Carbon Footprint_Challenges and Opportunities

7/30/2019 Carbon Footprint_Challenges and Opportunities

1/45

Seminar Report (TD 694)

On

CARBON FOOTPRINT-CHALLENGES AND

OPPORTUNITIES

Submitted in partial fulfilment for the Degree of

M. Tech. in Technology & Development

by

Vishal Singh

(Roll No. 123350007)

Under the guidance ofProf. Prasad Modak

Centre for Technology Alternatives for Rural Areas (CTARA)

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay,

Powai, Mumbai400076.

October, 2012


2/45

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the seminar report titled CARBON FOOTPRINT-CHALLENGES

AND OPPORTUNITIES prepared by Vishal Singh is approved for submission at Centre

for Technology Alternatives for Rural Areas (CTARA), IIT Bombay, Powai.

31st October 2012

Signature of Seminar Guide

Guide name: Prof. Prasad Modak

Designation: Professor

Department: CTARA, IITB


3/45

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the report entitled CARBON FOOTPRINT-CHALLENGES AND

OPPORTUNITIES submitted by me, for the partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of

Technology to CTARA, IITB is a record of the seminar work carried out by me under the

supervision of Dr. Prasad Modak, Professor, CTARA, IIT Bomaby.

I further declare that this written submission represents my ideas in my own words and where

others ideas or words have been included, I have adequately cited and referenced the original

sources. I affirm that I have adhered to all principles of academic honesty and integrity and

have not misrepresented or falsified any idea/data/fact/source to the best of my knowledge. I

understand that any violation of the above will cause for disciplinary action by the Institute

and can also evoke penal action from the sources which have not been cited properly.

Place: Mumbai

Date: 31st October 2012 Signature of the Candidate


4/45

Abstract

This seminar report would study different methodologies and protocols employed for Carbon

Footprinting of products. Primarily, it would attempt to identify similarities and differences

between the different protocols, such as GHG, Carbon Trust and JEMAI.

While undertaking this study, we would increase our understanding of the different methods,

processes and procedures for assessing carbon footprint of a particular product. This would

also enlighten us on the working of different CFP protocols and their acceptability in the

market. A detailed study of all the three protocols has been done.

This report would also help us to understand the emerging trends in the carbon trading

market. How should the carbon emissions be taxed or traded remains the question. The report

also throws some light on the Indian context and related developments.


5/45

ii

Contents

1.Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Carbon Footprint ................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 PROCEDURE ........................................................................................................................................ 4

1.3 GHG Protocol ...................................................................................................................................... 5

1.3.1 Obtaining the mark as per GHG Protocol .................................................................................... 5

1.3.2 Review process as per GHG Protocol ........................................................................................... 5

1.4.CARBON TRUST ................................................................................................................................... 6

1.4.1 Carbon footprinting software solutions ....................................................................................... 6

1.4.2 Assessment Criteria...................................................................................................................... 6

1.5 JEMAI Protocol .................................................................................................................................... 7

1.5.1 New CFP Program with flexibility ................................................................................................. 7

1.5.2 Four targets in operating new CFP program by JEMAI ................................................................ 7

2.Carbon Footprint Labels ............................................................................................................................. 8

2.1 Redundancy of LCA ............................................................................................................................. 9

2.2 GHG Protocols Methodology for CFP............................................................................................... 10

2.3 Required details by Carbon Trust Standard ...................................................................................... 11

2.4 Required details by JEMAI................................................................................................................. 12

3.Challenges ................................................................................................................................................ 13

3.1 Technical Challenges ......................................................................................................................... 14

3.1.1 Scope of emissions ..................................................................................................................... 14

3.1.2 Life cycle stages .......................................................................................................................... 14

3.1.3 System boundaries ..................................................................................................................... 14

3.1.4 Offsetting of emissions .............................................................................................................. 15

3.1.5 Data ............................................................................................................................................ 15

3.1.6 Allocation ................................................................................................................................... 15


6/45

iii

3.1.7 End-of-life ................................................................................................................................... 15

3.2 Environmental Challenges ................................................................................................................ 16

3.2.1 Carbon storage ........................................................................................................................... 16

3.2.2 Land use change ......................................................................................................................... 16

3.2.3 Capital goods .............................................................................................................................. 16

3.3 Other Problems ................................................................................................................................. 17

4.OPPORTUNITIES ....................................................................................................................................... 18

4.1 Solving Problems ............................................................................................................................... 18

4.1.1 Solving Technical Difficulties ...................................................................................................... 18

4.1.2 Solving Environmental Difficulties ............................................................................................. 19

4.2 Available Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 20

4.3 GHG protocol in India........................................................................................................................ 21

4.4 Future development of the CFP Program ......................................................................................... 23

4.4.1 Impact of Other Agencies .......................................................................................................... 24

4.4.2 Recent Developments in the Carbon Market ............................................................................ 25

4.4.3 What Next .................................................................................................................................. 27

5.CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................ 28

5.1 Lessons Learnt ................................................................................................................................... 28

5.2 Future Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 29

References .................................................................................................................................................. 30

Annexure ..................................................................................................................................................... 33


7/45

iv

LIST OF IMAGES

Image 1.1: GHG Protocol mark ...5

Image 1.2: CFP label by Carbon Trust, UK....6

Image 1.3: The JEMAI CFP Logo ....7

Image 2.1: Different labels displaying CFP.8


8/45

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 List of Inventories required for CFP calculation.10

Table 2.2 Methodology followed by Carbon Trust Standard..11

Table 2.3 Methodology followed by EcoLeaf12


9/45

vi

ABBREVIATIONS

GHG Green House Gases

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

CO2e/CO2eq carbon dioxide equivalent

GWP100 100-year global warming potential

CFP carbon footprint

LCA Life Cycle Assessment

MFA Material Flow Analysis

AAU Assigned amount units

CER Certified Emission Reduction

ERU Emission Reduction Unit

VER Verified Emission Reduction

BLICC Business Leaders Initiative on Climate Change

CCX Chicago Climate Exchange

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EU-ETS European Union Emission Trading Scheme

SEMARNET Mexican Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources

CESPEDES Center of Private-Sector Studies for Sustainable Development

WRI World Resources Institute

WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development

PhilGARP Philippine GHG Accounting and Reporting Program

RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

ISO International Organization for Standardization

TERI The Energy and Resources Institute

TERI-BCSD TERI-Business Council for Sustainable Development

CII-GBC Confederation of Indian Industry- Sohrabji Godrej Green Business Centre

JEMAI Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry

METI Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry

M&S Marks & Spencer

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change


10/45

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Carbon footprinting is the new way of branding an organizations efficiency, its impact on the

place or society in which it survives and its effect on the resources it uses. It also takes accountof the effects of having used any particular consumer product. The concept of product carbon

footprinting does allow a consumer the power to know and decide about the kind of affect he

will cause by his usage of products. This requires all the consumer products to be carbon

footprinted and labels put on them. Now here comes a real challenge. There are myriad number

of markets all around the world. But we also see a rising acceptability of CFP and the benefits of

usage of low CFP products by the consumers. This report will try to explore the real challenges

of product footpring and labeling for its carbon nd /or GHG emsiions. It will also try to explore

the opportunities of the new markets which are already established and those which are expected

to rise due to tightening of rules and policies against polluting companies and pro environment

efforts by nmeroues government/non govt. agencies. How and why , if ever it does, will the

system of having products CFP labeled on them will take off, is the question which this report

ponders upon.

