From srivastava at iges.or.jp Thu Dec 4 14:02:39 2008 From: srivastava at iges.or.jp (Nalin Srivastava) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 20:02:39 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] REQUEST FOR EMISSIONS DATA FOR IPCC EMISSION FACTOR DATABASE Message-ID: <001e01c95642$e2ee5430$c811640a@iges.iges.or.jp> In order to support emission inventory compilers the IPCC Task Force on Inventories is focussing on strengthening its Emission Factor Database (EFDB). The EFDB is an open freely available database of emission factors and other parameters reflecting national circumstances and so supplement the global defaults in the IPCC 2006 Guidelines. It can be found at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/main.php and CD versions are also available. FIRSTLY, we would like to invite anyone with emissions data to submit it to the EFDB. The EFDB web site has details on data submission, alternatively please contact us directly at nggip-tsu at iges.or.jp SECONDLY, we are holding a series of small meetings to focus on specific areas were the EFDB needs additional strengthening. We plan to hold one of these meetings in late January or early February 2009 for gathering data on soil carbon and its response to differing management and input regimes in cropland and grassland for inclusion in the EFDB. If you have data on soil carbon based on your research and wish to submit them for inclusion in the IPCC EFDB, please do let us know at nggip-tsu at iges.or.jp Also if you have substantial data and would like to participate please let us know. We can only invite a small number of people and support a few participants from developing countries or countries with economies in transition but we would like to increase the number of expert participating in our work. Simon Eggleston Head Technical Support Unit, IPCC Task Force on Inventories -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20081204/c7b102eb/attachment.html From doregan at libertyenviro.com Fri Dec 5 13:20:13 2008 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis O'Regan) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 13:20:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [GHG Network] Verification of organisational inventories Message-ID: <20081205182013.EBC27C18008@milkyway.forumone.com> Third party verification should not be required when an organization performing an inventory follows recognized GHG accounting protocols such as the WRI protocol. If an inventory is performed to satisfy a governmental requirement and an organization or individual facility is subject to a cap and trade program not unlike the U.S.EPA acid rain program, adhering to a protocol and having a responsible officer certify the inventory (as is done in the acid rain and U.S. air pollution control and other environmental regulatory programs) should be adequate. That being said, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) does require verification by "acredited verifiers" for its mandatory reporting program(http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg-ver/qa_acc.pdf). My opinion is that CARB's approach is overkill. Most, if not all, of the facilities subject to mandatory reporting are already reporting emissions from fuel use and other sources and these reports are certified by corporate officials. My sense is that CARB and others have been overly influenced by those with a financial interest in performing and verifying inventories, which is unfortunate. Wouldn't the money spent on verification be better spent on capital projects that lower emissions immediately? Is there an ethics issue here? Will a firm doing its inventory be held hostage by its "acredited verifier" by claims of out-of-scope work performed to allow it to be comfortable in giving its "seal of approval" to an annual inventory? It is far more important for a business to have a solid inventory management plan that promotes the collection of accurate and reliable data on the frontend than to have verification on the backend. Again, that is where a business needs to spend its money. Frankly, GHG accounting is not rocket science. Indeed, I would question whether it is science or engineering at all. In this regard, consider the determination of Scope 2 emissions in the U.S. For calendar year 2007, the inventory (under USEPA Climate Leaders guidance) uses regional electric utility emission factors that are at least two years old and that have no bearing on actual 2007 utility emissions. In essence, there is agreement to use inappropriate emission factors because that is the only data available. Third party verification IS appropriate and necessary on a project level where a firm is claiming some sort of offset, such as from afforestation or other projects. I'm always a little concerned when I see project proposals that claim theoretical rductions from convoluted schemes. What is worse are those that seek some sort of recognition for emissions "avoidance." Let us not forget that the performance of inventories for the vast majority of firms worldwide remains a voluntary act. Requiring third party verification for a voluntary act is ludicrous. From akelly at climatetrust.org Fri Dec 5 18:41:42 2008 From: akelly at climatetrust.org (Alexia Kelly) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:41:42 -0800 Subject: [GHG Network] Verification of organisational inventories In-Reply-To: <20081205182013.EBC27C18008@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20081205182013.EBC27C18008@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <762861EABCCF4405B8B8CA2EF5C607C0@AlexiaD630> Sir, I could not disagree more with your assertion that third party verification is unnecessary for GHG inventories. As the United States moves rapidly towards mandatory greenhouse gas emission reduction systems, such as cap-and-trade, the reported emissions of a given entity is likely to have significant financial implications for its cost of compliance under the program. Moreover, these reported emissions are very likely to play a large role in establishing baselines, from the entity level all of the way to the federal level, against which all emission reduction requirements will be measured. Allowing firms to "self-certify" that their emissions inventory is accurate is a bit like allowing students to grade their own exams. As a price on carbon becomes a reality, the accurate accounting of GHG emissions at the entity level will have very large financial implications for firms, leading to a much higher incentive to game the inventory system; regardless of how credible the GHG accounting protocol is that is being used. We need both credible GHG accounting protocols and third party verification in order to have a robust and functioning emission control system. Whether the verification is conducted by the government or by an independent, third party verifier, I think is less important than the fact that the verification is happening. How many of us would be tempted to fudge our tax returns if we knew that there was no IRS, no audits and no penalties? Trusted GHG accounting regimes, mandatory reporting regulations and strong verification systems are all vital to the development of a robust, functional, and credible carbon market. Alexia Kelly Policy Program Manager, The Climate Trust Program Manager, Offset Quality Initiative 65 SW Yamhill St, Suite 400 Portland, OR 97204 (w) 503.238.1915 x 208 (c) 541.514.3633 akelly at climatetrust.org