additionally, the bank has financially advanced from the fourth largest bank in Holland to the second largest bank, due in part to its innovative and dynamic image.[ix]  Examples like this are not small in number.  Other industry spaces, such as the Herman Miller Factory and Ford Motor Company’s Rouge River Renovation, are showing that green design is the way of future construction .

Green Building  Strategies

CSB and SJU have the choice to consider the information contained in this document and implement a wide range of changes that reflect the needs and priorities of the institution. The cost of any green building  will depend upon which strategy is implemented. These strategies may include the following:

• A campus-wide plan which would require all campus buildings to adopt all relevant criteria during any renovations.
• A campus-wide plan which would require all new campus buildings to adopt all relevant criteria during the construction  phase, occupancy stage, and renovation stage of a structure.
•  A plan in which the institutions are committed to making incremental changes to existing structures.
• The construction of a model green building  structure to be used as a showpiece, educational tool, and research project testing a variety of green building methods throughout the life cycle of the structure.

While money is a major concern in any new building project, the educational foundation of these institutions places us in a position to consider more than just the monetary costs of a green building  strategy. Building green would allow both institutions to maintain their dynamic and influential positions as sources of knowledge and leadership in the surrounding community. CSB and SJU are founded on the Benedictine tradition, committed to education, community and environmental stewardship , and must consider the following questions:

• Are the institutions willing to sacrifice the health and well-being of their faculty, staff, and student bodies by not implementing a green building strategy?
• Are the institutions willing to forgo the potential preservation of precious natural resources such as air and water, by continuing to derive our energy from fossil fuel consumption, and not implementing a green building  strategy?
• Are the institutions ready to decline an active leadership role in sustainable development, serving as an example to surrounding communities by choosing not to implement a green building strategy?

CSB and SJU, much like commercial industry, are in a powerful position to make a difference in how green building  is perceived by the general public.  Society looks to universities as sources of knowledge. These institutions would provide a strong and significant example to surrounding communities if a green building strategy were to be implemented. 

The Benedictine value of stewardship  calls these two campuses to undertake a leadership role in sustainable  development. If the schools can show that the benefits of green design and responsible building material choices are worthwhile, it is possible to convince a greater audience about the importance of such activities.  The two schools have a wide range of influence and it is important to consider the positive potential of them serving as an environmental leader in the future. If the two campuses made a commitment to green design and green building s, it could spill over and have a ripple effect not only in local  areas, but around Minnesota, the United States, and the world.

Educational Institutions Building Green: Oberlin College          

            Many collegiate institutions around the country have already successfully adopted green building  strategies and have constructed green buildings on their campuses. Oberlin College, an institution similar to CSB and SJU in size and institutional mission, serves as a strong example for how green design could be implemented at CSB/SJU. In 1996, Oberlin began the process of implementing a design strategy for green construction  on its campus. The goal was to create a building for the Environmental Studies program which addressed three major questions:

• Is it possible to power buildings by sunlight?
• Is it possible to create a building that would treat its own wastewater?
• Is it possible to create a building that does not harm human or environmental health in the present or long term?

The 13, 600 square foot structure uses sunlight for both daylighting  and solar energy production. An expansive photovoltaic solar paneling (PV) system installed during the building’s construction  phase provides most of the buildings energy demands. Between December 2001 and December 2002, the solar panels produced 53 percent of the building’s energy needs.[x] The ultimate goal is for the building to export energy and no longer be dependent on energy from industrial sources, such as coal burning plants or nuclear power. They are currently upgrading building systems in order to achieve this goal. The building itself saves 63 percent in energy consumption in comparison to a traditional building.[xi]

The second goal addressed by Oberlin was waste water treatment . A biological Living Machine  was installed in order to treat all of the waste water coming from the toilets and sinks within the building. The living machine is located in a greenhouse and is a series of holding tanks with water, and aquatic plant and animal life. These natural systems treat the water using biological processes. As part of this living machine, infrastructure was installed to recycle all of the grey  water  back into the toilet system. Due to complications with the system, this goal has not yet been achieved; however, the institution is currently working to improve it.[xii]

The final goal addressed by Oberlin relates to indoor environmental air quality. During the design phase, much consideration was given to materials and their production. A material was not simply selected because it was cheaper or even because it was labeled “recycled.” Design teams examined the products in terms of their production: Was the item produced in a sustainable  manner? How far must the material be transported to reach our site ? Products were also chosen that did not release harmful byproducts  into the indoor environment  in production or life cycle  of the building. Recyclable materials and reusable materials that met the criteria were also chosen over non-reusable materials. The ultimate goal is to use any indoor product again for another process once its life cycle is complete.[xiii]

In addition to the goals achieved Oberlin’s Lewis Center, the structure also boasts high-value insulation  in the walls and windows , occupancy sensors for air quality, and optimal daylighting . The Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies at Oberlin College is both a showpiece and an educational tool for green design. Students from a variety of disciplines utilize the space for hands-on research projects as they contribute to monitoring the building systems, the outdoor landscaping,  and the biological living machine . The space is multifunctional and has been used to host community events as well as educational tours on green construction .  The building is an overall success for the institution, its students, and the surrounding community.

Green design is no longer an implausible, costly scientific experiment. It is a feasible alternative that saves energy, reduces fossil fuel  consumption, and is better not only for the land, but for the people who use the structure. Buildings contribute to a large percentage of global energy consumption, while the reality of the situation is that they may not have to. We have the ability to foster change and increase our well-being today, as well as protecting future generations from additional harm.