From Joy.Williams at carboncapitalmarkets.com Tue Sep 2 03:22:25 2008 From: Joy.Williams at carboncapitalmarkets.com (Joy Williams) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:22:25 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] New Job Posting Message-ID: Dear all, Carbon Capital Markets (www.carboncapitalmarkets.com) Carbon Logistics division is hiring again! If you are interested, please learn about us on our website and apply. If you know anyone who may be interested, please pass the job description on to them. Many thanks once again to all the members who help get the message out! Joy-Therese Williams, P.Eng. Managing Director, Carbon Logistics Office tel: +44 20 7317 6932 Fax: +44 20 7317 6201 Level 3, 15 Berkeley Street London W1J 8DY United Kingdom www.carboncapitalmarkets.com Registered Name: Carbon Capital Markets; Company Registration Number: 5312939 Place of Registration: England. VAT Registration Number: 858 6377 67; Registered Office Address: Level 3, 15 Berkeley Street, London W1J 8DY, United Kingdom. Carbon Capital Markets is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController - www.MailController.altohiway.com Save Paper - do you need to print this e-mail? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080902/9602116e/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CL-2008-01-09 UK CFS PM closing date.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 19830 bytes Desc: CL-2008-01-09 UK CFS PM closing date.pdf Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080902/9602116e/attachment.obj From warwick.kutchen at dtrdi.qld.gov.au Mon Sep 1 19:13:18 2008 From: warwick.kutchen at dtrdi.qld.gov.au (Warwick Kutchen) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:13:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Calculating GHG emissions from office employees Message-ID: <20080901231318.9B577C1806D@milkyway.forumone.com> Hi All I am looking for a method for estimating GHG emissions per office employee ??? assuming country specific EF???s are applied to the process. One consultants report I have uses an Emissions Multiplier (Kwh per employee) of 6280 which is multiplied by the number of employees and the ???grams??? CO2-e. Is there anyone with the time to offer any suggestions . Thanks and regards Warwick Kutchen, Economic Analyst, Economic Advisory Services Department of Tourism, Regional Development and Industry Level 21, 111 George Street, Brisbane, Queensland 4000 PO Box 15168, City East Queensland 4002 T+61 7 3405 5626 F +61 7 3210 0739 E warwick.kutchen at dtrdi.qld.gov.au www.dtrdi.qld.gov.au From doregan at libertyenviro.com Tue Sep 2 13:04:10 2008 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis M. O'Regan) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 13:04:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Calculating GHG emissions from office employees Message-ID: <20080902170410.19AF5C18059@milkyway.forumone.com> See: http://www.thegreenoffice.com/carbon/result.php or http://www.ncasi.org/programs/areas/climate/ghgtools/default.aspx or http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools These will give you some ideas as to the depth you can go. Probably the easiest way to do it is to total your electric, natural gas, and or heating oil use for at least one year, determine the GHG emissions from those uses, and then divide by the average number of employees. You should be able to find electricity emission factors for Queensland. There are plenty of other on-line calculators that you can research. Note that your resultant numbers have less to do with the number of employees than it has to do with factors related to operation of the building and local weather. Warmest regards, Dennis From rs at ritasousa.com Wed Sep 3 12:23:16 2008 From: rs at ritasousa.com (Rita Sousa) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:23:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Cities carbon footprint Message-ID: <20080903162316.06F49C1800E@milkyway.forumone.com> Dear all, Can anyone help me on methodologies for GHG accounting in cities? I already looked into ICLEI, ???ZeroCarbonCities??? and the C40 work, but I don???t know if a more global approach is already developed. What I found seems to be always split by areas (as buildings, transports, water, energy, etc.) or otherwise very ???town-specific???. Thank all in advance for your help, Rita Sousa ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Euronatura ??? Centre for Environmental Law and Sustainable Development www.euronatura.pt Rua Passos Manuel, 130, 7?? andar 1150-260 Lisboa Portugal Tel.: +351 21 386 84 20 Fax: +351 21 386 84 19 From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Fri Sep 5 10:32:50 2008 From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator]) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 07:32:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Sad news from TerraCarbon Message-ID: <444738.33277.qm@web38907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Network Participants, It is with great sadness that we inform you of the sudden and unexpected death of TerraCarbon?s co-founder, and member of the GHG Experts Network, Dr. Bernhard Schlamadinger. Bernhard was one of the great minds and enlightening voices in the climate change arena, making valuable contributions to our understanding of how land use and forestry activities can contribute to the fight against global climate change. He was an innovative, yet practically-minded thinker whose advice was sought by researchers, policymakers, and project developers alike. Bernhard was a trusted friend to many around the world, generously sharing his time and vast knowledge with the belief that what was good for the cause?was also good for all. We will sorely miss Bernhard, and will seek to honor his legacy with our continued efforts to promote the role of lands and forestry in addressing climate change. We express our deepest condolences to Bernhard?s family and many friends. Donations in lieu of flowers can be sent to: Roten Nasen Clowndoctors (Red Nosed Doctors http://www.rotenasen.at/int/at/helfen/spende/) Bank: Creditanstalt Branch Number: 11000 Account Number: 09 44444 9400 IBAN Number: AT61 1100 0094 4444 9400 Here are some of Bernard's papers that many of you will find interesting. Schlamadinger, B.; Ratton, M.; Bird , N.. Aproposal to increase the small scale limit for A/R Projects. ENCOFOR, 2006. http://www.joanneum.at/encofor/publication/SSCARlimit.pdf Schlamadinger, B.; Ratton, M; Reddy, R; Sharan, A. Reducing the Use of Non-renewable Biomass: a proposed new methodology. Development and proposal of small scale CDM methodology at a side event orginized by Joanneum Research at the COP/MOP2 of United Nations Climate Change Conference Nairobi, Kenya. http://regserver.unfccc.int/seors/file_storage/mbmejvuyhseb2rd.