www.climatetrust.org -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Dennis O'Regan Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 10:20 AM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Verification of organisational inventories Third party verification should not be required when an organization performing an inventory follows recognized GHG accounting protocols such as the WRI protocol. If an inventory is performed to satisfy a governmental requirement and an organization or individual facility is subject to a cap and trade program not unlike the U.S.EPA acid rain program, adhering to a protocol and having a responsible officer certify the inventory (as is done in the acid rain and U.S. air pollution control and other environmental regulatory programs) should be adequate. That being said, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) does require verification by "acredited verifiers" for its mandatory reporting program(http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg-ver/qa_acc.pdf). My opinion is that CARB's approach is overkill. Most, if not all, of the facilities subject to mandatory reporting are already reporting emissions from fuel use and other sources and these reports are certified by corporate officials. My sense is that CARB and others have been overly influenced by those with a financial interest in performing and verifying inventories, which is unfortunate. Wouldn't the money spent on verification be better spent on capital projects that lower emissions immediately? Is there an ethics issue here? Will a firm doing its inventory be held hostage by its "acredited verifier" by claims of out-of-scope work performed to allow it to be comfortable in giving its "seal of approval" to an annual inventory? It is far more important for a business to have a solid inventory management plan that promotes the collection of accurate and reliable data on the frontend than to have verification on the backend. Again, that is where a business needs to spend its money. Frankly, GHG accounting is not rocket science. Indeed, I would question whether it is science or engineering at all. In this regard, consider the determination of Scope 2 emissions in the U.S. For calendar year 2007, the inventory (under USEPA Climate Leaders guidance) uses regional electric utility emission factors that are at least two years old and that have no bearing on actual 2007 utility emissions. In essence, there is agreement to use inappropriate emission factors because that is the only data available. Third party verification IS appropriate and necessary on a project level where a firm is claiming some sort of offset, such as from afforestation or other projects. I'm always a little concerned when I see project proposals that claim theoretical rductions from convoluted schemes. What is worse are those that seek some sort of recognition for emissions "avoidance." Let us not forget that the performance of inventories for the vast majority of firms worldwide remains a voluntary act. Requiring third party verification for a voluntary act is ludicrous. _______________________________________________ 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 Grefford at ieee.org Sat Dec 6 15:50:14 2008 From: Grefford at ieee.org (John Grefford) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 15:50:14 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] Verification of organisational inventories In-Reply-To: <762861EABCCF4405B8B8CA2EF5C607C0@AlexiaD630> References: <20081205182013.EBC27C18008@milkyway.forumone.com> <762861EABCCF4405B8B8CA2EF5C607C0@AlexiaD630> Message-ID: <872602b80812061250t60c96b2bw816270d4bf67a352@mail.gmail.com> Yes Sir, Could not agree with you more...Let me see... We had Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG and who can forget Fannie and Freddie Mac.... great auditors or independent outside raters! Third party verification is the least of two evils. If money is well spent on high profile auditors, the emission from any projects can be viewed as "outside the envelope" and not counted. The US bailout at $7 trillion and counting (real dollars) to be accounted for, imagine what it would have been without simple check and balance of outside verificators to at least give it some degree of accountability. How about providing check and balances with total disclosures of all verificators and validators (on-line!) for anyone to see? The more transparent the better! John Grefford, P.Eng. On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Alexia Kelly wrote: > Sir, > > I could not disagree more with your assertion that third party verification > is unnecessary for GHG inventories. As the United States moves rapidly > towards mandatory greenhouse gas emission reduction systems, such as > cap-and-trade, the reported emissions of a given entity is likely to have > significant financial implications for its cost of compliance under the > program. Moreover, these reported emissions are very likely to play a large > role in establishing baselines, from the entity level all of the way to the > federal level, against which all emission reduction requirements will be > measured. > > Allowing firms to "self-certify" that their emissions inventory is accurate > is a bit like allowing students to grade their own exams. As a price on > carbon becomes a reality, the accurate accounting of GHG emissions at the > entity level will have very large financial implications for firms, leading > to a much higher incentive to game the inventory system; regardless of how > credible the GHG accounting protocol is that is being used. > > We need both credible GHG accounting protocols and third party verification > in order to have a robust and functioning emission control system. Whether > the verification is conducted by the government or by an independent, third > party verifier, I think is less important than the fact that the > verification is happening. > > How many of us would be tempted to fudge our tax returns if we knew that > there was no IRS, no audits and no penalties? Trusted GHG accounting > regimes, mandatory reporting regulations and strong verification systems > are > all vital to the development of a robust, functional, and credible carbon > market. > > Alexia Kelly > Policy Program Manager, The Climate Trust > Program Manager, Offset Quality Initiative > > 65 SW Yamhill St, Suite 400 > Portland, OR 97204 > (w) 503.238.1915 x 208 > (c) 541.514.3633 > akelly at climatetrust.org > www.climatetrust.