Acknowledgement

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude towards Mahatma phule Arts, science and commerce
college , Panvel for providing me with the opportunity of presenting a project. I would like to express
my special thanks to Mrs. Nandini Gaikwad ma’am of Information Technology department, and I
would like to thank my Principal Mr. Ganesh Thakur sir. Who gave me the golden opportunity to do
this wonderful project on the topic “ Green IT” , Which also helped me in doing a lot of Research and
I came to know about so many new things.

Secondly I would also like to express my special thanks to our Subject teacher Mrs. Priya Patil for her
time and efforts. She provided throughout the year. Your useful advice and suggestions were really
helpful to me during the project’s completion. In this aspect, I am eternally grateful to you.

I would like to acknowledge that this project was completed entirely by me .

Carbon footprint of a building is the resultant greenhouse gas emissions in carbon dioxide equivalent
which are quantified by assessing the total energy consumption for the operations of the building, the
transportation patterns associated with the occupants' daily commute and embodied energy of the
building itself.
 TABLE CONTENT

SR. NO. CONTENT TOPICS

1. Introduction

2. Review of Literature

3. Methodology

4. Findings

5. Discussion

6. Conclusion
Abstract

Increasing greenhouse gaseous concentration in the atmosphere is perturbing the environment

to cause grievous global warming and associated consequences. Following the rule that only
measurable is manageable, mensuration of greenhouse gas intensiveness of different
products, bodies, and processes is going on worldwide, expressed as their carbon footprints.
The method ologies for carbon footprint calculations are still evolving and it is emerging as
an important tool for greenhouse gas management. The concept of carbon foot printing has
permeated and is being commercialized in all the areas of life and economy, but there is little
coherence in definitions and calculations of carbon footprints among the studies. There are
disagreements in the selection of gases, and the order of emissions to be covered in footprint
calculations. Standards of greenhouse gas accounting are the common resources used in
footprint calculations, although there is no mandatory provision of footprint verification.
Carbon foot printing is intended to be a tool to guide the relevant emission cuts and
verifications, its standardization at international level are therefore necessary. Present review
describes the pre vailing carbon foot printing methods and raises the related issues.
Climate change and global warming are internationally recognized as current issues, driving
negative effects on humanity, and being mainly caused by GHG emissions generated both
from industrial activities, and from other anthropogenic activities. Restoring the ecological
balance requires urgent action to reduce GHG emissions. In this respect, the European Union
has set the target to reduce the GHG emissions by 20% until 2020, compared to 1990 level.
This paper presents a methodology to develop a model for carbon footprint calculation, for
assessing and reducing GHG emissions generated by European funds financed projects. ©
2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Selection and peer-review under responsibility
of Faculty of Economic Sciences, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu .

Introduction

Environmental protection has now become a major concern, especially following the
significant negative consequences involved by the economic development promoted
since the industrial revolution. People become progressively aware of their activities
implications on the environment, and are increasingly interested in reducing and
correcting the adverse effects. A growing number of studies, research and collected
data, reveal the existence of a direct relationship between climate change and carbon
dioxide emissions (CO2) (IEA, 2012). According to the Fourth
Assessment Report prepared by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
activities of all nations generate increasingly more GHG emissions, having significant
negative impacts on climate change due to alterations taking place in the
compositional level of the atmosphere, and also on rising the average global
temperature since the mid of the 20th Century (IPCC, 2007). The main elements that
generate large amounts of carbon dioxide are fossil fuels (especially oil and coal),
through burning them for obtaining energy. Of all the greenhouse gases, CO2 has the
largest share. Thus, emissions of other greenhouse gases (CH4, N2O, HFC, PFC,
SF6) are converted in units of CO2 equivalent (CO2e), using the warming potential
related to each gas. Among the adverse effects of GHG emissions we can mention:
global warming, decreasing water availability for humanity, pollution of air, water and
soil, melting ice caps and increasing oceans level, degradation of the ozone layer,
extreme weather events, changes of the seasons, reducing biodiversity, desertification.
The PWC Report (2012) "Low Carbon Economy Index" concludes that a 5.1% annual
rate is required for decrease of GHG emissions by 2050, in order to achieve our target
of planetary warming with maximum 2oC. In 2011, this rate was 0.7%, while the
average starting from 2000 is 0.8%. The reduction target was not reached during the
last period, on the one hand because of the increasing emissions in emerging countries
and, on the other hand, due to insufficient involvement of other countries in objectives
achieving, materialized in uncertain policies on national and international level,
reduced efforts for low emissions technologies and even a decline in renewable
energy field. In the relationship between economic growth and evolution of generated
emissions, the latter has an asymmetrical trajectory, increasing with a higher rate than
the economic growth, but more slowly decreasing compared with the economic
decrease. Currently, there are two methods to combat the effects of GHG emissions:
Reducing the level of emissions; Flexible trading mechanisms in the carbon
certificates market: acquiring the rights to emit GHGs by owning a carbon
certificate/license. Within the Kyoto Conference in 1997, the treaty to reduce the
GHG emissions was established and for stabilizing the gases concentration in the
atmosphere. A total of 192 countries have signed the agreement to reduce emissions
by 2012, with an average of 5% compared to the 1990 level. If a country does not
fulfill its reduction target, surpassing the assumed rate, it is forced to buy allowances
from countries that have not consumed theirs. Thus, the mandatory market for carbon
certificates was created. The first cause concerned in generating GHG emissions is the
energy industry. Burning fossil fuels to obtain energy generates most GHG
emissions , so that enterprises in this area must proactively develop technologies and
process to reduce the emissions which can help a lot and play an active role in
shaping the carbon trading mechanism to be used . Some experts believe that the
market for trading carbon emissions can be a beneficial demarche both for companies
and also for the planet in the long term, because it involves an efficient and rapid
method for emissions reduction in the energy industry. (Deloitte, 2010) Aichele and
Felbermayr (2011) argue that the Kyoto Protocol has been ineffective or possibly
even environmental harmful, due to the emergence of carbon leakage, through
increasing of the emissions generated by imports and carbon emissions reallocation.
In parallel with the mandatory market for carbon certificates, the voluntary market for
carbon certificates is operating, giving the owner of one certificate the right to offset
one tonne of CO2e emission, based on the fact that the certificate was issued after a
project for reducing emissions with one tonne in atmosphere. Voluntary market has
the advantage that supports financially the research-development- innovation projects,
in the field of carbon emissions, having concrete results for new and sustainable
technologies (renewable energy). The emissions reduction can be achieved using
technology and materials that generate fewer gases, but also through compensating
the generated emission, by creating absorption capacity for carbon emissions. By
photosynthesis process, trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen and other organic
compounds necessary for life. Thus, afforestation can reduced the effects involved by
GHG emissions.