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080905/950a2f9f/attachment.html From heike at emailcsa.com Tue Sep 9 16:12:47 2008 From: heike at emailcsa.com (Heike Lueger) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:12:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Footprinting Franchises Message-ID: <20080909201247.E8903C1800C@milkyway.forumone.com> Hello, I was wondering how a carbon footprint works when franchises are involved and a central data infrastructure is not in place (e.g. on appliances etc). It seems extraordinary challenging/costly to analyze each franchise (e.g. if you are looking at a number higher than 20,000 franchises) not so much in terms of scope 2 but especially for scope 1 (in this case mainly fugitive emissions). How credible can averages be and will they be verifiable? Could one make the case of omitting scope 1 even though it's mandatory? From doregan at libertyenviro.com Wed Sep 10 09:19:28 2008 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis O'Regan) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:19:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Footprinting Franchises Message-ID: <20080910131928.4A23DC1807D@milkyway.forumone.com> I believe performing an inventory for ~20,000 franchises is possible, especially if there are some common threads that cut across each location. One key aquestion needs to be asked, and that is what is the overall purpose of the inventory? That determines how accurate it needs to be. In the US, under the USDOE Sec. 1605(b) guidelines, there is an opportunity to "register" reductions if the data and analyses meet certain data quality standards. If you are participating in a cap and trade program, then you must be accurate. But if you just want to track your footprint from year to year and see if you can achieve reductions, that suggests a less rigorous effort and you may be able to use some benchmarked, indirect measurements to tabulate the inventory. You would need to try it on a sample of facilities to see if it is reasonable. As for Scope 1 versus Scope 2, it may be that the magnitude of the former pales in comparison to the latter. That is not unusual for entities that are involved in electrochemical processing and that have negligible heating loads due to climate. It seems the real challenge is to collect and manage the data from ~20,000 facilities. If they can be grouped, probably geographically (in the US I would tend to do it by power pool or electric grid), that gives you a starting point. I cannot see any reason that the effort would not be verifiable. It may be more verifiable than many GHG footprints since it may be dominated by Scope 2 (electricity) elements. That is an easy one. The question is what would verification cost? The self-appointed folks at the Climate Registry seem to require third party verification by certified verifiers. That seems to be a lot more rigorous than even the US' SO2 cap & trade program - or even the verification needed to get a home mortgage in the US. :-) Dennis From TFransen at wri.org Tue Sep 9 23:42:25 2008 From: TFransen at wri.org (Taryn Fransen) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 23:42:25 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Footprinting Franchises References: <20080909201247.E8903C1800C@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342C012901CD@wricsex029330.WRI.CRM.Local> >From the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard (p. 19): "Franchises are separate legal entities. In most cases, the franchiser will not have equity rights or control over the franchise. Therefore, franchises should not be included in consolidation of GHG emissions data. However, if the franchiser does have equity rights or operational/financial control, then the same rules for consolidation under the equity or control approaches apply." So, in most cases, franchises do not need to be included at all in a franchiser's inventory. Of course, franchisers may still consider franchises to be a significant indirect source, and wish to consider them anyway. In such cases, you could include select franchise sources (e.g. electricity only, as you mention) under the franchiser's scope 3, at your discretion. I believe that it is common practice to conduct sampling and then create a metric, e.g. average emissions per square meter by region, in order to arrive at an estimate. But I do not know how verification would work in this case. Taryn -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org on behalf of Heike Lueger Sent: Tue 9/9/2008 4:12 PM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Footprinting Franchises Hello, I was wondering how a carbon footprint works when franchises are involved and a central data infrastructure is not in place (e.g. on appliances etc). It seems extraordinary challenging/costly to analyze each franchise (e.g. if you are looking at a number higher than 20,000 franchises) not so much in terms of scope 2 but especially for scope 1 (in this case mainly fugitive emissions). How credible can averages be and will they be verifiable? Could one make the case of omitting scope 1 even though it's mandatory? _______________________________________________ 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/20080909/cc2e3f27/attachment.html From jking at mwcog.org Thu Sep 11 14:09:04 2008 From: jking at mwcog.org (Jeffrey King) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:09:04 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] cumulative