0% found this document useful (0 votes)
1K views45 pages

Carbon Footprint - Challenges and Opportunities

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.

Uploaded by

Vishal Singh
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
1K views45 pages

Carbon Footprint - Challenges and Opportunities

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.

Uploaded by

Vishal Singh
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 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 of

Prof. Prasad Modak

Centre for Technology Alternatives for Rural Areas (CTARA) Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076.

October, 2012

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

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

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.

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 ii

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

iii

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

iv

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

ABBREVIATIONS GHG NGO CO2e/CO2eq GWP100 CFP LCA MFA AAU CER ERU VER BLICC CCX EPA EU-ETS SEMARNET CESPEDES WRI WBCSD PhilGARP RGGI ISO TERI TERI-BCSD CII-GBC JEMAI METI M&S UNFCCC Green House Gases Non-Governmental Organisation carbon dioxide equivalent 100-year global warming potential carbon footprint Life Cycle Assessment Material Flow Analysis Assigned amount units Certified Emission Reduction Emission Reduction Unit Verified Emission Reduction Business Leaders Initiative on Climate Change Chicago Climate Exchange Environmental Protection Agency European Union Emission Trading Scheme Mexican Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources Center of Private-Sector Studies for Sustainable Development World Resources Institute World Business Council for Sustainable Development Philippine GHG Accounting and Reporting Program Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative International Organization for Standardization The Energy and Resources Institute TERI-Business Council for Sustainable Development Confederation of Indian Industry- Sohrabji Godrej Green Business Centre Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry Marks & Spencer United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

vi

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 account of 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.

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.

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 2

"What is a carbon footprint?". UK Carbon Trust. Retrieved 21 Oct 2012 Laurence A Wright, Simon Kemp & Ian Williams, www.futurescience.com/doi/abs/10.4155/cmt.10.39?cookieSet=1 Retrieved 21 Oct 2012 3 http://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/footprint Retrieved 21 Oct 2012 4 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/magazine/17wwln-safire-t.html?_r=1& Retrieved 1 Oct 2012

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.

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 Obtaining 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 Protocol The 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.

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 footprinting software solutions The Value Chain Hotspotter is a tool that provides organizations from all sectors with a rapid assessment 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 Criteria To achieve Carbon Trust Standard an organization needs to meet these three criteria.

Provide an accurate footprint measurement including all required emission sources. Demonstrate an absolute reduction of footprint or equivalent relative efficiency improvement. Demonstrate good carbon management to Carbon Trust standard including carbon governance, 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 footprint and the reduction in this footprint over time Assessment Form which is used to document whether the organization meets the required carbon management standards.

www.carbontrust.uk

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 the Japanese CFP scheme, and has been officially started the operations of the CFP Communication Program. Acceptance of applications for CFP-PCR certification and system certification was started on July 2, and all components required for the new CFP Program are finalized.6 1.5.1 New CFP Program with flexibility7 The Japanese CFP pilot project was operated strictly, considering ensuring of reliability and transparency. In operations by JEMAI, consensus obtained from findings and outcomes of the pilot project is maintained. Meanwhile improvements in operations using flexibility of the private entity, aims at the new programs ease of availability for participation and understanding by 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 JEMAI8 As the program operator of Japanese CFP program has been taken over from the government by JEMAI, they have set new program targets from the following four perspectives and aim to operate 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 and transparency by strictly adhering to accounting rules and by the third party certification Disclosure of Eco-Products information: New CFP program aims to raising awareness of 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

6 7

http://www.cfp-japan.jp/english/ http://www.cfp-japan.jp/english/overview/overview_05.html 8 http://www.cfp-japan.jp/english/overview/overview_03.html

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 fictional stories 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

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

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 nongovernment 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: CO2 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.

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 Combustion 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 Exports Imports and CO2 emissions exported to precipitated calcium carbonate plants and CO2 imports (e.g. for neutralization) Fuel Indirect emission of GHGs due to power imports and other sources

Custom Emission Factors Calculating custom emission factors Energy Content Conversion Factors Biomass CO2 Revision Log Fuel specific higher heating values Factors for converting among common units of measure

Combustion Direct emissions of biomass CO2 for informational purposes only (do not include in GHG inventory) Presents revisions made to the various versions of these calculation tools.

10

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 Operations in Inventory Describing the inventory boundaries and listing the operations included in the inventory 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 Site visit description, date and address use only) 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

11

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 Operations in Inventory Describing the inventory boundaries and listing the operations included in the inventory Product information Production information Distribution information Use stage Product raw material, power used, material and energy flows accounting site Water, steam, fuels, energy and other calculations; sewage and other biproducts taken into account stage Mass, distance, vehicle used, fuel used, loading ratio and packing ratio accounted for Product usage requirements (subject to analysis)

Disposition/Recycle stage Processes, methods and other types of activities involved in disposal of information used products; percentage of actual recovery from waste

12

Chapter 3 Challenges
There are a myriad number of mindboggling challenges with the whole CFP process. Will the scope 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.

13

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 boundaries 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.
14

3.1.4 Offsetting 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 Allocation 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-life 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.
15

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.

16

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 gridaverage 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

10

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

17

CHAPTER 4 OPPORTUNITIES
First of all we have to understand that the willingness to accept the fact that CFP can be a meaningful 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 Technical Difficulties 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.

18

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 Difficulties 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.

19

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.

11

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

20

4.3 GHG protocol in India The Energy and Resources Institute Business Council for Sustainable Development (TERIBCSD), 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 roadtest 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.

