I've worked on verifications for beverage companies' GHG inventories reported to the California Climate Action Registry, and carbon dioxide from beverages is being accounted for by the companies that produce the beverage.<br>
<br>Michele Grossman<br><a href="mailto:michele.grossman@gmail.com">michele.grossman@gmail.com</a><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Jason Norman <<a href="mailto:j.norman@bitsaintelligence.com">j.norman@bitsaintelligence.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">It's an interesting question and I think it touches on a much bigger area; the industrial gases business.<br>
If you do a quick analysis of the compressed gases business, many of the associated emissions are already accounted for:<br>
Air separation units to produce the gases use significant amounts of electricity and would normally be associated with scope 2 for the producer.<br>
Distribution of compressed gases will have associated Scope 1 emissions from the distributors.<br>
<br>
When it comes down to use, I'm only aware of limited examples of using the compressed gas for mechanical means. It's too expensive to use cylinder gas for this purpose and as mentioned before, Air and N2 aren't GHG's. I tend to agree with some of the other posts: Scope 3<br>
<br>
An interesting aside relates to the scope for compressed CO2 and dry ice.... it's not as straightforward since CO2 is often captured from other industrial processes, purified and distributed. CO2 is used in many areas but one we're all familiar with is carbonated drinks...when you pop the can you effectively release the CO2 taken from an industrial process....it's your emission but you didn't generate the CO2, you just released it......<br>
<br>
Should the original process owner account for his emission or pass it on? Should the industrial gas company that is profiting from the sale of the captured CO2 or the beverage company that resells it in their drink product have some responsibility?<br>
<br>
With the current guidelines, one could argue that it's a good way for the original industrial process to avoid a Scope 1 emission<br>
If you really want to push the thinking....who would actually want to own a CO2 sequestration reservoir and how much leakage insurance would they need for such a scope 1 emission liability?<br>
<br>
<br>
Jason Norman<br>
GHG Strategy Consultant<br>
<a href="http://www.bitsaintelligence.com" target="_blank">www.bitsaintelligence.com</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network<br>
<a href="http://www.ghgnetwork.org" target="_blank">www.ghgnetwork.org</a><br>
<br>
To post message:<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@ghgnetwork.org">Discuss@ghgnetwork.org</a><br>
<br>
To unsubscribe:<br>
<a href="http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>