vs annual emissions analysis Message-ID: As we begin to identify, analyze and recommend mitigation options here in the metropolitan Washington region, stakeholders have raised the issue of the need to examine measures in terms of their impact on cumulative emissions rather than just annual emissions. If possible, can you refer me to definitive studies and policies that address this issue? Also, whether folks are aware of cost/benefit spreadsheet tools that may provide useful framework to undertake such an analysis of measures. Thanks. Jeff Jeffrey King Sr. Environmental Planner Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 777 North Capitol St NE Washington, DC 20002 jking at mwcog.org 202-962-3200 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080911/203c9cb7/attachment.html From tgreiner at purestrategies.com Thu Sep 11 22:21:09 2008 From: tgreiner at purestrategies.com (Tim Greiner) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:21:09 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] cumulative vs annual emissions analysis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20080911221756.06648240@mail.purestrategies.com> Jeffrey, See the methodology proposed by the Institute for Sustainability Innovation as used in the Ben & Jerry's Corporate Responsibility Report. They suggest using the WRE350 model. http://www.csrwire.com/News/8048.html Tim At 02:09 PM 9/11/2008, Jeffrey King wrote: >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C91439.7789E234" > >As we begin to identify, analyze and recommend mitigation options here in >the metropolitan Washington region, stakeholders have raised the issue of >the need to examine measures in terms of their impact on cumulative >emissions rather than just annual emissions. If possible, can you refer >me to definitive studies and policies that address this issue? Also, >whether folks are aware of cost/benefit spreadsheet tools that may provide >useful framework to undertake such an analysis of measures. Thanks. Jeff > >Jeffrey King >Sr. Environmental Planner >Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments >777 North Capitol St NE >Washington, DC 20002 >jking at mwcog.org >202-962-3200 > >_______________________________________________ >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/20080911/646a10d7/attachment-0001.html From Peter.Haenke at originenergy.com.au Thu Sep 11 18:58:34 2008 From: Peter.Haenke at originenergy.com.au (Haenke, Peter) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:58:34 +1000 Subject: [GHG Network] cumulative vs annual emissions analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <49D39F73934F41428B19C7B98EA6224C0FF33C@sydnm301.originenergy.com.au> Jeff The Australian Government, is in the midst of developing a national emission trading scheme and as part of that process commissioned an independent review - the Garnaut Climate Change Review - see: http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domino/Web_Notes/Garnaut/garnautweb.nsf. Garnaut addresses this work very much from the perspective of cumulative "carbon budgets", and then uses this to inform decisions about possible target ranges for specific years. Garnaut released a draft paper in July and a supplementary draft Targets and trajectories just last week. The review is an input to government thinking and may or may not be translated into policy but it provides a good discussion and analysis of the "cumulative" vs "annual emission" issue. Cheers Peter Peter Haenke Carbon Business Development Manager Energy Risk Management Australian Operations Origin Energy p 02 8345 5549 m 0409 657 198 GPO Box 5376 Sydney NSW 2001 L45 Australia Square 264-278 George Street Sydney NSW P Please consider the environment before printing this email -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey King Sent: Friday, 12 September 2008 4:09 AM To: GHGNetwork Subject: [GHG Network] cumulative vs annual emissions analysis As we begin to identify, analyze and recommend mitigation options here in the metropolitan Washington region, stakeholders have raised the issue of the need to examine measures in terms of their impact on cumulative emissions rather than just annual emissions. If possible, can you refer me to definitive studies and policies that address this issue? Also, whether folks are aware of cost/benefit spreadsheet tools that may provide useful framework to undertake such an analysis of measures. Thanks. Jeff Jeffrey King Sr. Environmental Planner Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 777 North Capitol St NE Washington, DC 20002 jking at mwcog.org 202-962-3200 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Note: This email, including any attachments, is confidential. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete it and all copies of it from your system. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must not use, print, distribute, copy or disclose its content to anyone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080912/3111f50b/attachment.html From philj at co2group.co.nz Wed Sep 10 19:49:55 2008 From: philj at co2group.co.nz (Philip Jones) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:49:55 +1200 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG accounting for cargo shipping Message-ID: <267DCF452B7713439622B97A465B3B2D69CA52@ASLSBS03.andrewstewart.local> Hi, I am working for a New Zealand client whose major activity is the importing of goods, and so need to include the shipping activity in their organizational GHG inventory. I'm intending to use the EFs specified in the GHG Protocol's "CO2 emissions from transport or mobile sources" - V1.3 Jan 2005; specifically 0.01 kg CO2 per metric tonne kilometer (for marine shipping). I just wanted to ask whether there is any likelihood that these EFs may be updated in the near future, or whether alternative source(s) may be relevant. Thanks, Phil PHIL JONES CARBON GROUP LIMITED M: +64 21 0733 629 DDI: +64 9 984 7751 Fax: +64 9 303 0104 PO Box 911310 Victoria Street West Auckland 1142 www.co2group.co.nz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080911/989dd67a/attachment.html