The sequence of the report will contain a list of procedures and their usage and acceptance in the

industry. The first chapter will discuss the origin and the definition of carbon footprint and

different ways and methods, protocols, which are used to decide the amount of GHG emissions

any particular industry is making. This provides us with an opportunity to identify and label the

products of that particular industry with the amount of emissions required to make it.

The second chapter will then highlight the major conformations made by different protocols,

which are required to calculate the CFP of products. There are also however many different

fields of ambiguities wherein it is very difficult to calculate and assign amount of emissions

made in term of CO2.


11/45

2

This bring us to the third chapter which intends to incorporate the challenges felt by the industry

before any government makes it mandatory to have products footprinted and labeled. As for now

it is voluntary, but the subject markets have seen a very welcome attitude of consumers towards

pro green products and also their affinity towards products having a low CFP.

The fourth chapter will try to explore the available solutions to the challenges of product CFP

and labeling scene. It will also showcase a list of methods and alternatives which can be used to

deter the challenges of the same while exploring the available as well as rising and upcoming

opportunities. There is a huge rise in various options that new industries can take in order to get

through the system, get certification by a competent authority, and get eligible to use labels on

their products.

The sixth chapter will summarize the report and will highlight the major topics discussed in the

report. It will also show the future prospects of the carbon scene and the essential direction that

the product CFP and labeling system will acquire.


12/45

3

1.1 Carbon Footprint

A carbon footprint is defined as "the total set of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by an

organization, event, product or person."1

Wright, Kemp, and Williams, writing in the journal Carbon Management, have suggested a more

practicable definition:

"A measure of the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions of a

defined population, system or activity, considering all relevant sources, sinks and storage

within the spatial and temporal boundary of the population, system or activity of interest.

Calculated as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) using the relevant 100-year global warming

potential (GWP100)."2

Greenhouse gases are emitted by almost all human and animal activities, also from natural

activities, dams, seas, factories et al. For easier reference, it is expressed in terms of the amount

of carbon dioxide, or its equivalent (CO2e/CO2eq).

CFP emissions for any household come from "indirect" sources or in production of items of daily

usage, while emissions that come directly from usage of fuel and energy are the "direct" sources

of the consumer's carbon footprint.3

The concept name of the carbon footprint originates from ecological footprint, discussion, which

was developed by Rees and Wackernagel in the 1990s which estimates the number of "earths"

that would theoretically be required if everyone on the planet consumed resources at the same

level as the person calculating their ecological footprint. 4

The word was defined in 1965 in the Science Year newsletter:

"Footprint, the proposed landing area for a spacecraft."

The December 1982 edition of Computerworld magazine referred to the 'desktop footprint':

1"What is a carbon footprint?". UK Carbon Trust. Retrieved 21 Oct 2012

2 Laurence A Wright, Simon Kemp & Ian Williams, www.future-science.com/doi/abs/10.4155/cmt.10.39?cookieSet=1 Retrieved 21 Oct 20123http://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/footprint Retrieved 21 Oct 20124http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/magazine/17wwln-safire-t.html?_r=1& Retrieved 1 Oct 2012


13/45

4

1.2 PROCEDURE

Product carbon footprint labeling is generally the last stage of the CFP process. This starts with

the organization or the company wanting to register themselves gets ahead with steps to reduce

its carbon footprint, take a pledge to keep reducing it later on, and applying for the certification

process.

This however is just a start and the reviewing organization then asks the applicant to do a

comprehensive analysis of the details of the energy and material usage by the production process

as well as other related activities like paperwork, postage, logistics and other miscellaneous

sources. How do the three major reviewing and certifying organizations do this and on what

grounds they grant the applicant to use the label on their products are being discussed in this

chapter.

It will be entertaining to learn how an agency like GHG, Carbon Trust or EcoLeaf goes ahead

with the actual process of getting CFP calculated for an organization or product. Different

agencies take different approaches towards the same goal. This chapter gives an overview of the

three aforementioned agencies and their background information.


14/45

5

1.3 GHG Protocol

A decade-long partnership between the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business

Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) resulted in the formation of the GHG Protocol.

It is now working with businesses, governments, and environmental groups around the world to

build cleaner, greener and effective programs for tackling climate change.

1.3.1 Obtaini ng the mark as per GHG Protocol

A prime limitation or opportunity, whatever you choose to call it, the GHG protocol mark is

available only for those products that are publically available at no cost to users. If not all the

external, stakeholders were considered during development of the product, GHG will require that

it should be done and produced. This is ensured by GHG protocol to maintain open and healthy

stakeholders discussion and buy-in. There is no royalty fees associated for using the mark for

products with no cost to users. Applicants can apply for the mark at the beginning, middle, or

end of their development process. Product rules can be developed individually or following the

guidance of a product rule program.

1.3.2 Review process as per GHG ProtocolThe interested organization or company applies to GHG for a review. GHG Protocol presents the

review results to the applicant and discusses any changes that need to occur to obtain the mark.

Applicant makes the changes necessary and resubmits to GHG Protocol for final approval. Once

the mark or review claim has been obtained, it cannot be used for any other purpose than the

reviewed sector guidance, product rule, or calculation tool. For product rules, if the review was

completed on the product rule development guidance document, only that document can bare the

mark or claim. Later a list of documents and tools that bare the mark or review claim is provided

on the GHG Protocol website. This list is reviewed on a regular basis, and any documents or

tools that have become outdated or revised are removed.


15/45

6

1.4.CARBON TRUST

The Carbon Trust introduced the worlds first carbon label, the Carbon Reduction Label, in the

UK in 2006. Products featuring their carbon footprint as a Carbon Trust Label are Walkers

Crisps, Kingsmill bread, British Sugar, Cemex cement, Marshalls paving and Quaker Oats.