Another cause that contributes to the greenhouse effect is soil pollution, in particular
through massive deforestation (Munteanu et al., 2011, pp 12, 18-19). The measures
implemented by Romania to reduce GHG emissions include Joint Implementation (JI)
projects, in collaboration with other states, to achieve the technology transfer for GHG
decreasing and for energy efficiency, improvement of environmental quality and
biodiversity conservation. JI projects consist in: construction of Combined Heat and
Power CHP units; use of the low-carbon fuels in industrial equipment and energy
production; promoting non-conventional energy; methane recovery from urban
landfill; reducing greenhouse emissions in the sector of agriculture, energy and
transport; activities for afforestation and/or reforestation of degraded land. (ANPM,
2011, pp 39-40). In this sector, an important role is held by protected areas both to
maintain biodiversity, geodiversity, conservation of the ecosystem with complex
features, and to increase the sequestration capacity of GHG on national level.
Maintaining biodiversity through the protected areas is necessary, not only for
sustaining life in the present,but also for future generations because it maintains the
regional and global ecological balance, guaranteeing regeneration of biological
resources and maintaining environmental quality (air, water, soil) that are necessary
for the society. Sustainable development is an objective of the European Union,
declared and assumed in the last development strategy: Europe 2020. In 2008, the
European Parliament made a commitment to reduce GHG emissions by 20% until
2020, compared to the value from 1990. Consistent with this objective, each member
state has undertaken its own GHG reduction targets. Thus, Romania has assumed a
20% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020. Our country is currently ending its first
programming period 2007-2013, when European funds have been accessed for
strategic investments both for human development and technological capital, and for
natural capital, considering the principles of sustainable development. Given the
assumed target of reducing GHG emissions, we believe that in the next programming
period 2014 2020 it is necessary a greater involvement at all levels to achieve the
goals. In this respect, we consider useful to integrate a model in the Guides for
Applicants of the european funds, initial having low complexity, to calculate the
carbon footprint of emissions generated from the proposed project. In this paper we
present the methodology to develop such a model, which should be national available
for any potential grant applicant, and will create both a comparability system of
projects in terms of emissions (in order to select the most competitive) and a
monitoring system for reduced emissions, so that each project financed by EU funds
will contribute to the national objective of reducing GHG emissions .
Most projects financed by the EIB emit greenhouse gases (GHG) into the
atmosphere either directly (e.g. through fuel combustion or production process
emissions) or indirectly (e.g. through purchased electricity and/or heat). In addition,
many projects result in emissions reductions or increases when compared to what
would have happened in the absence of the project, which are referred to as baseline
emissions. The EIB’s Carbon Footprint Exercise includes direct investment loans and
large framework loan allocations that cross the significant emissions thresholds
defined in Section 5 of the methodologies. Other intermediated lending is not
currently included due to the limited information available to carry out a meaningful
calculation for numerous sub-projects. This document sets out the methodologies to
calculate these projects’ carbon footprints. The methodologies enable two measures of
GHGs from investment projects financed by the Bank to be estimated: • • the absolute
GHG emissions or sequestration of the project, and; the emissions variation of the
project, in other words, the relative GHG emissions of the project, which is the
difference in emissions between the “with” and “without” project scenarios. Relative
emissions can be either positive or negative, based on whether there is an increase or
decrease in emissions. The methodologies set out below are based upon the
internationally recognised Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, the World Resource Institute
(WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) GHG
Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard and the International
Financial Institutions (IFI) Framework for a Harmonised Approach to Greenhouse
Gas Accounting. In the absence of project specific factors, the methodologies adopt an
IPCC factor applicable at the global or trans-national level (termed Tier 1). The
development of the methodologies has also been informed by ISO 14064 Parts 1 and
2 and the Verified Carbon Standard which provide guidelines for the development of
greenhouse gas inventories at the corporate and project levels.
 The EIB calculates and reports the carbon footprints of the projects it finances to
provide transparency on the GHG emissions footprints of its financing activities. The
GHG footprint of an individual investment project is reported in its environmental and
social data sheet. Aggregated results are reported as part of the annual Carbon
Footprint Exercise (CFE) published in the EIB Group’s Sustainability Report .
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its fourth assessment
report has strongly recommended to limit the increase in global
temperaturebelow2◦Cascomparedtopre industrial level (i.e., measured from 1750) to
avoid serious ecological and economic threats. A rise in temperature by 0.74◦C has
already been recorded and hence climate scientists are focusing on an urgent action to
curb global warming (IPCC 2007; Kerr 2007). The imbalances caused in natural
systems due to warming are already being signalled in the form of extreme weather
events and cli mate change. The mountainous snow cover, per frost, and glaciers are
melting and Greenland, Antarctic, and Arctic ice packs are experiencing a negative
mass balance causing the sea level to rise at a rate of 3 mm year−1 (Kerr 2006; Rignot
and Kanagaratnam 2006; IPCC2007). Owing to such complex changes in natural
phenomena, it has been projected that 1–2 billion additional people will be under
water stress, crop productivity in mid-latitudes will suffer loss, and wildlife and
biodiversity will be threatened (Kerr 2007). On social forefront, developing and poor
countries are at immediate and disproportionately high risk of being adversely
affected by global warming and thus the “MILLENNIUM development goal” of
eradicating poverty may be compromised (UNDP 2007). “The world is running short
of time and option” at social and economic front in view of high risks related with
global warming and climate change (Stern 2006). Strong and immediate local to
international actions are thus needed to stabilize emissions in a justified manner. As
the understanding of the science and consequences of global warming grew, the
concern for preventing disastrous climate change led to a substantive action in the
form of endorsement of “Kyoto protocol” in 1997 which requires developed
economies or economies in transition listed in its annexure I to reduce their collective
emissions of six important greenhouse gases (GHGs) namely carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), set of perfluorocarbons, and hydrofluorocarbons
by at least 5.2% as compared to 1990 level during the period 2008–2012 (UN 1998).
The gases covered under Kyoto protocol are referred collectively as “Kyoto gases”
(WRI/WBCSD 2004). This proto col, however, has not received equal support from
all the nations and some did not ratify it giving reasons that their economies may
suffer loss. How ever, a critical review over impacts of acting or not acting against
climate change carried out by Stern (2006) led to the conclusion that “the benefits of
strong early action considerably outweigh the costs.” It was predicted that not acting
immediately will cost at least 5% of global gross
domestic product (GDP) loss annually while annual investment equivalent to 1% of
global GDP may help in limiting temperature rise below 2◦C. Otherwise it would be
impossible to revert the changes. Emissions of Kyoto gases need to be cut by 25%
below the current level by 2050 so that the growth of countries is not compromised .

Greenhouse gas sources

 Rapid rise in global temperature is due to the “enhanced greenhouse effect” (i.e., the
greenhouse effect additional to the natural) due to human induced release of GHGs
into the atmosphere. Not all GHGs have equal capacity to cause warming but their
strengths depend on radiative forcing it causes and the average time for which that gas
molecule stays in the atmosphere. Considering these two together, the average
warming it can cause, known as ‘global warming potential’ (GWP), is calculated
mathematically and is ex pressed relative to that of CO2. Therefore, unit of GWP is
carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e). Important contributors to global warming are
Kyoto gases, whose emissions increased by 70% during 1970–2004 (IPCC 2007). In
addition to these six gases, the members of chlorofluorocarbons family bear very high
GWP, but since their emissions have been controlled successfully under Montreal
protocol, they are no longer a problem. Tropospheric ozone and black carbon have
also been found to warm the troposphere. The rates of increment in GHG
concentrations are extraordinarily high, far exceeding the natural range as evident
from geological and ice core studies (IPCC 2007). The biggest share of these GHGs
comes from fossil fuel combustions in the form of CO2 (58.6%). Next come CH4 and
N2O contributing to 14.3% and 7.9%, respectively, to total collective CO2-e. Major
sources of these two gases are the agricultural systems (IPCC 2007). In order to
comply with 2◦C target, the atmospheric stock of GHGs needs to be stabilized below
550 ppm in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents , of which 430 ppm has been attained
in 2007 (Page 2008). Therefore GHG inventories are going on all over the world and
every possible method to control them are being recognized and evaluated. As the
climate change issues became prominent on political and corporate agenda, general
public especially in developed countries started recognizing their responsibility
towards taking action against global warming (Goodall 2007). These concerns and
media have provided tremendous popularity to quantification of the contribution of
various activities to global warming usually represented in terms of “carbon
footprint”. However, information available on carbon foot printing be set with
uncertainty and inconsistency (Schiermeier 2006; Wiedmann and Minx 2007; Kenny
and Gray 2008; Padgett et al. 2008). The objective of the present review is to
systematically analyze the relevant available information on global warming, GHG
emissions and characteristics, carbon foot printing concepts, calculation of carbon
footprints, methodology followed for estimation, and uses of this by general public,
corporate sector, industries, and governments

Concept of carbon footprint

 Origin of carbon footprint can be traced back to as a subset of “ecological footprint”
proposed by Wackernagel and Rees (1996). Ecological foot print refers to the
biologically productive land and sea area required to sustain a given human
population expressed as global hectares. According to this concept, carbon footprint
refers to the land area required to assimilate the entire CO2 produced by the mankind
during its lifetime. In due course of time as the global warming issue took prominence
in the world environmental agenda, use of carbon footprint became common
independently, although in a modified form (East 2008). The concept of carbon foot
printing has been in use since several decades but known differently as life cycle
impact category indicator global warming potential (Finkbeiner 2009). Therefore, the
present form of carbon footprint may be viewed as a hybrid, deriving its name from
“ecological footprint”, and conceptually being a global warming potential indicator.
There are few studies that report carbon footprint in terms of global hectares
notwithstanding the modern nexus about it (Browne et al. 2009). Besides its wide
spread favourable public reputation as an indicator of contribution of an entity to the
global warming, there are confusions over what it exactly means
(WiedmannandMinx2007;East2008;Finkbeiner 2009; Peters 2010). It is also
remarked that the scientific literature on the subject is scarce and the most studies
have been carried out by private organizations and companies predominantly due to
their business sense rather than their environmental responsibility (Kleiner 2007;
Wiedmann and Minx 2007; East 2008). Other terms used associated or sometimes as
a synonym of carbon footprint in the available literature are embodied carbon, carbon
content , embedded carbon ,carbon flows, virtual carbon, GHG footprint, and climate
footprint (Wiedmann and Minx 2007; Courchene and Allan 2008; Edgar and Peters
2009; Peters 2010). There is little uniformity in the definitions of carbon footprint
within the available literature and studies (WiedmannandMinx2007). Based on their
survey, Wiedmann and Minx (2007) defined that the carbon footprint is a measure of
the exclusive total amount of carbon dioxide emissions that is directly and indirectly
caused by an activity or is accumulated over the life stages of a product. Anew term
“climate footprint” was proposed as a comprehensive GHG indicator, i.e., if all the
GHGs originating from within the boundary are quantified. However, new studies and
methods followed for carbon footprint calculation, suggest including other GHGs as
well, apart from only CO2 (Office of sustainability and environment, City of Seattle
2002; Kelly et al. 2009; Eshel and Martin 2006; Bokowski et al. 2007; Ferris et al.
2007; T C Chan Centre for Building Simulation & Energy Studies/Penn Praxis 2007;
Garg and Dornfeld 2008; Good Company 2008; Johnson 2008, Edgar and Peters
2009; Browne et al. 2009). There is a lack of uniformity over the selection of direct
and embodied emissions. Direct emissions are those that are made directly during the
progress of a process. As an example, CO2 released during combustion in a gasoline
fired industrial boiler is a direct emission. On the other hand in electrically heated
boiler, no direct emissions will be observed. But if the electricity used in the boiler
was generated in a thermal power plant, the amount of CO2 released in generation
and transmission of the units of electricity consumed in the boiler is referred as the
embodied or indirect emission. It becomes complex to include all possible emissions
and thus most studies report only direct or first order indirect emissions (Carbon Trust
 2007b; Wiedmann and Minx 2007; Matthews et al. 2008b). In absence of
consistencies among selection of characteristic properties of carbon footprint viz.
gases selected and boundaries drawn for the carbon footprint calculations by different
organizations vary significantly (Wiedmann and Minx 2007; Kenny and Gray 2008;
Padgett et al. 2008). Since carbon footprint is associated with money transactions in
form of taxes, carbon offsets, or increase/decrease in consumer choices, consistent
carbon footprint calculations are essential to facilitate comparisons. In spite of
prevailing differences among the calculations , the CO2 equivalent (CO2-e) mass
based on 100 years global warming potential has been accepted as reporting unit of
carbon footprint (WRI/WBCSD 2004; Carbon Trust 2007b; BSI 2008). Hammond
(2007) and Global Footprint Network (2007) hold the opinion that “footprints are
spatial indicators”. Hence, the term commonly called as carbon footprint should
precisely be called as “carbon weight” or “carbon mass” (Jarvis 2007). But CO2-e
mass has been promoted as unit of carbon footprint due to convenient calculations
and wide acceptance (Lynas 2007). Therefore carbon footprint may be defined as,
“the quantity of GHGs expressed in terms of CO2-e, emitted into the atmosphere by
an individual, organization, process, product, or event from within a specified
boundary”. The set of GHGs and boundaries are defined in accordance with the
methodology adopted and the objective of carbon foot printing as discussed later in
this review .