From szakreski at climatetrust.org Thu Sep 11 12:00:48 2008 From: szakreski at climatetrust.org (Sheldon Zakreski) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:00:48 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] emission factor for methanol production Message-ID: I'm doing some research on producing methanol and I'm trying to get a better handle on the range of emission factors. The IPCC has a default value of 1.95 mtCO2 per mt methanol, but could anyone point me to any research or data that illustrates the emission factor range for methanol factories? Sheldon Zakreski Senior Program Manager The Climate Trust 503.238.1915 ext. 215 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080911/089c6ba3/attachment.html From d.noble at fivewinds.com Mon Sep 15 10:33:18 2008 From: d.noble at fivewinds.com (Duncan Noble) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:33:18 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] emission factor for methanol production In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01CE0D85287E7A42968FB5C46568C6404EECEA@fwserver.fw.local> Hi Sheldon: Check out the following sources for a start (all should be easy to find with your favorite search engine): European Life Cycle Database U.S. Life Cycle Database (not as much data as EU dBase, and a lot of it is old) U.S. GREET model Canadian GHGenius model (their website has a lot of reports that often summarize available data for transportation fuels) Cheers ... Duncan Duncan Noble Five Winds International - Value without Burden - _______________________________________________ www.fivewinds.com Ottawa, Canada Tel.: +1.613.722.6629 ext. 224 Fax: +1.613.722.0574 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 Sheldon Zakreski Sent: September 11, 2008 12:01 PM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] emission factor for methanol production I'm doing some research on producing methanol and I'm trying to get a better handle on the range of emission factors. The IPCC has a default value of 1.95 mtCO2 per mt methanol, but could anyone point me to any research or data that illustrates the emission factor range for methanol factories? Sheldon Zakreski Senior Program Manager The Climate Trust 503.238.1915 ext. 215 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080915/eb6f6ba8/attachment.html From Fiona.Berry at arup.com Mon Sep 15 15:06:51 2008 From: Fiona.Berry at arup.com (Fiona Berry) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:06:51 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] cumulative vs annual emissions analysis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jeffrey You may also be interested in some guidance from California: * California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) "CEQA and Climate Change" white paper http://www.capcoa.org/ * Technical Advisory note (June 19,2008) issued by the Governor's office 'CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act Review' http://www.opr.ca.gov/download.php?dl=ceqa/pdfs/june08-ceqa.pdf Regards, Fiona Berry Senior Sustainability Consultant, LEED(tm) AP Arup 901 Market St, Suite 260, San Francisco CA 94103 tel: 1 415 946 0273 fax: 1 415 957 9096 www.arup.com ________________________________ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey King Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 11:09 AM To: GHGNetwork Subject: [GHG Network] cumulative vs annual emissions analysis As we begin to identify, analyze and recommend mitigation options here in the metropolitan Washington region, stakeholders have raised the issue of the need to examine measures in terms of their impact on cumulative emissions rather than just annual emissions. If possible, can you refer me to definitive studies and policies that address this issue? Also, whether folks are aware of cost/benefit spreadsheet tools that may provide useful framework to undertake such an analysis of measures. Thanks. Jeff Jeffrey King Sr. Environmental Planner Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 777 North Capitol St NE Washington, DC 20002 jking at mwcog.org 202-962-3200 ____________________________________________________________ Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080915/9d377d3d/attachment.html From r.vandijk at lhc.nl Tue Sep 16 04:56:20 2008 From: r.vandijk at lhc.nl (Richard van Dijk) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 04:56:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] transportation & logistics: LCA vs GHG protocol Message-ID: <20080916085620.732CCC18005@milkyway.forumone.com> Dear all, Currently, there are two different approaches to assess the climate impact of processes and organisations: either with Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods, or based on the GHG protocol. The two approaches use different concepts and therefore may yield different GHG emission results. What is the difference in methodology, boundary setting and required level of detail for both? What would be a good source of information on LCA with regard to transportation and logistics? Thanks, Richard From dcarter at ksu.edu Tue Sep 16 17:35:32 2008 From: dcarter at ksu.edu (David Carter) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:35:32 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] Hospital GHG Sources In-Reply-To: <008b01c9182d$eea05650$4c01070a@sedgwickex.local> References: <008b01c9182d$eea05650$4c01070a@sedgwickex.local> Message-ID: <012e01c91844$262f5a10$728e0e30$@edu> Hello: I'm looking for resources that might show typical sources of GHG in hospitals. I know the big ones, of course - electricity generation, CO2 from combustion sources such as boilers, generators, and vehicles. What I'm looking for is something that might tell me the cumulative amount of GHG from anesthetic gases (nitrous oxide, some perfluorocarbons), and other perhaps lesser-known sources. Also, if there is a specific reporting protocol for hospitals. Thanks! David A. Carter Pollution Prevention Specialist Pollution Prevention Institute Kansas State University 133 Ward Hall Manhattan, KS 66506-2508 785-532-4998 (office) 785-341-2804 (cell) 785-532-6952 (fax) www.sbeap.