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto: > discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] > On Behalf Of Dennis O'Regan > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 10:20 AM > To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org > Subject: [GHG Network] Verification of organisational inventories > > > Third party verification should not be required when an organization > performing an inventory follows recognized GHG accounting protocols such as > the WRI protocol. If an inventory is performed to satisfy a governmental > requirement and an organization or individual facility is subject to a cap > and trade program not unlike the U.S.EPA acid rain program, adhering to a > protocol and having a responsible officer certify the inventory (as is done > in the acid rain and U.S. air pollution control and other environmental > regulatory programs) should be adequate. > > That being said, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) does require > verification by "acredited verifiers" for its mandatory reporting > program(http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg-ver/qa_acc.pdf). My > opinion > is that CARB's approach is overkill. Most, if not all, of the facilities > subject to mandatory reporting are already reporting emissions from fuel > use > and other sources and these reports are certified by corporate officials. > > My sense is that CARB and others have been overly influenced by those with > a > financial interest in performing and verifying inventories, which is > unfortunate. Wouldn't the money spent on verification be better spent on > capital projects that lower emissions immediately? > > Is there an ethics issue here? Will a firm doing its inventory be held > hostage by its "acredited verifier" by claims of out-of-scope work > performed > to allow it to be comfortable in giving its "seal of approval" to an annual > inventory? > > It is far more important for a business to have a solid inventory > management > plan that promotes the collection of accurate and reliable data on the > frontend than to have verification on the backend. Again, that is where a > business needs to spend its money. > > Frankly, GHG accounting is not rocket science. Indeed, I would question > whether it is science or engineering at all. In this regard, consider the > determination of Scope 2 emissions in the U.S. For calendar year 2007, the > inventory (under USEPA Climate Leaders guidance) uses regional electric > utility emission factors that are at least two years old and that have no > bearing on actual 2007 utility emissions. In essence, there is agreement to > use inappropriate emission factors because that is the only data available. > > Third party verification IS appropriate and necessary on a project level > where a firm is claiming some sort of offset, such as from afforestation or > other projects. I'm always a little concerned when I see project proposals > that claim theoretical rductions from convoluted schemes. What is worse > are > those that seek some sort of recognition for emissions "avoidance." > > Let us not forget that the performance of inventories for the vast majority > of firms worldwide remains a voluntary act. Requiring third party > verification for a voluntary act is ludicrous. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- John Grefford, P.Eng. e-mail: Grefford at ieee.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20081206/4d2ad77a/attachment.html From doregan at libertyenviro.com Sun Dec 7 13:42:04 2008 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis O'Regan) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:42:04 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] Verification of organizational inventories References: <20081205182013.EBC27C18008@milkyway.forumone.com> <762861EABCCF4405B8B8CA2EF5C607C0@AlexiaD630> <872602b80812061250t60c96b2bw816270d4bf67a352@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: John: The Wall Street collateralized mortgage obligation analogy is, to me, a non-sequitor. Merrill Lynch and others launched these derivatives largely with the intent of making them opaque to the public, investors, and the regulators. My take on it is that Wall Street had the support of an administration that ideologically opposed regulation of financial markets and benefitted from the neglect (and incompetence) of the U.S. Congress and the greed of the American public (I am a U.S. citizen). I mean, who could resist 100% debt financing of an overpriced home and be encouraged by a mortgage broker to lie on the loan application? The first billion of the bailout package should go toward criminal prosecutions. But I am not sure Wall Street execs and others did anything illegal, which is the real rub. But back to why GHG inventories are different and how that affects the integrity of an allowance market. The intent across the board is to make the inventories as transparent as possible, not opaque. And for the vast majority of potential reporters the analyses are simple enough to be highly transparent, such as computing the CO2-e emissions from the combustion of natural gas or fuel oil. What can be so difficult about that as to require a 3rd party verifier? And let's say the emitter is a very small firm (500 MTCE/yr) that believes in sustainability and wants to reduce its GHG footprint. For that firm to report to a registry and claim in its press releases a few tons of reductions does it need to have a 3rd party verifier? It has probably already paid a competent consultant to determine its emissions using "generally accepted GHG accounting principles" and assumptions sanctioned by U.S.EPA and the IPCC. While this firm is acting responsibly, it is too small to be in the cap & trade program. So why the need to verify? I think the same example can be extended to larger emitters that are in a cap & trade program. For the most part, determination of emissions is a fairly straight forward and simple calculation of fossil fuels used, which is already being done for Title V permits. Where an individual facility's emissions are complex due to unique combustion sources and/or fuels, reporting guidance (or regulations) should require more extensive documentation, especially when the reported emissions are less than those that would have been reported using some default factors. But creating and maintaining that documentation does not mean 3rd party verification. All I am really arguing for is an economically efficient regulatory system whenever a cap and trade system finally happens nationwide. Current inventories, even those that have been "verified," are artificial constructs built on assumptions and default emission factors. We need to get that wave of emission reductions started and not worry too much about how each molecule of water is moving within the wave. Let's not make it more costly by mandating 3rd party verification. Dennis M. O'Regan ________________________________ From: grefford at gmail.com [mailto:grefford at gmail.com] On Behalf Of John Grefford Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 3:50 PM To: Alexia Kelly Cc: Dennis O'Regan; discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Verification of organisational inventories Yes Sir, Could not agree with you more...Let me see... We had Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG and who can forget Fannie and Freddie Mac.... great auditors or independent outside raters! Third party verification is the least of two evils. If money is well spent on high profile auditors, the emission from any projects can be viewed as "outside the envelope" and not counted. The US bailout at $7 trillion and counting (real dollars) to be accounted for, imagine what it would have been without simple check and balance of outside verificators to at least give it some degree of accountability. How about providing check and balances with total disclosures of all verificators and validators (on-line!) for anyone to see? The more transparent the better! John Grefford, P.Eng. On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Alexia Kelly wrote: Sir, I could not disagree more with your assertion that third party verification is unnecessary for GHG inventories. As the United States moves rapidly towards mandatory greenhouse gas emission reduction systems, such as cap-and-trade, the reported emissions of a given entity is likely to have significant financial