effectiveness in raising capital in order to increase climate change preparedness and resilience (our first goal), 2) capacity for inspiring personal behavior change (our second goal), and 3) administrative feasibility. Table 2 summarizes several alternative strategies, drawing on Vassar’s white paper to fit the Swarthmore context. Offset Individual Redistributive Shadow Fund purchases charges model pricing model College level College Department College College Effect policy level level level level affecting individuals Raise capital n/a Low n/a n/a High Change Low High Medium Medium Low behavior Implementation High Low Low High High feasibility Table 2. Features of various carbon pricing plans at Swarthmore College. Offset purchases are easy to administer: this strategy helps Swarthmore stay on track for the American University and College Climate Commitment but Presidents’ (“Carbon Commitment”), they neither raise capital to help improve energy efficiency nor encourage behavior change. Individual charges for electricity and heating would create strong incentives for behavior change, but these are not feasible without significant investment of both time and money (in metering and infrastructure design). A redistributive model, in which departments that conserve more energy have more to spend on other priorities, has the potential to create behavior change but would also require significant investment in metering, policy and infrastructure design. The two most feasible options which also have the capacity for changing behavior and/or raising capital are shadow carbon pricing and the development of a fund model carbon charge. Proposal: A three-part Carbon Charge We propose launching the Swarthmore College Carbon Charge Plan with three interconnected plans: 1) a shadow price on carbon, currently set to $40/MT eCO2, to be applied to all new construction projects; 2) a carbon charge of $40/MT eCO2, applied to college-wide emissions on an annual basis, to be set aside in a fund earmarked for energy conservation as well as energy efficiency and renewable energy projects; and 3) an increase in metering, feedback, and messaging focused on encouraging communal behavior change. By working on all three fronts simultaneously, we greatly increase our ability to educate our students and the community as a whole as we also take effective steps towards reducing carbon emissions and preparing for a carbon-constrained future. A shadow price for carbon emissions. Currently, in analyzing the economics of a planned construction project, the College projects the energy costs associated with the building to help
effectiveness in raising capital in order to increase climate change preparedness and resilience (our first goal), 2) capacity for inspiring personal behavior change (our second goal), and 3) administrative feasibility. Table 2 summarizes several alternative strategies, drawing on Vassar’s white paper to fit the Swarthmore context. Offset purchases Individual charges Redistributive model Shadow pricing Fund model Effect College level College level policy affecting individuals Department level College level College level Raise capital n/a Low n/a n/a High Change behavior Low High Medium Medium Low Implementation feasibility High Low Low High High Table 2. Features of various carbon pricing plans at Swarthmore College. Offset purchases are easy to administer: this strategy helps Swarthmore stay on track for the American University and College Presidents’ Climate Commitment (“Carbon Commitment”), but they neither raise capital to help improve energy efficiency nor encourage behavior change. Individual charges for electricity and heating would create strong incentives for behavior change, but these are not feasible without significant investment of both time and money (in metering and infrastructure design). A redistributive model, in which departments that conserve more energy have more to spend on other priorities, has the potential to create behavior change but would also require significant investment in metering, policy and infrastructure design. The two most feasible options which also have the capacity for changing behavior and/or raising capital are shadow carbon pricing and the development of a fund model carbon charge. Proposal: A three-part Carbon Charge We propose launching the Swarthmore College Carbon Charge Plan with three interconnected plans: 1) a shadow price on carbon, currently set to $40/MT eCO2, to be applied to all new construction projects; 2) a carbon charge of $40/MT eCO2, applied to college-wide emissions on an annual basis, to be set aside in a fund earmarked for energy conservation as well as energy efficiency and renewable energy projects; and 3) an increase in metering, feedback, and messaging focused on encouraging communal behavior change. By working on all three fronts simultaneously, we greatly increase our ability to educate our students and the community as a whole as we also take effective steps towards reducing carbon emissions and preparing for a carbon-constrained future. A shadow price for carbon emissions. Currently, in analyzing the economics of a planned construction project, the College projects the energy costs associated with the building to help