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080916/05b51401/attachment.html From andrea.smith at cdproject.net Tue Sep 16 11:35:17 2008 From: andrea.smith at cdproject.net (Andrea Smith) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:35:17 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] Job opportunities at the Carbon Disclosure Project Message-ID: Opportunities in CDP's Technical Team CDP's technical team is responsible for a wide range of activities including development of the CDP information requests, corporate engagement, liaison with standard setters and policy makers, running the Climate Disclosure Standards Board secretariat and helping to organise CDP workshops for reporting organisations. We are seeking one or more resourceful, dynamic and flexible individuals to work in this very varied area. Experience and/or qualification in one or more of the following disciplines is preferred: greenhouse gas measurement, management and verification; life cycle analysis; environmental accounting; policy development. A range of working arrangements may be considered for the right candidate, including part time contracts. For more information on CDP generally, please see www.cdproject.net To respond to the advertisement, please contact recruitment at cdproject.net Andrea Smith Technical Manager Carbon Disclosure Project 40 Bowling Green Lane London EC1R 0NE Landline +44 (0)2392 361 988 Mobile +44 (0)7787 326 724 Email andrea.smith at cdproject.net Web www.cdproject.net Carbon Disclosure Project, Registered Charity no. 122330. A company limited by guarantee registered in England no. 05013650. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080916/a51e2f4f/attachment-0001.html From madelucchi at ucdavis.edu Tue Sep 16 19:50:22 2008 From: madelucchi at ucdavis.edu (Mark A. Delucchi) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:50:22 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] transportation & logistics: LCA vs GHG protocol In-Reply-To: <20080916085620.732CCC18005@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20080916085620.732CCC18005@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: Dear Richard, There is at present no good model of the climate impact of transportation systems, because nobody yet has satisfactorily combined models of economic, environmental and technological systems. The LCA concept, even in its best applications, is a usually poor approximation of the integrated systems modeling needed. (The LCA concept as embodied in the ISO standards is an even poorer approximation, because the ISO standards lag the state of thinking.) If you want more information, you can look at the lifecycle analysis part of my web page. 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 Sep 16, 2008, at 1:56 AM, Richard van Dijk wrote: > Dear all, > > Currently, there are two different approaches to assess the climate > impact of processes and organisations: either with Life Cycle > Assessment (LCA) methods, or based on the GHG protocol. The two > approaches use different concepts and therefore may yield different > GHG emission results. > > What is the difference in methodology, boundary setting and > required level of detail for both? What would be a good source of > information on LCA with regard to transportation and logistics? > > Thanks, > Richard > _______________________________________________ > 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/20080916/3a3066cd/attachment.html From tanabe at iges.or.jp Thu Sep 18 03:40:44 2008 From: tanabe at iges.or.jp (Kiyoto TANABE) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:40:44 +0900 Subject: [GHG Network] Vacancy announcement from TSU of the IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme Message-ID: Dear GHG Network members, The Technical Support Unit (TSU) of the IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme is looking to recruit a programme officer. The candidate should have experience of national greenhouse gas inventories and will contribute to our work supporting the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas inventories. The TSU is based in Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan (near Tokyo) where this post will be based. The deadline for application is 6 October 2008. For further details and information on how to apply please see http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/tsu/tsu-vacancy.html Simon Eggleston Head, Technical Support Unit IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme ========================================================= Kiyoto TANABE (Mr) Programme Officer, Technical Support Unit, IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme C/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) 2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa, 240-0115 JAPAN Phone: +81-46-855-3752, Fax: +81-46-855-3808 e-mail: tanabe at iges.or.jp http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp ========================================================= From chris.lindley at rev-id.com Fri Sep 19 00:54:36 2008 From: chris.lindley at rev-id.com (Chris Lindley) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:54:36 +1200 Subject: [GHG Network] Generic product emission values... Message-ID: <00c301c91a13$d0be8f20$723bad60$@lindley@rev-id.com> Hi Everyone. Our client is a city that uses our software to track their scope 1 and 2 emissions. They are now wanting to start tracking some of their scope 3 emissions beginning with a number of their construction projects (infrastructure and buildings). We provide our customer with as much automation of data input as possible as they have over 400 sites that they track (bus stations, property, waste water systems, traffic lights, street lighting etc etc). With scope 1 and 2 data we achieve this automation by providing them with a system to approve their energy, fuel, water and waste bills (a task they must do anyway) which we receive electronically from their suppliers. Once approved, the system then converts the values in these bills to emissions data for each of their 400+ sites based on cost codes, meter numbers etc. In a similar vein, they