From d.noble at fivewinds.com Tue Oct 2 16:07:14 2007 From: d.noble at fivewinds.com (Duncan Noble) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:07:14 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Need your support In-Reply-To: <40AA8F5BF5C68941B3250FACBBB675E0016EF72F@D06ONSIGHT01.D06.Mi8OnSight.com> References: <40AA8F5BF5C68941B3250FACBBB675E0016EF72F@D06ONSIGHT01.D06.Mi8OnSight.com> Message-ID: <020701c8052f$d474df10$8401a8c0@DuncanT60> Dear James: What you (and I am sure many others) are looking for has been the bread and butter of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies for more than 30 years. There is a very large existing body of knowledge on LCA including internationally accepted standards (ISO 14040 series, including 14044), books, case studies, tools and databases. I urge those active in the area of carbon footprints for products to inform themselves about LCA. I'm not saying all the answers are there, but many of the questions have been asked and many answers do exist. If you put together the existing body of knowledge on LCA and add GHG measurement and reporting (e.g., ISO 14064 standards, WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol, etc.) you have a pretty powerful body of knowledge in this area. As usual, the first answer to your question is, it depends on many things, including... ... goal and scope of your study ... boundaries of your assessment ... raw materials vs. fabric (e.g., nylon) ... details of the material characteristics (e.g. type of nylon) ... requirement for industry average data vs. facility specific data ... geographic specificity required ... etc., etc., etc. Note that this is not simply an energy intensity/energy balance issue, as some processes result in GHG emissions quite unrelated to energy (e.g. N2O from production of adipic acid - a Nylon precursor). There are several public and private databases available that contain this information, including the Plastics Europe ecoprofiles, ecoinvent, and various LCA tools such as GaBi. Best regards ... Duncan Duncan Noble, Five Winds International Our Vision: "Value Without Burden" 1306 Wellington Street, Suite 300 Ottawa, ON K1Y 3B2 CANADA t: (613) 722-6629 x224 f: (613) 722-0574 d.noble at fivewinds.com www.fivewinds.com _____ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of James Anderson Sent: September 26, 2007 3:33 PM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Need your support Dear Colleague I am currently assisting a sportswear manufacturer establish the product embodied emissions. Could you please let me know where I might find carbon emissions per unit mass for the following materials to be made for the user markets: - Nylon - Polyester - Gore - Mesh (50% nylon/ 50% leather) - Suede Warm regards James Member of GHGNETWORK.ORG James Anderson Founding CEO Sd3 ClimateEnergy Ltd International Development Director Sd3 Global Tel +44 (0)20 8488 3911 Fax +44 (0)870 130 8412 36 Earls Court Road, London W8 6EJ, UK Mob +44 (0)7775 822417 W: www.Sd3-global.com This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and destroy it. "Think before you Print-please do not print this email unless you really need to" Sd3 ClimateEnergy Limited is registered in England; Company No: 616208; VAT No: 899452946; Registered Office: 49 Romola Road, London, SE24 9BA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071002/fd625d47/attachment-0001.html From arturgv at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 05:52:15 2007 From: arturgv at yahoo.com (Artur Gevorgyan) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 02:52:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Harmonization of soil classification systems Message-ID: <645948.7782.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear GHG Inventory Experts Attention: Land Use, Land?Use Change and Forestry Experts Being engaged in the national GHG inventory, for Land Use, Land?Use Change and Forestry in Armenia for preparation of the SNC under the UNFCCC, presently an issue to harmonize national soil type classification with the international WRB or USDA ones is being faced, in order to estimate emissions/removals from the mineral soils, due to land use/land use change, management regime and input level at the Tier 1 level. I assume that this task might also be of interest of those Eastern European and Commonwealth of Independent Countries (post soviet union), which have similar national soil classification systems and pursuing estimation of carbon stock changes from mineral soils at the default level. Please see the attached the sample local soil map of Armenia. In addition, I am looking for any numerical value or other supporting threshold to distinguish properly organic soils into nutrient poor or nutrient rich ones, as requested by the GPG 2003. Appreciating any support to handle with the raised issue, I would like to highlight, that the objective of the request is not the comparison of different soil classification systems, their +/-, but creating linkages among them, enabling using of relevant IPCC default factors and reference soil organic carbon data. Of course, the problem can easily be solved applying GPG 2003 Tier 2 level; however at present there is a lack of sufficient local data for its application. Thank you. I look forward to tackle the raised issues with your help. Best regards, Artur Gevorgyan ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/index.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: National Soil Types Map - Armenia.gif Type: image/gif Size: 44310 bytes Desc: 2836874756-National Soil Types Map - Armenia.gif Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071002/de26f4a6/attachment.gif From akelly at climatetrust.org Tue Oct 2 17:52:21 2007 From: akelly at climatetrust.org (Alexia Kelly) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:52:21 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] Need your support In-Reply-To: <020701c8052f$d474df10$8401a8c0@DuncanT60> References: <40AA8F5BF5C68941B3250FACBBB675E0016EF72F@D06ONSIGHT01.D06.Mi8OnSight.com> <020701c8052f$d474df10$8401a8c0@DuncanT60> Message-ID: <005801c8053e$827b9eb0$6f01a8c0@DDV7BXC1> James, You might also try this website: http://www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/sert/embodied/. The Sustainable Energy Research Team at the University of Bath has developed a downloadable database of embodied energy data and may have helpful information. I haven't used it personally and thus can't vouch for its accuracy, but it may be a useful resource. Best of luck! Alexia C. Kelly Policy Analyst The Climate Trust 65 SW Yamhill St., Suite 400 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: 503.238.1915 x 208 Skype: alexia.kelly akelly at climatetrust.org _____ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Duncan Noble Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:07 PM To: 'James Anderson'; discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Need your support Dear James: What you (and I am sure many others) are looking for has been the bread and butter of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies for more than 30 years. There is a very large existing body of knowledge on LCA including internationally accepted standards (ISO 14040 series, including 14044), books, case studies, tools and databases. I urge those active in the area of carbon footprints for products to inform themselves about LCA. I'm not saying all the answers are there, but many of the questions have been asked and many answers do exist. If you put together the existing body of knowledge on LCA and add GHG measurement and reporting (e.g., ISO 14064 standards, WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol, etc.) you have a pretty powerful body of knowledge in this area. As usual, the first answer to your question is, it depends on many things, including... ... goal and scope of your study ... boundaries of your assessment ... raw materials vs. fabric (e.g., nylon) ... details of the material characteristics (e.g. type of nylon) ... requirement for industry average data vs. facility specific data ... geographic specificity required ... etc., etc., etc. Note that this is not simply an energy intensity/energy balance issue, as some processes result in GHG emissions quite unrelated to energy (e.g. N2O from production of adipic acid - a Nylon precursor). There are several public and private databases available that contain this information, including the Plastics Europe ecoprofiles, ecoinvent, and various LCA tools such as GaBi. Best regards ... Duncan Duncan Noble, Five Winds International Our Vision: "Value Without Burden" 1306 Wellington Street, Suite 300 Ottawa, ON K1Y 3B2 CANADA t: (613) 722-6629 x224 f: (613) 722-0574 d.noble at fivewinds.com www.fivewinds.com _____ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of James Anderson Sent: September 26, 2007 3:33 PM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Need your support Dear Colleague I am currently assisting a sportswear manufacturer establish the product embodied emissions. Could you please let me know where I might find carbon emissions per unit mass for the following materials to be made for the user markets: - Nylon - Polyester - Gore - Mesh (50% nylon/ 50% leather) - Suede Warm regards James Member of GHGNETWORK.ORG James Anderson Founding CEO Sd3 ClimateEnergy Ltd International Development Director Sd3 Global Tel +44 (0)20 8488 3911 Fax +44 (0)870 130 8412 36 Earls Court Road, London W8 6EJ, UK Mob +44 (0)7775 822417 W: www.Sd3-global.com This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and destroy it. "Think before you Print-please do not print this email unless you really need to" Sd3 ClimateEnergy Limited is registered in England; Company No: 616208; VAT No: 899452946; Registered Office: 49 Romola Road, London, SE24 9BA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071002/c26c2ae9/attachment-0001.html From khoumamamadou at yahoo.fr Wed Oct 3 08:02:56 2007 From: khoumamamadou at yahoo.fr (Khouma Mamadou) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 12:02:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [GHG Network] Re : Harmonization of soil classification systems Message-ID: <962740.87203.qm@web25401.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear all The purpose of categorizing soils into low activity clay and high activity clay is to simplify soil carbon stock estimation. In most of temperate soils you have Montmorillionite and illite as High activity clays. In most of tropical soils you have kaolinite as a low activity clay.You can have vertisoils that contain high activity clay in both temperate and tropical environment. Unfortunately the type of clay is not usually given by soil analysis. For the practical case of M. Gevorgyan, as you have a soil map of Armenia, you can use the carbon content of your different soil units to calculate the carbon stock at 30 cm depth. This will be more accurate than trying to correlate Armenian soils with low and high activity clay. For the second issue. the World Reference Base for soils differentiates Histosols from mineral soils. Histosols comprise soils formed in organic material. Common names are peat soils, muck soils, bog soils and organic soils. You can use base saturation of your soils to distinguish between nutrient poor and nutrient rich. A base saturation lower than 50 % can be considered nutrient poor and a base saturation equal or higher to 50 % can be considred nutrient rich. Working with soil scientists of your country can help solve all these difficulties. Regards Mamadou Dr Mamadou Khouma Ing?nieur Agronome B.P. 50037 Dakar, R.P. Senegal Tel bureau : (221) 869 39 53 Cellulaire : (221) 632 13 88 ----- Message d'origine ---- De : Artur Gevorgyan ? : discuss at ghgnetwork.org Envoy? le : Mardi, 2 Octobre 2007, 9h52mn 15s Objet : [GHG Network] Harmonization of soil classification systems Dear GHG Inventory Experts Attention: Land Use, Land?Use Change and Forestry Experts Being engaged in the national GHG inventory, for Land Use, Land?Use Change and Forestry in Armenia for preparation of the SNC under the UNFCCC, presently an issue to harmonize