Carbon Trust helps organizations develop a certifiable product footprint for the registered

organization. Carbon Trust also has developed certifiable footprinting models that are aligned to

GHG protocol and PAS 2050, and analyses the data to pinpoint opportunities for business.

1.4.1 Carbon footprinti ng software solutions

The Value Chain Hotspotter is a tool that provides organizations from all sectors with a rapidassessment of the carbon "hotspots" in their value chain, allowing anyone to identify risks and

reduction opportunities. Footprint Expert has been used by many leading companies such as

Dyson, Pepsico, Coca-Cola, Tesco and Marks & Spencer.5

1.4.2 Assessment Cr iteria

To achieve Carbon Trust Standard an organization needs to meet these three criteria.

Provide an accurate footprint measurementincluding all required emission sources. Demonstrate an absolute reduction of footprint or equivalent relative efficiency

improvement.

Demonstrate good carbon management to Carbon Trust standard including carbongovernance, accounting, reduction methods and targets.

Then the organization needs to submit an application for review by an independent assessor

using the following tools:

Carbon Footprint Calculator which is used to record organizations carbon footprintand the reduction in this footprint over time

Assessment Form which is used to document whether the organization meets therequired carbon management standards.

5www.carbontrust.uk


16/45

7

1.5 JEMAI Protocol

The governmental Japanese CFP Pilot Project was completed on March 2012. Since April 2012,JEMAI (Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry) has taken over theJapanese CFP scheme, and has been officially started the operations ofthe CFP CommunicationProgram. Acceptance of applications for CFP-PCR certification and system certification wasstarted on July 2, and all components required for the new CFP Program are finalized.6

1.5.1 New CFP Program with fl exibi li ty7

The Japanese CFP pilot project was operated strictly, considering ensuring of reliability andtransparency. In operations by JEMAI, consensus obtained from findings and outcomes of thepilot project is maintained. Meanwhile improvements in operations using flexibility of theprivate entity, aims at the new programs ease of availability for participation and understandingby businesses who introduce CFP and by consumers who receives communicative information.

The followings are main improvements and responding points of the new CFP Program:

Streamlining of CFP-PCR development, and speeding-up of certification Diversification of verification methods, and speeding-up of verification Easing of participation requirements by revising operations of secondary data usage More flexibility for use of a CFP mark, and promoting of communication Considerations for comparability

1.5.2 Four targets in operating new CFP program by JEMAI

8

As the program operator of Japanese CFP program has been taken over from the government byJEMAI, they have set new program targets from the following four perspectives and aim tooperate an attractive CFP program, using flexibilities as private organization.

Commitment to prevent global warming Ensuring reliability and transparency: CFP environmental labeling project conforming

to ISO 14067 (under development), aims at operations enhancing credibility andtransparency by strictly adhering to accounting rules and by the third party certification

Disclosure of Eco-Products information:New CFP program aims to raising awarenessof the CFP program through a CFP mark, and to disclose Eco-Products information so

that customers and general consumers can choose CFP products. Enjoyable program which all stakeholders can share

6http://www.cfp-japan.jp/english/7http://www.cfp-japan.jp/english/overview/overview_05.html8http://www.cfp-japan.jp/english/overview/overview_03.html


17/45

8

Chapter 2

Carbon Footprint Labels

A very positive change has been induced in the customers view of goods of daily use all around

the world. One may argue that global warming and climate change were hypes and fictionalstories created by the western media and the giant corporates, just to disallow developing

countries from using their cheap fuel sources such as coal and gas and become rich when the

developed countries have already used up their resources and sit barren and dry. Having known

this fact we may argue that we should not pay any heed to these warnings and should continue

with whatever is happening, but we rather not; reason being the ultimate results of many such big

projects and corporates have been utter failures who did not pay any attention to the environment

and ecology around them.

A similar kind of assessment test is carried out on each finished product to assess and calculate

its life cycle and its carbon footprint. It is then provided with a CFP label which says the amount

of CO2 released during its manufacture. Different agencies provide labels for usage on different

products.

Image 2.1: Different labels displaying CFP9

9http://businessconnectionknowledge.blogspot.in/2010/12/shopping-carbon-footprint-2.html


18/45

9

2.1 Redundancy of LCA

LCA remains to be a redundant system for impact calculation as it remains to hold on to too

much technicality. Why then this craze about CFP of products? Answer to this question would be

that since this is very similar to the global warming potential (GWP) indicator used in life cycle

assessment (LCA) but has a much broader concept. Also, since NGOs and other non-

government agencies have pushed this whole concept of CFP rather than any research institute;

makes it acceptable and understood by nonprofessionals. We must not forget here that any

oversimplified system, however simple to understand, does not do much good. The beauty of

online CFP calculators is that they focus on what is important: CO 2 emissions. That being said,

relying entirely on one indicator can sometimes be misleading; therefore, one should remain

conscious of oversimplification.

Owing to these problems and challenges of a new system, several agencies and organizations

have come up with complex and long methodologies for calculation of CFP. The GHG protocol,

Carbon Trust, UK, and JEMAI Japan are some of the many protocols that are used for the CFP

of products. We will try to study them and find similarities and differences between these three.


19/45

10

2.2 GHG Protocols Methodology for CFP

The GHG protocol defines the areas and limits for calculation of CFP of products and

organizations. Not only GHG but even other certifying agencies approve the direct and indirect

emissions to be the largest cause of GHG outlet in the production process. Also mobile,

transportation and logistics form a big part. Waste management as a CFP reduction strategy is

very much in vogue, hence it is also accounted for. GHG protocol defines direct imports and

exports of CO2 as a contributing factor and does account for those industries, which use them. A

biomass combustion table is also provided but it is not accounted for calculation of CFP.

Table 2.1 List of Inventories required for CFP calculation

Operations in Inventory Describing the inventory boundaries and listing the operations

included in the inventory

Direct - Fuel Combustion Direct emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O resulting from fuel combustion -

includes default emission factors

Indirect Fuel

Combustion

Indirect emission of GHGs due to power imports and other sources

Mobile & Transportation Emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from fuel combustion in mobile

equipment and transportation devices

Waste Management Emissions of CH4 resulting from mill-owned landfills or anaerobic

treatment operations

CO2 Imports and

Exports

CO2 emissions exported to precipitated calcium carbonate plants and CO2

imports (e.g. for neutralization)

Custom Emission Factors Calculating custom emission factors

Energy Content Fuel specific higher heating values

Conversion Factors Factors for converting among common units of measure

Biomass Combustion

CO2

Direct emissions of biomass CO2 for informational purposes only (do not

include in GHG inventory)

Revision Log Presents revisions made to the various versions of these calculation tools.