12

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

21

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 industrys 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.

13

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

22

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.

14 15

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

23

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
16

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

24

4.4.2 Recent Developments in the Carbon Market Supporters say making industries that burn fossil fuels pay to spit out carbon dioxide would encourage a shift to cleaner, alternative-energy sources by making it more expensive to burn coal, gasoline or natural gas. Some favour a cap-and-trade system, which sets a limit (the cap) on emissions and creates a market where companies can buy and sell permits to discharge carbon dioxide (the trade). Others favour a simpler tack: Tax companies on the carbon they emit.17 LONDON, Oct 23 (Reuters Point Carbon) U.N. carbon credits hit fresh record lows below 1 euro on Tuesday as traders were wary of buying the near worthless units while EU lawmakers consider banning some of them.18 BRUSSELS The EU ETS is under heavy pressure, there is a real option it will die, warned MEP Peter Liese (EPP) during a conference on the future of EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). A reason to enhance it, say EU policy makers. An opportunity to formulate non marked based alternatives, say NGOs. 19 Emissions trading gives polluters an incentive to reduce their emissions. However, there are possible perverse incentives that can exist in emissions trading. Allocating permits on the basis of past emissions ("grandfathering") can result in firms having an incentive to maintain emissions. Setting a price of $A23 ton and impacting largely on the coal, natural gas and petroleum sectors, Australias carbon levy came into effect on July 1 despite protests from industry and opposition fears it would be inflationary.

17 18

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444450004578004074034640026.html http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2032320 19 http://www.carbontradewatch.org/articles/eu-ets-under-heavy-pressure.html

25

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

26

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.

27

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 countries to 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.

28

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.

29

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-based Methodology) Guide to calculation worksheet (October 2001) (26 Oct 2012) GHG Protocol guidance on uncertainty assessment in GHG inventories and calculating statistical 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 Label First 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)

30

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 Laptop Results 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. xx xxx, 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 Credits A Primer Professional Development Committee The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (Set up by an Act of Parliament), New Delhi (29 Oct 2012)

31

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)

32

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.
Operations in the Inv entory
Ide ntifying na me a ssigne d to this inve ntory:

Use this spa ce to provide a ge ne ra l de scription of ope ra tiona l bounda rie s.

Use this spa ce to provide a dditiona l informa tion he lpful to unde rsta nding the ope ra tiona l bounda rie s of the inve ntory.

Use this spa ce to provide a dditiona l informa tion he lpful to unde rsta nding how e missions from pa rtia l ow ne rship situa tions a re a lloca te d.

The follow ing informa tion is not dire ctly use d in the GHG e missions ca lcula tions, but is inte nde d to provide cla rifica tion of the type of fa cility for w hich the inve ntory is be ing pe rforme d.

Core Operations that might be included in the inv entory are listed below Harv esting Wood/chip/bark/wastepaper/other raw material transportation v ehicles Product, by-product or waste transportation v ehicles Debarking Chipping Mechanical pulping Chemical pulping kraft Chemical pulping sulfite Chemical pulping other Semichemical pulping Recov ery 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 receiv ing mill waste Air emissions control dev ices On-site v ehicles 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: Other Operation describe: Other Operation describe: Other Operation describe:

Place an "X " below where appropriate to indentify operations included in the inv entory

21

http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/ghgp-map-revised.jpg

33

Table 2: Various required fields of information for CFP calculation


FOOTPRINT CALCULATION
Complete for level 1 footprint Additional requirements for level 2 footprint Automatic calculation
Assessor name Assisted c ertific ation? Level of footprint (1 or 2) Spell Chec k

Organisation name Date spreadsheet c ompleted Data year end date 0 Emission factor (kgCO2e / unit)

Year -2 Year end date

Year -1 Year end date

Year 0 Year end date Comments

Footprint level Direct Emissions (scope 1) Stationary sourc es 1 Gas 1 Oil 1 Other (spec ify) Owned transport 1 1 1 Other (spec ify)

Units

Sourc e: DEFRA 2011 kWh litres 0.1836 3.0595

Diesel Petrol

litres litres

2.6676 2.3117

1 1

Imported power/utilities (Required) Purc hased Elec tric ity kWh Imported heat or steam kWh Other Indirect Emissions (Optional) Business travel Hire Car (Average) km Taxi (Regular) km Bus (Average) passenger km Rail (National Rail) passenger km Travel by plane: Long haul: First Class passenger km Business Class passenger km Premium Ec onomy passenger km Ec onomy passenger km Short haul: Business Class passenger km Ec onomy passenger miles Domestic : Average passenger km Other business travel (spec ify)

Sourc e: DEFRA 2011 0.5246

Sourc e: DEFRA 2011 0.2046 0.2121 0.1488 0.0565

2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

0.3548 0.2572 0.1419 0.0887 0.1509 0.1619 0.1797

CALCULATED EMISSIONS Direct Emissions (scope 1) Stationary sources Gas Oil Other (spec ify) Owned transport Diesel Petrol Other (spec ify) Total Direc t Emissions Imported power/utilities (scope 2,3) Purc hased Elec tric ity Imported heat or steam Total imported power / utilities Other Indirect Emissions (scope 3) Business travel Travel by hire c ar Travel by taxi Travel by bus Travel by rail Travel by plane Long haul Short haul Domestic Other business travel Total Indirec t Emissions TOTAL FOOTPRINT -

34

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

35

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

22 23

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

36

You might also like