national soil type classification with the international WRB or USDA ones is being faced, in order to estimate emissions/removals from the mineral soils, due to land use/land use change, management regime and input level at the Tier 1 level. I assume that this task might also be of interest of those Eastern European and Commonwealth of Independent Countries (post soviet union), which have similar national soil classification systems and pursuing estimation of carbon stock changes from mineral soils at the default level. Please see the attached the sample local soil map of Armenia. In addition, I am looking for any numerical value or other supporting threshold to distinguish properly organic soils into nutrient poor or nutrient rich ones, as requested by the GPG 2003. Appreciating any support to handle with the raised issue, I would like to highlight, that the objective of the request is not the comparison of different soil classification systems, their +/-, but creating linkages among them, enabling using of relevant IPCC default factors and reference soil organic carbon data. Of course, the problem can easily be solved applying GPG 2003 Tier 2 level; however at present there is a lack of sufficient local data for its application. Thank you. I look forward to tackle the raised issues with your help. Best regards, Artur Gevorgyan ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/index.html _____________________________________________________________________________ Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071003/7c75bd91/attachment.html From emehlhoff at cameron-cole.com Thu Oct 4 16:53:54 2007 From: emehlhoff at cameron-cole.com (Eric Mehlhoff) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:53:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] CO2 emissions from dynamometer tests Message-ID: <20071004205354.E6318C1806B@milkyway.forumone.com> Dear Readers, I am interested to find an emission factor for CO2 emissions from dynamometer tests. As I understand it, I would be looking for an emission factor for CO2 emissions from a vehicle without a catalytic converter. Does anybody have a suggestion for a source for this number? From d.noble at fivewinds.com Fri Oct 5 10:59:37 2007 From: d.noble at fivewinds.com (Duncan Noble) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:59:37 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Need your support In-Reply-To: <40AA8F5BF5C68941B3250FACBBB675E0018984F7@D06ONSIGHT01.D06.Mi8OnSight.com> References: <40AA8F5BF5C68941B3250FACBBB675E0016EF72F@D06ONSIGHT01.D06.Mi8OnSight.com> <020701c8052f$d474df10$8401a8c0@DuncanT60> <005801c8053e$827b9eb0$6f01a8c0@DDV7BXC1> <40AA8F5BF5C68941B3250FACBBB675E0018984F7@D06ONSIGHT01.D06.Mi8OnSight.com> Message-ID: <000001c80760$5a85c470$1308a8c0@DuncanT60> Hi James: Be careful using embodied energy data for at least two reasons: 1. You will have to make some assumptions about the carbon intensity of the energy, which may not reflect the reality of your client's supply chain. 2. You will totally miss any GHG emissions not related to energy consumption. Two immediate examples that come to mind for the materials you are interested in are nitrous oxide emissions associated with the production of nylon, and methane emissions associated with the production of suede. Cheers ... Duncan _____ From: James Anderson [mailto:james.anderson at sd3-global.com] Sent: October 5, 2007 7:55 AM To: Alexia Kelly; Duncan Noble; discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: RE: [GHG Network] Need your support Dear Alexia & Duncan Will look into these. And Thank you. Warm regards James _____ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Alexia Kelly Sent: 02 October 2007 22:52 To: 'Duncan Noble'; James Anderson; discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Need your support James, You might also try this website: http://www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/sert/embodied/. The Sustainable Energy Research Team at the University of Bath has developed a downloadable database of embodied energy data and may have helpful information. I haven't used it personally and thus can't vouch for its accuracy, but it may be a useful resource. Best of luck! Alexia C. Kelly Policy Analyst The Climate Trust 65 SW Yamhill St., Suite 400 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: 503.238.1915 x 208 Skype: alexia.kelly akelly at climatetrust.org _____ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Duncan Noble Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:07 PM To: 'James Anderson'; discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Need your support Dear James: What you (and I am sure many others) are looking for has been the bread and butter of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies for more than 30 years. There is a very large existing body of knowledge on LCA including internationally accepted standards (ISO 14040 series, including 14044), books, case studies, tools and databases. I urge those active in the area of carbon footprints for products to inform themselves about LCA. I'm not saying all the answers are there, but many of the questions have been asked and many answers do exist. If you put together the existing body of knowledge on LCA and add GHG measurement and reporting (e.g., ISO 14064 standards, WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol, etc.) you have a pretty powerful body of knowledge in this area. As usual, the first answer to your question is, it depends on many things, including... ... goal and scope of your study ... boundaries of your assessment ... raw materials vs. fabric (e.g., nylon) ... details of the material characteristics (e.g. type of nylon) ... requirement for industry average data vs. facility specific data ... geographic specificity required ... etc., etc., etc. Note that this is not simply an energy intensity/energy balance issue, as some processes result in GHG emissions quite unrelated to energy (e.g. N2O from production of adipic acid - a Nylon precursor). There are several public and private databases available that contain this information, including the Plastics Europe ecoprofiles, ecoinvent, and various LCA tools such as GaBi. Best regards ... Duncan Duncan Noble, Five Winds International Our Vision: "Value Without Burden" 1306 Wellington Street, Suite 300 Ottawa, ON K1Y 3B2 CANADA t: (613) 722-6629 x224 f: (613) 722-0574 d.noble at fivewinds.com www.fivewinds.com _____ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of James Anderson Sent: September 26, 2007 3:33 PM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Need your support Dear Colleague I am currently assisting a sportswear manufacturer establish the product embodied emissions. Could you please let me know where I might find carbon emissions per unit mass for the following materials to be made for the user markets: - Nylon - Polyester - Gore - Mesh (50% nylon/ 50% leather) - Suede Warm regards James Member of GHGNETWORK.ORG James Anderson Founding CEO Sd3 ClimateEnergy Ltd International Development Director Sd3 Global Tel +44 (0)20 8488 3911 Fax +44 (0)870 130 8412 36 Earls Court Road, London W8 6EJ, UK Mob +44 (0)7775 822417 W: www.Sd3-global.com This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and destroy it. "Think before you Print-please do not print this email unless you really need to" Sd3 ClimateEnergy Limited is registered in England; Company No: 616208; VAT No: 899452946; Registered Office: 49 Romola Road, London, SE24 9BA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071005/393ccb87/attachment.html From elehner at clearcarbonconsulting.com Fri Oct 5 10:57:20 2007 From: elehner at clearcarbonconsulting.com (Erin Lehner) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 09:57:20 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] Fiji & PNG Electricity Emissions Factors Message-ID: Looking for guidance on a reasonable emissions factor for purchased electricity for both Fiji and Papua New Guinea. Thanks! Erin Lehner elehner at clearcarbonconsulting.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071005/78214358/attachment.html From jdaw at pirnie.com Mon Oct 8 12:11:59 2007 From: jdaw at pirnie.com (Jennifer Daw) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 12:11:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] LCA tools for water treatment Message-ID: <20071008161159.D2B85C18848@milkyway.forumone.com> Hi there, I am looking at using SimaPro or Gabi for an LCA of a proposed reverse osmosis water treatment facility in order to help a client determine a more sustainble option. We would like to be able to account for some of the intangible factors as well, such as burden on the community. Does anyone have a recommendation of a particular LCA tool that might be more suited to an evaluation of this sort? Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks! Jennifer Daw From edward.langham at epc.ws Mon Oct 8 17:10:26 2007 From: edward.langham at epc.ws (Edward Langham) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:10:26 -1100 Subject: [GHG Network] Fiji & PNG Electricity Emissions Factors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20071008211041.ABDCBC188E2@milkyway.forumone.com> Erin, This information for Fiji is kept on the "National Energy Statistics Database" at the Fiji Department of Energy, although I have not been there for a few years so cannot vouch for how well updated it is. The contact is Inia Saula on energy at fdoe.gov.fj True emissions factors in Fiji depend strongly on the island on which the project is located although I have seen emissions reductions projects considered to be "at the margin" calculated using standard emissions factors for diesel fuel. Also, I believe there was a relatively recent CDM methodology for a hydro project on the main island which was submitted to the secretariat which might be able to guide you. Check out the UNFCCC website for this. I've no idea about PNG though unfortunately. Kind regards, Ed Langham Electric Power Corporation Apia, Samoa _____ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Erin Lehner Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 3:57 AM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Fiji & PNG Electricity Emissions Factors Looking for guidance on a reasonable emissions factor for purchased electricity for both Fiji and Papua New Guinea. Thanks! Erin Lehner elehner at clearcarbonconsulting.