This report supports ongoing efforts to reduce climate-related impacts from Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) operations, in alignment with the district’s Climate Action and Sustainability Policy. It establishes a baseline understanding of these impacts through a greenhouse gas inventory covering FY2024, which follows guidance from The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard and includes emissions from seven key district activities. The report also provides a detailed assessment of energy use and costs at TUSD facilities through a preliminary building energy-use analysis conducted in accordance with ASHRAE Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits. Finally, it identifies several high-level opportunities for emissions reductions. Greenhouse gas emissions from the activities included in this report totaled 63,194 metric tons of CO₂e in FY2024. This amount is approximately equivalent to the carbon sequestered by 63,194 acres of U.S. forests, the emissions from 14,724 gas-powered passenger vehicles, or the energy used by 8,468 homes over the same time period. These emissions are associated with present and future damages with an estimated financial impact of just over $13 million. Of the seven operational activities examined, the purchase of electricity from the grid accounted for nearly two-thirds (60%) of the district’s total greenhouse gas emissions. The second-largest contributor was the disposal of refuse generated at TUSD facilities (17%), followed by on-site combustion of natural gas (11%) and district-owned transportation (8%). Among the four types of schools operated by TUSD, high schools accounted for the largest share of district greenhouse gas emissions. TUSD facilities generally used more energy per square foot than similar institutions in the same climate zone, excluding energy losses that occurred before reaching the building. The district procured electricity from on-site solar installations at 82 facilities through Solar Service Agreements, which reduced the amount of electricity purchased from the grid. Energy use per square foot varied widely across facility types, with several buildings consuming significantly more energy than is typical for TUSD and comparable institutions. Districtwide building energy use in FY2024 was approximately 10% higher than the average observed between FY2021 and FY2023. Key opportunities to reduce emissions include reducing total and peak building energy use; increasing on-site solar generation and energy storage; supporting efforts to decarbonize the electricity grid; prioritizing high-energy-use facilities; consolidating summer operations; implementing waste reduction and diversion programs; and electrifying building equipment and district-owned vehicles. Pursuing these opportunities could also support student apprenticeship programs in partnership with local building trades. To support future reduction efforts, the district should identify an optimal baseline year and clearly define and implement tracking systems for activities included within emissions reduction targets.

As artificial intelligence (A.I.) development accelerates beyond the reach of current regulatory frameworks, whistleblowers in the A.I. sector, particularly those employed by privately held firms, face a dangerous legal void. This Note identifies a critical regulatory shortfall, termed the “A.I. Gap,” where employees seeking to expose unsafe but not explicitly illegal A.I. practices are left unprotected under both U.S. and EU law. Through a detailed analysis of high-profile whistleblower cases, including the 2024 “Right to Warn” letter and disclosures by former OpenAI and Microsoft employees, the Note demonstrates how existing laws, such as the Dodd-Frank Act, the False Claims Act, and the EU Whistleblower Directive, fail to protect individuals who raise concerns about speculative or ethical A.I. risks. The Note also examines how non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are strategically used to suppress internal dissent and limit legal recourse. Ultimately, this Note proposes a multi-step reform framework to protect AI whistleblowers across internal, governmental, and post-disclosure stages, emphasizing the need for confidential, responsive, and independent reporting channels; statutory redefinition of whistleblowing to include risk-related concerns; and robust anti-retaliation safeguards. Without these reforms, the public remains vulnerable to unaccountable A.I. development practices and the individuals best positioned to expose them remain silenced.

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly embedded in society, ensuring its ethical use and public trust is a global imperative. This paper critically examines Australia’s approach to regulating AI ethics and trust, comparing it with frameworks in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. While these jurisdictions adopt varied strategies—ranging from risk-based and sector-specific to principle-driven models—Australia relies primarily on voluntary standards, such as the AI Ethics Principles and the Voluntary AI Safety Standard. Despite their intent, these frameworks lack enforceability, leading to inconsistent adoption and limited accountability. The paper highlights key ethical challenges, including privacy breaches, algorithmic bias, and the absence of legal safeguards in high-risk AI applications. It argues that Australia’s current regulatory landscape is insufficient to address the rapid evolution of AI technologies. To bridge this gap, the authors propose a meta-regulation approach—one that integrates legal oversight with organizational self-regulation, fostering both innovation and ethical responsibility. This model offers a flexible yet accountable framework for embedding ethical principles into AI development and deployment. The paper concludes by emphasizing the need for Australia to adopt a more robust, enforceable, and adaptive regulatory strategy to ensure trustworthy AI.