20/45

11

2.3 Required details by Carbon Trust Standard

The Carbon Trust Standard defines calculation of CFP in a rather ingenious way. Carbon Trust

has developed software tools called Footprint Expert and Value Chain Hotspotter. As the name

suggests,, the Footprint Expert provides all different tools for calculation of product or process

CFP. The Value Chain Hotspotter allows a user to identify the most critical emission spots and

suggests measures accordingly. A rough sketch of the followed methodology would require

accounting of direct and indirect emissions, breakdown of emissions according to fuel type used

and sources, provision of emission factors and assessor footprint calculations. This gives us the

absolute footprint, which in accordance with relative and turnover benchmark, are converted to

relative footprint. Reduction calculations are calculated over base year data and reductions goals

are established.

Table 2.2 Methodology followed by Carbon Trust Standard



Footprint Calculation Direct and indirect sources, imported power, owned transport and business

travel accounting

Breakdown of Emissions Emissions due to petrol, diesel, gas, imported power, process fugitive, other

solid fuels and indirect emissions

Reduction Calculation Calculation of footprint relative to benchmark (adjusted) is made; Absolute

footprint, relative & turnover benchmark and base year data required

Data Sources (for assesse

use only)

Site visit description, date and address

Data For Assessment Absolute footprint, relative footprint, turnover benchmark and reduction

percentage calculations

Assessor Footprint Vehicle type, fuel used, distance travelled, emission factor, footprint

calculation

Emission Factors This table gives a comprehensive list of all types of emissions and their

conversion factors


21/45

12

2.4 Required details by JEMAI

EcoLeaf as a subsidiary body of JEMAI, Japan, handles the requests for CFP calculation across

different countries over several industries. It follows a rather life cycle oriented scope of

calculation and require the details of inputs and outputs of energy and material during different

stages of product manufacture as well as use. It incorporates the information about product raw

materials and energy usage in the manufacturing stage. Product site information allows the

calculation of other indirect sources and sinks. Distribution stage calculation will require details

like the weight of product, distance travelled before use, type of fuel used etc. The last stage

incorporates the disposal or recycles details of the product life cycle.

Table 2.3 Methodology followed by EcoLeaf



Product information Product raw material, power used, material and energy flows accounting

Production site

information

Water, steam, fuels, energy and other calculations; sewage and other bi-

products taken into account

Distribution stage

information

Mass, distance, vehicle used, fuel used, loading ratio and packing ratio

accounted for

Use stage Product usage requirements (subject to analysis)

Disposition/Recycle stage

information

Processes, methods and other types of activities involved in disposal of

used products; percentage of actual recovery from waste


22/45

13

Chapter 3

Challenges

There are a myriad number of mindboggling challenges with the whole CFP process. Will thescope of GHGs remain to just the six gases as defined in Kyoto Protocol or will it be detailed

and encompass more varieties as well? What are the life cycle stages, which should be included

for calculation, and which ones should not? How to demarcate the limit or the boundary of a

particular stage in the life cycle? These kinds of questions are from all sorts of difficulty levels.

While just some brainstorming by experts may solve some, others need an in depth

understanding of the process and the relevant complexities involved. In the chapter we shall see

how and why are these kinds of complexities, ambiguities and challenges arise, also how to

understand them. Since understanding the problems will take us one step forward towards the

solution and will provide us with a great deal of comprehension about the challenges itself, we

shall try to achieve the same in the next few pages.


23/45

14

3.1 Technical Challenges

The technical challenges refer to the technicalities and complexities of the production process

(accompanied by emissions) and the ambiguities in the ways and methods of demarcation of a

particular process for calculation purposes. Technical challenges also carry the burden of

explaining the material and energy flows across the whole process as well as those which did not

take part of the process as an integral part but rather happened at some other place or time. This

mainly consists of energy generation and distribution processes.

3.1.1 Scope of emissions

As for product CFP, will there be calculations for all GHGs specified by IPCC 2007 or only the

six GHG gases of Kyoto Protocol be considered remains to be the biggest question of all the

challenges concerned. When a regulatory or certifying agency assesses the scope of emissions of

the product, does it have to consider all the GHG emissions as per IPCCs recommendations or

just the six of Kyoto has to be the biggest dilemma of all the government or else, agencies, who

wish to establish such a system for use in accordance with world over.

3.1.2 Life cycle stages

The general understanding of CFP is related to the life cycle calculations using process-based

data, the inclusion of the use phase becomes controversial between business-to-business and

business-to-consumer point of views. If included, then how should the consumer behaviour be?

Also what remains the driving factor in the consumers minds for picking up such a product and

how long does he use it; these kind of questions remain to provide enough of scope for thought

in the carbon market.

3.1.3 System boundari es

How do we correctly outline the boundaries of a particular system, and where shall it cut off?

How should the limiting attribute be decided? Whether it should concern the material threshold

or emission threshold? How to account for transportation made by employees of the particular

plant or factory, and how to account for employees situated away from the production site? Time

boundaries are also quite a big challenge, especially for agricultural products. We also need to

take into account the mass of agricultural product returned unused or rejected as biomass.


24/45

15

3.1.4 Offsetti ng of emissions

Will offsetting of emissions be counted in the calculation or not remains a big technical

challenge. Several agencies have defined it in varied ways and there are many who have different

standards of accepting and calculating emission offsets done during production process or

elsewhere. Will the use of renewable energy be considered as a type of offsetting; or will there

be still another set of calculation required to calculate the emissions made by renewable energy

plants, or will they be any government or agency induced free limits for renewable plants or will

they also have to account for the emissions involved, remains a big question.

3.1.5 Data

The source of data for calculation of the footprint of a particular product /process remains to be

the technical process, that which is related to the actual movement of goods rather than money.

Now there are some fundamental issues with this understanding; which data sources will be

considered and which would not be? What percentage of primary processes and how much of

secondary processes will constitute the details of the data? Will there be any operational data

quality requirements which can be considered to be the standard or optimum?

3.1.6 All ocation

The existing standard ISO 14040 defines the process procedures. Will there be need for a new

system or will it suffice the needs? What will be the implications of its uniform usage amongst

different nations of the world? How will the quality of any particular product determine its

market share and the rise and fall of the same with respect to its CFP? Will there be differences

in the qualities and processes even after common certification? These remain some prime

questions for allocation

3.1.7 End-of-l if e

After a product has been used and is ready or waiting to be disposed, defined the end of life. If

however it will be recycled or disposed without extraction of reusable resources is the question.