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071008/2e1412b0/attachment.html From Charles.Russell at gcal.ac.uk Tue Oct 9 06:43:58 2007 From: Charles.Russell at gcal.ac.uk (Russell, Charles) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:43:58 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] Research Position at University of Edinburgh - Scotland In-Reply-To: <20071008211041.ABDCBC188E2@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: Colleagues, Dr Craig Mackenzie of Edinburgh University is looking for a high caliber person for the position below. If you know of anyone that may be interested, please could you have them contact Craig directly for further information and discussions. Research Assistant, Carbon Benchmarking Project, University of Edinburgh, School of Management. Ref. 3008080 - www.jobs.ed.ac.uk. Closing date 26 October, 2007. The Carbon Benchmarking Project has recently been established at the Management School and Economics to benchmark corporate performance on climate change. This groundbreaking project will publish a series of sector-specific benchmarking reports, based on frameworks it is developing with the support of companies and other stakeholders. The Project aims to develop the standards, methods and networks that will enable climate change performance benchmarking to take place on a global basis. The Project requires a research assistant to support the development of the benchmarking frameworks, to gather data from companies, and contribute to the production of the benchmarking reports. A post-graduate qualification in environmental management or a related field is required, and a experience working with or gathering data from companies on corporate social responsibility and environmental management issues would be helpful. The appointment will be for two years in the first instance. For further information and details of how to apply, please use this link: http://www.jobs.ed.ac.uk/vacancies/index.cfm?fuseaction=vacancies.furthe rdetails&vacancy_ref=3008080 Dr Charles Russell Caledonian Environment Centre Buchanan House Glasgow Caledonian University Cowcaddens Road Glasgow G4 0BA Tel: 0141 331 8427 Fax: 0141 273 1430 Email:Charles.Russell at gcal.ac.uk Web:www.gcal.ac.uk/environment ________________________________ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Edward Langham Sent: 08 October 2007 22:10 To: 'Erin Lehner'; discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Fiji & PNG Electricity Emissions Factors Erin, This information for Fiji is kept on the "National Energy Statistics Database" at the Fiji Department of Energy, although I have not been there for a few years so cannot vouch for how well updated it is. The contact is Inia Saula on energy at fdoe.gov.fj True emissions factors in Fiji depend strongly on the island on which the project is located although I have seen emissions reductions projects considered to be "at the margin" calculated using standard emissions factors for diesel fuel. Also, I believe there was a relatively recent CDM methodology for a hydro project on the main island which was submitted to the secretariat which might be able to guide you. Check out the UNFCCC website for this. I've no idea about PNG though unfortunately. Kind regards, Ed Langham Electric Power Corporation Apia, Samoa ________________________________ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Erin Lehner Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 3:57 AM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Fiji & PNG Electricity Emissions Factors Looking for guidance on a reasonable emissions factor for purchased electricity for both Fiji and Papua New Guinea. Thanks! Erin Lehner elehner at clearcarbonconsulting.com Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner , and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071009/eaa33786/attachment-0001.html From cbaldwin at greenseal.org Tue Oct 9 12:31:13 2007 From: cbaldwin at greenseal.org (Cheryl Baldwin) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 12:31:13 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Green Seal Environmental Scientist Job Posting Message-ID: <7EB2C1D271D42D4BB2F226C31920ADA62FDE43@GREENSEALSBS.greenseal.cc> Hello: Seeing a job posting today, I thought I'd also forward a posting we have for an Environmental Scientist. Cheryl Baldwin Environmental Scientist Green Seal, Inc. Washington, DC US Job Type: Full-Time Green Seal is seeking an Environmental Scientist to work on environmental leadership standard setting across a range of products and services. The role will support and lead the development of environmental leadership standards for Green Seal. The main responsibilities of this position will be to evaluate technical research and develop criteria for environmental leadership standards; interact and coordinate with external stakeholders; and manage projects. It is preferred that the candidate have an MS plus 3 years experience or a PhD in chemistry, engineering, environmental science, toxicology or related field. Experience with life cycle research and critical analysis of technical research is strongly preferred. Experience with standard development and stakeholder processes is not required, but recommended. Green Seal is a non-profit organization devoted to environmental standard setting, product certification, and public education. Green Seal's mission is to work towards environmental sustainability by identifying and promoting environmentally responsible products, purchasing, and production. To apply, please email with a cover letter, resume, and three references to greenseal at greenseal.org, by October 29, 2007. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071009/cbb717a3/attachment.html From DBroekhoff at wri.org Tue Oct 9 17:13:50 2007 From: DBroekhoff at wri.org (Derik Broekhoff) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:13:50 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Fiji & PNG Electricity Emissions Factors References: <20071008211041.ABDCBC188E2@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342C96F532@wricsex029330.WRI.CRM.Local> Dear Erin: If you are looking only for an emission factor to apply to purchased electricity, it is generally acceptable to use a simple average emission factor for the relevant grid. This is the approach recommended under the WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. Unfortunately, we do not have average emission factors for Fiji or Papua New Guinea in our "indirect CO2 emissions" calculation tool (available at http://www.ghgprotocol.org ). As Mr. Langham noted, appropriate average emission factors for Fiji may vary from island to island. If you are looking to calculate marginal emission factors for displaced or avoided electricity (e.g., for renewable energy projects), then CDM methodologies will generally be appropriate. I would also note that the GHG Protocol Initiative has recently published a supplement to our "GHG Protocol for Project Accounting" focused on estimating marginal grid emission factors. I am sending a separate announcement to the GHG Network list that describes these guidelines in more detail. Best Regards, Derik Broekhoff Senior Associate World Resources Institute Climate and Energy Program 10 G Street NE Washington, DC 20002 (202) 729-7628 dbroekhoff at wri.org ________________________________ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Edward Langham Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 5:10 PM To: 'Erin Lehner'; discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Fiji & PNG Electricity Emissions Factors Erin, This information for Fiji is kept on the "National Energy Statistics Database" at the Fiji Department of Energy, although I have not been there for a few years so cannot vouch for how well updated it is. The contact is Inia Saula on energy at fdoe.gov.fj True emissions factors in Fiji depend strongly on the island on which the project is located although I have seen emissions reductions projects considered to be "at the margin" calculated using standard emissions factors for diesel fuel. Also, I believe there was a relatively recent CDM methodology for a hydro project on the main island which was submitted to the secretariat which might be able to guide you. Check out the UNFCCC website for this. I've no idea about PNG though unfortunately. Kind regards, Ed Langham Electric Power Corporation Apia, Samoa ________________________________ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Erin Lehner Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 3:57 AM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Fiji & PNG Electricity Emissions Factors Looking for guidance on a reasonable emissions factor for purchased electricity for both Fiji and Papua New Guinea. Thanks! Erin Lehner elehner at clearcarbonconsulting.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner , and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071009/d8ae0643/attachment.html From DBroekhoff at wri.org Tue Oct 9 17:18:45 2007 From: DBroekhoff at wri.org (Derik Broekhoff) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:18:45 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Protocol Guidelines for Grid-Connected Electricity Projects References: <20071008211041.ABDCBC188E2@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342C96F542@wricsex029330.WRI.CRM.Local> Dear GHG Network Members: Although previous posts to the GHG Network have already mentioned it, I would like to formally announce that the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative has published a new set of guidelines related to quantifying emission reductions in the electricity sector. The GHG Protocol "Guidelines for Quantifying GHG Reductions from Grid-Connected Electricity Projects" is a how-to manual based on the GHG Protocol for Project Accounting, previously developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). The guidelines explain how to quantify GHG reductions from renewable energy, energy efficiency, and other projects that displace or avoid electricity generation on power grids. They are designed for two target audiences. The first is project developers seeking to quantify GHG reductions from individual projects. For these users, the guidelines provide step-by-step procedures to account for GHG reductions based on project characteristics and circumstances. The second audience is designers of GHG initiatives, systems, and programs. These users will find guidance for deriving grid-specific emissions factors that can be used to estimate baseline emissions for whole classes of projects. Project developers familiar with the CDM "Consolidated methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources" (ACM 0002) will find the GHG Protocol procedures to be very similar. The GHG Protocol guidelines, however, provide in-depth guidance on choosing appropriate weightings for "Build Margin" and "Operating Margin" emission factors, as well as choosing appropriate methods to estimate these factors. The guidelines are designed to be program- and policy-neutral and therefore afford flexibility in the choice of procedures and calculation methods. At the same time, they are designed to provide a rigorous, comprehensive, transparent, and credible accounting of GHG reductions in situations where modeling the impacts of projects would be too costly or time consuming. As with previous WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol publications, these latest guidelines were developed in consultation with an international group of experts and stakeholders. The guidelines are available for download at http://www.ghgprotocol.org . Please feel free to contact me if you have specific questions. Best Regards, Derik Broekhoff Senior Associate World Resources Institute Climate and Energy Program 10 G Street NE Washington, DC 20002 (202) 729-7628 dbroekhoff at wri.org -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner , and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071009/272c9fa2/attachment.html From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Wed Oct 10 11:40:58 2007 From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator]) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:40:58 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Launch of GHG Management Institute Message-ID: <20dd85730710100840u7baff3edq7c2a23c7490a0c10@mail.gmail.com> Network Members, I am happy to announce that the GHG Expert Network is a co-founding partner in the new Greenhouse Gas Management Institute . The Institute is a non-profit initiative offering e-learning courses on how to measure, account, report, and manage greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Our expectations is that the Institute will dramatically help further the mission of the GHG Experts Network. "Our mission is to train and develop a community of experts with the highest standards of professional practice in measuring, accounting, and managing greenhouse gas emissions." The Institutes's curriculum addresses the needs of corporate environmental and sustainability managers, GHG inventory managers, investors, auditors, executives, as well as the staff of nonprofits and government ministries who need to learn more about GHG management. Courses address entity-level (e.g., corporate) and project-level accounting, product footprint and supply chain accounting, mitigation, and professional GHG services. Learners can select and create their own curriculum and take advantage of the convenience and effectiveness of e-learning. The classes are limited to 40 seats and are structured to fit personal schedules. To learn more, visit our website ( www.ghginstitute.org). I encourage you to spread the word to your friends and colleagues. Our first course, developed by the World Resource Institutes's GHG Protocol team, starts on November 1. Michael Gillenwater Executive Director, GHG Experts Network