implications for its cost of compliance under the program. Moreover, these reported emissions are very likely to play a large role in establishing baselines, from the entity level all of the way to the federal level, against which all emission reduction requirements will be measured. Allowing firms to "self-certify" that their emissions inventory is accurate is a bit like allowing students to grade their own exams. As a price on carbon becomes a reality, the accurate accounting of GHG emissions at the entity level will have very large financial implications for firms, leading to a much higher incentive to game the inventory system; regardless of how credible the GHG accounting protocol is that is being used. We need both credible GHG accounting protocols and third party verification in order to have a robust and functioning emission control system. Whether the verification is conducted by the government or by an independent, third party verifier, I think is less important than the fact that the verification is happening. How many of us would be tempted to fudge our tax returns if we knew that there was no IRS, no audits and no penalties? Trusted GHG accounting regimes, mandatory reporting regulations and strong verification systems are all vital to the development of a robust, functional, and credible carbon market. Alexia Kelly Policy Program Manager, The Climate Trust Program Manager, Offset Quality Initiative 65 SW Yamhill St, Suite 400 Portland, OR 97204 (w) 503.238.1915 x 208 (c) 541.514.3633 akelly at climatetrust.org www.climatetrust.org -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Dennis O'Regan Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 10:20 AM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Verification of organisational inventories Third party verification should not be required when an organization performing an inventory follows recognized GHG accounting protocols such as the WRI protocol. If an inventory is performed to satisfy a governmental requirement and an organization or individual facility is subject to a cap and trade program not unlike the U.S.EPA acid rain program, adhering to a protocol and having a responsible officer certify the inventory (as is done in the acid rain and U.S. air pollution control and other environmental regulatory programs) should be adequate. That being said, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) does require verification by "acredited verifiers" for its mandatory reporting program(http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg-ver/qa_acc.pdf). My opinion is that CARB's approach is overkill. Most, if not all, of the facilities subject to mandatory reporting are already reporting emissions from fuel use and other sources and these reports are certified by corporate officials. My sense is that CARB and others have been overly influenced by those with a financial interest in performing and verifying inventories, which is unfortunate. Wouldn't the money spent on verification be better spent on capital projects that lower emissions immediately? Is there an ethics issue here? Will a firm doing its inventory be held hostage by its "acredited verifier" by claims of out-of-scope work performed to allow it to be comfortable in giving its "seal of approval" to an annual inventory? It is far more important for a business to have a solid inventory management plan that promotes the collection of accurate and reliable data on the frontend than to have verification on the backend. Again, that is where a business needs to spend its money. Frankly, GHG accounting is not rocket science. Indeed, I would question whether it is science or engineering at all. In this regard, consider the determination of Scope 2 emissions in the U.S. For calendar year 2007, the inventory (under USEPA Climate Leaders guidance) uses regional electric utility emission factors that are at least two years old and that have no bearing on actual 2007 utility emissions. In essence, there is agreement to use inappropriate emission factors because that is the only data available. Third party verification IS appropriate and necessary on a project level where a firm is claiming some sort of offset, such as from afforestation or other projects. I'm always a little concerned when I see project proposals that claim theoretical rductions from convoluted schemes. What is worse are those that seek some sort of recognition for emissions "avoidance." Let us not forget that the performance of inventories for the vast majority of firms worldwide remains a voluntary act. Requiring third party verification for a voluntary act is ludicrous. _______________________________________________ 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 -- John Grefford, P.Eng. e-mail: Grefford at ieee.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20081207/98a28f1d/attachment.html From Jeremy.Houssin at erm.com Mon Dec 8 04:27:28 2008 From: Jeremy.Houssin at erm.com (Jeremy Houssin) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:27:28 +0000 Subject: [GHG Network] Information: CASCADe Senegal website Message-ID: <2C6827D4119ACE42ABCD65ADABE31BEB02CCBBD09B@GRPLONEX01.mail.erm55.com> Bonjour ? tous, A la suite du S?minaire CASCADe (Cr?dit Carbone pour l'Agriculture, Sylviculture, Conservation et l'Action contre la D?forestation) S?n?gal qui s'est tenu ? Dakar du 8 au 12 Septembre dernier, un site internet a ?t? mis en place. Vous pouvez y retrouver l'actualit? concernant le programme CASCADe ainsi que les publications parues dans le cadre de ce programme. En particulier, je vous informe que sont disponibles sur ce site les pr?sentations qui ont ?t? introduites lors du s?minaire de Dakar, ainsi que des liens utiles pour s'informer sur le monde du MDP et les organismes impliqu?s dans CASCADe. Voici l'adresse de ce site internet : http://www.erm.com/extranet/UK/infopool.nsf/HTML/senegal_home Je vous remercie ? tous de votre attention et de votre int?r?t pour CASCADe et les MDP. Bien ? vous Houssin J?r?my Consultant Energie et Changement Climatique ERM France Dear all, Following the CASCADe workshop which took place from 8 to 12 of September 2008 in Dakar, Senegal, a website has been set up. You will be able to find the News about the CASCADe programme, such as the released publications and useful links to get acquainted with CDM and the organisms involved in CASCADe. In particular, I inform you that the presentations which have been introduced during the workshop in Dakar are now available. Please see below the website address: http://www.erm.com/extranet/UK/infopool.nsf/HTML/senegal_home I thank for your attention and your interest in CASCADe. Bests regards, Houssin J?r?my Energy and Climate Change Consultant ERM France [cid:image001.jpg at 01C9591F.7F5FE8E0] ________________________________ This electronic mail message may contain information which is (a) LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee (s) names herein. If you are not the Addressee (s), or the person responsible for delivering this to the Addressee (s), you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please contact us immediately and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer system. Thank you, ERM. Please visit ERM's web site: http://www.erm.