Content based approach on the product level or average recycled content on the material level

should be used as the basis for the details of disposal cycle? Also it remains to define the kind of

usage the unorganised sector makes of the products when recycled by them.


25/45

16

3.2 Environmental Challenges

This section deals with the environmental effects of production process and the effects it makes

on the nearby surrounding, be it water, land or air and many a times even underground water.

How do we define the scope of environmental effects made in the short as well as the long run.

Who is to pay for the changes in the land use pattern and who is responsible for the changes in

the long run of the affected society? These questions remain the prime objective in formulating

the environmental challenges for the product CFP process.

3.2.1 Carbon storage

How to deal with the processes that emit substantially lesser CO2 but yet are responsible for

emissions? How to deal with carbon storage systems, and those where the carbon is captured or

carbon sequestration takes place in situ or nearby? What kind of effects do they make on the total

amount of emissions? Also who is to look after the stored carbon reserves and who will ensure

them against environmental or other disasters?

3.2.2 Land use change

There are proven emissions arising from direct land use change. This has been a prime cause of

concern for people who are steering the pro-environment movement. Should these emissions be

included in CFP calculations or not? Shall changes in soil carbon (source or sink) be included or

not? If however included, how and what should be the scope of its effect and how to quantify the

short versus long term effects?

3.2.3 Capital goods

Any tangible assets that an organization uses to produce goods or services such as office

buildings, equipment and machinery are defined to be capital goods.However, capital goods that

a business does not use up in a single year of production cannot be entirely deducted as business

expenses in the year they are purchased. They are instead added depreciatingly over years of its

use. Similarly, should the emissions for the production of such a capital good be calculated in

one year or spread over years and also how to account for its reuse and recovery, remains a big

question.


26/45

17

3.3 Other Problems

There are a host of other small to medium set of problems which all need to solve after the

solving of bigger aforementioned challenges. The prime one of them remains to be the energy

scene consisting of renewable electricity and electricity mix. How to quantify different

renewable sources and how to assign emission values to them? Are they to be deducted per

usage, or over lifetime or will be policy protected also remains a big question. Shall the grid-

average carbon intensity be used and, if so, what is the grid? Shall renewable energy be treated

as part of the grid or shall there be specific benefits if it is used in a specific supply chain?

Looking at this non-exclusive list of methodological issues reveals a very valuable aspect of the

carbon footprint discussions and standardisation activities: the sobering recognition of very

down-to-earth, basic scientific challenges for our community which have been getting a bit out

of sight over the years. While most scientific attention was recently focussed on pushing impact

assessment further, by e.g. finding ways to calculate how many years of life I may lose

depending on someones assumptions on my quality of lifebased on a certain amount of

emissions at ONE virtual point of time and ONE virtual place, we now face the challenge that

calculating a meaningful inventory result is not really solvedeven for the probably easiest class

of substances like greenhouse gases.10

10http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-009-0064-x/fulltext.html


27/45

18

CHAPTER 4

OPPORTUNITIES

First of all we have to understand that the willingness to accept the fact that CFP can be ameaningful tool for mitigating global warming, and that if used properly, it can be developed as a

perfect scale for measurement of any one product with a similar product from other brands. This

will allow the consumers the power to know the exact amount of affect or impact their usage of a

particular product will make on the environment. Thus the consumers can make an informed

choice and they will be more attracted towards products having lower footprints, even if they

were not of their favourite brand. This kind of consumer behaviour was seen after the launch of

labels by Carbon Trust in UK.

4.1 Solving Problems

It will be quite a big achievement and also a big contribution to solve the technical,

environmental and general problems discussed above. A simple academic study cannot take on

the kind and nature of such problems. In this section we will try to solve the technical and other

problems as discussed above in the last section and also will increase our understanding about

some of those problems which are considered inexplicable by the current standards of our

learning.

4.1.1 Solving Techni cal Di ff icul ties

Scope of emission, life cycle stages and system boundaries are defined by different agencies and

the rules and guidelines of such effect are also available. Here however the bigger problem is the

regulation and acceptance of standards which differ from country to country. Also there is a need

for regularity and uniformity in the process. Since GHG, PAS, ISO etc. are working together to

establish such a code of conduct, we should rely on them to bring on uniformity in the market.

There is also a rise in the acceptance of certified products after they have been launched in the

market and consumers all around got to know the benefits of using a low CFP product. People

also have got acquainted with the effects of their usage of product and its overall impact. This

facility will provide the information required by a consumer to make an informed decision.


28/45

19

Offsetting emissions will surely require a closer look than any other problem as it is one which

falls in the ambit of both a technical as well as environmental problem. It needs to be quantified

and much of its processes need to be studied and their parts are to be standardised and rated as

per emission sequestration technique, capital required, time and space requirements and the

actual quantity of emissions sequestered or captured.

Data entry is yet a problem that requires address. It is generally seen that data from various

different sources have to be collated and merged before getting all the details which need to be

accounted for CFP calculations. This brings us to a problem which is quite big for big and

established industries rather than the new ones. There are guidelines available for backtracking

of data sources and getting the required information out of the system. Guidelines have been

developed by all the three agencies discussed earlier. Since these guidelines are almost same in

mature and manner of application, there can be a worldwide acceptance on one common set of

guidelines which will provide guidance to all different industries.

The problem of allocation is yet being studied upon and there is a lot of debate on this point as

there are still not many rules and standardisation of energy distribution systems across different

countries so as to correctly measure the CFP of the same. This also is seen in the problem related

to the waste disposal and recovery systems al around the world. There is such a large scope and

variety in recovery systems, with some places entirely dumping their garbage away and others

with efficiencies a low as 10% to 60%.

4.1.2 Solving Environmental D if fi culties

Solving of environmental challenges, which basically address the long term effects of any

particular process takes into account the effects of carbon capture method for emissions,

sequestration and storing techniques, also the effects of land use change over a period and the

calculation including capital goods and other durables. This is a question which not only haunts

environmentalists all around the world but also has brought in much debate and oppositions of

big projects. Environmental effects are long lasting and they usually cause loss of livelihood,

destruction of ecology and other devastating effects. This is tried to be brought under control by

emission sequestration techniques and control measures. The state of ambiguity still hovers over

the question of environmental considerations.


29/45

20

4.2 Available Alternatives

There is a completely new range of available alternatives for a consumer of any particular

marketable product. As per the rules now it is important to denote the nutritional value of any

eatable and is recognized by consumers to choose accordingly. Similarly a carbon footprint label

will give them an opportunity to choose from a range of products of which some of them give

them a balanced information about the techniques used to produce them and the emissions

caused. There is already a lot of pro green talk which has steered this market towards getting

daylight. This also requires a system which can be used to deter the challenges of the same while

exploring the available as well as rising and upcoming opportunities. There is a huge rise in

various options that new industries can take in order to get through the system, get certification

by a competent authority, and get eligible to use labels on their products.