Importance of carbon foot printing

 Carbon footprint, being a quantitative expression of GHG emissions from an activity
helps in emission management and evaluation of mitigation measures (Carbon Trust
2007b). Having quantified the emissions, the important sources of emissions can be
identified and areas of emission reductions and increasing efficiencies can be
prioritized. This provides the opportunity for environmental efficiencies and cost
reductions. Re porting of carbon footprint to the third party or disclosure to the public
is needed in response to legislative requirements, or carbon trading or as a part of
corporate social responsibility, or for improving the brand’s image (Carbon Trust
2007b; L.E.K. Consulting LLP 2007). Legislative actions have been taken to quantify
and reduce carbon footprint of cities and organizations and it is playing an important
role in policy making (Office of sustainability and environment, City of Seattle 2002;
Courchene and Allan 2008; Good Company 2008). USA has made it mandatory to
keep register of emissions from firms and companies under ‘Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008’ (Rich 2008). EU has also taken lead in formulating legal
bindings for reduction in emissions embodied in aviation . California capped the GHG
emissions from major industries and put a moratorium on import of non-conventional
vehicular fuels unless its carbon footprint is less than that of petroleum-derived fuel
(Courchene and Allan 2008). California Global Warming Solution Act, 2006 is aimed
at bringing the emissions of California to the level of 1990 by 2020 (Capoor and
Ambrosi 2009). The UK Government through the Low Carbon Transition Plan, 2009
instigates households to contribute towards building a low carbon future (Department
of Energy and Climate Change 2010). Most of the organizations and almost all
personal carbon foot printing attempts have been observed to head towards reducing
the emissions or offsetting the footprints through buying carbon credits, or other
control measures. Besides policy matters, carbon footprint has got an enormous
importance for business. The corporate world has sensed a car bon constrained
economy in near future (Kleiner 2007). Hence a rush to calculate the carbon foot print
and to cut down the emissions has begun worldwide so as to take competitive
advantage (Kleiner 2007). It is proved by the fact that number of companies
participating in CDP increased from 383 in 2008 to 409 in 2009 (CDP 2009). In a
survey conducted by L.E.K. Consulting LLP (2007), it was found that 44% consumers
preferred to buy the products, which provided the information about their carbon
footprints, while 43% were willing to pay more for the products with relatively low
carbon footprint. Hence the corporate sector has responded in a big way. With
growing awareness regarding climate change, a remarkable concern has grown in
individuals over their responsibility of contributing to the emissions of GHGs. This
has led to the surge of personal carbon foot printing facilities (consultancies and
online calculators) particularly in developed countries (Padgett et al. 2008; Kenny and
Gray 2008). After footprint calculation, they offer to offset the footprint by tree
plantation, supporting forestation, and renewable energy resources (Murray and Day
2009) and for this reason, a dramatic growth in voluntary carbon market has been
reported since 1989 (Hamilton et al. 2007). Decrease in fossil - fuel transport systems
can be achieved through propensity to walk and use bicycles as a behavioural change
in individuals (Frank et al. 2010). In addition to its business importance, carbon
footprint has been used as an indicator of the impact of lifestyle of a citizen of a
 country on car bon emissions. The UNDP (2007) and Edgar and Peters (2009)
published country wise per capita carbon footprint, a convenient way to compare
contributions of countries, cities, and sectors to wards global warming. Figure 1
represents per capita carbon footprint for different classes of countries based on the
degree of development.

It is clear that high income countries leave the biggest footprint while it is
substantially low for developing countries. Carbon footprints are now used as an
important indicator of event management (London 2012 Sustainability Plan 2007).
Studies on the impact of natural and semi-natural systems quantitatively in terms of
carbon footprint are reported (Chambers et al. 2007). It may help to compare natural
verses anthropogenic impacts on the environment. Hence we see that hardly there may
be any entity which cannot be a candidate to carbon foot printing. Table 1 shows some
of the entities for which carbon footprint has been calculated .

Guiding principles
 Certain principles underpin the estimation of project-based absolute and relative
GHG emissions. These principles should guide users in cases where the EIB
methodologies afford flexibility or discretion, or where a particular situation requires
the application of a case-specific factor. The application of these principles will help
ensure the credibility and consistency of efforts to quantify and report emissions.
These principles are listed below.

Completeness
All relevant information should be included in the quantification of a project’s GHG
emissions and in the aggregation of the total EIB-induced GHG footprint. This
ensures that there are no material omissions from the data and information that would
substantively influence the assessments and decisions of the users of the emissions
data and information.

Consistency
The credible quantification of GHG emissions requires that methods and
procedures are always applied to a project and its components in the same manner,
that the same criteria and assumptions are used to evaluate significance and relevance,
and that any data collected and reported allow for meaningful comparisons over time .

Transparency
GHG emissions are assessed for individual investment projects, with emissions
calculated according to the EIB methodologies during the appraisal reported in the
project’s environmental and social data sheet, which is published on the EIB’s website
in the public register. For the purposes of annual reporting in the CFE, the project
figures are prorated in proportion to the EIB funding for the project (financed contract
amounts signed in that year compared to its total investment costs). Thus, if the EIB
signs a contract for 25% of a project in a particular year, 25% of the project emissions
will be reported in that year. Further contracts may be signed for the same project in
subsequent years and will be accounted for separately in the respective year, again
using a prorated approach based on the finance contract amount in that year, ensuring
that there is no double counting of the impact of a project. Clear and sufficient
information should be available to allow for the credibility and reliability of reported
GHG emissions to be assessed. Specific exclusions or inclusions should be clearly
identified and assumptions should be explained. Appropriate references should be
provided for both data and assumptions. Information relating to the project boundary,
the explanation of the baseline choice, and the estimation of baseline emissions should
be sufficient to replicate results and comprehend the conclusions drawn.
Conservativeness
The EIB should use conservative assumptions, values and procedures. Conservative
values and assumptions are those that are more likely to overestimate absolute
emissions and “positive” relative emissions (net increases) and underestimate
“negative” relative emissions (net reductions).

Balance
Objective threshold values are used to determine which investment projects are
included in the portfolio carbon footprint. This includes investment projects with
positive as well as negative impacts.

Accuracy
Carbon foot printing involves many forms of uncertainty, including uncertainty
about the identification of secondary effects, the identification of baseline scenarios,
and baseline emission estimates. Therefore, GHG estimates are, in principle,
approximate. Uncertainties with respect to GHG estimates or calculations should be
reduced as far as is practical, and estimation methods should avoid bias. Where
accuracy is reduced, the data and assumptions used to quantify GHG emissions should
be conservative.

Relevance
GHG sources, GHG sinks, GHG reservoirs, data and methodologies appropriate to
the needs of the intended user should be selected.