Dean, GHG Management Institute # # # Press Release ** *October 10 th, 2007 * *Teaching the new carbon math: the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Management Institute is training how to measure and manage GHG emissions* The new math is carbon accounting and the GHG Management Institute is poised to teach it. Dedicated to training tomorrow's managers of GHG emissions, the GHG Management Institute is now live at www.ghginstitute.org. Earth Council Geneva (ECG), the GHG Experts Network (GEN) and ClimateCHECK have combined their forces and expertise to form this institute committed to professional learning on climate change. "Our mission is to train and develop a community of experts with the highest standards of professional practice in measuring and managing GHG emissions," said Gao Pronove, Managing Director of the Institute. "Our supported online learning platform, blending e-learning and interaction with expert instructors, allows us to train a global audience in the most effective manner possible." The Institute's focus is on GHG emissions accounting, inventories, management, and verification. The courses are developed and instructed by the same experts who prepared today's international standards and founded national government programs. "The Institute's philosophy is 'if you cannot accurately measure GHG emissions, you cannot manage them'," according to Michael Gillenwater, Dean of the Institute and Director of the GHG Experts Network. "Quantifying greenhouse gases is the first step for a company to truly understand and assess their climate liabilities. It is only after this that corporations can manage their emissions and reduce their impact. Reto Braun, Chairman of ECG and former CEO of the Swiss Post and previous President of Unisys, said: "After having trained over 7,000 learners in more than 80 countries on the subjects of global trade, climate change and biodiversity, we are pleased to work with our partners in launching this important initiative." "The content that our GHG Protocol team designs is considered a global standard," said Jonathan Lash, President, World Resources Institute (WRI), which is working with the GHG Management Institute to develop its first course on corporate GHG emissions accounting. "It is critical that energy managers ? whether they're working on projects throughout the developing world or trying to make improvements at their individual companies ? really get their heads around these issues. The GHG Management Institute will promote best practice and help build confidence in the professional competencies of GHG practitioners, according to Tom Baumann, CEO of ClimateCHECK. "The Institute is committed to ensuring that everyone around the world can access these courses," stated Janos Pasztor, Director, UN Environment Management Group. "They have created a need-based scholarship fund to ensure that this level of access is possible." The first classes are open for enrollment, and are due to begin November 1st. More information is available at the website - www.ghginstitute.org. # # # Greenhouse Gas Management Institute Tel +1-612-284-3589 www.ghginstitute.org *About The Greenhouse Gas Management Institute:* The GHG Management Institute, an alliance of experts in GHG accounting and e-learning, recognized the need, the urgency, and the timeliness of offering state-of-the-art training. The resulting programs provide instruction of the most rigorous standards, in a manner proven to be the most efficient learning method of the modern world? supported online courses. Online learning can train large groups of people quickly, from all walks of life, with the ability to accommodate their personal needs and schedules. The Institute is working closely with WRI in developing a series of courses related to the GHG Protocol, as well as other organizations such as the Carbon Disclosure Project, Clear Carbon Consulting, and Abatement Solutions, in developing new courses and programs. These courses will be most useful to corporate managers who are now being tasked with developing something oftentimes unknown to them (GHG accounting) and to prospective GHG consultants. This presents an incredible opportunity to learn a valuable and very marketable skill. In the spirit of reaching out to as many people as possible, the Institute offers scholarships and discounts for non-profit organizations, as well as need-based organizations and individuals in developing countries. Sponsors for such scholarships are most welcome, and will be acknowledged on the Institute's website and in its publications. As a non-profit operation, the Institute is committed to reinvesting all above-cost revenues, generated from course enrollment, into the development of the Institute and its courses, the scholarship fund, and the mission of ECG and GEN. A Certificate of Participation is included with the cost of the course. For a Certificate of Proficiency, an exam must be passed. *About Earth Council Geneva (ECG):* ECG's mission is to empower people around the world to understand environmental issues, and to encourage them to pursue sustainable development. Since 2001 it has been the partner of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in training hundreds of international GHG experts tasked with reviewing the national GHG inventories of Parties to the UNFCCC. http://www.earthcouncil.com/ *About Greenhouse Gas Experts Network (GEN):* GEN is a professional network of experts in GHG inventories, monitoring, and verification. Launched in early 2006 with support of the United Nations Development Program, it has grown to over 800 members worldwide. The Network's mission is to professionalize the field and improve the capacity of experts, especially those in developing countries. http://www.ghgnetwork.org *About ClimateCHECK: * ClimateCHECK is an established leader of innovative GHG management services and products that achieve the double dividends of environmental and economic benefits. ClimateCHECK collaborates with a large network of research and not-for-profit organizations in working with companies to develop the knowledge and tools to manage GHG risks and opportunities. http://www.climate-check.com # # # -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071010/06b7a9d6/attachment.html From fasen at menara.ma Wed Oct 10 12:36:28 2007 From: fasen at menara.ma (fasen) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:36:28 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] RE : Launch of GHG Management Institute In-Reply-To: <20dd85730710100840u7baff3edq7c2a23c7490a0c10@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear all, Does anyone know what GHG are emitted from hazardous waste incineration ? Thanks and kind regards, faouzi senhaji Rabat Morocco fasen at menara.ma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071010/408c8ab3/attachment-0001.html From KEITH.J.FORBES at saic.com Thu Oct 11 15:09:00 2007 From: KEITH.J.FORBES at saic.com (Keith J. Forbes) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:09:00 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] ghg reductions from avoided paper use and use of recycled paper Message-ID: <1192129740.5868.9.camel@catedral> Dear colleagues, A client of mine is interested in allocating the reduction of CO2E from paper use to reduced paper, the use of more recycled paper, and other initiatives. I am aware of the Environmental Defense (in U.S.) Paper Calculator online, but need to be able to deal separately with reduced paper use per worker and more recycled content, which is tricky, since the paper my client has used all the way from baseline year has had some recycled content. I don't know how to separate out the recycled part's contribution (presumably less energy for processing) to reduced GHG from the "rest" of the paper itself. Ideally, one would just do a before/after calculation of total tonnage of paper and its recycled content, but the client needs to allocate between initiatives that reduced paper use (such as more digitalization) and those that increased recycled content use in paper that was consumed. I plan to give Environmental Defense a call, but would welcome other suggestions. Thanks, Keith -- Keith Joseph Forbes ~ Senior Climate Change and Sustainability Analyst, SAIC ~ 518 331 4982 ~ keith.j.forbes at saic.com From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Mon Oct 15 13:03:19 2007 From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator]) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:03:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Policing the Voluntary Carbon Market Message-ID: <148420.15206.qm@web38906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I wanted to alert you to an article some colleagues and I wrote that we believe has important policy implications for greenhouse gas emission markets. Policing the voluntary carbon market Voluntary greenhouse-gas emission offset markets are in need of government oversight. http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0711/full/climate.2007.58.html Reactions are welcome. michael [moderator] Michael Gillenwater Princeton University Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Program GHG Experts Network (Executive Director) GHG Management Institute (Dean of Institute) Environmental Resources Trust (Director of Verification Policy) Tel +1 202 997 3335 Skype: mwgillenwater gillenwater at alum.mit.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071015/d23fd88e/attachment.html From jmatt at synergy.ae Tue Oct 16 07:43:38 2007 From: jmatt at synergy.ae (Matt) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:43:38 +0400 Subject: [GHG Network] CDM Project Management Openings in Dubai/Abu Dhabi Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20071016154205.05733c88@synergy.ae> Those Interested may apply to Jei Matt, CEO, Synergy Executive Search on jmatt at synergy.ae Excellent & comprehensive tax free package on expatriate status will be provided, which includes housing, full medical for self & family, club memberships, an excellent bonus scheme & so on Excellent opportunity has arisen with a major initiative based out of the United Arab Emirates in Renewable Energy/Energy Efficiency and specifically in CDM Projects. The CDM Projects involved are plenty but is not limited to Solar Energy, Wind Farm, Hydro Power, Biofuel and potential in terms of CDM is tremendous. We are currently looking for several CDM Project Managers, CDM Implementation Consultants & Project Originators, subject matter experts in Green House Gas Emission Audit/Review can also apply Project Manager - CDM Implementation - Top Top Priority Job Purpose Responsible for project management and the supervision of all project related activities ensuring project completion to cost and time schedules. This will include the management of physical project activities as well as those related to CDM implementation and registration, including project finance, structuring, contract negotiations, post-implementation monitoring and asset operation. Key Tasks * Manages day-to-day project activities and ensures successful delivery as per schedule and budget. * Responsible for the development of project economics, technical due diligence and feasibility assessments. * Supports the Director of CMU and/or CDM Operations Manager in project structuring i.e. the selection of project participants (technology and strategic partners) and the arrangement of project finance. * Assists the Director of CMU and/or CDM Operations Manager in contract negotiations with clients and partners (mainly Emission Reduction Purchase Agreements and credit sharing agreements). * Responsible for project planning, budgeting and resource allocation, including the development of implementation plans and strategies which incorporate specific business conditions and clients requirements. * Manages the interface with clients (asset owners/project sponsors) and all other participants on the project including technology partners, engineering contractors and CDM consultants. * Responsible for all aspects of contract administration including project payments, procurement and issue management. * Responsible for the successful CDM project implementation including national approval, project design and methodology, registration and credit issuance. * Manages the physical project implementation including the coordination of on-site activities, the interface with contractors, technology partners and the project sponsors, in order to ensure the successful project delivery on time and on budget. * Responsible for project control and progress monitoring (conducts periodic project review meetings and prepares management progress reports). * Responsible for post-implementation monitoring, asset operation and maintenance. * Liaises and coordinates with other CMU teams in a cross-functional environment to ensure successful and timely project sourcing and implementation. Skills/Competencies required: * Understanding of climate change, the Kyoto Protocol, the carbon market and the Clean Development Mechanism (a plus). * Ability to work effectively in a team environment with aggressive implementation timetable. * Strong scientific and technology foundation * Strong leadership and interpersonal skills * Strong analytical and problem solving skills. * Excellent communication skills in English (written and verbal). Please note that we have roles in Validation, Verification & Monitoring & as Principal Consultants at Project Manager, Senior Project Manager & Program Manager levels. Please apply urgently to jmatt at synergy.ae Should you have any queries you may also direct the same to the id Regards, J Matt Chief Executive Synergy Executive Search +971 2 6780320 [] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071016/99f59340/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 15027c9.