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20081208/45c7e959/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 47199 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20081208/45c7e959/attachment-0001.jpg From nisithad at brandix.com Tue Dec 9 00:58:29 2008 From: nisithad at brandix.com (Nisitha Dasanayake) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 00:58:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [GHG Network] WRI/ISO14064 Message-ID: <20081209055829.6152FC18054@milkyway.forumone.com> Hi, When we are preparing GHG inventories at corporate level what is the best standard to be used . Is it GHG protocol/ISO 14064/UNFCCC verification standards Thanks Nisitha From TFransen at wri.org Tue Dec 9 09:36:21 2008 From: TFransen at wri.org (Taryn Fransen) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:36:21 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] WRI/ISO14064 References: <20081209055829.6152FC18054@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342C032F7A00@wricsex029330.WRI.CRM.Local> Dear Nisitha, You should review the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and ISO 14064-1, which are designed as compatible and complementary standards for corporate inventory development. The main difference is that GHG Protocol provides two sections: (1) "standard" and (2) "guidance" (the latter is sort of a how-to guide on developing inventories according to the standard); ISO 14064-1 focuses specifically on the "standard" component. In the end, the accounting and reporting requirements are nearly identical. UNFCCC does not provide guidance on corporate level inventories. Verification is a separate question (you can verify against GHG Protocol and/or ISO) and I am unsure what you mean by "UNFCCC verification standards". Hope this helps. Taryn Fransen World Resources Institute -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Nisitha Dasanayake Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:58 AM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] WRI/ISO14064 Hi, When we are preparing GHG inventories at corporate level what is the best standard to be used . Is it GHG protocol/ISO 14064/UNFCCC verification standards Thanks Nisitha _______________________________________________ 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 Milena.Kozomara at undp.org Mon Dec 15 07:55:27 2008 From: Milena.Kozomara at undp.org (Milena Kozomara) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:55:27 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] Request for proposals: Development of Serbia's Initial National Communication to the UNFCCC Message-ID: <5E455FD7EF78BA4C8750F69B5905CFE5208F21BDDF@mail.lan.undp.org.yu> Dear All, The Office of the United Nations Development Programme in Serbia invites sealed bids/proposals from qualified suppliers for developing Serbia's Initial National Communication to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change - UNFCCC. A complete set of solicitation documents is available on UNDP's web-site: www.undp.org.rs/tenders. Offers must be delivered to the following address: UNDP Office Internacionalnih brigada 69 11000 Belgrade, Serbia Ref. No. RFP 150/08 "NOT TO BE OPENED BY REGISTRY" no later than 12 January 2009, at 17.00 CET. Any offers received after this date and time will be rejected. Best regards, Milena Kozomara UNDP Serbia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20081215/eb414c59/attachment.html From lpocknell at wri.org Wed Dec 17 12:29:48 2008 From: lpocknell at wri.org (Laura Pocknell) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:29:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [GHG Network] JOB OPENING: World Resources Institute - Research Assistant Brazil Program Message-ID: <20081217172948.93DD0C18079@milkyway.forumone.com> Research Assistant ??? GHG Protocol Brazil The Climate and Energy Program of the World Resources Institute (WRI) is seeking a full-time research assistant to support the GHG Protocol Initiative in facilitating and promoting GHG management in Brazil. The GHG Protocol is a multi-stakeholder partnership of businesses, NGOs, and others, convened by WRI and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. The mission of the GHG Protocol Initiative is to develop internationally accepted standards for GHG accounting and reporting and to promote their broad adoption. Brazil???s GHG emissions are the fifth highest in the world, and the carbon intensity of its economy is growing. In partnership with the Brazilian government and local organizations, WRI launched the Brazil GHG Protocol Program earlier this year. The Program will serve as a voluntary registry ??? with information available to the public online ??? of corporate GHG emissions, intended to provide a credible, quantitative foundation for GHG management decisions. Corporate participants will log their annual inventories of global-warming emissions based on the standardized framework of the GHG Protocol, and will receive training on international best practices in GHG accounting and management. Under the supervision of the GHGP-Brazil project manager, the Research Assistant will support WRI in providing technical training, support, and tools to local coordinators of the Program. This position provides an opportunity to build technical and management skills and to establish professional contacts in Brazil and internationally. There is a strong potential for professional growth and advancement. Responsibilities ??? Provide day-to-day management of WRI???s engagement in the Brazil GHG Protocol Program ??? Serve as liaison between WRI and other program partners; develop and maintain WRI???s relationship with key stakeholders ??? Prepare and translate (English to Portuguese) publicity material, presentations, etc. ??? Develop curriculum on GHG accounting and reporting for Brazilian professionals ??? Assist in running training workshops on GHG accounting and management ??? Conduct research on Brazilian climate change policy ??? Organize conference calls, meetings, workshops; prepare minutes; follow up with participants ??? Participate in internal and external meetings as needed ??? Coordinate contracts, proposals, and funder reports ??? Other responsibilities depending on the program???s need and on the interests of the person selected; may include support for other GHG Protocol and/or International Climate Objective projects Qualifications ??? Knowledge of climate change and/or other environmental topics; familiarity with GHG accounting highly advantageous ??? Bachelors degree in related field; masters preferred ??? Proven abilities in project management, including multi-tasking, teamwork, and organization ??? Strong quantitative aptitude ??? Excellent writing and communication skills ??? Fluency in English and Portuguese ??? Familiarity with common computer applications ??? Willingness and availability to travel internationally Salary & Benefits: Salary is commensurate with experience. Full WRI benefits package. Location: Washington, D.C. Term: This is a 12-month appointment with high probability of extension; the ideal candidate will be ready to commit for more than one year. Contact: Send resume or CV and cover letter to: Laura Pocknell Communications Coordinator lpocknell at wri.org No phone calls please. Qualified applicants only. WRI only accepts applications for current job openings. From nisithad at brandix.com Thu Dec 18 05:32:23 2008 From: nisithad at brandix.com (Nisitha Dasanayake) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:32:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [GHG Network] Masters study schlerships for GHG Managment Message-ID: <20081218103223.66ACEC18080@milkyway.forumone.com> Hi, Does anyone know a full university scholership available on GHG management please pass the details Thanks Nisitha From tlrosenberg at gmail.com Thu Dec 18 08:45:50 2008 From: tlrosenberg at gmail.com (Thomas L. Rosenberg) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:45:50 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] Masters study schlerships for GHG Managment In-Reply-To: <20081218103223.66ACEC18080@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20081218103223.66ACEC18080@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: Nisitha, It depends on what you mean by GHG management. If something like industrial ecology is of interest. I recommend you check out the "INDECOL" program at NTNU - the Norwegian National Technical University. Superior education is free in Norway and they do have scholarships available to cover living expenses. Best of luck in your search, Thomas Rosenberg On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Nisitha Dasanayake wrote: > > Hi, > > Does anyone know a full university scholership available on GHG management > please pass the details > > Thanks > > Nisitha > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081218/d7bd75a8/attachment.html From credcsecretariat at yahoo.com Fri Dec 19 02:15:52 2008 From: credcsecretariat at yahoo.com (Etiosa CREDC) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:15:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GHG Network] National Dialogue to Promote Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency - Full Report Message-ID: <301632.49755.qm@web110208.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Dear All, Please find attached the full report of the conference ?National Dialogue to Promote Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency in Nigeria?, which?held on the 10-11 November 2008 at Parkview Hotels, Abuja. The conference was organized by the Community Research and Development Centre (CREDC).?The event received financial support from the Global Greengrants Fund and the Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria. A total of 50 participants attended the conference from different regions of Nigeria. ? Participants in the conference were representatives of civil society organizations, NGOs, religious organizations, academic institutions, the private sector, government and the media. The conference featured paper presentations, exhibitions, discussions, resolutions and the development of a roadmap to integrate energy efficiency into Nigeria?s policy framework. ? Please help to circulate widely. We will welcome comments and questions ? Sincerely, ? Etiosa Uyigue ? Etiosa Uyigue ?(M. Sc).? Executive Director, Community Research and Development Centre (CREDC)? 90 Uselu-Lagos Raod, Opposite Zenith Bank P.O. Box 11011, Benin 300001,Edo State, Nigeria Tel: +234 52 878788 Mobile: +234 703 940 5619 Efax: +1 309 401 0921 Emails: etiosa at credcentre.org; credcsecretariat at yahoo.com Website: www.credcentre.org Skype: etiosacredc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20081218/ad24d497/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Abuja_conference.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 807109 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20081218/ad24d497/attachment-0001.pdf From Jeremy.Houssin at erm.com Mon Dec 22 03:35:13 2008 From: Jeremy.Houssin at erm.com (Jeremy Houssin) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:35:13 +0000 Subject: [GHG Network] Information: CASCADe Benin website Message-ID: <2C6827D4119ACE42ABCD65ADABE31BEB02CCC145BF@GRPLONEX01.mail.erm55.com> Bonjour ? tous, A la suite du S?minaire CASCADe (Cr?dit Carbone pour l'Agriculture, Sylviculture, Conservation et l'Action contre la D?forestation) B?nin qui s'est tenu ? Cotonou du 17 au 21 Novembre dernier, un site internet a ?t? mis en place. Vous pouvez y retrouver l'actualit? concernant le programme CASCADe ainsi que les publications parues dans le cadre de ce programme. En particulier, je vous informe que sont disponibles sur ce site les pr?sentations qui ont ?t? introduites lors du s?minaire de Cotonou, ainsi que des liens utiles pour s'informer sur le monde du MDP et les organismes impliqu?s dans CASCADe. Voici l'adresse de ce site internet : http://www.erm.com/extranet/UK/infopool.nsf/HTML/benin_home Je vous remercie ? tous de votre attention et de votre int?r?t pour CASCADe et les MDP. Bien ? vous, Diane d'Esquerre Consultante Energie et Changement Climatique ERM France Dear all, Following the CASCADe workshop which took place from 17 to 21 of September 2008 in Cotonou, Benin, a website has been set up. You will be able to find the News about the CASCADe programme, such as the released publications and useful links to get acquainted with CDM and the organisms involved in CASCADe. In particular, I inform you that the presentations which have been introduced during the workshop in Cotonou are now available. Please see below the website address: http://www.erm.com/extranet/UK/infopool.nsf/HTML/benin_home I thank for your attention and your interest in CASCADe. Bests regards, Diane d'Esquerre Energy and Climate Change Consultante ERM France [cid:image001.jpg at 01C960FD.581A49C0] ________________________________ This electronic mail message may contain information which is (a) LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee (s) names herein. If you are not the Addressee (s), or the person responsible for delivering this to the Addressee (s), you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please contact us immediately and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer system. Thank you, ERM. Please visit ERM's web site: http://www.erm.com ________________________________ This electronic mail message may contain information which is (a) LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee (s) names herein. If you are not the Addressee (s), or the person responsible for delivering this to the Addressee (s), you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please contact us immediately and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer system. Thank you, ERM. Please visit ERM's web site: http://www.erm.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20081222/9fc123b1/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 54355 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20081222/9fc123b1/attachment-0001.jpg From jennifer at climateregistry.org Tue Dec 23 04:10:28 2008 From: jennifer at climateregistry.org (Jennifer Weiss) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 01:10:28 -0800 Subject: [GHG Network] North American Climate Change Policy events Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, We would like to invite you to join us for The Climate Registry's series "Climate Policy Forum: Charting the Path Ahead." The series features regional North American forums that bring together representatives from business, government and organizations to interactively discuss regional, federal and international climate policy issues. Each forum specifically addresses how these policy issues affect their respective regions, and panelists include commissioners and directors from the regions' state environmental protection departments. These forums are especially timely with president-elect Obama setting a new course for a federal cap-and-trade system and developments in state and regional mandatory reporting