Carbon footprint and measuring methodologies

The "carbon footprint" term was developed in the 90's, deriving from the concept of
"ecological footprint" (Ercin and Hoekstra, 2012), but addressing the measurement of
the climate change impacts. The concept began to be publicized independently, since
2005 and refers to the impact of human activities on the environment and especially
on the climatic conditions, in terms of greenhouse gases emissions (or briefly called "
carbon emissions"). According to Wiedmann and Minx (2008), the carbon footprint is
"the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) caused by an organization,
event or product". Carbon footprint calculation serves as an assessment tool in terms
of GHG emissions and then, it serves to manage and reduce these emissions. After
calculating the carbon footprint, its detailing helps to identify weaknesses - areas of
high emissions that can be eliminated or improved. Thus, carbon footprint is an
indicator of sustainable development. Internationally, numerous methodologies and
models for calculating carbon footprint were developed, both on individual level or a
product / service, organization / institution level but also for communities, nations and
even at global level. Thus, we distinguish several studies and reports on the carbon
footprint, developed by various international institutions and organizations, both
private (especially NGOs) as well as public, but the literature does not fully cover the
topic: there are gaps both concerning its definition and its application in practice. Due
to the multitude of models and calculation methodologies, there is no uniform or
universally accepted method for calculating the carbon footprint. However, more and
more companies, especially multinationals ones, are willing to make an effort to
calculate the carbon footprint and to disseminate the results. In some cases, it can be
observed a greater intention and a concrete mobilization on the individual and
organizational level than on governmental level.
In this case, the organizational benefits refer both to corporate social responsibility,
and to marketing activities through gaining a competitive advantage on the sustainable
development promoter image and protector of the environment. Certain international
standards provide guidance on the methodology for calculating carbon emissions,
depending on the studied aspect (product/organization/project/community). ISO
14064 Standard consists of 3 series for GHG inventories, quantifying and reducing the
GHG emissions for the major projects, and for their validation and verification; ISO
14040 and 14044 Standards refer to the life cycle analysis of products and services
and their impact on the environment; ISO 14067 Standard (in development) will be
dedicated to measuring the carbon footprint of the product during its life cycle (Bratu,
2010). PAS 2050 methodology, developed in 2008, is addressed to industrial
organizations that aim to calculating the carbon footprint of products. Developed
based on previous standards, it offers some technical specifications for calculation
(Lundie et al, 2009). IPCC methodology is the most formalized reference, globally
accepted for quantifying GHG emitted by system. The IPCC Guide is used for the
elaboration of GHG inventories on national level. The IPCC database, including
emission factors for all activity sectors, is best used on national level, but also in the
individual/organizational models, including those using LCA method (Lundie et al,
2009). Emission factors are values for correlating the amount of pollutants emitted
into the atmosphere and the associated activity to generate that type of pollutant.
Emission factors are calculated as average values in the long term, by interpreting
technical informations, documents of emission testing, emission continuous
monitoring systems. Globally, there are available several databases for emission
factors, among which the IPCC (Melanta, 2010). GHG
Protocol developed by the World Resources Institute and World Business Council for
Sustainable Development is the most used standard for organizations and businesses,
considering all three emission levels possible to be generated (Wiedmann and Barett,
2010). According to Nielsen et al. (2009), the existing methodologies are still in
development, and even if some of them emphasize the importance of the carbon
footprint calculation, taking into account all the necessary details, none of them
provides sufficient computing breakdowns. For current methodologies do not yet
meet all the completeness requirements, carbon emissions sector has not reached
maturity for mandatory implementation of these methodologies. In case of products
methodologies, none of these has been sufficiently tested to determine its global
applicability (Ernst &Young, 2010). Wiedmann and Minx (2007) describe two
methods to calculate the carbon footprint using LCA: process analysis (PA) and
Environmental Input-Output Analysis (EIO). The process analysis is a bottom-up
approach to analyse a product from creation to the end of its life, taking into account
direct and some secondary emissions, but having the disadvantage of double
counting. EIO involves a top-down approach and is applied on sectoral level,
expanding boundaries and eliminating the problem of double counting. The authors
recommend the application of a hybrid model, combining advantages of the two
methods: using EIO as primary method, and locally applying the PA. The analysed
emissions within such a model are divided into three levels, depending on the control
power of the organization/community on their sources: scope 1: direct emissions, for
activities directly controlled by the organization/ community; scope 2: indirect
emissions, derived from the use of electricity, heat and cooling; scope 3: other indirect
emissions, from downstream and upstream (along the supply and retail chain).
Matthews et al. (2008) concluded that the first 2 emission levels cover only part of the
total footprint of a company, especially for the supply chain. Using the EIO-LCA
model and detailing each upstream purchased product / service, involve significant
emissions that should be taken into account. On the other hand, in case of complex
products, a number of stakeholders can assume responsibility in the supply chain (raw
material manufacturer, producer of adjuvant materials or other elements incorporated
into the product), and so the problem of double counting appears. To solve this
problem, Lenzen introduced the concept of "shared responsibility" between supply
chain members, but having serious difficulties in implementation (Matthews et al.,
2008). Among the limits assigned to the carbon footprint we mention ignoring
potentially toxic aspects in communicating a product's environmental impact. But the
most important disadvantage is the lack of harmonization for calculation
methodologies on international level: there are competitive standards and even
contradictory on some points, due to lack of coordination for standardization. The
multitude of existing methodologies and calculation models lead to confusion on
choosing the best alternative to be applied. Also, working with approximate values
can distort the result of the calculation, especially in areas where there is a lack of
information on the process production and estimated values are used instead. The
aspect of double counting is significantly when carbon footprints is calculated on
national or global level. Even if it presents numerous disadvantages, the carbon
footprint industry is previewed to be intensively developed in the coming years,
offering impressive opportunities for companies. Reducing carbon emissions will
generate both cost reduction, and differentiation for products and brands, resulting
competitiveness growth of the companies to reduce carbon footprint (Suryata , 2010).

Considering the characteristics of the analysed methodology and their users, we can
fit the 4 methodologies presented in two main types: the EIB-EBRD model and
AFDWB model. Each of them presents both advantages and disadvantages; however,
given the studied aspect and the prerequisites of developing a measuring model for
grant funded projects, we considered appropriate to adopt certain features from each
model, and to integrate also other issues from existing methodologies in order to
obtain a model simple to use but returning consistent results. Thus, the most suitable
model for evaluating GHG emissions from grant funded projects, will necessarily be
addressed to users with a low level of knowledge in carbon emissions and an
insufficient awareness of GHG emissions analysis importance. We have considered
the difficulties encountered in the performance of the funding programs in Romania in
the first programming period 2007-2013, the low absorption rate of EU funds, the
reduced number of public awareness activities on problems caused by GHG
emissions, the insufficient scientific literature and research in this field on national
level and the not necessarily favourable results of the Kyoto commitment.
Consequently, we propose a low complexity model for measuring the carbon footprint
of investment projects, accessible to any potential grant applicant. The model should
integrate numerous preset scenarios, options and data Andreea Lorena Radu et al. /
Procedia Economics and Finance 6 ( 2013 ) 353 – 363 359 and subsequently, after
applicants have understood the necessity of assessing the proposed project potential
on climate, the model complexity should progressively increase, also benefiting from
new research results and international standardized methodologies. 4.1. General
features of the proposed model The model that we propose in this paper will consider
both the project implementation period, and the operating period. The analysed
emissions will include the six categories of greenhouse gas stipulated in the Kyoto
Protocol. We chose this option because it is the most common, and so various data
sources will be available worldwide. According to the investment NACE code,
categories that require or not achieving emission analysis shall be defined.
 Analysis is optional for projects that can generate a substantial level of emissions,
but the effort in achievement the analysis is not productive, data are unavailable or
very difficult to obtain, or the industry has not been sufficiently studied. There will not
be available preset model for these areas, but if there is sufficient data, users can
customize an existing model to achieve a carbon footprint analysis. Carbon footprint
analysis will be required for those areas already studied on international level, for
which sufficient data are available, and the level of emissions generated is significant.
For major types of such projects, there will be available spreadsheets presenting types
of emission sources to be quantified. According to eligible NACE codes on each
financing line, every applicant will know the requirement to achieve carbon footprint
analysis for the proposed project. The proposed model is governed by the efficiency
principle, so that will comprise two scenarios: baseline scenario and project scenario.
Similar to the EIB model, the baseline scenario does not refer to the previous status of
the project ex Before and after analysis but represents the he version that will most
likely be adopted in the absence of the proposed project, in order to cover the
additional existing demand or to meet the needs that the proposed project is supposed
to respond to. Following the AFD model, in order to simplify the calculation, the
model will integrate a number of preset reference scenarios for each type of project.
The model will quantify the absolute emissions, associated with the project scenario,
the baseline emissions base for the reference scenario, and the relative emissions - the
difference between the two scenarios. Relative emissions will register positive or
negative values. If the relative emissions are positive, it follows that the project will
generate more emissions than the baseline alternative, which does not justify the
financial support of the project. As correction method, we propose that in the initial
phase of model implementation (2-3 years), the carbon footprint to influence the
project selection score, i.e. relative emission projects negative (favourable) should be
rewarded with a higher score, increasing the chances of obtaining financing for the
applicant, by ranking projects according to their score. Subsequently, after awareness
of the need to reduce GHG emissions will increase and potential applicants for grants
had accustomed on using the model, we argue that a negative value of relative
emission should become one of the eligibility conditions, which if not met, will result
in rejection of the application. The default factors used in the model will be from
IPCC database. The model will not allow the use of specific factors in the first phase
of implementation, in order to ensure comparability of projects submitted, and for
each project scenarios. Using the same values of the emission factors for all
applicants, whether approximate values or averages, it will create a basis for
comparison. 4.2. Specific features of the proposed model In terms of emission levels
included, we adopt the EIB approach for the operating period: scope 1 and 2, without
downstream or upstream emissions, except where the facilities are specifically
designed and operating exclusively to serve the proposed project. Concerning the
implementation period, it will present the particularity of including scope 3 - only for
construction materials (upstream emissions). Implementation period of the project
Carbon footprint analysis in the implementation phase of the project is a
projectcentred approach rather than an institution / organization approach. Thus, we
are inventorying specific activities that may occur during the implementation of the
project. The calculation methodology of the carbon footprint in the implementation
phase will be applied to all projects, regardless of its type or the activity involved. In
general, the main activities of a project funded by grants refer to administrative
activities: project management, procurement, information and publicity activities;
purchase of equipment and facilities: reception, installation, commissioning of
equipment; construction works: renovations, upgrades, extensions, new buildings. Of
these three main types of activities, one category that should be considered in terms of
emissions generated refers to the construction activities. The activity of acquisitions
may involve significant emissions, if the equipment is imported and transported on a
long distance. However, in pre-implementation period the suppliers and their location
are unknown, given that supply contracts are usually concluded following an
acquisition process, when it is necessary to respect the competition principle,
providing unrestricted access of any potential tendered in the procedure. The same
principle must be respected also for the acquisition of construction works and
materials, but the premise of purchasing these from local suppliers is accepted in the
international practice, because of the difficulty for long-distance transport of
significant quantities of material, and due to a lower price available on the local
market. Thus, even if the contractor of construction works is from abroad, the
effective use of public funds will most often involve purchasing construction
materials from local market. On the other hand, there are projects types that do not
involve construction activities, or are specific to human resources, for developing the
institutional capacity, research projects, development and innovation projects,
cooperation on trans-national/ international level. Such projects generate low levels of
GHG emissions; therefore, it is not necessary to apply the model in the first phase.
Project-oriented approach involves including scope 3 for GHG emissions, only in the
implementation phase of the project, for construction materials. Although contrary to
initially established premises for the entire model, construction works are generating
 significant GHG emissions and should be considered. A specificity of EU funds is the
eligibility of construction expenditures, but purchasing a new building is not eligible.
We consider that in the next programming period this should be reviewed, even if it
involves major efforts to establish the framework and procedures for evaluating
buildings and for inclusion as eligible expense. In terms of GHG emissions, the
situation is clearly more favourable if purchasing and renovating already existing
buildings, than constructing a new one. In this regard, it is appropriate to calculate the
carbon footprint of projects by taking into consideration the carbon footprint
embedded in construction materials (upstream emissions). Construction work is
divided into 3 categories relevant in terms of GHG emissions: preparing and restoring
the construction terrain; construction materials; fuel and energy. Site preparation is
relevant in terms of clearing activities and vegetation removal to achieve foundation
and construction annexes. Vegetation and trees are sources of carbon sequestration
from the atmosphere, and removing them is a process equivalent to increasing the
amount of emissions generated. On the other hand, constructors are required by law to
bring the land back to the initial phase at the end of the works and to plant other trees
to award the lost ones. The model will include the most common tree species, along
with related absorption rate (also dependent of constructing area). Sequestration factor
is calculated based on the carbon density of the analysed element and the conversion
ratio of carbon to CO2 (Melanta, 2010). Construction materials will be available to
choose from the predefined list or inserting new ones, if necessary, could be possible.
Predefined materials will be the most commonly found in construction of both
buildings, as well as other types of assets (roads, water supply and sewerage, dams
etc.): cement/concrete, plastic, steel, aluminium, glass, wood.