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7559 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071016/99f59340/attachment.jpg -------------- next part -------------- From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Wed Oct 17 11:17:39 2007 From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator]) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:17:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Classes Open - GHG Management Institute Message-ID: <760208.52962.qm@web38907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thank you everyone for your good wishes regarding the launch of the GHG Management Institute. We are embolden by the announcement by the Nobel committee. Congratulations to my IPCC co-author colleagues. Enrollment in our entity level GHG accounting class is now open. This course has been developed in partnership with the World Resources Institute. I encourage you to support the Network and the new GHG Management Institute by spreading the news about our classes to those you feel would benefit from training. Our classes now available are: Basics of Organizational GHG Accounting: State of the Art Setting Up a GHG Information System for Corporations and Organizations Basics of Project-level Accounting: State of the Art A description of our first class is below: Basics of Organizational GHG Accounting: State of the Art (Now Available!) Description: Many companies and other organizations are taking action to manage their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are a cause of climate change. Starting with an inventory of their sources and emissions (e.g. carbon footprint) is a good basis to design a management system for controlling and reducing emissions in the best way possible. Training courses for GHG inventories: ? the training materials present fundamental knowledge, interpretation and practice for the application of standards, protocols and other tools to quantify and manage GHG inventories. ? the materials are based on the WRI-WBCSD GHG Corporate Protocol and refer to the ISO 14064-1 International Standard for GHG Inventories , which are the generally accepted GHG accounting rules for voluntary markets. ? the materials describe major GHG inventory programs, including policies, eligibility criteria and major issues. ? includes worked examples, quizzes, and case studies ? Certificate of participation is included in course ? Certificate of proficiency is available for additional fee and requires the passing of an exam Key concepts covered include: ? Accounting principles ? Defining applications for inventory ? design and development of GHG inventories, ? establishing GHG boundaries for your organization, ? identifying emission sources, ? establishing base year, ? GHG targets, ? GHG quantification procedures, ? Reporting standards and options ? inventory quality management, and ? preparing for verification. Who should attend: Anyone with an interest in GHG management and in particular GHG inventory managers, corporate environmental and sustainability managers, investors, auditors. Course Developer: WRI - Ms. Taryn Fransen and Ms. Angel Hsu Instructor: Michael Gillenwater Class Schedule: 01-21NOV07 01-21DEC07 04-25JAN08 Cost: USD $1500, a 50% discount for non-profit non-governmental organizations, as well as governments and SMEs in developing countries -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071017/b222566b/attachment.html From oecos at earthlink.net Sat Oct 20 19:14:32 2007 From: oecos at earthlink.net (Jeffrey Creque) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:14:32 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] Ag Carbon Trading Message-ID: <380-2200710620231432109@earthlink.net> Can anyone in the discussion group put me in touch with existing carbon crediting/trading mechanism(s) valuing carbon sequestration in agricultural ecosystems on the west coast of the U.S.? Thank you. Jeffrey Creque West Marin Compost Coalition -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071020/4128ab6b/attachment.html From noel at ram.net.au Tue Oct 23 07:25:38 2007 From: noel at ram.net.au (Fiona Ryan) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:25:38 +1000 Subject: [GHG Network] UNFCCC reporting and Kyoto Reporting - AFOLU Message-ID: <471DDA32.8010509@ram.net.au> Hi all I wonder if anyone can tell me the nexus between what is required to be reported under the UNFCCC and what is required to be reported under the Kyoto Protocol. In particular if a country does not elect Forest Management under the Kyoto Protocol does that mean it does not need to report Forests Remaining Forests under the UNFCCC. Cheers Fiona From bernhard.schlamadinger at joanneum.at Tue Oct 23 08:42:47 2007 From: bernhard.schlamadinger at joanneum.at (Bernhard Schlamadinger) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:42:47 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] UNFCCC reporting and Kyoto Reporting - AFOLU In-Reply-To: <471DDA32.8010509@ram.net.au> References: <471DDA32.8010509@ram.net.au> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071023143829.0b989c00@joanneum.at> Dear Fiona, all countries must report "forests remaining forests", no matter whether they elected Forest Management under the Kyoto Protocol, or not. Please find attached the CRFs (common reporting formats) for this, the first part is for UNFCCC reporting, the second part is for additional information for Kyoto Protocol reporting. Best regards, Bernhard Schlamadinger At 13:25 23.10.2007, Fiona Ryan wrote: >Hi all > >I wonder if anyone can tell me the nexus between what is required to be >reported under the UNFCCC and what is required to be reported under the >Kyoto Protocol. > >In particular if a country does not elect Forest Management under the >Kyoto Protocol does that mean it does not need to report Forests >Remaining Forests under the UNFCCC. > >Cheers >Fiona >_______________________________________________ >Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network >www.ghgnetwork.org > >To post message: >Discuss mailing list >Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > >To unsubscribe: >http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: inf11[1].pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 189653 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071023/8554d208/attachment-0001.obj From ojende at hotmail.com Thu Oct 25 05:32:12 2007 From: ojende at hotmail.com (oliver jende) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:32:12 +0000 Subject: [GHG Network] carbon stocks and fluxes in urban areas In-Reply-To: References: <20dd85730710100840u7baff3edq7c2a23c7490a0c10@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear all I?m working on my Dr. Thesis in an international project to develop sustainable energy strategies for future megacities. Does anyone know where I can find data on carbon stocks and fluxes in urbanizing areas? I am also interested in Data about energy budget and transformation processes in such areas, i think there are lots of opportunities for the future. Thanks in advance M. Sc. Agr. Oliver Jende _________________________________________________________________ Explore the seven wonders of the world http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=7+wonders+world&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071025/af5da469/attachment.html From Charles.Russell at gcal.ac.uk Thu Oct 25 12:07:26 2007 From: Charles.Russell at gcal.ac.uk (Russell, Charles) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:07:26 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] Aircraft Jet Kerosene emissions factors Message-ID: Dear Colleagues I am conducting some work considering transatlantic flights. Please could someone explain to me why there is such a difference in the CO2 emission factor for Jet Kerosene between North America and the UK. Is the fuel composition that different? Or am I doing the calculations wrong? There is a growing number of airlines offering offsetting (love it or hate it - I'm just doing my job) - but is there an international standard for this. I have run the IPCC tier 2 on methodology for the data I have and used the IPCC default EF - but when I compare the tonnages with the those for equivalent flights with other companies then I am coming out much higher. In reviewing the UK emission factor for Jet Kerosene they are reporting at 0.853 tonnes CO2 per tonne JA versus the IPCC default of 3.567. Probably this is something that has been discussed before but ever keen to bring all integrity possible to the issue of offsetting - I need to understand what is going on or where I am going wrong with my calculations! Thanks in advance. Kind regards. Charles Russell Dr Charles Russell Caledonian Environment Centre Buchanan House Glasgow Caledonian University Cowcaddens Road Glasgow G4 0BA Tel: 0141 331 8427 Fax: 0141 273 1430 Email:Charles.Russell at gcal.ac.uk Web:www.gcal.ac.uk/environment -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071025/75cabcac/attachment.html From charlie.heaps at sei-us.org Thu Oct 25 13:21:01 2007 From: charlie.heaps at sei-us.org (Charlie Heaps) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:21:01 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Major New Release of LEAP: SEI's Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Policy Analysis Software Message-ID: The Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) announces the release of a major new version of the Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning system (LEAP), its well-known Windows-based analytical tool for climate change mitigation and energy policy analysis. LEAP allows complex quantitative questions about climate and energy policy to be addressed by a broad audience of users, ranging from leading energy experts to students. Key improvements in the latest version, LEAP2008, include new transport modeling capabilities, which allow users to better analyze bio-fuels and other fuel-switching policies, and new features that examine how requirements in energy importing countries can drive exports from other regions. Other changes focus on usability. In recent years, LEAP has become one of the most widely used modeling tools for energy policy analysis and climate change mitigation. It has already been applied by thousands of users in more than 150 countries worldwide. Its users include local and national government agencies, consulting companies, energy utilities, academics and non-governmental organizations. A