Magisteruppsats Master's Programme in Applied Environmental Science 60 Hp
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Magisteruppsats Master's Programme in Applied Environmental Science 60 hp A tool for calculating CO2 emissions in the manufacturing industry Use of GHG protocol Environmental Science 15 hp Halmstad 2020-06-24 Henrik Olausson A tool for calculating CO2 emissions in the manufacturing industry – Use of GHG protocol Henrik Olausson Halmstad University, School of Business, Engineering and Science, Master’s Program in Applied Environmental Science Project in collaboration with Albany International AB Supervisor, Marie Mattson, Halmstad University Supervisor, Eva Eliasson, Albany International AB The date for uploading on DIVA 2020-06-24 ABSTRACT With the Paris Agreement comes targets to reduce emissions and mitigate the temperature increase in the atmosphere. One way to move towards reaching these targets for companies is by using the greenhouse gas protocol reporting standard (GHG protocol). The goal of this study was to critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the GHG protocol with the use of a case study, a calculation of Albany International AB’s emissions. Using the GHG protocol as a foundation the study show that Albany International AB emitted 10 673 CO2 equivalents 2019 and with recommended changes in energy acquisition emissions for coming years can be reduced with 17 %. There are some questions and uncertainties raised surrounding the created tool but also the use of the GHG protocol. Converting processes to CO2 equivalents means calculating conversion rates. These rates are sometimes precise but can also be only estimations. With a yearly update of greenhouse gas emissions Albany International AB increase their environmental awareness. It also prepares the company for a future with increasing demands of sustainable manufacturing. The GHG protocol is useful when it comes to increasing the knowledge of your emissions. Although there are many different variables that are not always reliable which makes the total emissions rather difficult to determine. CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 4 1.1 GHG Protocol ............................................................................................... 4 1.3 Aim ............................................................................................................... 6 2. MATERIAL & METHOD ............................................................................ 6 2.1 Case study .................................................................................................... 6 2.2 How I used the GHG protocol when creating the measuring tool ............... 7 3. RESULTS .................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Emission results ......................................................................................... 10 3.2 Calculating tool .......................................................................................... 11 4. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................. 13 4.1 Strengths and Weaknesses of GHG protocol ............................................. 14 4.1 Albany International AB ............................................................................ 15 4.2 Excel-tool and GHG protocol .................................................................... 16 4.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 16 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................... 17 6. REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 17 3 1. INTRODUCTION One of the targets for the world’s climate policy of today, set by the Paris agreement, is to stay beneath an increase of 2.0°C. In the agreement there is also the “hopeful” target of not going above 1.5°C (Rogelj et al. 2016). As mentioned in the “Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5°C” by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), past emissions alone will most likely not force global average temperatures to overshoot the 1.5°C target. This means that the actions we do today will affect the outcome of the temperature increase (IPCC 2019). One of the measures that will have a positive effect on the environment and for reaching this target is to lower the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that is emitted into the atmosphere. In September 2016, a month when CO2-levels are usually at its lowest, the global average concentration stayed above 400 parts per million (ppm) which was setting an unwanted milestone in the fight against climate change (Kunzig 2019). The concentration of CO2 has continued to increase and data from NASA (2020) measured at Hawaii, Mauna Loa observatory, showed a concentration of 413 ppm of CO2 in February 2020. The concentration will probably never go below 400 ppm again in our lifetime (Kahn 2016). Knutti & Rogelj (2015) argue that natural science can shed light on global carbon budget by stating facts but the work to reduce our CO2-emissions is most likely dependent on societal and political decisions. The lion’s share of CO2-emissions come from a relatively limited number of countries. USA, China and the European Union (EU) are the three biggest emitters, in that order, but the EU is on seventh place when it comes to emissions relative to GDP which shows that increased GDP doesn’t have to mean an increase in greenhouse gas emissions (C2ES 2017). Diving into details the biggest CO2-emissions in the EU come from combustion of fuels which is 54 % of all emissions. These emissions come from the generation of electricity and heating so combustion from transports are not counted. The transport sector come second with 25 % followed by agriculture, 10 %, industrial processes, 8 % and waste management, 3 % (EC 2020). The EU the target for 2020 is to reach a reduction of 20 % in CO2 emissions compared to the emissions established in the base year 1990. That target was reached 2017 and preliminary estimates suggest numbers for 2018 to be a reduction of 23 % compared to 1990 levels. This is positive news although the next target is a 40 % reduction for 2030 compared to the base year. Projections today show that emission reductions are not happening fast enough to reach this goal (EEA 2019). It is good to know your CO2 emissions and where they come from in order to put in efforts to manage them towards a decrease. Several tools for measuring and reporting have been developed (Green 2010). One of them is the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. 1.1 GHG Protocol The Greenhouse gas protocol corporate accounting and reporting standard and the Global protocol for community-scale greenhouse gas emission inventories (GHG protocol) was founded 2004 and 2014 by the World Resources institute (WRI) and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Together with help from governments, other firms and NGOs they created this base for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reporting (Green 2010). With the names comes a tool and reporting standard that are being used by numerous 4 companies, organizations, countries and cities. The reporting tool is built to be usable by everyone no matter size or development stage. Its foundation is to report relevant data that reflect the emissions of the entity, give a complete and transparent insight on emissions, reduce uncertainties for best accuracy and use a consistent measuring method (Protocol & Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative 2004). In 2016, 92 % of the Fortune 500 (biggest 500 companies in USA based on revenue) reported their CO2-emissions based on some variant of GHG protocol (GHG protocol n.d.). Also, the city of London, Madrid (population-wise number three and six in Europe), and Kampala (capital of Uganda), are reporting following the three scopes in the GHG protocol (Andrade et al. 2018;Lwasa 2017). Scopes The GHG protocol is based on identifying and measuring the total emissions from three Scopes (see table 1). They are divided to differentiate direct and indirect sources of emissions and to give different types of organizations a way to report transparent data which can be compared between companies and sectors. The first and second scope is the minimum requirement for reporting as the third scope might be more difficult to evaluate. Although all added quality data will give a more correct result. Together they summarize the analyzed entity’s total emission of CO2-equivalents. Table 1. The three scopes for GHG protocol reporting that together summarize the total greenhouse gas emissions of an organization (Protocol & Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative 2004). Scope 1 Direct emissions that comes from owned sources. Scope 2 Indirect emissions from purchased electricity. The emitted CO2 from the generation of electricity. Scope 3 Other indirect emissions from processes not owned by the company but related to company activities. CO2-equivalents (CO2e) means that all processes from digging for raw materials, transports, energy consumption, energy origin, manufacturing, waste management, travel etc. are converted into CO2 (Protocol & Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative 2004). It is important to remember that this conversion sometimes leads to gaps and lower the quality of reporting since the conversion rates for processes to CO2 can differ a lot depending on region, methods, quality of data or even lack of data (Lwasa 2017;Mendoza-Florez 2019). Further on this subject in the Discussion.