The "fuels and energy" category includes elements that generate GHG emissions during the
construction activity: use of electricity, heat, fuel for construction machineries and
equipment, fuels for transport of construction materials and generated waste (we
assume using road transport). For electricity supplied from the national grid, country
specific emission factor will be used, calculated according to the proportion of types
of included energy sources. We consider that the carbon emissions generated by the
construction has to be correlated with the lifetime of the facility. Depending on the
duration, it is possible distributing GHG emissions annually by dividing the total
value by the number of years of life expectancy. This creates a viable basis for
comparison with other construction and similar projects. Also in this respect, the total
carbon emissions level per built m2 can be calculated. The necessary data to achieve
carbon footprint for implementation period will be collected from various documents
and reports related to the project, conducted in the pre-implementation phase, such as
geotechnical study, feasibility study, estimates and quantities lists, tenders and
refinement of cost items made by projectors and / or constructors, study of
environmental impact assessment. Operating period Comparing to the calculation
model for the implementation period, which applies to all projects in the same form,
operating period is specific to each business separately. As with AFD, the model
should contain project sheets for a number of major types of projects that can be
funded. Depending on the type of project, calculation lines will be detailed for the
specific activity, in order to guide the user in detailing the sources of GHG emissions
throughout the operating period of the investment. Regarding the lifetime of the
financed investments, initially this will not be considered, because data entered will
refer to annual values. Thus, we assume that emissions will be constant in each year
of operation. During the operating period of an investment, the sources of GHG
emissions can vary depending on the industry, but the most important will cover fuels
for stationary and mobile elements, electricity and heat, direct emissions from the
production process and storage, waste. Categories to be customized depending on the
type of investment are the direct emissions from the production process, storage and
waste. Other categories will contain the same detail for any type of project.
Thus, fuel category will include subcategories as transport on land (by road and
rail) / air / sea for staff, goods, products; fuels for equipment and production
machinery, fuels for production of electricity / heat. Fuels will include coal, wood,
diesel, gasoline, LPG, bio fuels, kerosene, oil, etc. Electricity will be quantified for
lighting, equipment operation, production of heat, etc. Power source may be from the
national electricity grid, or there may be owned or private sources of energy
generation. Renewable energy is not emitting GHG. If private sources of energy, the
model will provide the option of manually filling the emission factor (supplied by the
energy producer). In the production-storage process, GHG emissions may occur
depending on the activity, substances and materials used in production. Thus,
fertilizers and pesticides are used in agriculture, metal casting generates atmospheric
emissions, wastewater treatment is using different chemicals, refrigeration emissions
are generated in the food industry etc. Data required calculating the carbon footprint
for the operating phase will be collected from the business plan, life cycle analysis of
the product / service, the technological flow and detailed description of production
process; technologists or specialists in the field should provide data.
Findings

Not all investment projects require a carbon footprint assessment to be undertaken.

Only investment projects with significant emissions must be assessed according to the
EIB methodologies, and these carbon footprints are included in the CFE. Based on the
results of the GHG footprint pilot, it was decided to set minimum project thresholds
for inclusion in the GHG footprint at 100 000 tonnes CO2e/year for absolute
emissions and 20 000 tonnes CO2e/year (positive or negative) for relative emissions.
Investment projects were included if either of the thresholds is crossed. When
included, both absolute and relative emissions need to be calculated and reported. The
coverage of these thresholds was reassessed in 2018, and the threshold for absolute
emissions was lowered to guarantee the desired level of coverage for the EIB. The
thresholds are as follows: • • Absolute emissions or carbon sequestration exceeding
20 000 tonnes CO2e/year Relative emissions exceeding 20 000 tonnes CO2e/year
(positive or negative) Research indicates that they capture approximately 95% of the
absolute and relative GHG emissions from projects. Investment projects with absolute
and relative emissions that do not cross these thresholds are not included in the
footprint since they are not considered significant. Table 1 below illustrates the
project types that may be included in the calculation of the CFE. This list and
categorisation are for guidance only. Project teams may use a quantitative assessment,
expert knowledge based on previous projects, or other published sources to determine
whether a project is likely to be above or below the threshold. Where there is
uncertainty, the full carbon footprint calculation should be undertaken to assess
whether the project should be included in the CFE. The EIB reports 100% of a
project’s emissions in the ESDS even if the Bank is only contributing a portion of the
total project investment cost. At the CFE reporting stage, the results are prorated to
the EIB’s share of the financing plan.
Greenhouse gases included in the carbon footprint

The GHGs included in the footprint include the seven gases listed in the Kyoto
Protocol, namely: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) and
nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). The GHG emissions quantification process converts all
GHG emissions into tonnes of carbon dioxide called CO2e (equivalent) using the
Global Warming Potentials (GWP), which can be found in Table A1.9 in the Annex.
All of the EIB’s footprints, both absolute and relative, include these seven GHGs and
are expressed in tonnes of CO2e, as far as data availability allows. The following
processes/activities usually generate GHGs that may be accounted for using the
following methodologies: • • • • • • • CO2 — stationary combustion of fossil fuels,
indirect use of electricity, oil/gas production and processing, flue gas desulphurisation
(limestone-based), aluminium production, iron and steel production, nitric acid
production, ammonia production, adipic acid production, cement production, lime
production, glass manufacture, municipal solid waste incineration, transport (mobile
combustion)2 CH4 — biomass decomposition, oil/gas production and processing,
coal mining, municipal solid waste landfill, municipal wastewater treatment N2O —
stationary combustion of fossil fuels/biomass, nitric acid production, adipic acid
production, municipal solid waste incineration, municipal wastewater treatment,
transport (mobile combustion) HFCs — refrigeration/air conditioning/insulation
industry PFCs — aluminium production SF6 — electricity transmission systems,
specific electronics industries (e.g. LCD display manufacture) NF3 — plasma and
thermal cleaning of Chemical Vapour Deposition (CVD) reactors
Calculation of carbon footprint
For calculating carbon footprint, the amount of GHG emitted/removed or embodied
in life cycle of the product has to be estimated and added. Life cycle includes all the
stages involved for a product such as its manufacture right from bringing of raw
material to final packaging, distribution, consumption/use, and to the final stages of
disposal. Analysis of life cycle therefore is also called as ‘cradle to grave analyses’.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) produces complete picture of inputs and outputs with
respect to generation of air pollutants, water use and wastewater generation, energy
consumption, GHGs emitted, or any other similar parameter of interest and cost–
benefit initiatives. This assessment is often called as environmental LCA. For carbon
foot printing purpose, LCA estimates the GHGs emitted/embodied at each identified
step of the product’s life cycle, technically known as GHG accounting. Standards and
guidance are available for GHG accounting. Common resources are: 1. GHG protocol
of World Resource Institute (WRI)/World Business Council on Sustain able
Development (WBCSD): there are two standards, (1) A Product Life Cycle Ac
counting and Reporting Standard, and (2) Corporate Accounting and Reporting
Standard: Guidelines for Value Chain (tier III) Accounting and Reporting. It provides
sector specific and general calculation tools and deals with quantification of GHG
reductions resulting due to adoption of mitigation methods in its Project protocol. It
forms basis for most GHG accounting guidelines including ISO 14064 (parts 1 and 2)
(WRI/WBCSD 2004, 2005). 2. ISO14064(parts1and2):it is an international standard
for determination of boundaries, quantification of GHG emissions, and removal. It
also provides standard for designing of GHG mitigation projects (ISO 2006a, b). 3.
Publicly Available Specifications-2050 (PAS 2050) of British Standard Institution
(BSI): it specifies the requirements for assessing the life cycle GHG emissions of
goods and services .
2006 IPCC guidelines for National Green house Gas inventories: all anthropogenic
sources of GHG emissions are classified into four sectors—energy, industrial process
and product use, agriculture, forestry and other land use, and waste. 2006 guidelines
are an updated version of earlier 1996 guidelines. All countries that are signatory to
UNFCCC and committed to prepare, update, and communicate their national GHG
emissions/ removal inventories following these guide lines. Therefore
emission/removal inventories of the countries are comparable. UNFCCC however has
not yet made it compulsory to use 2006 guidelines and hence most of the nations are
still following 1996 guidelines. 5. ISO 14025: it is a standard for carrying out LCA. 6.
ISO 14067: a standard on carbon foot printing of products is under development.
Some countries have developed their own GHG accounting guidelines such as
Department of Food and Rural Affair (DEFRA) and Carbon trust in United Kingdom
and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in USA. Registries and consultancies
like World Wildlife Fund Climate Servers, California Climate Registry (USA), The
Climate Registry (USA), etc. have formulated their own methodologies based on
these guide lines. Almost all of these newly developed guide lines and standards
direct accounting for the GHGs emitted during the manufacture, use and disposal of
the product, entity, or event and referred to as complete LCA. Life cycle assessment
Each stage of the life cycle of any product or event is linked to other secondary
stages, each of which may further be linked to others and so on. Covering all the
associated steps, the boundary may go on expanding to become too complex to be
analysed. Selection cradle and grave should therefore be done appropriately
depending on the objective of the assessment as well as on the availability of data.
Approaches to perform LCA for GHG estimation are (1) “Bottom up” or “process
analysis (PA)”; and (2) “top down” or “input–output anal ysis (IO)” (Wiedmann and
Minx 2007; Matthews et al. 2008a). In bottom up approach, the emission sources are
broken down into different categories for convenient quantification. This method is
more accurate for small entities, but it becomes too complex for large firms which
cover more than second order emissions thus underestimating the actual footprint
(Lenzen 2001; Wiedmann and Minx 2007). It is useful in identification of area of
process improvement (Green Design Initiative 2008). Top down approach makes use
of economic input–output (EIO) model extended to accept and perform operations on
environmental variables for calculations of carbon footprint (Green Design Initiative
2008). Inputs and outputs are represented in the form of matrix, with inputs required
to produce a unit product represented in respective row. The inputs–outputs matrix
can be represented in the form of following equation (Miller and Blair 1985): x =(I +
A+A×A+A×A×A+...) y
=(I − A)−1 y, where I is identity matrix, y is vector of desired outputs, A, A× A, A×
A× A, ......... are the first, second, and so on level supply chains to produce product y.
In this mathematical procedure, extension of boundary is easy and chances of double
counting are minimized. Basic algebraic operations can clearly indicate the changes in
out puts corresponding to changes in one or more variables. Entire economic system
can be put as a boundary. Hence there is an opportunity to include small emissions
and intersectoral transactions. This technique has been used to calculate emissions
related with exports and imports, and is technically termed as ‘multiregional input–
output analysis’ (Robbie et al. 2009). Uncertainties, how ever, may accumulate as
sectors are aggregated (Green Design Initiative 2008; Matthews et al. 2008b). The
micro level implementation of EIO LCA is limited (Wiedmann and Minx 2007). An
integration of PA-LCA and EIO-LCA, called EIO-LCA hybrid, is emerging as the
state of art technique in LCA. In this hybrid method, small emissions are covered by
PA-LCA, while rest is taken up by EIO-LCA. This preserves robustness of EIO-LCA
model and provides ac curacy to PA-LCA, thus increasing completeness, flexibility,
and reliability of estimates. Greenhouse gas accounting In order to keep account of
the emissions along the life cycle, the following structured framework is suggested
(WRI/WBCSD 2004; Carbon Trust 2007a, b;BSI2008): 1. Selection of GHGs 2.
Setting boundary 3. Collection of GHG emission data Selection of GHGs Selection of
the set of GHGs covered in calculation depends on the guideline followed, the need of
carbon footprint calculation, and on the type of activity for which carbon foot printing
is being done. For example, in a thermal power plant, where CO2 is a predominant
emission and other gases are almost negligibly emitted, only CO2 emission
measurement will be feasible whereas for a cattle farm, CH4,CO2,andN2O emissions
may be significant. Although some studies include only CO2 emissions in carbon
footprint calculations (Patel 2006;BP2007; Wiedmann and Minx 2007; Craeynest and
Streatfeild 2008)others include the six Kyoto gases (Bokowski et al. 2007; Energetics
 2007; T C Chan Centre for Building Simulation & Energy Studies/Penn Praxis 2007;
Garg and Dornfeld 2008; Good Company 2008; Matthews et al. 2008b). All the
guidance and standards also direct to include all the long-lived GHGs and not only
CO2. Kelly et al. (2009)calculated carbon footprints of Indianapolis city in USA
based on only two gases, CO2 and CH4, which were measured. If carbon footprint is
viewed in context of climate change, Peters (2010) argues that it must cover black
carbon also. Setting boundary Boundary refers to an imaginary line drawn around the
activities that will be used for calculating carbon footprint. It depends on the objective
of foot printing and characteristics of the entity for which foot printing will be done.
Boundary must be selected so as to represent the organization based on legal,
financial, or business control. In case of joint ventures, the organization may take
responsibility of the fraction of the emissions for which it is responsible, technically
called as ‘equity share’ or may consider all the emission sources which are under its
direct control, depending on the need of carbon foot printing. Once the organizational
boundary has been established, operational boundary is to be selected. Operational
boundary refers to the selection of the direct and indirect emissions, which will be
accounted for. To facilitate convenient accounting, tiers or scopes have been
suggested(WRI/WBCSD2004;Carbon Trust 2007b;BSI2008):