press release describing the new version is available here: http://tinyurl.com/2fvoq7 LEAP and all its supporting documentation and training materials are available online here: http://www.energycommunity.org LEAP is distributed free of charge to academic, governmental and not-for-profit organizations based in the developing world. Information on licensing arrangements for other organizations is available here: http://tinyurl.com/33f8m3 For more information contact: Dr. Charles Heaps Stockholm Environment Institute - US Center Email: charlie.heaps at sei-us.org Web: http://www.sei-us.org and http://www.sei.se Phone: +1 (617) 627-3786 From erik.van.agtmaal at altimedes.com Thu Oct 25 13:28:00 2007 From: erik.van.agtmaal at altimedes.com (Erik van Agtmaal) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:28:00 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] Aircraft Jet Kerosene emissions factors In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001701c8172c$65271880$6401a8c0@lasef991605f5a> Charles, A good idea is to contact Andy Kershaw from BA. I am sure that he will be able to help you in explaining the difference. andy.kershaw at ba.com Kind regards Erik van Agtmaal Managing Partner Green Logistics Consultants Group Langeweide 2 1730 Asse Belgium Phone: +32(0)2 460 17 30 Fax: +32(0)2 460 57 20 Mobile: +32(0)476 34 51 17 E-mail: erik.van.agtmaal at altimedes.com Website: www.greenlogisticsconsultants.com _____ Van: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] Namens Russell, Charles Verzonden: donderdag 25 oktober 2007 18:07 Aan: Discuss at ghgnetwork.org Onderwerp: [GHG Network] Aircraft Jet Kerosene emissions factors Dear Colleagues I am conducting some work considering transatlantic flights. Please could someone explain to me why there is such a difference in the CO2 emission factor for Jet Kerosene between North America and the UK. Is the fuel composition that different? Or am I doing the calculations wrong? There is a growing number of airlines offering offsetting (love it or hate it - I'm just doing my job) - but is there an international standard for this. I have run the IPCC tier 2 on methodology for the data I have and used the IPCC default EF - but when I compare the tonnages with the those for equivalent flights with other companies then I am coming out much higher. In reviewing the UK emission factor for Jet Kerosene they are reporting at 0.853 tonnes CO2 per tonne JA versus the IPCC default of 3.567. Probably this is something that has been discussed before but ever keen to bring all integrity possible to the issue of offsetting - I need to understand what is going on or where I am going wrong with my calculations! Thanks in advance. Kind regards. Charles Russell Dr Charles Russell Caledonian Environment Centre Buchanan House Glasgow Caledonian University Cowcaddens Road Glasgow G4 0BA Tel: 0141 331 8427 Fax: 0141 273 1430 Email:Charles.Russell at gcal.ac.uk Web:www.gcal.ac.uk/environment -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071025/e1673529/attachment.html From heede at climatemitigation.com Thu Oct 25 14:34:02 2007 From: heede at climatemitigation.com (Rick Heede) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:34:02 -0600 Subject: [GHG Network] Aircraft Jet Kerosene emissions factors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Charles: I see (2006 IPCC Guidelines: Energy: Mobile Emissions: Aviation, page 3.71, footnote 11 to Table 3.6.9): ?CO2 for each aircraft based on 3.16 kg CO2 produced for each kg fuel used.? I have not verified the units used by UK for Jet-A, but assuming they report C, not CO2, the agreement is good: 3.16 kg CO2 / 3.667 CO2/C = 0.862 kg C. Let me know if you find that UK reports EF in CO2. IPCC 2006, Table 3.6.4 gives EF in kg CO2/TJ (71 500 kg CO2/TJ, with high and low range). I?m interested in your results, and invite you to let me know what you come up with. Best, -Rick-= ****************@******************* Richard Heede Climate Mitigation Services 1626 Gateway Road Snowmass, CO 81654-9214 USA 1-970-927-9511 office 1-970-343-0707 mobile < < < On 10/25/07 10:07 AM, "Russell, Charles" wrote: > Dear Colleagues > > I am conducting some work considering transatlantic flights. Please could > someone explain to me why there is such a difference in the CO2 emission > factor for Jet Kerosene between North America and the UK. Is the fuel > composition that different? Or am I doing the calculations wrong? > > There is a growing number of airlines offering offsetting (love it or hate it > ? I?m just doing my job) ? but is there an international standard for this. I > have run the IPCC tier 2 on methodology for the data I have and used the IPCC > default EF ? but when I compare the tonnages with the those for equivalent > flights with other companies then I am coming out much higher. In reviewing > the UK emission factor for Jet Kerosene they are reporting at 0.853 tonnes CO2 > per tonne JA versus the IPCC default of 3.567. > > Probably this is something that has been discussed before but ever keen to > bring all integrity possible to the issue of offsetting ? I need to understand > what is going on or where I am going wrong with my calculations! > > Thanks in advance. > > Kind regards. > > > Charles Russell > > Dr Charles Russell > Caledonian Environment Centre > Buchanan House > Glasgow Caledonian University > Cowcaddens Road > Glasgow G4 0BA > > Tel: 0141 331 8427 > Fax: 0141 273 1430 > Email:Charles.Russell at gcal.ac.uk > > Web:www.gcal.ac.uk/environment -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071025/ffaaa07d/attachment.html From d.noble at fivewinds.com Thu Oct 25 15:07:49 2007 From: d.noble at fivewinds.com (Duncan Noble) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:07:49 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Aircraft Jet Kerosene emissions factors References: <8E84CE5B3F134037ACB9745526149B8D@fw.local> Message-ID: <01CE0D85287E7A42968FB5C46568C64004A5CD@fwserver.fw.local> I suspect the lower number is a carbon emission factor, rather than a carbon dioxide emission factor. Any high carbon content fossil fuel is going to emit more than it's own weight in CO2 when it is burned. FYI, the WRI/WBCSD mobile combustion tool gives a default emission factor for jet kerosene of 3.2 tonnes CO2 per tonne of fuel. ... Duncan Duncan Noble Five Winds International - Value without Burden - _______________________________________________ www.fivewinds.com Ottawa, Canada Tel: +1.613.722.6629 ext. 224 Five Winds is a Carbon Neutral Company and follows a Sustainable Purchasing Policy ________________________________ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Russell, Charles Sent: October 25, 2007 12:31 PM To: Discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Aircraft Jet Kerosene emissions factors Dear Colleagues I am conducting some work considering transatlantic flights. Please could someone explain to me why there is such a difference in the CO2 emission factor for Jet Kerosene between North America and the UK. Is the fuel composition that different? Or am I doing the calculations wrong? There is a growing number of airlines offering offsetting (love it or hate it - I'm just doing my job) - but is there an international standard for this. I have run the IPCC tier 2 on methodology for the data I have and used the IPCC default EF - but when I compare the tonnages with the those for equivalent flights with other companies then I am coming out much higher. In reviewing the UK emission factor for Jet Kerosene they are reporting at 0.853 tonnes CO2 per tonne JA versus the IPCC default of 3.567. Probably this is something that has been discussed before but ever keen to bring all integrity possible to the issue of offsetting - I need to understand what is going on or where I am going wrong with my calculations! Thanks in advance. Kind regards. Charles Russell Dr Charles Russell Caledonian Environment Centre Buchanan House Glasgow Caledonian University Cowcaddens Road Glasgow G4 0BA Tel: 0141 331 8427 Fax: 0141 273 1430 Email:Charles.Russell at gcal.ac.uk Web:www.gcal.ac.uk/environment -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071025/89f40225/attachment.html From emehlhoff at cameron-cole.com Thu Oct 25 17:59:38 2007 From: emehlhoff at cameron-cole.com (Eric Mehlhoff) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:59:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon equivalent vs. Carbon Dioxide equivalent Message-ID: <20071025215938.6585CC18239@milkyway.forumone.com> Dear Colleagues, I am interested to understand the differences in carbon equivalents and carbon dioxide equivalents. >From my initial hunt, it appears that carbon equivalents are almost exclusively used in the US (EPA and some voluntary programs), but instances seem to taper off around 2003-2004. Does anyone have a good sense for the origin in using carbon equivalents as a metric, and is this metric still being used commonly or has it now been completely surpassed by the carbon dioxide equivalent? Is it more common to see carbon equivalents in sequestration projects? Is there any advantage to using carbon equivalents over carbon dioxide equivalents (These metrics are completely interchangeable anyway)? From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Thu Oct 25 19:18:44 2007 From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator]) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:18:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon equivalent vs. Carbon Dioxide equivalent Message-ID: <974563.38179.qm@web38901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Eric, In the United States, the climate change policy community started using carbon equivalents (specifically, MMTCE or million metric tons of carbon equivalents), following the practice of the scientific community, which still often talks in terms of carbon instead of CO2. While I was lead author of the U.S. greenhouse gas inventory we switched from MMTCE to Teragrams of CO2 to be consistent with international reporting and for much of the domestic policy communications (it also saves the conversation of CO2 to carbon when dealing with non-CO2 emissions when expressed on a GWP-weighted basis). However some groups within the United States continue with the old practice and even discuss emissions in terms of short tons or pounds instead of metric tons. There is certainly no advantage to using carbon instead of CO2. And I would say that for policy purposes that the international convention is to report in terms of CO2 equivalents. michael [moderator] Michael Gillenwater Princeton University Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Program GHG Experts Network (Executive Director) GHG Management Institute (Dean of Institute) Environmental Resources Trust (Director of Verification Policy) Tel +1 202 997 3335 Skype: mwgillenwater gillenwater at alum.mit.edu ----- Original Message ---- From: Eric Mehlhoff To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:59:38 PM Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon equivalent vs. Carbon Dioxide equivalent Dear Colleagues, I am interested to understand the differences in carbon equivalents and carbon dioxide equivalents. >From my initial hunt, it appears that carbon equivalents are almost exclusively used in the US (EPA and some voluntary programs), but instances seem to taper off around 2003-2004. Does anyone have a good sense for the origin in using carbon equivalents as a metric, and is this metric still being used commonly or has it now been completely surpassed by the carbon dioxide equivalent? Is it more common to see carbon equivalents in sequestration projects? Is there any advantage to using carbon equivalents over carbon dioxide equivalents (These metrics are completely interchangeable anyway)? _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071025/3ccfffe0/attachment-0001.html From tonyknowles at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 03:55:55 2007 From: tonyknowles at gmail.com (Tony Knowles) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:55:55 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon equivalent vs. Carbon Dioxide equivalent