16 CDM and carbon foot print

What is the clean development mechanism?

The CDM allows emission-reduction projects in developing countries to earn certified emission reduction (CER) credits, each equivalent to one tonne of CO2. These CERs can be traded and sold, and used by industrialized countries to a meet a part of their emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol.

The mechanism stimulates sustainable development and emission reductions, while giving industrialized countries some flexibility in how they meet their emission reduction limitation targets.

The CDM is the main source of income for the UNFCCC Adaptation Fund, which was established to finance adaptation projects and programmes in developing country Parties to the Kyoto Protocol that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. The Adaptation Fund is financed by a 2% levy on CERs issued by the CDM

The central feature of the Kyoto Protocol is its requirement that countries limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. By setting such targets, emission reductions took on economic value. To help countries meet their emission targets, and to encourage the private sector and developing countries to contribute to emission reduction efforts, negotiators of the Protocol included three market-based mechanisms - emissions trading, the clean development mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI).

A carbon footprint is historically defined as the total emissions caused by an individual, event, organization, or product, expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent. Greenhouse gases (GHGs), including carbon dioxide, can be emitted through land clearance and the production and consumption of food, fuels, manufactured goods, materials, wood, roads, buildings, transportation and other services.

In most cases, the total carbon footprint cannot be exactly calculated because of inadequate knowledge of and data about the complex interactions between contributing processes, including the influence of natural processes that store or release carbon dioxide. For this reason, Wright, Kemp, and Williams, have suggested to define the carbon footprint as:

A measure of the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane(CH₄) emissions of a defined population, system or activity, considering all relevant sources, sinks and storage within the spatial and temporal boundary of the population, system or activity of interest. Calculated as carbon dioxide equivalent using the relevant 100-year global warming potential (GWP100).

Most of the carbon footprint emissions for the average U.S. household come from "indirect" sources, e.g. fuel burned to produce goods far away from the final consumer. These are distinguished from emissions which come from burning fuel directly in one's car or stove, commonly referred to as "direct" sources of the consumer's carbon footprint.

The concept name of the carbon footprint originates from ecological footprint, discussion, which was developed by William E. Rees and Mathis Wackernagel in the 1990s. This accounting approach compares how much people demand compared to what the planet can renew. This allows to assess the number of "earths" that would be required if everyone on the planet consumed resources at the same level as the person calculating their ecological footprint. The carbon Footprint is one part of the ecological footprint. The carbon part was popularized by a large campaign of BP in 2005. In 2007, carbon footprint was used as a measure of carbon emissions to develop the energy plan for City of Lynnwood, Washington. Carbon footprints are more focused than ecological footprints since they measure merely emissions of gases that cause climate change into the atmosphere.

Carbon footprint is one of a family of footprint indicators, which also includes water footprint and land footprint.

Measuring carbon footprints

An individual's, nation's, or organization's carbon footprint can be measured by undertaking a GHG emissions assessment, a life cycle assessment, or other calculative activities denoted as carbon accounting. Once the size of a carbon footprint is known, a strategy can be devised to reduce it, e.g. by technological developments, energy efficiency improvements, better process and product management, changed Green Public or Private Procurement (GPP), carbon capture, consumption strategies, carbon offsetting and others.

For calculating personal carbon footprints, several free online carbon footprint calculators exist, including a few supported by publicly available peer-reviewed data and calculations including the University of California, Berkeley's Cool Climate Network research consortium and CarbonCStory. These websites ask you to answer more or less detailed questions about your diet, transportation choices, home size, shopping and recreational activities, usage of electricity, heating, and heavy appliances such as dryers and refrigerators, and so on. The website then estimates your carbon footprint based on your answers to these questions. A systematic literature review was conducted to objectively determine the best way to calculate individual/household carbon footprints. This review identified 13 calculation principles and subsequently used the same principles to evaluate the 15 most popular online carbon footprint calculators. A recent study's results by Carnegie Mellon's Christopher Weber found that the calculation of carbon footprints for products is often filled with large uncertainties. The variables of owning electronic goods such as the production, shipment, and previous technology used to make that product, can make it difficult to create an accurate carbon footprint. It is important to question, and address the accuracy of Carbon Footprint techniques, especially due to its overwhelming popularity.