1. All direct emissions, i.e., onsite emissions

2. Embodied emissions in purchased energy 3. All indirect emissions, such as those
associated with transport of purchased goods, sold products, business travels, energy
activities, disposal of products etc., not included in tiers I and II (WRI/WBCSD 2004;
Carbon Trust 2007a, b;BSI2008;CDP2008; Matthews et al. 2008a, b;Struttetal.2008).
Figure 2 illustrates the three tiers in carbon foot print estimation. The tiers II and III both
include indirect emissions, but tier II refers to the emissions embodied in energy
production or (and) purchase, transmission, and distribution caused by the entity under
consideration, but end user emissions are out of scope of tier II. Tier III tends to cover all
the embodied emissions within the specified boundary. But tier III has vaguely been
defined and the most carbon footprint studies limit up to tier II as it becomes too complex
to estimate carbon footprint beyond tier II with accuracy (CDP 2008; Dada et al. 2008;
Matthews et al. 2008a, b). Also, it is important to be ascertained that to what extent
responsibility and control over emissions can be made beyond tier II (Lenzen 2001). For
this reason most GHG ac counting standards (PAS2050, GHG protocol, and other registries
and consultancies based on these) have kept tier III optional. Advancement in the tracking
and management of emissions in the supply chain is expected to promote tier III
accounting and reporting (Matthews et al. 2008b; CDP2009). Based on order of emissions
covered, carbon footprint has two components namely “basic” or “primary” referring to
carbon footprint calculated from direct emissions and emissions embodied in energy
purchase, and “full carbon footprint” when all direct and indirect emissions are included
(Carbon Trust 2007b; Lynas 2007). Among 500 companies inquired worldwide, 72% of the
respondents report their GHG emissions up to tier II (CDP 2008). But in many cases, tier
III contributes most significantly to the total CO2-e. Only for the biggest known emitters
such as thermal power plants, cement industries, and transportation tiers I and II can cover
80% of total carbon footprint. For most of other processes, only 26% of total carbon
footprint could be covered up to tier II (Matthews et al. 2008b). Hence tier III estimation
has been promoted to include relevant sources (relevance can be decided
on the basis of size, risk exposure of GHGs, etc) and deemed critical by the
stakeholders (CDP 2008). Inclusion of an additional tier IV to cover emissions
exclusively related to delivery, use, and disposal of products is also proposed
(Matthewsetal. 2008b). As more and more organizations start reporting complete LCA
, a database can be developed through which average firm specific data can be
estimated to suite the purpose (Matthews et al. 2008b; Weidema et al. 2008).
Inclusion of inter national trade in carbon footprint calculations has also been
suggested (Courchene and Allan 2008). Emissions embodied in traded goods, if
consumed out of the country should be shared based on ap propriate assumptions
(Peters 2010). But drawing boundary to estimate emissions related to trading
particularly the international trade may be tough. Regarding natural systems and land
uses, the selection of boundaries and tiers are very unclear. But studies are going on to
estimate and identify different mechanisms operating in nature that control GHG
emissions. National GHG inventories have been accepted worldwide as a reference
methodology to account for the GHGs emissions from land use, land use change, and
forestry (IPCC 1996, 2006). Almost all the carbon footprint studies focus on
emissions; the amount of GHG removal and sequestration appears ne glected (Peters
2010). These factors must be in cluded in calculations. Collection of GHG data GHG
data can be collected through direct on site real-time measurements, or through
estimations based on emission factors and models. The choice of appropriate method
depends on the objective (mandatory, voluntary, or for internal management),
credibility, feasibility as well as on cost and capacity considerations. Emission factors
and models are the most preferred and used techniques. In general, for products,
organizations , and events, emissions are calculated using specific emission factors
and models utilizing data on consumption of fuels, energy, and other inputs leading to
emissions (particularly CO2). Emission factors are available for a wide range of
industrial processes and land uses in GHG protocol, PAS-2050, IPCC (2006), and
country wise emission factors have been developed in many countries such as
national inventories under UNFCCC, US EPA, UK DEFRA, etc. (IPCC 2007;
WRI/WBCSD
2004). But verification is required at different operational and geographical contexts.
Hence region-specific emission factors and models have been recommended
(WRI/WBCSD 2004; IPCC2006). But for other sources and fugitive emissions, direct
measurements should be applied. Direct measurements include optical, chemical, and
biological sensors such as photo acoustic infrared sensors or other instruments and
techniques like collecting gases of interest in specially designed chambers and
analysing through IR spectroscopy for CO2 and gas chromatography for all GHGs
(USCCTP 2005; Berg et al. 2006). These techniques have been applied for
groundbased measurements whether static, mobile, or aerial. Eddy covariance or flux
towers have been utilized to measure flux covering the entire landscape (Velasco et al.
2005), while cavity ring-down spectrometers have been utilized in aerial
measurements (Kelly et al. 2009). Besides onsite measurement, secondary data
sources and databases are now available at global level also. A database of CO2
emissions from different countries has been developed under global trade analysis
project (GTAP; Dimaranan 2006). Other reliable data sources can be national GHG
inventories and other government offices keeping the data of fuel and energy
consumption, International Energy Agency, UNDP etc. (Brown et al. 2009). Low-cost
real-time measurement systems are under development. While direct measurements
are more accurate and are clearly prescribed in globally accepted protocols, their cost
and application may be prohibitive (WRI/WBCSD 2004). In such cases, indirect
estimations may yield fairly accurate results if developed or modified specifically for
a particular region or sector. Customized tools relying on direct measurements as well
as on interpolation or expansion of observations to non measurable fluxes (i.e.,
emission factors and models) have enhanced practicability for intended users
(USCCTP 2005). The GHG protocol customized GHG calculation tools
(WRI/WBCSD 2006), are worldwide accepted guidance for customizing the tools for
calculating GHG flux so as to suit the respective sector or entity. Besides these,
continuous GHG monitoring is going on and is being expanded to get broad spatial
coverage ( (Sundareshwar et al. 2007). For this, advanced measurement and
monitoring systems (remote sensing, geographic information system, optical
measurements etc.) are now being integrated with individual GHG inventories so as
to provide comprehensive and uniform coverage (USCCTP 2005). Scientific
community is operating terrestrial and oceanic observation networks to collect GHG
data worldwide. FLUXNET, the global terrestrial observing network monitors
CO2,wa ter vapor, and energy at more than 300 sites (Sundareshwar et al. 2007).
These systems cover a very broad spatial area, but the monitoring location in Asia and
Africa are sparse and should be increased in number in order to obtain a reliable
global data (Sundareshwar et al. 2007). To overcome the reduction in accuracy of
ground-based monitoring network due to patchy distribution, satellites have been
launched to monitor sources and sinks of CO2 and other GHGs with uniform
coverage (Haag 2007). Japanese satellite, “the greenhouse gas observing satellite”
launched in 2009 is monitoring GHGs, while joint project of NASA and US
Department of Energy called “Vulcan” is quantifying CO2 emissions due to fossil
fuel burning in North America (Gurney et al. 2009; Kelly et al. 2009). Remote
sensing and geographic information system are extensively in use for large and
relatively less accessible areas. Chambers et al. (2007) have used land sat imagery to
quantify live and dead wood, litter, soil, and shade for estimating carbon footprint of
hurricane Katrina at US coast. Such GHG data are useful in calculation of carbon
footprint related to natural phenomena and events (Chambers et al. 2007). GHG
emissions and avoidance embodied in use of renewable energy, recycling of waste,
energy recovery from landfills, and other such good management practices, are
estimated through prescribed mathematical relations (WRI/WBCSD
2005;IPCC2006;BSI2008). All the flux measurements are recorded relative to a base
year (may be a single year or an annual average over a period of several consecutive
years). Its choice depends on the objective. In most inventories, 1990 has been set as
base year in lieu of commitment of reduction of CO2-e emissions at 1990 level under
UNFCCC. Selection of base year is crucial and must be made in such a way that it
clearly reflects the importance of structural and operational changes in emissions over
time. According to GHG protocol, the earliest relevant point in time for which reliable
data are available should be chosen as a base year. Besides this, reproducibility,
verifiability, and systematic documentation are essential attributes of data col lection
(Carbon Trust 2007b). Regarding voluntary personal carbon foot printing, numerous
carbon calculators are avail able online as well as from consultancies. All of these
calculators claim to be based on recommended guidelines, but rarely any two of them
yield similar outputs for the same set of inputs (Padgett et al. 2008; Kenny and Gray
2008). This questions the accuracy and credibility of such calculators. Among
hundreds of online calculators, some calculate domestic carbon footprint, while others
calculate carbon footprint related to specifically travel, food, or other such activities
(Murray and Day 2009). Very few calculators indicates the use of indirect emissions
under tier III. There is no coherence among the input data re quired for different
carbon calculators.
describes some of the online carbon calculators. Incorporation of information
technology to de sign a personal environmental tracker has been proposed to increase
accuracy of such calculators, while house hold and device level monitoring using
specific sensors is gaining popularity in developed world (Brewer 2008a, b). Footprint
calculation The GHG data are translated into CO2-e using conversion factors provided