have many construction sites across the city of all various shapes and sizes. The system can track the emissions of construction projects that then, on completion, become facilities/assets just like one of their 400+ other sites. We need to know the CO2e values of the various materials and products that their suppliers use in their projects. If we start with generic CO2e values we can then improve on the specifics of these values going forward (recycled / virgin materials, domestic / international suppliers, etc). As we improve the accuracy of these values the customer will be in a position to make better product/supplier choices - being a city, the quantities are significant. And they can also compare the historical emissions profiles of their construction projects. They will then be able track the energy and resources used by the completed buildings and facilities over their life times meaning they can further compare the effectiveness of the different materials and construction processes used. Putting a dollar value to these results means the city can quantify their investments, substantiate their sustainability initiatives and whole raft of other good things. I understand that this is not a simple task but we're pretty much there. We just need the LCA values of the products and materials. So does anyone know of a single source of generic values for the emissions embodied in various kinds of products, specifically building and construction products? Everything from steel, cement and timber to facets/taps, plug sockets, window frames and glass. I understand the issues and complexities of defining the boundaries for an LCA of a product (noting the email from Luis Huertas to this forum on 31 July specifically - thanks!) but maybe there's some generic numbers out there somewhere. I know I can find this kind of information for steel and cement etc from various sources such as the GHG protocol tools but maybe there's a single source of data somewhere? Our software is based on the GHG protocol corporate standard. By 2010, with this kind of information in place, maybe we'll be well suited to incorporate the GHG Protocol's product and supply chain standard too! Thanks for your time. Regards Chris cid:7794DB78-04EF-4AAA-B653-88B90F9325E8 at local Chris Lindley | CEO | Rev-ID Ltd Mob +64 21 380 845 | Tel/Fax: +64 9 929 3222 PO Box 105 993, Auckland City, Auckland, New Zealand Email Chris.Lindley at Rev-ID.com | Web www.Rev-ID.com Please consider the environment before printing this email -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080919/5e7ec967/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 149 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080919/5e7ec967/attachment.gif From Jean-Robert_Wells at uqac.ca Fri Sep 19 13:15:08 2008 From: Jean-Robert_Wells at uqac.ca (Jean-Robert_Wells at uqac.ca) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:15:08 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Re : Generic product emission values... In-Reply-To: <00c301c91a13$d0be8f20$723bad60$%lindley@rev-id.com> References: <00c301c91a13$d0be8f20$723bad60$%lindley@rev-id.com> Message-ID: Hi Chris. You may contact edouard.clement at polymtl.ca at the CIRAIG (www.ciraig.org). He should be able to help you out. The CIRAIG is an Interuniversity Research Centre for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes and Services based at the Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal. J-Robert Wells, P.Eng., M.Sc. Graduated eco-adviser Research associates Chair on Eco-Advising University of Quebec in Chicoutimi Chicoutimi, Canada jrwells at uqac.ca http://ecoconseil.uqac.ca ? Avant d'imprimer, pensons ? l'Environnement. Before printing, think about the Environment -------------- next part -------------- Hi Everyone. Our client is a city that uses our software to track their scope 1 and 2 emissions. They are now wanting to start tracking some of their scope 3 emissions beginning with a number of their construction projects (infrastructure and buildings). We provide our customer with as much automation of data input as possible as they have over 400 sites that they track (bus stations, property, waste water systems, traffic lights, street lighting etc etc). With scope 1 and 2 data we achieve this automation by providing them with a system to approve their energy, fuel, water and waste bills (a task they must do anyway) which we receive electronically from their suppliers. Once approved, the system then converts the values in these bills to emissions data for each of their 400+ sites based on cost codes, meter numbers etc. In a similar vein, they have many construction sites across the city of all various shapes and sizes. The system can track the emissions of construction projects that then, on completion, become facilities/assets just like one of their 400+ other sites. We need to know the CO2e values of the various materials and products that their suppliers use in their projects. If we start with generic CO2e values we can then improve on the specifics of these values going forward (recycled / virgin materials, domestic / international suppliers, etc). As we improve the accuracy of these values the customer will be in a position to make better product/supplier choices - being a city, the quantities are significant. And they can also compare the historical emissions profiles of their construction projects. They will then be able track the energy and resources used by the completed buildings and facilities over their life times meaning they can further compare the effectiveness of the different materials and construction processes used. Putting a dollar value to these results means the city can quantify their investments, substantiate their sustainability initiatives and whole raft of other good things. I understand that this is not a simple task but we're pretty much there. We just need the LCA values of the products and materials. So does anyone know of a single source of generic values for the emissions embodied in various kinds of products, specifically building and construction products? Everything from steel, cement and timber to facets/taps, plug sockets, window