programs. The next upcoming forums include: February 3 - Tampa, Florida (http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/Events/2009/forums/se-info- page.pdf) February 26 - Denver, Colorado (http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/Events/2009/forums/western- info-page.pdf) March 11 - Columbus, Ohio (http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/Events/2009/forums/midwest- info-page.pdf) The forums are in-person events, and to accommodate the interactive setting, seating is limited. If you would like additional information on the forums, please visit The Climate Registry website or contact Anja Gilbert at anja at thecliamteregistry.org. If you would like specific information on sponsorship opportunities, please contact Kati Price at kati at theclimateregistry.org. The Climate Registry is a nonprofit collaboration among North American states, provinces, territories and Native Sovereign Nations that sets consistent and transparent standards to calculate, verify and publicly report greenhouse gas emissions into a single registry. The Registry supports both voluntary and mandatory reporting programs and provides comprehensive, accurate data to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Kind regards, Jennifer Weiss Communications Director The Climate Registry 523 W. 6th Street, Suite 445 Los Angeles, CA 90014 www.theclimateregistry.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20081223/cc7d6a86/attachment.html From alex at ahmedia.co.za Mon Dec 29 05:47:52 2008 From: alex at ahmedia.co.za (Alex Hetherington) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 05:47:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [GHG Network] Second Assessment Report Message-ID: <20081229104752.E401BC18006@milkyway.forumone.com> Quick question here to the experts... In calculating an organisation's GHG emissions relating to air conditioning gases and refrigerants, are we still using the GWP values as prescribed by the IPCC Second Assessment Report back in 1995? Sounds a little dated to me! With thanks. Alex From doregan at libertyenviro.com Mon Dec 29 11:27:32 2008 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis O'Regan) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:27:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [GHG Network] Second Assessment Report Message-ID: <20081229162732.B8936C18006@milkyway.forumone.com> That sounds correct. I believe the appropriate date for the second assessment is 1996 and the GWPs of that assessment are those that each Kyoto signatory is using for their national inventories. In the USA, USEPA is using those GWPs in their Climate Leaders Program. This is the Second Assessment Report (SAR). Briefly: CO2 - Carbon dioxide = 1 CH4 - Methane = 21 N2O - Nitrous oxide = 310 PFCs - Perfluorocarbons = 6,500 HFCs - Hydrofluorocarbons = 11,700 (HFC23) SF6 - Sulfur hexafluoride = 23,900 Regards, Dennis From gsmith at ert.net Mon Dec 29 14:09:26 2008 From: gsmith at ert.net (Gordon Smith) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:09:26 -0800 Subject: [GHG Network] Second Assessment Report In-Reply-To: <20081229162732.B8936C18006@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20081229162732.B8936C18006@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: Dennis is correct that for national reporting under the Kyoto Protocol the standard is to use the old 1996 GWPs. However, if you are doing a GHG footprint that is voluntary, you may choose to use more recent GWPs. I believe the most recent are in the IPCC Fourth Assessment report. regards, Gordon Gordon Smith, Ph.D., Managing Partner Ecofor LLC 13047 12th Ave NW Seattle, WA 98177-4108 USA voice: +1 206.784.0209 gsmith at ecofor.org On Dec 29, 2008, at 8:27 AM, Dennis O'Regan wrote: That sounds correct. I believe the appropriate date for the second assessment is 1996 and the GWPs of that assessment are those that each Kyoto signatory is using for their national inventories. In the USA, USEPA is using those GWPs in their Climate Leaders Program. This is the Second Assessment Report (SAR). Briefly: CO2 - Carbon dioxide = 1 CH4 - Methane = 21 N2O - Nitrous oxide = 310 PFCs - Perfluorocarbons = 6,500 HFCs - Hydrofluorocarbons = 11,700 (HFC23) SF6 - Sulfur hexafluoride = 23,900 Regards, Dennis _______________________________________________ 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 doregan at libertyenviro.com Mon Dec 29 15:46:46 2008 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis O'Regan) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:46:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [GHG Network] Second Assessment Report Message-ID: <20081229204646.76D5CC18006@milkyway.forumone.com> Alex: Following-up my initial response: a subsequent response suggested that a voluntary reporter could deviate from using the 1996 SAR GWP values. Although I agree with that position, it would make sense to stay with the well-recognized SAR values. In essence, those are what virtually everyone is using. In the US, under the USEPA's voluntary Climate Leaders Program, EPA requests that the SAR values be used, rather than more recent values. You can always link your calculations back to a master worksheet of GWPs so that you can change them in the future. For refrigerants, note that CFCs and HCFCs are not usually reportable since they are already addressed under the Montreal Prococol. So one would just report on the emission of replacement refrigerants that are not ozone depleting substances but are potent GHGs. These are the HFCs. Some national GHG programs may provide a "credit" for demonstated destruction of CFCs and HCFCs. Regards, Dennis From MVanPelt at icfi.com Tue Dec 30 12:13:19 2008 From: MVanPelt at icfi.com (Van Pelt, Marian) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:13:19 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] Second Assessment Report In-Reply-To: <20081229204646.76D5CC18006@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20081229204646.76D5CC18006@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: Hi -- In following on Dennis' response, please also note two things about the US GHG Emissions Inventory. First, individual HFCs and PFCs are allotted their individual GWPs, rather than grouped in the fashion Dennis generally provided, each according to the GWPs provided in the IPCC SAR. Second, for comparison purposes, the US Inventory contains an Annex that compares what the emissions would be under the GWPs of the SAR, the Third Assessment Report, and the Fourth Assessment Report. I also concur with Dennis that the SAR values should be used in carbon reporting unless otherwise requested; if time and resources allow, providing emissions under the SAR and the most current set of GWPs would add value. Marian Van Pelt ICF International 1725 Eye Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 202-862-1129 mvanpelt at icfi.com -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Dennis O'Regan Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 3:47 PM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Second Assessment Report Alex: Following-up my initial response: a subsequent response suggested that a voluntary reporter could deviate from using the 1996 SAR GWP values. Although I agree with that position, it would make sense to stay with the well-recognized SAR values. In essence, those are what virtually everyone is using. In the US, under the USEPA's voluntary Climate