by IPCC (WRI/ WBCSD 2004; BSI 2008). Some organizations report carbon
footprint as carbon equivalent (Wiedmann and Minx 2007), but based on wide spread
acceptance, CO2-e is more popular. The unit of carbon footprint varies according to
entity under consideration. Carbon footprint for individuals and dynamic processes is
calculated periodically, usually annually. Events such as conferences, fairs, sports
events, etc. have one-time emissions. Some entities have a combination of both, like
carbon footprint of a building is a one time figure during construction phase, while
peri odic calculations are needed during the operation phase. Therefore, the time
dimension must be mentioned so as to indicate clearly the time period over which the
emissions have been estimated, or if it is a one-time emission. PAS 2050 gives
provision of sharing one-time emissions over operation phase. Regarding services
such as travel, post, search engines, etc. emissions are reported over an appropriate
service unit like CO2-e per flight, CO2-e per hour of surfing, CO2-e per post per mile,
CO2-e etc. Natural processes are highly complex and hence they may be said to have
a temporally as well as spatially “dynamic carbon footprint”. Uncertainties in
calculations must also be mentioned while reporting carbon footprint (Carbon Trust
2007b). Following examples demonstrate year 2001. The boundary covered
construction activities, shelter, food, clothing, mobility, manufactured products,
services, and trade in their analysis. Minimum carbon footprint was observed for
Bangladesh, Mozambique, and Uganda (1.1 ton CO2-e) and was maximum for
Luxembourg (33.8 ton CO2-e) as measured over 100-year time horizon.
UNDP(2007)also reported per capita carbon footprint for nations for the year 1990
and 2004, but they include only CO2 emissions arising from fuel combustion and
cement pro duction. The estimate showed United Arab Emirates leaving the biggest
footprint with 34.1 ton CO2 and smallest by India (1.2 ton CO2). Carbon footprint of
India as reported in Edgar and Peters (2009) is 1.8 ton CO2. This clearly shows the
difference due to variations in boundaries and GHG selections. Some studies take into
 account the regional details for producing a better picture of foot printing, but
important issues of concern in such comparisons are international trade related to
exporting or importing countries, the emissions embodied in manufacture, trans port
etc. (Peters 2010). Other economic situations, including parity in purchasing power of
the consumers, is also suggested to be counted (Herrmann and Hauschild 2009). 2.
Carbon footprint of large areas: studies have been conducted to indicate the energy
intensiveness and lifestyle of metropolitan cities with the help of carbon foot printing.
Brown et al. (2008) estimated carbon footprint of 100 metropolitan areas in the USA
based on CO2 arising only due to fossil fuel combustion in transport and electricity
consumption in homes. Lebel et al. (2007) included CH4 and black carbon along with
CO2 in comparative carbon foot printing for five metropolitan cities of southeast Asia
from 1980 to 2000 and found that per capita emissions were comparable in all the
selected cities. Their selection of gases and particulate carbon tends to include all
carbon-based emissions that have warming effect. Sova cool and Brown (2010)
extend the boundary to include emissions from agriculture and waste, wherever
applicable in addition to tiers I and II that include different approaches for carbon
footprint calculations
1. Carbon foot printing of nations: Edgar and Peters (2009) used multiregional input-output,
analysis coupled with the database GTAP including all the Kyoto gases to calculate per
capita carbon footprints of 73 nations for the year 2001. The boundary covered
construction activities, shelter, food, clothing, mobility, manufactured products, services,
and trade in their analysis. Minimum carbon footprint was observed for Bangladesh,
Mozambique, and Uganda (1.1 ton CO2-e) and was maximum for Luxembourg (33.8 ton
CO2-e) as measured over 100-year time horizon. UNDP(2007)also reported per capita
carbon footprint for nations for the year 1990 and 2004, but they include only CO2
emissions arising from fuel combustion and cement pro duction. The estimate showed
United Arab Emirates leaving the biggest footprint with 34.1 ton CO2 and smallest by
India (1.2 ton CO2). Carbon footprint of India as reported in Edgar and Peters (2009) is 1.8
ton CO2. This clearly shows the difference due to variations in boundaries and GHG
selections. Some studies take into account the regional details for producing a better
picture of foot printing, but important issues of concern in such comparisons are
international trade re lated to exporting or importing countries, the emissions embodied in
manufacture, trans port etc. (Peters 2010). Other economic situations, including parity in
purchasing power of the consumers, is also suggested to be counted (Herrmann and
Hauschild 2009).
2. Carbon footprint of large areas: studies have been conducted to indicate the energy
intensiveness and lifestyle of metropolitan cities with the help of carbon foot printing.
Brown et al. (2008) estimated carbon footprint of 100 metropolitan areas in the USA based
on CO2 arising only due to fossil fuel combustion in transport and electricity consumption
in homes. Lebel et al. (2007) included CH4 and black carbon along with CO2 in
comparative carbon foot printing for five metropolitan cities of southeast Asia from 1980
to 2000 and found that per capita emissions were comparable in all the selected cities.
Their selection of gases and particulate carbon tends to include all carbon-based emissions
that have warming effect. Sova cool and Brown (2010) extend the boundary to include
 emissions from agriculture and waste, wherever applicable in addition to tiers I and II that
include direct and indirect emissions in transport, industries, and buildings. They also
include the emissions associated with goods manufactured within the city boundary,
irrespective of their point of use. In lack of single GHG database, different data sources
have to be utilized thus making the studies difficult to compare. As the secondary data
sources may have large uncertainties associated, or they cannot be used in certain
conditions, actual measurements have to be carried out. Kelly et al. (2009) collected data
on CO2 and
CH4 in planetary boundary layer over the region of Indianapolis through aircraftbased
measurements. Such measurements can measure the overall net release of GHGs over
a larger area when interpolated through Kriging technique. Fluxes were calculated
through mass balance approach. The uncertainties in their study were due to wind
speed. If still larger spatial scale is to be covered, satellite data can be uti lized.
Utilizing LANDSAT and MODIS imageries, Chambers et al. (2007) projected the
amount of CO2 released during the decomposition of litter generated and change in
sink capacity due to the devastation caused by the hurricane Katrina and calculated
the carbon footprint by utilizing the Monte Carlo model. As a legal requirement,
Good Company (2008) carried out the GHG inventory for the city of Vancouver
deriving methodologies from The Climate Registry and a soft ware program of
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives under Cities for Climate
Protection campaign. The issues which were not covered in these protocols were
analysed independently. Choosing 2006 as the baseline year, inventory was designed
to cover three tiers. Tiers I and II covered direct emissions resulting from equipments
and other operations under control of the city, and GHG embodied in electricity, heat,
and steam, respectively. All the other indirect emissions from institutional activities,
business air travel, landfills, solid waste generation, and commutation of public were
covered under the tier III. Emissions covered under tier III left the biggest footprint,
but the precision of the data was also lowest It is clear that sink capacity has been
considered in scientific studies, and carbon footprint is being used as an
environmental indicator rather then a pressure indicating term. Incoherence in
selection of gases is also clear from these studies. It is important to give a careful
consideration to the socioeconomic sta tus, cultures, consumer behaviour, and
lifestyle, while comparing such studies because such reports form the basis of climate
agreements.
3. Carbon footprints of academia: carbon foot printing for universities, schools, and simi lar
institutions are going on. University of Pennsylvania got its carbon footprint calcu lated by
T C Chan Centre for Building Simulation & Energy Studies/Penn Praxis (2007). All the
three tiers were defined to cover almost all possible emissions inside the university (energy
use in buildings and equipments, GHG releases from agricultural farm and waste,
employees and student’s commutation, and business flights etc.). The calculation tool,
derived from an organization called ‘Clean Air Cool Planet’ was based on IPCC (2006) and
covered all the Kyoto gases. The calculations were based on emission factors from
secondary data sources (records of the university). The carbon footprint as calculated for
the year 1993 was approximately 3.5× 105 ton CO2-e. As a result of partial GHG
 offsetting through wind-generated power, the carbon footprint reduced to 2.5×105 ton
CO2-e in 2006.
4. The University of British Columbia and the Simon Fraser University adopted the method
ology outlined by ‘American College & University Presidents’ Climate
Commitment’ involving all the three tiers and all the GHGs for footprint calculations
(Ferris et al. 2007). The calculated carbon footprint for University of British
Columbia was 8.275 × 104 ton CO2-e. In Universities, tier II emissions were found to
be the highest. All of these studies calculate carbon footprints based on emission
factors utilizing secondary data. Other type of analysis that has been used in such
cases is EIO-LCA as carried out by Garg and Dornfeld (2008) for carbon foot printing
of Kresege Engineering Library at University of California, Berkeley. Estimations of
energy consumption in electronic equipments, GHGs embodied in infrastructure and
publication and transport of books, CDs, periodicals, and other documents to the
library and employee’s commutation, were based on those estimated by the
researchers at University of California, which yielded an annual carbon footprint of
1.172 × 104 ton CO2-e. (Garg and Dornfeld 2008). PA and EIO LCA were integrated
in a model called Resource and Energy Analysis Program developed by Stockholm
Environment Institute, York, to estimate CO2 emissions from schools of UK,
covering the three well-defined tiers (Global Action Plan 2006).