frames and glass. I understand the issues and complexities of defining the boundaries for an LCA of a product (noting the email from Luis Huertas to this forum on 31 July specifically - thanks!) but maybe there's some generic numbers out there somewhere. I know I can find this kind of information for steel and cement etc from various sources such as the GHG protocol tools but maybe there's a single source of data somewhere? Our software is based on the GHG protocol corporate standard. By 2010, with this kind of information in place, maybe we'll be well suited to incorporate the GHG Protocol's product and supply chain standard too! Thanks for your time. Regards Chris cid:7794DB78-04EF-4AAA-B653-88B90F9325E8 at local Chris Lindley | CEO | Rev-ID Ltd Mob +64 21 380 845 | Tel/Fax: +64 9 929 3222 PO Box 105 993, Auckland City, Auckland, New Zealand Email Chris.Lindley at Rev-ID.com | Web www.Rev-ID.com Please consider the environment before printing this email -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080919/159815e2/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ 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.norman at bitsaintelligence.com Mon Sep 22 09:25:12 2008 From: j.norman at bitsaintelligence.com (Jason Norman) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:25:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] NF3 reduction Message-ID: <20080922132512.2B385C180A8@milkyway.forumone.com> I have a potential project that provides an alternative to NF3 as part of a semi-con cleaning process. NF3 has a global warming potential second only to SF6 in the current list of controlled gases yet it is not included (so far). Does anyone have any experience working with NF3 or any advice as to how one might go about seeking potential carbon credits for a project that would reduce the emission of NF3? From doregan at libertyenviro.com Mon Sep 22 10:03:16 2008 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis O'Regan) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:03:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] NF3 reduction Message-ID: <20080922140316.CDF0AC1805E@milkyway.forumone.com> My sense is that if it isn't on the Kyoto list of 6 GHG gases or families of gases, it is not "officially" eligible for trading. I have seen statements that it has a GWP of 17,000, but until UNFCCC assessment officially establishes a peer-reviewed GWP, this estimate could be considered conjecture. That being said, other bodies (CARB, etc.) might recognize a GWP for the purpose of creating inventories. I have run into a similar issue with propane, as gas with widespread use but also a use that pales in comparison to natural gas (mostly CH4). I've seen GWPs for propane from 3 to about 20 in the literature. But absence its inclusion in Kyoto, I just have to accout for its use/emissions as a simple hydrocarbon. Seems like your best course of action at this time would be to get it covered under the Kyoto or Montreal Protocols. If covered under the latter, I think you may get some credit for destroying NF3, but I'm no expert on Montreal. Dennis From laurie.beu at earthlink.net Mon Sep 22 10:16:00 2008 From: laurie.beu at earthlink.net (LAURIE BEU) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:16:00 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] NF3 reduction In-Reply-To: <20080922132512.2B385C180A8@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20080922132512.2B385C180A8@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <907290D2-392C-4B7F-A6BB-AA29EADA489D@earthlink.net> Hi Jason. The GWP of NF3 does not tell the whole story regarding its climate change impact. While NF3 has a high GWP, its utilization efficiency in semiconductor cleaning processes (especially the remote clean processes) is much higher than other fluorinated compounds typically used for chamber cleaning such as C2F6, CF4, and SF6. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 3 Industrial Processes and Product Use, Chapter 6 contains emission factors for various chamber clean gases and you can compare the utilization efficiencies. Additionally, abatement devices with high NF3 DREs are readily available to abate emissions from the process. Feel free to contact me for further discussion. Best regards, Laurie Laurie S. Beu Consulting Environmental Policy, Strategy & Management 12449 Los Indios Trail Austin, Texas 78729 512-351-3982 laurie.beu at earthlink.net On Sep 22, 2008, at 8:25 AM, Jason Norman wrote: > I have a potential project that provides an alternative to NF3 as > part of a semi-con cleaning process. > NF3 has a global warming potential second only to SF6 in the current > list of controlled gases yet it is not included (so far). > Does anyone have any experience working with NF3 or any advice as to > how one might go about seeking potential carbon credits for a > project that would reduce the emission of NF3? > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20080922/638306a2/attachment.html From ruba.ajjour at moenv.gov.jo Thu Sep 25 05:40:48 2008 From: ruba.ajjour at moenv.gov.jo (Ruba Ajjour) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:40:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Reviewers and consultants needed for Jordan's SNC Message-ID: <20080925094048.2A604C1800E@milkyway.forumone.com> Hello, Jordan???s second national communication is currently under preparation, we have so far drafted the GHG Inventory and the Baseline and Mitigation Scenarios for the different sectors. At this stage, we need the help of external consultants and reviewers in the following areas: - Consultant to estimate the Uncertainty in GHG inventory, - Reviewer for the Baseline and Mitigation Scenarios, - Reviewer for the Energy and Transport sectors in GHG inventory. Interested candidates are encouraged to send their CVs to: ruba.ajjour at moenv.gov.jo Best Regards ======================= Ruba Ajjour SNC- Climate Change Project Project Assistant Tel.: +962 6 5510317 ======================= From credcsecretariat at yahoo.com Fri Sep 26 11:49:57 2008 From: credcsecretariat at yahoo.com (Etiosa CREDC) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] National