Calculating the carbon footprint of an industry, product, or service is a complex task, as stated earlier. One tool industry uses is Life-cycle assessment (LCA), where carbon footprint may be one of many factors taken into consideration when assessing a product or service. The International Organization for Standardization has a standard called ISO 14040:2006 that has the framework for conducting an LCA study. Another method is through the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a set of standards for tracking GHG emissions.

It should also be noted that predicting the carbon footprint of a process is also possible through estimations using the above standards. By using Emission intensities/Carbon intensities and the estimated annual use of a fuel, chemical, or other inputs, the carbon footprint can be estimated while a process is being planned/designed.

Direct carbon emissions

Direct carbon emissions come from sources that are directly from the site that is producing a product. These emissions can also be referred to as scope 1 and scope 2 emissions.

Scope 1 emissions are emissions that are directly emitted from the site of the process or service. An example for industry would be the emissions related to burning a fuel on site. On the individual level, emissions from personal vehicles or gas burning stoves would fall under scope 1.

Scope 2 emissions are the other emissions related to purchased electricity, heat, and/or steam used on site. In the US, the EPA has broken down electricity emission factors by state.

Indirect carbon emissions

Indirect carbon emissions are emissions from sources upstream or downstream from the process being studied, also known as scope 3 emissions.^[13]

Examples of upstream, indirect carbon emissions may include:^[16]

· Transportation of materials/fuels

· Any energy used outside of the production facility

· Wastes produced outside of the production facility

Examples of downstream, indirect carbon emissions may include:^[16]

· Any end-of-life process or treatments

· Product and waste transportation

· Emissions associated with selling the product

Ways to reduce personal carbon footprint

The most common way to reduce the carbon footprint of humans is to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Refuse.

This can also be done by using reusable items such as thermoses for daily coffee or plastic containers for water and other cold beverages rather than disposable ones. If that option isn't available, it is best to properly recycle the disposable items after use. When one household recycles at least half of their household waste, they can save 1.2 tons of carbon dioxide annually.

Another easy option is to drive less. By walking or biking to the destination rather than driving, not only is a person going to save money on gas, but they will be burning less fuel and releasing fewer emissions into the atmosphere. However, if walking is not an option, one can look into carpooling or mass transportation options in their area.

Yet another option for reducing the carbon footprint of humans is to use less air conditioning and heating in the home. By adding insulation to the walls and attic of one's home, and installing weather stripping or caulking around doors and windows one can lower their heating costs more than 25 percent. Similarly, one can very inexpensively upgrade the "insulation" (clothing) worn by residents of the home. For example, it's estimated that wearing a base layer of long underwear (top and bottom) made from a lightweight, super insulating fabric like microfleece (aka Polartec, Capilene®) can conserve as much body heat as a full set of clothing, allowing a person to remain warm with the thermostat lowered by over 5 °C. These measures all help because they reduce the amount of energy needed to heat and cool the house. One can also turn down the heat while sleeping at night or away during the day, and keep temperatures moderate at all times. Setting the thermostat just 2 degrees lower in winter and higher in summer could save about 1 ton of carbon dioxide each year.

Another option is to stop having children, or at any rate to have fewer of them! World population has increased from three billion to nine billion in fifty years. Each of those nine billion people generate their own carbon footprint, small or large. Can we really afford to carry on expanding world population? If you think we shouldn't, you could do your part by having fewer, or no, children.

Choice of diet is a major influence on a person's carbon footprint. Animal sources of protein (especially red meat), rice (typically produced in high methane-emitting paddies), foods transported long distance and/or via fuel-inefficient transport (e.g., highly perishable produce flown long distance) and heavily processed and packaged foods are among the major contributors to a high carbon diet. Scientists at the University of Chicago have estimated^[20] "that the average American diet – which derives 28% of its calories from animal foods – is responsible for approximately one and a half more tonnes of greenhouse gasses – as CO
2equivalents – per person, per year than a fully plant-based, or vegan, diet." Their calculations suggest that even replacing one third of the animal protein in the average American's diet with plant protein (e.g., beans, grains) can reduce the diet's carbon footprint by half a tonne. Exchanging two thirds of the animal protein with plant protein is roughly equivalent to switching from a Toyota Camry to a Prius. Finally, throwing food out not only adds its associated carbon emissions to a person or household's footprint, it adds the emissions of transporting the wasted food to the garbage dump and the emissions of food decomposition, mostly in the form of the highly potent greenhouse gas, methane.