In-Reply-To: <20071025215938.6585CC18239@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20071025215938.6585CC18239@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <48ddf61a0710260055r2fadf955lcd88fc649441a8d@mail.gmail.com> Hi Eric, In addition to Michael's comments, tCO2e it is also the standard for trading. The commodity traded on any 'carbon exchange' is tCO2e. The logic behind trading tons of carbon dioixde as apposed to tons of carbon, is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with a certain atmospheric forcing potential, not pure carbon. In addition, it is easy to convert other greenhouse gases such as NxO's and methane to CO2e based on their own atmospheric forcing potential. I have copied in an explanatory splurb from a recent report below, but as an example, 1 tN2O in the atmosphere has the same atmospheric forcing potential as 296 tCO2e. 1 tN2O kept out of the atmosphere is therefore equal to 296 'carbon credits'. This allows all GHG to be equated and traded at tCO2e and negates the need for seperate markets and hopefully policies for each GHG. I hope this helps, Regards, Tony ------------------------------------------------------ Tony Knowles Senior Associate Genesis Analytics Cape Town South Africa Tel: +27 (0) 83 415 6239 tonyknowles at gmail.com ---------------------------------------------------- The tradable commodity of one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) The asset traded is one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e). Often referred to "carbon offsets" it is the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere through sequestration into terrestrial biomass or through a emission reduction project. Bass et al. (2000) define it as: "An amount of carbon withdrawn from the atmosphere by storage in vegetation and soil, for sufficient time to compensate for the radiative forcing over an agreed period (100 years is the convention used by the IPCC to calculate warming potential) caused by an emission of a specified quantity of CO2 or other greenhouse gases." The term "credit" has been included due the connotation of a carbon offset been used as credit to a party's emission reduction requirements ? to counter the 'debits' on their carbon budget. "Carbon credit" appears to be the colloquial term for tCO2e. The 'equivalent' concept The equivalent concept is used in greenhouse gas (GHG) emission trading to equate GHGs with differing global warming potentials due to their radiative forcing properties. Although most emphasis is placed on the reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide, there are a multitude of GHGs, each with it own radiative forcing properties. The nature and properties of each of the GHG is described at length in Houghton et al. 2001 (which is freely available off the www.unfccc.int webpage). Table 2 below is a summary of global warming potentials of the main GHGs currently traded. Table 2: Direct global warming potentials of other GHGs relative to carbon dioxide (on a mass basis). Source: pg388 of Houghton et al. (2001) Gas Global warming potential over 20 years CO2 1 CH4 (Methane) 23 N2O (Nitrous oxide) 296 One ton of nitrous oxide kept out of the atmosphere, therefore equates to 275 tons of carbon dioxide. Reference: Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P. J., Dai, X., Maskell, K. and Johnson, C. A. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The scientific basis. Contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. - Cambridge University Press, p. 881 On 25/10/2007, Eric Mehlhoff wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > I am interested to understand the differences in carbon equivalents and carbon dioxide equivalents. > > >From my initial hunt, it appears that carbon equivalents are almost exclusively used in the US (EPA and some voluntary programs), but instances seem to taper off around 2003-2004. > > Does anyone have a good sense for the origin in using carbon equivalents as a metric, and is this metric still being used commonly or has it now been completely surpassed by the carbon dioxide equivalent? > > Is it more common to see carbon equivalents in sequestration projects? > > Is there any advantage to using carbon equivalents over carbon dioxide equivalents (These metrics are completely interchangeable anyway)? > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- From hdginzo at arnet.com.ar Fri Oct 26 06:39:59 2007 From: hdginzo at arnet.com.ar (=?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E9ctor_D._Ginzo?=) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:39:59 -0300 Subject: [GHG Network] carbon stocks and fluxes in urban areas In-Reply-To: References: <20dd85730710100840u7baff3edq7c2a23c7490a0c10@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0A72DAA9AEBF4A38BE1424DCD22D5EF6@Vetus1> Dear Oliver, Let me suggest you visit the following websites: www.urbanclimate.net www.urban-climate.org This one is the official site of the International Association for Urban Climate. I'm sure you'll get there some threads leading to the data you are looking for. Cheers and best, H?ctor Ginzo ----- Original Message ----- From: oliver jende To: fasen ; 'Michael Gillenwater [moderator]' ; 'GHGNetwork' Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 6:32 AM Subject: [GHG Network] carbon stocks and fluxes in urban areas Dear all I?m working on my Dr. Thesis in an international project to develop sustainable energy strategies for future megacities. Does anyone know where I can find data on carbon stocks and fluxes in urbanizing areas? I am also interested in Data about energy budget and transformation processes in such areas, i think there are lots of opportunities for the future. Thanks in advance M. Sc. Agr. Oliver Jende ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Explore the seven wonders of the world Learn more! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071026/9c1179bd/attachment.html From m.aristegui at wanadoo.fr Fri Oct 26 08:21:26 2007 From: m.aristegui at wanadoo.fr (Marc ARISTEGUI) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:21:26 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG emissions for cotton crop Message-ID: Dear collegues, I am looking for the GHG emissions for the cotton crop (first in industrial production, and second in ecological production - I mean without pesticids and without fertilization). Thanks you, Marc ARISTEGUI m.aristegui at wanadoo.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071026/32742d6d/attachment.html From Todd.Haurin at m-e.aecom.com Fri Oct 26 11:25:44 2007 From: Todd.Haurin at m-e.aecom.com (Haurin, Todd) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:25:44 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon equivalent vs. Carbon Dioxide equivalent In-Reply-To: <48ddf61a0710260055r2fadf955lcd88fc649441a8d@mail.gmail.com> References: <20071025215938.6585CC18239@milkyway.forumone.com> <48ddf61a0710260055r2fadf955lcd88fc649441a8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <10B3D1C54588E64F9E58A55EF4CA6C0468A0C1@usla1ex007.na.aecomnet.com> Tony, I believe the universally accepted Global Warming Potential (GWP) for N20 is currently still 310, the value assigned in the Intergovernmental (IPCC's) Second Assessment Report (SAR). Even though more precise scientific research may reveal more specific GWP values it is critical that our society embrace and retain the GWP values over time since it will directly affect the value of an offset ton of a non-CO2 GHG gas. This is a sticky issue. Todd Haurin Project Scientist Metcalf & Eddy|AECOM 5075 Bradley Rd., Ste. 203 Santa Maria, CA 93455 805-938-8381 Office 805-450-4349 Mobile 805-938-0047 Fax todd.haurin at m-e.aecom.com www.aecom.com -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Tony Knowles Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 12:56 AM To: Eric Mehlhoff; discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Carbon equivalent vs. Carbon Dioxide equivalent Hi Eric, In addition to Michael's comments, tCO2e it is also the standard for trading. The commodity traded on any 'carbon exchange' is tCO2e. The logic behind trading tons of carbon dioixde as apposed to tons of carbon, is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with a certain atmospheric forcing potential, not pure carbon. In addition, it is easy to convert other greenhouse gases such as NxO's and methane to CO2e based on their own atmospheric forcing potential. I have copied in an explanatory splurb from a recent report below, but as an example, 1 tN2O in the atmosphere has the same atmospheric forcing potential as 296 tCO2e. 1 tN2O kept out of the atmosphere is therefore equal to 296 'carbon credits'. This allows all GHG to be equated and traded at tCO2e and negates the need for seperate markets and hopefully policies for each GHG. I hope this helps, Regards, Tony ------------------------------------------------------ Tony Knowles Senior Associate Genesis Analytics Cape Town South Africa Tel: +27 (0) 83 415 6239 tonyknowles at gmail.com ---------------------------------------------------- The tradable commodity of one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) The asset traded is one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e). Often referred to "carbon offsets" it is the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere through sequestration into terrestrial biomass or through a emission reduction project. Bass et al. (2000) define it as: "An amount of carbon withdrawn from the atmosphere by storage in vegetation and soil, for sufficient time to compensate for the radiative forcing over an agreed period (100 years is the convention used by the IPCC to calculate warming potential) caused by an emission of a specified quantity of CO2 or other greenhouse gases." The term "credit" has been included due the connotation of a carbon offset been used as credit to a party's emission reduction requirements - to counter the 'debits' on their carbon budget. "Carbon credit" appears to be the colloquial term for tCO2e. The 'equivalent' concept The equivalent concept is used in greenhouse gas (GHG) emission trading to equate GHGs with differing global warming potentials due to their radiative forcing properties. Although most emphasis is placed on the reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide, there are a multitude of GHGs, each with it own radiative forcing properties. The nature and properties of each of the GHG is described at length in Houghton et al. 2001 (which is freely available off the www.unfccc.int webpage). Table 2 below is a summary of global warming potentials of the main GHGs currently traded. Table 2: Direct global warming potentials of other GHGs relative to carbon dioxide (on a mass basis). Source: pg388 of Houghton et al. (2001) Gas Global warming potential over 20 years CO2 1 CH4 (Methane) 23 N2O (Nitrous oxide) 296 One ton of nitrous oxide kept out of the atmosphere, therefore equates to 275 tons of carbon dioxide. Reference: Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P. J., Dai, X., Maskell, K. and Johnson, C. A. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The scientific basis. Contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. - Cambridge University Press, p. 881 On 25/10/2007, Eric Mehlhoff wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > I am interested to understand the differences in carbon equivalents and carbon dioxide equivalents. > > >From my initial hunt, it appears that carbon equivalents are almost exclusively used in the US (EPA and some voluntary programs), but instances seem to taper off around 2003-2004. > > Does anyone have a good sense for the origin in using carbon equivalents as a metric, and is this metric still being used commonly or has it now been completely surpassed by the carbon dioxide equivalent? > > Is it more common to see carbon equivalents in sequestration projects? > > Is there any advantage to using carbon equivalents over carbon dioxide equivalents (These metrics are completely interchangeable anyway)? > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss From KEITH.J.FORBES at saic.com Fri Oct 26 11:34:56 2007 From: KEITH.J.FORBES at saic.com (Keith J. Forbes) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:34:56 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Aircraft Jet Kerosene emissions factors In-Reply-To: <01CE0D85287E7A42968FB5C46568C64004A5CD@fwserver.fw.local> References: <8E84CE5B3F134037ACB9745526149B8D@fw.local> <01CE0D85287E7A42968FB5C46568C64004A5CD@fwserver.fw.local> Message-ID: <1193412896.8265.8.camel@Catedral> 0.853 * 44/12 = 3.18 44/12 being the ration of the molecular mass of CO2 to C (C = 12, O = 16) so i think Duncan is probably correct. it is not unusual for ipcc and national factors to differ. my 0.02 of tCO2e ! keith On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 15:07 -0400, Duncan Noble wrote: > I suspect the lower number is a carbon emission factor, rather than a > carbon dioxide emission factor. Any high carbon content fossil fuel is > going to emit more than it's own weight in CO2 when it is burned. > > FYI, the WRI/WBCSD mobile combustion tool gives a default emission > factor for jet kerosene of 3.2 tonnes CO2 per tonne of fuel. > > ... Duncan > > Duncan Noble > > Five Winds International > > - Value without Burden - > > _______________________________________________ > > www.fivewinds.com > > Ottawa, Canada > > Tel: +1.613.722.6629 ext. 224 > > > > Five Winds is a Carbon Neutral Company and follows a Sustainable > Purchasing Policy > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org > [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Russell, Charles > Sent: October 25, 2007 12:31 PM > To: Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > Subject: [GHG Network] Aircraft Jet Kerosene emissions factors > > > > Dear Colleagues > > > > I am conducting some work considering transatlantic flights. Please > could someone explain to me why there is such a difference in the CO2 > emission factor for Jet Kerosene between North America and the UK. Is > the fuel composition that different? Or am I doing the calculations > wrong? > > > > There is a growing number of airlines offering offsetting (love it or > hate it ? I?m just doing my job) ? but is there an international > standard for this. I have run the IPCC tier 2 on methodology for the > data I have and used the IPCC default EF ? but when I compare the > tonnages with the those for equivalent flights with other companies > then I am coming out much higher. In reviewing the UK emission factor > for Jet Kerosene they are reporting at 0.853 tonnes CO2 per tonne JA > versus the IPCC default of 3.567. > > > > Probably this is something that has been discussed before but ever > keen to bring all integrity possible to the issue of offsetting ? I > need to understand what is going on or where I am going wrong with my > calculations! > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > Kind regards. > > > > > > Charles Russell > > > > Dr Charles Russell > > Caledonian Environment Centre > > Buchanan House > > Glasgow Caledonian University > > Cowcaddens Road > > Glasgow G4 0BA > > > > Tel: 0141 331 8427 > > Fax: 0141 273 1430 > > Email:Charles.Russell at gcal.ac.uk > > > > Web:www.gcal.ac.uk/environment > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss From j.graichen at oeko.de Sun Oct 28 18:17:13 2007 From: j.graichen at oeko.de (Jakob Graichen) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:17:13 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] Aircraft Jet Kerosene emissions factors In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01dc01c819b0$4b60c230$0544a8c0@oeko.local> Dear Charles, a good website for offsetting emissions from aviation is www.atmosfair.de (in English and German). The emissions calculator used takes aircraft, price class and type of flight (charter/scheduled) into account and non-co2 effects are estimated as well. Offsetting is done through gold standard CDM ? it is by far the most comprehensive site I have seen so far for compensating air travel. Regards, Jakob ___________________________________ ?ko-Institut, Institute for applied Ecology Novalisstr. 10 - 10115 Berlin - Germany Ph: +49 -30 -28 04 86 66 Fax: +49 -30 -28 04 86 88 ___________________________________ _____ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Russell, Charles Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 6:07 PM To: Discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Aircraft Jet Kerosene emissions factors Dear Colleagues I am conducting some work considering transatlantic flights. Please could someone explain to me why there is such a difference in the CO2 emission factor for Jet Kerosene between North America and the UK. Is the fuel composition that different? Or am I doing the calculations wrong? There is a growing number of airlines offering offsetting (love it or hate it ? I?m just doing my job) ? but is there an international standard for this. I have run the IPCC tier 2 on methodology for the data I have and used the IPCC default EF ? but when I compare the tonnages with the those for equivalent flights with other companies then I am coming out much higher. In reviewing the UK emission factor for Jet Kerosene they are reporting at 0.853 tonnes CO2 per tonne JA versus the IPCC default of 3.567. Probably this is something that has been discussed before but ever keen to bring all integrity possible to the issue of offsetting ? I need to understand what is going on or where I am going wrong with my calculations! Thanks in advance. Kind regards. Charles Russell Dr Charles Russell Caledonian Environment Centre Buchanan House Glasgow Caledonian University Cowcaddens Road Glasgow G4 0BA Tel: 0141 331 8427 Fax: 0141 273 1430 Email:Charles.Russell at gcal.ac.uk Web:www.gcal.ac.uk/environment -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071028/033b2bc9/attachment-0001.html From contecnica at cablecolor.hn Mon Oct 29 15:56:59 2007 From: contecnica at cablecolor.hn (Contecnica) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:56:59 -0600 Subject: [GHG Network] Greenhouse gas emissions consultation: Carbon Dioxide in the beverages and food industry Message-ID: <004801c81a65$df24d050$ce01030a@desktop> Friends, I am currently managing the greenhouse gas emissions inventory for the industrial sector in Honduras, Central America. Looking at the IPCC's technical guidelines (1996) the Honduran working group is using, I note the emissions associated with the food and beverages industries are NMVOCs only. A little sidenote states that Carbon Dioxide needs not be taken into account because such emissions pertain to the 'utilization of biological carbon'. Can someone further explain this to me? What happens with the CO2 emmited in the fermentation processes as the producion of beer and spirited drinks and the leavening of bread? In the alcoholic fermentation, one glucose molecule (C6) would go to yield two ethanol (C2) and two Carbon Dioxide (C1) molecules, of which the latter is a gaseous emission. C in glucose and ethanol is 'captured'; C in Carbon Dioxide is atmospheric gas (unless, of course, captured and retained as such, which to a point, the fermentation industry does). I yet don't understand why these emissions are regarded as utilization of biological carbon. Is the assumption that C in emitted fermentation CO2 is then captured in vegetable material synthesis that yields the crop that contains the glucose? If so, how are we sure of the balances? For a specific country, wouldn?t it be safest to take into account these emissions and then deduct them from overall C capture? Thanks for your insights. Carlos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071029/e970c4b5/attachment.html From KEITH.J.FORBES at saic.com Tue Oct 30 17:30:23 2007 From: KEITH.J.FORBES at saic.com (Keith J. Forbes) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:30:23 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Greenhouse gas emissions consultation: Carbon Dioxide in the beverages and food industry In-Reply-To: <004801c81a65$df24d050$ce01030a@desktop> References: <004801c81a65$df24d050$ce01030a@desktop> Message-ID: <1193779823.19146.8.camel@Catedral> Carlos, "Is the assumption that C in emitted fermentation CO2 is then captured in vegetable material synthesis that yields the crop that contains the glucose?" yes. i have my own doubts about "biological" C, but the logic (however flawed) is that the C came from atmosphere, so if it returns to atmosphere, the net flux is 0, and no emission has occurred. the same reasoning is applied to ethanol combustion. one argument i can see FOR considering the processes you mention as C neutral is that, if you take it to the logical extreme, then countries would have to account for CO2 from decomposition of organic matter in forests, soils, wetlands, ... On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 13:56 -0600, Contecnica wrote: > Friends, > > I am currently managing the greenhouse gas emissions inventory for the > industrial sector in Honduras, Central America. Looking at the IPCC's > technical guidelines (1996) the Honduran working group is using, I > note the emissions associated with the food and beverages industries > are NMVOCs only. > > A little sidenote states that Carbon Dioxide needs not be taken into > account because such emissions pertain to the 'utilization of > biological carbon'. Can someone further explain this to me? What > happens with the CO2 emmited in the fermentation processes as the > producion of beer and spirited drinks and the leavening of bread? > > In the alcoholic fermentation, one glucose molecule (C6) would go to > yield two ethanol (C2) and two Carbon Dioxide (C1) molecules, of which > the latter is a gaseous emission. C in glucose and ethanol is > 'captured'; C in Carbon Dioxide is atmospheric gas (unless, of course, > captured and retained as such, which to a point, the fermentation > industry does). > > I yet don't understand why these emissions are regarded as utilization > of biological carbon. Is the assumption that C in emitted > fermentation CO2 is then captured in vegetable material synthesis that > yields the crop that contains the glucose? > > If so, how are we sure of the balances? For a specific country, wouldn > ?t it be safest to take into account these emissions and then deduct > them from overall C capture? > > Thanks for your insights. > > Carlos > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Keith Joseph Forbes ~ Senior Climate Change and Sustainability Analyst, SAIC ~ ~ keith.j.forbes at saic.com From m.aristegui at wanadoo.fr Wed Oct 31 07:05:40 2007 From: m.aristegui at wanadoo.fr (Marc Aristegui) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:05:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Aircraft Jet Kerosene emissions factors Message-ID: <20071031110540.7FC11C1823F@milkyway.forumone.com> I agree with Keith and Duncan. 0.853 is carbon equivalent per ton of kerosene 0.853 * 44/12 = 3.18 is carbon dioxide equivalent and 3.567 quoted by Charles should be the amount of CO2eq, counting the emissions during extracting oil, transporing oil, making kerosen, and so on From srastogi at indiajuris.com Wed Oct 31 00:41:58 2007 From: srastogi at indiajuris.com (Sameer Rastogi) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:11:58 +0530 Subject: [GHG Network] Steel Engineers References: <004801c81a65$df24d050$ce01030a@desktop> <1193779823.19146.8.camel@Catedral> Message-ID: <004601c81b78$6365f1b0$0400a8c0@sameer> Friends, I am Partner with New Delhi, India based International Law Firm "India Juris". We are doing lot of work in the area of CDM Projects. At the moment we are looking for an Steel Engineer for certain CDM Project. Please refer some Mech. Engineer having rich experience in Steel industry. Location is India. He may be required to travel outside India for some other projects. best regards Sameer Rastogi INDIA JURIS Advocates & Corporate Legal Consultants Trade Mark & Patent Attorney A Full Service Law Firm F-105 Samarth Plaza, Jaipuria Enclave, Kaushambi, GZB-201010 NCR Delhi Ph: +91-120-6567067, 4120997, 2115135 Fax: +91-120-4120998, 2776538 Email: newdelhi at indiajuris.com website: www.indiajuris.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071031/33c84748/attachment.html