Success as eye-opener that climate change is not the only problem we have and that CFP is not

in all cases the right proxy to support sustainable production and consumption.11

First and foremost, product carbon footprinting identifies the true drivers of GHG emissions,

often revealing some surprises. It therefore enables better targeted, more effective emissions

reduction and cost savings initiatives, which may or may not fall under the companys direct

control. Some companies who have used the draft PAS 2050 method have already reduced

product-level GHG emissions by 15-20%. Considerable cost savings have also been achieved

due to energy and waste efficiency measures across the supply chain.

Product carbon footprinting also helps companies strengthen relationships with suppliers,

particularly if it reveals cost savings opportunities up the supply chain.

In addition, measuring product carbon footprints can improve a companys general business or

management practices in unanticipated ways, such as developing interactive tools to improve

sourcing decisions.

11http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-009-0064-x/fulltext.html


30/45

21

4.3 GHG protocol in India

The Energy and Resources Institute Business Council for Sustainable Development (TERI-

BCSD), The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), and the World Resources Institute (WRI)

organized a stakeholder dialogue on Corporate GHG Accounting in India on February 2nd, 2011.

The event was held on the sidelines of the World CEO Forum 2011 and was the first formal

consultation of a project between TERI and WRI. The partnership aims to build capacity on

corporate GHG accounting and gain an appreciation of the necessary steps required for

developing a national GHG program.

CEOs from businesses such as Ingersoll-Rand India, BASF India Ltd, Shree Cement Ltd, and

EG Gas Ltd as well as senior representatives from several other companies participated in the

dialogue. Following overview presentations from WRI and TERI, the discussions focused on the

merits of GHG accounting and inventorization where the motto If you cant measure, you cant

manage was stressed. It was clear that businesses were focused on climate change and were

eager to explore some of the next steps to voluntarily measure and disclose their emissions.12

WRI, in partnership with The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and TERI-Business

Council on Sustainable Development (TERI-BCSD), is working in India to build the foundation

for a voluntary GHG emissions measurement and accounting program for companies and

organizations. They are currently in the process of consulting the stakeholders to understand their

expectations from such a program and identify the various services that it should provide. The

shared vision is to build a centre of excellence on GHG measurement and accounting within the

country, which offers a range of services that serve multiple business objectives and develops

customized accounting tools and protocols to accurately quantify corporate-level GHG

emissions. Over the last decade, TERI and WRI have worked together to develop and/or road-

test sector-specific GHG measurement and accounting tools. These included tools for sectors

such as cement, aluminium, fertilizers, and power. TERI also participated in the development of

the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard.

12http://www.ghgprotocol.org/feature/stakeholder-dialogue-corporate-ghg-accounting-india


31/45

22

WRIs other key partner in the country is the Confederation of Indian Industry- Sohrabji Godrej

Green Business Center (CII-GBC) and in the past, they have jointly worked to build indu strys

capacity on GHG accounting and quantification.13

To date, the GHG Protocol has established successful partnerships to facilitate the design and

implementation of GHG programs in Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Philippines and North

America.

Since there has been a lot of speculation about the carbon credit markets but it fell flat on due to

over availability of credits and permits in the first few years, and also due to the steep and

continuous fall of carbon credits market in the past years, also the reluctance of EU-ETS to

continue trading, all shows the mistakes that have already been done and their outcomes

suffered. Australia which was out of the Kyoto Protocol earlier and signed in later now has a

carbon tax akin to California which is based on the principal of polluter pays. This move

however has been widely criticized by consumer groups and protesters are demanding it to be

removed. It is believed that corporates would rather choose to pass on the taxes onto their

customers rather than doing something proactive to actually reduce their footprint.

13http://www.ghgprotocol.org/programs-and-registries/india


32/45

23

4.4 Future development of the CFP Program14

The product CFP craze has just begun. However, to make this craze into a more stable and

effective program, it requires to examine an appropriate direction from mid-and long-term

viewpoints, and to start planning several concrete targets and means for achieving them from

now on. It is important that the CFP labels itself will evolve flexibly based on social and business

environments, usually considering such domestic and international trends. The CFP Program is

an excellent tool as a first step for businesses to address disclosure of environmental information

in their business activities. Starting from making a CFP declaration, businesses can then improve

many aspects of their businesses not only in CO2 reductions by reviewing their assessment

results, and will finally achieve the production of goods and service to be chosen by the market.15

As of now, having the facility of internet and all of worlds information at our fingertips, we

must be aware of the effects that GHGs have put on our ecology and environment. We also must

not forget that overhyped facts like Global Warming and Climate change have actually made a

difference in the scenario. In the 1980s, emissions and other impacts of the factories and other

large structures were not given enough importance to be talked about. No one ever did want to

talk about the harmful effects of the chemicals being discharged as sewage or flue gases (even

today there still are some big corporates which try to avoid these kinds of questions).

Now, that there has been a rising awareness amongst people of all classes about the effects of

any large structure being built or the surrounding natural assets being subjected to any large scale

changes, there has been questioning and criticism of any such project and Impact assessment

tests have made their way into policies rather than being a luxury as considered earlier.

Companies and large organizations already have started cutting down on inefficient systems and

replacing them with greener and more efficient ones.

14http://www.cfp-japan.jp/english/overview/overview_06.html15http://www.cfp-japan.jp/english/overview/overview_07.html


33/45

24

All new projects and startups are being questioned about the impacts they would make on the

society and the market, not only in the economic and monetary sense, but in environmental and

social fields as well. There has been a whole new system of seeing things happening in the light

of effects and impacts they would make on ourselves and our surroundings. This awakening has

led to impact assessment tests being carried out before start of any such project. There has also

been a change in gauging the stakeholders of any such project. Earlier where only the investors,

vendors, suppliers, customers in government was considered to be the stakeholders, now there

has been an increasing dialogue between the indigenous population and those people who live in

an around the project sites.

4.4.1 Impact of Other Agencies

The CarbonCounted label started in January 2007. It uses a live carbon supply chain to determine

the amount of carbon dioxide emitted to bring a product to market.

Climatop started labels in spring 2008 in Switzerland. The independent association climatop

labels the most climate friendly products with their label approved by climatop. As a rule of

thumb, products have to be at least 20% better as other products from the same category.