The carbon handprint movement emphasizes individual forms of carbon offsetting, like using more public transportation or planting trees in deforested regions, to reduce one's carbon footprint and increase their "handprint."

Centre for Environment Education (CEE), Ahmedabad, India - a Centre of Excellence in Environmental Education has played a leading role in global efforts at strengthening the role of education in sustainable development over the years. The Handprint concepts signifying positive action and commitment towards Sustainability was launched at one of CEE's conferences “The 4th International Conference on Environmental Education”, in Ahmedabad, in 2007. The Handprint is being used around the world to strengthen action towards fulfillment of the UN SDGs.

Reduction of one's carbon footprint for various actions

A July 2017 study published in Environmental Research Letters argued that the most significant way individuals could mitigate their own carbon footprint is to have one less child (58.6 tonnes CO₂-equivalent per year), followed by living car-free (2.4 CO₂-equivalent per year), forgoing air travel (1.6 CO₂-equivalent per trans-Atlantic trip) and adopting a plant-based diet (0.8 CO₂-equivalent per year).^[26] The study also found that most government resources on climate change focus on actions that have a relatively modest effect on greenhouse gas emissions, and concludes that "a US family who chooses to have one fewer child would provide the same level of emissions reductions as 684 teenagers who choose to adopt comprehensive recycling for the rest of their lives".^[27]

SDG Handprint Lab

SDG Handprint Lab of Centre for Environment Education (CEE) is an initiative that involves university students in direct Handprint action towards SDGs and targets through a unique pedagogy that makes them understand the complex and transdisciplinary nature of sustainable development in the context of local area sustainability issues. The programme builds a platform for discussion, and creates conditions for their active engagement and using their skills and knowledge to conduct research and executing Handprint activities. Exploring the themes of the SDGs is an excellent way to get the students to link their education and skill with real life problems in the wider community and environment.

Ways to reduce industry's carbon footprint

A product, service, or company's carbon footprint can be affected by several factors including, but not limited to:

· Energy sources

· Offsite electricity generation

· Materials

These factors can also change with location or industry. However, there are some general steps that can be taken to reduce carbon footprint on a larger scale.

In 2016, the EIA reported that in the US electricity is responsible for roughly 37% of Carbon Dioxide emissions, making it a potential target for reductions.Possibly the cheapest way to do this is through energy efficiency improvements. The ACEEE reported that energy efficiency has the potential to save the US over 800 billion kWh per year, based on 2015 data.^[30] Some potential options to increase energy efficiency include, but are not limited to:^[31]

· Waste heat recovery systems

· Insulation for large buildings and combustion chambers

· Technology upgrades, ie different light sources, lower consumption machines

Carbon Footprints from energy consumption can be reduced through the development of alternative energy projects, such as solar and wind energy, which are renewable resources.

Reforestation, the restocking of existing forests or woodlands that have previously been depleted, is an example of Carbon Offsetting, the counteracting of carbon dioxide emissions with an equivalent reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.^[32]Carbon offsetting can reduce a companies overall carbon footprint by offering a carbon credit.

A life cycle or supply chain carbon footprint study can provide useful data which will help the business to identify specific and critical areas for improvement. By calculating or predicting a process’ carbon footprint high emissions areas can be identified and steps can be taken to reduce in those areas.

Schemes to reduce carbon emissions: Kyoto Protocol, carbon offsetting, and certificates

Carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, and the emissions of other GHGs, are often associated with the burning of fossil fuels, like natural gas, crude oil and coal. While this is harmful to the environment, carbon offsets can be purchased in an attempt to make up for these harmful effects.

