Clarification on specific GHG Quantifier Situations

There are two common approaches to thinking through that, at least under ACUPCC methodology - you can opt for what is under financial control (who owns what?) or what is under operational control (do renters have control over emissions in any real way?)
For example, we lease a large space to tenants in one of our buildings, but we maintain control over all energy management, so we opted to include their footprint as part of ours, as it is under our operational control. (And it is a HUGE footprint, but other than turning off monitors, there is little the tenant can do to change energy use there. If only they would...)

We also own properties that we do not use or manage, and those are not counted as part of our emissions.

At an old job for an NPO, in order to quantify time and admin costs for grant purposes, we had to assess each employee's cubicle space as a portion of the entire organizational space, then break that portion down further into how much time was spent in that cubicle doing what - teaching, administration, fundraising, etc. - for each employee. So we could say that Jane Employee's job used 1/10th of the total overhead for rent, of which 1/2 was used to support teaching,for example. (It was good training for GHG emissions auditing - hopelessly nitpicky and complicated!) But it might provide a model for your desk space problem - what do they have control over,emissions-wise, (if anything) and how much time is spent in that space monthly?

Good luck - I would be interested to hear how you decide.

Mary Whitney
University Sustainability Coordi
Chatham University
United States

I don't think there is a one size fits all answer. In general, the owner of the property should take much of the footprint onus because the owner could retrofit to install better insulation, or add solar rooftop panels to generate supplemental energy or heat, or recapture devices etc. However, the occupants bear some responsibility as well since their patterns of use can affect energy consumption. I would argue that if Mary's outfit owns structures whether they use them or not, as long as someone is using them, then Mary's outfit, by virtue of its ability to control the characteristics of the structure mentioned above, "owns" its share of the carbon footprint.
That said, what is the overall carbon footprint of a structure? A building located right next to a mass transit terminal is likely to generate a much lower overall use footprint than its exact twin located where it is only accessible by highway and is surrounded by an impervious paved parking lot to accommodate the hordes of cars needed to bring occupants to work there daily. (water run off is not strictly carbon related, but is an environmental issue)

Mel Tremper
United States

I guess I ought to clarify that the buildings we do not count are 1-family residential homes that are entirely managed by the people that live in them. Technically, the university does own them, but they are under complete control of those living in them. We count all our residence halls, our warehouse, etc - jsut not the handful of homes that have been deeded to the school for the future.

Mary Whitney
University Sustainability Coordi
Chatham University
United States