Examples of labeled products can be found at the Swiss retailer Migros, such as an organic fair

trade sugar from Paraguay, recycling kitchen towels or laundry detergents.

Japan announced carbon footprint labeling scheme in 2008. The labels appeared on dozens of

items including food and drink starting in April 2009, providing detailed breakdowns of each

product's carbon footprint under a government-approved calculation and labeling system.

California state representative Ira Ruskin sponsored a carbon labeling billthe Carbon Labeling

Act of 2009in the California state legislature, which has been voted out of the Assembly

Committee on Natural Resources. The act would require the State Air Resources Board to

develop and implement a program for the voluntary assessment, verification, and standardized

labeling of the carbon footprint of consumer products sold in the state.

In July 2009, Wal-Mart announced an environmental labeling program for its products. The

intent is to create over the next five years a universal rating system, that scores products based on

how environmentally and socially sustainable they are over the course of their lives. Wal-Marts

goal is to have other retailers eventually adopt the indexing system. 16

16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emission_label


34/45


35/45

26

Jeffery Sachs, Director of Columbia's Earth Institute, warned on against calls for the tax to be

replaced by a tradable permit system by carbon emitters.

"For many reasons staying with the tax would be better, more straight forward, easier to

implement (and a) stronger signal to the private economy than one gets from trading

permits,"20

It's estimated that in China the combination of seven pilot schemes will cover 700 million tonnes

of carbon dioxide compared with the 382 million tonnes in Australia and 165 million tonnes in

California.

The European scheme is the world's largest covering 2.1 billion tonnes.

Carbon trading kicked off in Guangdong in September with four cement companies buying 1.3

billion permits at $9 a credit, the report states.

20 http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/us-expert-praises-aust-carbon-tax/story-e6frfkui-

1226503297515#ixzz2AbYU7rC6


36/45

27

4.4.3 What Next

It is going to become a very interesting debate to see whether the cap-and-trade system as used

by EU-ETS and other agencies takes off, or is it the Carbon Tax regime as put forward by

Australia and supported by California that holds the seat. Both the systems have proven helpful

for reaching emission targets but have quite a few inherent flaws. For example, the cap-and-trade

system cannot be assumed to be a stable system because of the changes in the prices of CER

units according to the whims and fancies of the market. Experts, however debate that since this is

a very mature market and has been built out of enormous efforts of nations and agencies, this

will be a secure system of trade in future. Sceptics refuse to believe in these statements though.

The carbon tax regime also has to face criticism in the name of not actually being able to achieve

the primary targets of emission reduction. This is derived from the fact that taxes of such nature

have been passed on the consumers inadvertently and it will be the people who will actually pay

up. Corporates will have no social incentive to go green or use a more efficient technology.


37/45

28

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

The carbon market, despite being a multi-million dollar one, is still very new and has a scope of

expanding even more. The question would be the mechanisms used by governments of countriesto capture this market. Whether the use of carbon taxes aka Australia and California takes over

or does the cap-and-trade mechanism work in the free market would be question worth

pondering for small countries and growing economies. However, since most of the world has

understood the effects and disasters climate change can spill on us, there is a rush to go green

and clean, and hence is the usage of labels showing exactly the amount of impact one would

make on the environment by having a can of fruit juice or by buying a new shirt. This is a thing

that has potential and will set newer standards for the industry.

5.1 Lessons Learnt

The study, as targeted, tries to find out and compare the procedures and methodologies of

product footprinting as suggested by different agencies. Noting this will however be interesting,

that the different agencies are always developing their set of rules for CFP of products and

corporates. A generally accepted protocol for footprinting will however be much more feasible

option as there is already too much confusion and uncertainty of the future of carbon market. A

taxation regime also doesnt promise to help much because the corporates inadvertently try to

pass on the extra taxes levied on them to the ultimate consumers. The cap-n-trade system has its

benefits and is a mature market but still unsure of its future. In such a kind of scene, it will be

interesting to follow the developments of the carbon market.


38/45

29

5.2 Future Scope

The process of CFP by the three mechanisms or protocols as they are better known has been

done. Future scope of such a study would be an intensive research of all the criteria and

parameters of calculation of CFP of a particular product such as paper cup or a juice can. Such a

study will reflect the nature and manner in which the three discussed agencies cover different

subject areas. This will also give us an outline for a hold-all complete plan for CFP of products

all around the world indiscriminately if such a thing ever becomes a reality. We have seen that

the product footprint has to come from the producer getting certified first, also, since the product

cannot be granted a label unless the producer gets certified, there has been a shallow response

from corporates for voluntary certification. A scene where getting footprint certified will not be

considered a luxury and will be as mandatory for the corporates as other rules, will definitely see

a surge of innovations in the sustainability market. This calls for policy changes and active

response from the corporate as well as the social sectors. We must not forget here that this s one

case which has been propelled by the social activists and groups rather some research institute or

big corporate houses. Hence a continued effort from the parts of all the players will definitely

prove to be a gamechanger.

We also have learnt that having just a guiding agency or a set of guidelines for any process is not

enough. It requires more than just effort to put together the pieces of industry together and then

maybe bring in a policy or a rule change. In democratic countries like India, it is not only

difficult to bring in a law but, enforcing it as well.


39/45

30

References

Carbon Trust http://www.carbontrust.com/home

CTSC004 Introduction to the Carbon Trust Standard methodology (31 Oct 2012) CTV043 Introduction to the Carbon Trust Standard methodology (31 Oct 2012) Calculation Tools for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Pulp and Paper Mills

Version 1.1 July 8, 2005, Prepared by: National Council for Air and Stream

Improvement, Inc. (NCASI), Research Triangle Park, NC, USA (31 Oct 2012)

GHG Protocol http://www.ghgprotocol.org/

Calculating CO2 process emissions from Cement Production (Cement-basedMethodology)

Guide to calculation worksheet (October 2001) (26 Oct 2012)

GHG Protocol guidance on uncertainty assessment in GHG inventories and calculatingstatistical parameter uncertainty (26 Oct 2012)

Global-Warming-Potential-Values (26 Oct 2012) Quantitative Uncertainty Guidance (26 Oct 2012) No. BD-07-013 Paper Beverage Carton (PSC BD-01) (26 Oct 2012)

JEMAI Protocol http://www.cfp-japan.jp/english/

PRODUCT-CATEGORY RULES (PCR) For preparing an environmental declaration(EPD) for Product Group Technical - Chemical products for the building- and

construction industry

NPCR 09 January 2012 (28 Oct 2012)

Guidelines for the Introduction of the ECO-LEAF Environmental LabelFirst Edition April 2002, JAPAN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