The Kyoto Protocol defines legally binding targets and timetables for cutting the GHG emissions of industrialized countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Accordingly, from an economic or market perspective, one has to distinguish between a mandatory market and a voluntary market. Typical for both markets is the trade with emission certificates:

· Certified Emission Reduction (CER)

· Emission Reduction Unit (ERU)

· Verified Emission Reduction (VER)

Mandatory market mechanisms

To reach the goals defined in the Kyoto Protocol, with the least economical costs, the following flexible mechanisms were introduced for the mandatory market:

· Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

· Joint Implementation (JI)

· Emissions trading

The CDM and JI mechanisms requirements for projects which create a supply of emission reduction instruments, while Emissions Trading allows those instruments to be sold on international markets.

· Projects which are compliant with the requirements of the CDM mechanism generate Certified Emissions Reductions(CERs).

· Projects which are compliant with the requirements of the JI mechanism generate Emission Reduction Units (ERUs).

The CERs and ERUs can then be sold through Emissions Trading. The demand for the CERs and ERUs being traded is driven by:

· Shortfalls in national emission reduction obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

· Shortfalls amongst entities obligated under local emissions reduction schemes.

Nations which have failed to deliver their Kyoto emissions reductions obligations can enter Emissions Trading to purchase CERs and ERUs to cover their treaty shortfalls. Nations and groups of nations can also create local emission reduction schemes which place mandatory carbon dioxide emission targets on entities within their national boundaries. If the rules of a scheme allow, the obligated entities may be able to cover all or some of any reduction shortfalls by purchasing CERs and ERUs through Emissions Trading. While local emissions reduction schemes have no status under the Kyoto Protocol itself, they play a prominent role in creating the demand for CERs and ERUs, stimulating Emissions Trading and setting a market price for emissions.

A well-known mandatory local emissions trading scheme is the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).

New changes are being made to the trading schemes. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme is set to make some new changes within the next year. The new changes will target the emissions produced by flight travel in and out of the European Union.

Other nations are scheduled to start participating in Emissions Trading Schemes within the next few years. These nations include China, India and the United States.

Voluntary market mechanisms

In contrast to the strict rules set out for the mandatory market, the voluntary market provides companies with different options to acquire emissions reductions. A solution, comparable with those developed for the mandatory market, has been developed for the voluntary market, the Verified Emission Reductions (VER). This measure has the great advantage that the projects/activities are managed according to the quality standards set out for CDM/JI projects but the certificates provided are not registered by the governments of the host countries or the Executive Board of the UNO. As such, high quality VERs can be acquired at lower costs for the same project quality. However, at present VERs can not be used in the mandatory market.

The voluntary market in North America is divided between members of the Chicago Climate Exchange and the Over The Counter (OTC) market. The Chicago Climate Exchange is a voluntary yet legally binding cap-and-trade emission schemewhereby members commit to the capped emission reductions and must purchase allowances from other members or offset excess emissions. The OTC market does not involve a legally binding scheme and a wide array of buyers from the public and private spheres, as well as special events that want to go carbon neutral. Being carbon neutral refers to achieving net zero carbon emissions by balancing a measured amount of carbon released with an equivalent amount sequestered or offset, or buying enough carbon credits to make up the difference.

There are project developers, wholesalers, brokers, and retailers, as well as carbon funds, in the voluntary market. Some businesses and nonprofits in the voluntary market encompass more than just one of the activities listed above. A report by Ecosystem Marketplace shows that carbon offset prices increase as it moves along the supply chain—from project developer to retailer.

While some mandatory emission reduction schemes exclude forest projects, these projects flourish in the voluntary markets. A major criticism concerns the imprecise nature of GHG sequestration quantification methodologies for forestry projects. However, others note the community co-benefits that forestry projects foster. Project types in the voluntary market range from avoided deforestation, afforestation/reforestation, industrial gas sequestration, increased energy efficiency, fuel switching, methane capture from coal plants and livestock, and even renewable energy. Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) sold on the voluntary market are quite controversial due to additionality concerns.^[35] Industrial Gas projects receive criticism because such projects only apply to large industrial plants that already have high fixed costs. Siphoning off industrial gas for sequestration is considered picking the low hanging fruit; which is why credits generated from industrial gas projects are the cheapest in the voluntary market.