Conclusions
 Carbon footprint has emerged as a strong mode of GHG expression . While earlier
studies focused only on CO2 emissions as the guidelines and suggested inclusion of
all the important GHGs in calculation, carbon footprint started becoming synonymous
to a comprehensive GHG account, over the life cycle stages of any product or activity.
No definition, however, has yet been accepted coherently as is clear from the fact that
there are different selection of gases and tiers among studies. However, as carbon
footprint reports are increasing in response to legal or business requirements , most of
the calculations are following the GHG protocol worldwide. Since it has been ex
tended to cover natural system as well, it becomes essential to deal with the
unavoidable emissions. Carbon footprint has been commercialized and is being
utilized by organizations to count their carbon and adopt measures to cut down
emissions . This business sense has taken carbon conscious ness to the households
through numerous online calculators and has helped in making the civil society aware
of how much their activities are contributing to global warming. Ironically, there is no
check on such carbon calculating facilities and they lack coherence and transparency.
Since carbon foot printing is associated with money transaction and has been found to
influence businesses, legal guidelines are necessary to monitor these calculations.
Carbon foot printing must be harnessed as a strong tool to promote GHG emission
reductions among businesses, events, and civil society and should be included as
indicator of sustainable development.
Consequences of maintaining stable or increasing GHG emissions have become
evident both globally and at individual and organizational level. Evolution of CO2
emissions illustrates the necessity for each state to plan more sustainable energy
future. Under these circumstances, we consider that any action to reduce GHG
emissions is welcomed and should be applied as soon as possible and voluntarily,
prior being required by state, by imposing restrictive legislation or corrective actions.
Citizens, organizations and politicians at European level, have concluded the need to
shift from the actual development to an economy and a sustainable lifestyle, by
reducing the negative impact on nature and future generations. In this paper we
present a methodology to develop a model for calculating the carbon footprint for
grant funded projects. This approach is consistent with the objective assumed by our
country to reduce GHG emissions by 20% until 2020. The proposed model could be
integrated in the programmatic documentation in the next financing programming
period 2014-2020, in order to be mandatory prepared by grant applicants. The
complexity level is reduced, but subsequently and according to the level of familiarity
of users in apluing it, the model can be updated and further developed. While
calculating the carbon footprint by taking into account all emissions types: direct and
indirect, downstream and upstream, can provide an overview of the environmental
impact, this process requires advanced knowledge and considerable resources. As the
scientific literature is still in development, we consider important for an organization /
institution to apply a simplified model for calculating the carbon footprint that can be
easily understood and provide a comparability basis. The proposed model will provide
the basis for a decision making process on choosing a construction option with lower
carbon emissions, ever since the planning and design phase. The same issue can be
applied for the operating period, by identification of high emissions points and
intervening for improvement. However, we consider that the carbon footprint should
not be used as a singular and exclusive indicator of sustainability, but together with
other complementary indicators that can demonstrate the real impact of the project on
both the environment and the society. Another advantage of the model is contributing
to public awareness and education for managing and reducing carbon emissions, by
self-evaluation and determination. Similar carbon models can be used in the future for
carbon taxes, carbon units allocation or personal carbon trading (Kenny and Gray,
2009). The proposed model can be applied to other funding programs, for refundable
or nonrefundable financing, on national or european level, in our country or any other
country. Specifically, it is a model for carbon footprint analysis of an investment
project, that can be presented along with cost-benefit analysis and economic
efficiency indicators, such as NPV and IRR. Along with emissions monitoring, also
maintaining and developing carbon sequestration capacity are necessary, particularly
by regulating and promoting protected areas. By adopting efficient systems for land
use planning, and by controlling and monitoring constructions, projects, industrial
plants, agriculture, forestry, the protection of all .
References
AFD (2011) The AFD Carbon Footprint Tool for projects. Available at
[Link]
webdav/site/afd/shared/PORTAILS/SECTEURS/CLIMAT/pdf/Carbon%20footprint%
20user%20guide%20-%[Link]. Aichele, R.; Felbermayr, G. (2011) Kyoto
and the Carbon Footprint of Nations, IFO Working Paper No. 103. ANPM (2011)
Raport Anual privind starea mediului in Romania. Available at [Link]
ro/Mediu/raport_privind_starea_mediului_in_romania-15. -6. Deloitte (2010)
Previziuni în industria energiei 2010. Available at [Link]
/Dcom
Romania/Local%20Assets/Documents/RO/Altele/ro_PreviziuniIndustriaEnergiei_
[Link]. EBRD (2010) EBRD Methodology for Assessment of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions. Available at
[Link] EIB (2012) The
carbon footprint of projects financed by the Bank. Available at [Link]
org/attachments/strategies/eib_project_carbon_footprint_methodologies_en.pdf.
Ercin, A.E.; Hoekstra, A.Y. (2012) Carbon and Water Footprints - Concepts,
Methodologies and Policy Responses. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization. Ernst&Young (2010) Product Carbon Footprinting a study
on methodologies and initiatives - Final report for European Commission - DG
Environment. Available at [Link]
industrie/indakt2010/Folge38/[Link]. IEA (2012) CO2 emissions from fuel
combustion Highlights, OECD/ International Energy Agency. IPCC (2006)
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories. Available at [Link] IPCC
(2007) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate, New York:
Cambridge University Press. Kenny, T.; Gray, N.F. (2009) Comparative performance
of six carbon footprint models for use in Ireland, Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 29, 1-6. Lundie, S.; Schulz, M.; Peters, G.; Nebel, B.; Ledgard, S. (2009)
Carbon Footprint Measurement - Methodology Report, Available at
[Link]
e42c834eebd111458f1c/Carbon%2BFootprint%2Bmethodology%[Link]?MOD=
AJPERES. Matthews, H.S.; Weber, C., Hendrickson, C. (2008) Estimating Carbon
Footprints with Input-Output Models, International Input-Output Meeting on
Managing the Environment, 9 (11), 1-10 Melanta, S. (2010) A tool for quantifying the
carbon footprint of construction projects in the transportation sector, Master of
Science Thesis - University of Maryland. Nielsen, J.; Luttmer, M.; Van der Hoek, B.
(2009) Carbon footprinting of financed emissions, Existing methodologies, A review
& recommendations, Rotterdam: BECO Group. PWC (2012) Too late for two
degrees? Low carbon economy index 2012. Available at
[Link] index/assets/pwc-low-
[Link]. Suryata, I. (2010) Carbon Footprint Assessment and
Its Reduction Efforts: The Case of Blue Lagoon Company, Master thesis - Reykjavik
Energy Graduate School of Sustainable Systems, Reykjavik University & University
of Iceland. Wiedmann, T. and Barrett, J. (2010) A Greenhouse Gas Footprint Analysis
of UK Central Government 1990-2008, London: Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs -01, Durham: ISA UK Research & Consulting. : Nova Science
Publishers. WWF (2009) Calculating the World Bank footprint: the WWF
methodology. Available at
[Link]