ASSOCIATION FOR INDUSTRY

Product Category Rules (PCR) (Approved PCR ID: PA-BB-02)Paper Containers, Packaging and Wrapping (intermediate goods)Release date: September 8, 2010 (29 Oct 2012)

The Carbon Footprint of Products Calculation and Labeling Pilot Program PCR Basic Module CPC Division 32:Pulp, paper and paper products; printed matter and

related articles, VERSION 1.0 DATED 2008-12-18 (30 Oct 2012)


40/45

31

Project for Development of Environmental and Emission Standards of VOCs (Volatile Organic

Compounds) in the Kingdom of Thailand (20 Oct 2012)

Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) Assessment of Dell LaptopResults and Recommendations

Scott O'Connell, Markus Stutz (22 Oct 2012)

Report on the CFP Verification Scheme Committee Summary of three-year discussion

(Provisional translation), February 2012

Japanese CFP pilot project CFP Verification Scheme Committee (23 Oct 2012)

The Carbon Trust Standard Rules v1.3 June 2010 1 (24 Oct 2012)

CARBON FOOTPRINT MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY REPORT

Centre for Water and Waste Technology, University of NSW

Dr Sven Lundie et al., Fonterra Co-Operati ve Group Limited 12 January 2009 (25 Oct 2012)

GHG protocol A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard

REVISED EDITION, WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE (27 Oct 2012)

International Review for Environmental Strategies

Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. xxxxx, 2004

2004 by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. All rights reserved.

Special Feature on the Kyoto Protocol

Lessons from the Kyoto Protocol: Implications for the Future

Cdric Philiberta (27 Oct 2012)

Clean Development Mechanism And Carbon CreditsA Primer

Professional Development Committee

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

(Set up by an Act of Parliament), New Delhi (29 Oct 2012)


41/45

32

BUILDING ON THE KYOTO PROTOCOL: OPTIONS FOR PROTECTING THE CLIMATE

Edited by Kevin A. Baumert et al., WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE OCTOBER 2002 (26

Oct 2012)


42/45

33

Annexure

Image 1: National and regional programs using the GHG protocol21

Table 1: Sample worksheet is for showing which operations are included in the inventory.

21https://reader009.{domain}/reader009/html5/0421/5adb142ae1198/5adb143b1358a.jpg

Identifying name assigned to this inventory:

Use this space to provide additional information helpful to understanding

the operational boundaries of the inventory.

Use this space to provide additional information helpful to understanding

how emi ssions from partial ownership situations are allocated.

Core Operations that might be included in the inventory are listed below

Place an "X" below where

appropriate to indentify operations


Harvesting

Wood/chip/bark/wastepaper/other raw material transportation vehicles

Product, by-product or waste transportation vehicles

Debarking

Chipping

Mechanical pulping

Chemical pulping kraft

Chemical pulping sulfite

Chemical pulping other

Semichemical pulping

Recovery furnace kraft

Liquor furnace sulfite

Liquor furnace semichem

Lime kiln or calciner

Incinerators for noncondensible gases, etc.

Wastepaper pulping and cleaning

Deinking

Bleaching of chemical or semichemical pulp

Brightening of deinked pulp

On-site preparation of chemicals used in core operations (e.g. ClO2 or O3)

Paper and/or paperboard production

Coating (including extrusion coating)Roll trimming, roll wrapping, sheet cutting

On-site power and steam boilers

On-site combustion turbines

Gas-fired infrared dryers

Other fossil fuel-fired dryers

Wastewater treatment operations

Sludge processing

Landfill receiving mill waste

Air emissions control devices

On-site vehicles and machinery

Normal offices/workspace for mill employees

Imports of electrical power

Imports of steam or hot water

Exports of electrical power

Exports of steam or hot water

Other Operation describe:




The following information is not directly used in the GHG emissions calculations, but is intended to provide

clarification of the type of facility for w hich the inventory is being performed.

Use this space to provide a general description of operational boundaries.

Operations in the Inventory


43/45

34

Table 2: Various required fields of information for CFP calculation

Complete for level 1 footprintAdditional requirements for level 2 footprintAutomatic calculation

Organisation name Assessor name

Date spreadsheet completed Assisted certification?

Data year end datel

0

Year -2 Year -1 Year 0

Footprint Year end date Year end date Year end date

level Comments

Direct Emissions (scope 1)

Stationary sources Source: DEFRA 2011

1 Gas kWh 0.1836

1 Oil litres 3.0595

1 Other (specify)

Owned transport

1 Diesel litres 2.6676

1 Petrol litres 2.3117

1 Other (specify)

Imported power/utilities (Required) Source: DEFRA 2011

1 Purchased Electricity kWh 0.5246

1 Imported heat or st eam kWh

Other Indirect Emissions (Optional)

Business travel Source: DEFRA 2011

2 Hire Car (Average) km 0.2046

2 Taxi (Regular) km 0.2121

2 Bus (Average) passenger km 0.14882 Rail (National Rail) passenger km 0.0565

Travel by plane:

Long haul:

2 First Class passenger km 0.3548

2 Business Class passenger km 0.2572

2 Premium Economy passenger km 0.1419

2 Economy passenger km 0.0887

Short haul:

2 Business Class passenger km 0.1509

2 Economy passenger miles 0.1619

Domestic:

2 Average passenger km 0.1797

Other business travel (specify)

2

CALCULATED EMISSIONS

Direct Emissions (scope 1)

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

Imported power/utilities (scope 2,3)

- - -

- - -

- - -

Other Indirect Emissions (scope 3)

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

Other business travel - - -

- - -

- - -

Travel by plane

Long haul

Short haul

Purchased Electricity

Imported heat or steam

Total Direct Emissions

Travel by rail

Total imported power / utilities

Business travel

Domestic

Travel by hire car

Travel by taxi

Travel by bus

TOTAL FOOTPRINT

Other (specify)

Owned transportDiesel

Total Indirect Emissions

Petrol

Other (specify)

FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

Stationary sources

Gas

Oil

Units

Emission

factor

(kgCO2e /

unit)

Spell Check


44/45

35

Table 3: Product Environmental Information Data Sheet (PEIDS) as prepared by Ecoleaf


45/45

Kyoto Protocol

Image: Kyoto Protocol participation map22

Ref: Green signifies countries that have signed and ratified the treaty (Annex I and II are in dark

green), grey is not yet decided, brown is no intention of ratifying, and red is intention to

withdraw.

The details of Kyoto Protocol can be found at wikisource.23

Carbon Footprint_Challenges and Opportunities

Documents

Transcript of Carbon Footprint_Challenges and Opportunities