Leaders Program, EPA requests that the SAR values be used, rather than more recent values. You can always link your calculations back to a master worksheet of GWPs so that you can change them in the future. For refrigerants, note that CFCs and HCFCs are not usually reportable since they are already addressed under the Montreal Prococol. So one would just report on the emission of replacement refrigerants that are not ozone depleting substances but are potent GHGs. These are the HFCs. Some national GHG programs may provide a "credit" for demonstated destruction of CFCs and HCFCs. Regards, Dennis _______________________________________________ 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 NOTICE: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of this e-mail by you is prohibited. From M.Hekkenberg at rug.nl Wed Dec 31 08:21:59 2008 From: M.Hekkenberg at rug.nl (M.Hekkenberg) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:21:59 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] Second Assessment Report In-Reply-To: <20081229104752.E401BC18006@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20081229104752.E401BC18006@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: Hello Alex, Depending on the purpose of your study/report, I would propose different approaches. Most refrigerants' GWPs have been reassessed in the 2005 IPCC special report on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System. Many GWPs therein are changed compared to the SAR, and these 'new' values have been taken over in the FAR, representing the most current scientific insights. However, official UNFCCC reporting still requires using the SAR, probably because using updated values would require renegotiating among all participants, which currently does not have top priority in climate policy negotiations. Using SAR values makes reportings better comparable amongst each other and over time. However, since most recent scientific insights suggests these values are incorrect, continuing to use them could lead to suboptimal balancing of policy priorities. A similar remark can be made about not including the GWPs of Ozone Depleting Refrigerants in GHG reporting. If your study/report serves as an input to official (national/international) documentation, you would be advised to use the SAR values. However, if your report/study is instead aimed at providing the 'best' scientific approximation of environmental effects, you should use the SROC/FAR values. Reporting SAR or FAR based values in an appendix additional to the other values in a main report, as proposed by Marian, is obviously a fair middle ground. warm regards, and happy newyear! Michiel Hekkenberg M. Hekkenberg Center for Energy and Environmental Sciences IVEM University of Groningen the Netherlands On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 05:47:52 -0500 (EST) Alex Hetherington wrote: > Quick question here to the experts... In calculating an >organisation's GHG emissions relating to air conditioning gases and >refrigerants, are we still using the GWP values as prescribed by the >IPCC Second Assessment Report back in 1995? Sounds a little dated to >me! > > With thanks. > Alex > _______________________________________________ > 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 discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Wed Dec 31 09:57:56 2008 From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator]) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:57:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GHG Network] Second Assessment Report References: <20081229104752.E401BC18006@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <616585.85240.qm@web38902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Alex, The link below is a document we produced while I was at EPA that addresses your question. It is a little dated, as it has not been updated with the new GWP values from the IPCC Fourth Assessment (AR4), but the information is still relatively useful. It has useful information discussing the various GHGs. Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potential Values, U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs, April 2002. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/ghg_gwp.pdf Michael [moderator] ________________________________ Michael Gillenwater GHG Management Institute (Dean of Institute) ________________________________ ________________________________ From: Alex Hetherington To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 5:47:52 AM Subject: [GHG Network] Second Assessment Report Quick question here to the experts... In calculating an organisation's GHG emissions relating to air conditioning gases and refrigerants, are we still using the GWP values as prescribed by the IPCC Second Assessment Report back in 1995? Sounds a little dated to me! With thanks. Alex _______________________________________________ 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/20081231/98bd56fe/attachment.html From madelucchi at ucdavis.edu Wed Dec 31 14:06:06 2008 From: madelucchi at ucdavis.edu (Mark A. Delucchi) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:06:06 -0800 Subject: [GHG Network] Second Assessment Report In-Reply-To: <616585.85240.qm@web38902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20081229104752.E401BC18006@milkyway.forumone.com> <616585.85240.qm@web38902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear All, This is something of an aside, but from a scientific and economic point of view (as opposed to a regulatory point of view), the IPCC GWPs have very serious shortcomings, and almost certainly are not the best estimates of the CO2-equivalent impact (however defined) of non- CO2 GHGs. There already is a large literature on this, although it has not yet been addressed seriously in the IPCC reports. Best, Mark Delucchi Research Scientist Institute of Transportation Studies University of California Davis, CA 95616 (916) 989-5566 (310) 792-4335 madelucchi at ucdavis.edu www.its.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/delucchi On Dec 31, 2008, at 6:57 AM, Michael Gillenwater [[moderator]] wrote: > Alex, > > The link below is a document we produced while I was at EPA that > addresses your question. It is a little dated, as it has not been > updated with the new GWP values from the IPCC Fourth Assessment > (AR4), but the information is still relatively useful. It has > useful information discussing the various GHGs. > > Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potential Values, U.S. > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Program, U.S. Environmental Protection > Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs, April 2002. > http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/ghg_gwp.pdf > > Michael > [moderator] > > Michael Gillenwater > GHG Management Institute (Dean of Institute) > > > > From: Alex Hetherington > To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org > Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 5:47:52 AM > Subject: [GHG Network] Second Assessment Report > > Quick question here to the experts... In calculating an > organisation's GHG emissions relating to air conditioning gases and > refrigerants, are we still using the GWP values as prescribed by > the IPCC Second Assessment Report back in 1995? Sounds a little > dated to me! > > With thanks. > Alex > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20081231/de6c6604/attachment.html