Dialogue to Promote Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency in Nigeria Message-ID: <345832.31882.qm@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear All, On behalf of the Community Research and Development Centre (CREDC) and our partners, the Global Greengrants Fund (GGF) and the Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth (ERA/FoEN), I am pleased to invite you to our forthcoming national conference titled ?National Dialogue to Promote Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency in Nigeria?. The event is scheduled to hold as follows: ? Date: 10th - 11th November 2008 Venue: Parkview Hotels, Plot 2390 Takoradi Street, Opposite Amusement Park, Wuse Zone 1, Abuja Time: 9 am ? The conference is designed to enhance stakeholders? capacity to advocate for energy efficiency and promote renewable energy technologies. It will essentially help to create awareness on the concept of energy efficiency and help to develop strategies to integrate energy efficiency policy into Nigeria?s policy framework. ? The conference will feature paper presentations from experts in area of energy efficiency, renewable energy and environmental advocacy. There will also be panel discussions, resolutions and development of a plan of action to achieve the objective of the conference. Participants will be drawn from the different regions of Nigeria and other parts of the world. ? The conference is being organized by the Community Research and Development Centre (CREDC) with financial support from the Global Greengrants Funds (GGF) and the Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN). ? CREDC is a non-governmental, non-profit, research and development-base organization registered in Nigeria to ensure the sustainable management of the environment and environmental resources. More information about CREDC can be found in our website www.credcentre.org? ? We have limited fund to support NGO and CBO participants attending from Nigeria. Non-funded participants are expected to take care of their expenses to and fro the conference. Moreover, participants attending from the business/profit oriented organizations such as the banks, insurance companies etc are expected to pay a nominal registration fee of N5000 or $50 for international participants. ? Organization and individuals that wish to carry out exhibition during the conference should contact me directly at the email addresses below or our Programmes Manager Ms Egharese Edevbaro at ese at credcentre.org ? For further inquire about the conference, please contact me at the email addresses below. ? ? Regards, Etiosa Uyigue ?(M. Sc).? Executive Director, Community Research and Development Centre (CREDC) Office Adress: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080926/8684d2ce/attachment.html From justin at climateregistry.org Thu Sep 25 20:05:43 2008 From: justin at climateregistry.org (Justin Bilow) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:05:43 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] California Registry Landfill Protocol Update Open for Public Comment Message-ID: Updated Landfill Project Protocol Now Open for Public Comment The California Climate Action Registry is pleased to announce the completion of the updated Landfill Project Reporting Protocol and the beginning of the updated protocol's public comment period. Public comments are an important aspect of the protocol development process for the California Climate Action Registry (California Registry) and an opportunity for everyone affected to give feedback and help shape the protocols. Written public comments are due October 23, 2008, 5:00 PM PDT Since the adoption of the Landfill Project Reporting Protocols in November 2007, the California Registry has received feedback from stakeholders suggesting updates to the protocols. The California Registry has considered those suggestions and posted the draft updated protocols (Version 2.0) for public review and comment. Changes to the Landfill Project Reporting Protocol include: * Update of the Non-Methane Organic Compounds (NMOC) Threshold analysis * Allowance for open flares to be used as a methane destruction device * Formatting adjustments to the emission reductions quantification methodologies Projects using these protocols can be registered on the Climate Action Reserve . More information about the protocols and the update process, PDFs of the protocols and the instructions on how to submit comments are available at www.climateregistry.org/tools/protocols/project-protocols/landfill.html. Written comments should be submitted by 5:00 PM PDT on October 23, 2008 to policy at climateregistry.org. If you have questions about the protocols or the update process, please contact Tim Kidman at 213-542-0295 or tim at climateregistry.org. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080925/d3ce0ac1/attachment-0001.html From Justin.goodwin at s-esc.co.uk Tue Sep 30 05:25:32 2008 From: Justin.goodwin at s-esc.co.uk (Justin.goodwin at s-esc.co.uk) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:25:32 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] European Registry and GHG inventory Expert Message-ID: <00b101c922de$7cef4730$76cdd590$@goodwin@s-esc.co.uk> Hi, I am looking for a registry and GHG inventory expert to join a strong capacity building team. The applicant should have at least 2 years registry and 3 years GHG inventory experience and be available for 180 days between Nov 2008 and Nov 2009. The project is in Central Europe so the applicant will need to be able to travel to the Central Europe area regularly. Many regards Director Strategic Environmental Systems Consulting Ltd Chichester PO20 7ES West Sussex P. +44 1243 512 932 M. +44 7525 211 475 e-mail: justin.goodwin at s-esc.co.uk Registered in England No. 6653060 VAT Registration No. 938002635 This email and its attachments may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Strategic Environmental Systems Consulting. If you are not the intended recipient of this email and its attachments, you must take no action based upon them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080930/e9f1c46a/attachment.html