The size and activity of the voluntary carbon market is difficult to measure. The most comprehensive report on the voluntary carbon markets to date was released by Ecosystem Marketplace and New Carbon Finance in July 2007.

ÆON of Japan is firstly approved by Japanese authority to indicate carbon footprint on three private brand goods in October 2009.

Average carbon footprint per person by country

CO₂ emissions per person by country, 2016 (Our World In Data).

According to The World Bank, the global average carbon footprint in 2014 was 4.97 metric tons CO₂/cap. The EU average for 2007 was about 13.8 tons CO₂e/cap, whereas for the U.S., Luxembourg and Australia it was over 25 tons CO₂e/cap. In 2017, the average for the USA was about 20 metric tons CO₂e.

Mobility (driving, flying & small amount from public transit), shelter (electricity, heating, construction) and food are the most important consumption categories determining the carbon footprint of a person. In the EU, the carbon footprint of mobility is evenly split between direct emissions (e.g. from driving private cars) and emissions embodied in purchased products related to mobility (air transport service, emissions occurring during the production of cars and during the extraction of fuel).

The carbon footprint of U.S. households is about 5 times greater than the global average. For most U.S. households the single most important action to reduce their carbon footprint is driving less or switching to a more efficient vehicle.

The carbon footprints of energy

The following table compares, from peer-reviewed studies of full life cycle emissions and from various other studies, the carbon footprint of various forms of energy generation: nuclear, hydro, coal, gas, solar cell, peat and wind generation technology.

The Vattenfall study found renewable and nuclear generation responsible for far less CO
2 than fossil fuel generation.

Emission factors of common fuels
Fuel/ resource		Thermal (g[CO₂-eq]/MJ_th)	Energy intensity (J_th/J_e)	Electric (g[CO₂-eq]/kW·h_e)
Coal	B	91.50–91.72	2.62–2.85	863–941
	Br	94.33	3.46	1,175
		88	3.01	955
Oil		73	3.40	893
Natural gas	cc	68.20	−	577
	oc	68.4		751
				599
Geothermal power	T_L	3	−	0–1
Geothermal power	T_W	3	−	91–122
Uranium Nuclear power	W_L	N/A	0.18	60
Uranium Nuclear power	W_L	N/A	0.20	65
Hydroelectricity (run of river)		N/A	0.046	15
Conc. solar power				40±15
Photovoltaics			0.33	106
Wind power			0.066	21

Note: 3.6 megajoules (MJ) = 1 kilowatt-hour (kW·h), thus 1 g/MJ = 3.6 g/kW·h.

Legend

Black coal (supercritical)–(new subcritical)

Brown coal (new subcritical)

combined cycle

open cycle

T_L

Low-temperature/closed-circuit (geothermal doublet)

T_H

High-temperature/open-circuit

W_L

Light water reactors

W_H

Heavy water reactors, estimate.

These three studies thus concluded that hydroelectric, wind, and nuclear power produced the least CO₂ per kilowatt-hour of any other electricity sources. These figures do not allow for emissions due to accidents or terrorism. Wind power and solar power, emit no carbon from the operation, but do leave a footprint during construction phase and maintenance during operation. Hydropower from reservoirs also has large footprints from initial removal of vegetation and ongoing methane (stream detritus decays anaerobically to methane in bottom of reservoir, rather than aerobically to CO₂ if it had stayed in an unrestricted stream).

The table above gives the carbon footprint per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, which is about half the world's man-made CO₂ output. The CO₂ footprint for heat is equally significant and research shows that using waste heat from power generation in combined heat and power district heating, chp/dh has the lowest carbon footprint, much lower than micro-power or heat pumps.

Coal production has been refined to greatly reduce carbon emissions; since the 1980s, the amount of energy used to produce a ton of steel has decreased by 50%.

Passenger transport

Average carbon dioxide emissions (grams) per passenger mile (USA). Based on 'Updated Comparison of Energy Use & CO
2 Emissions From Different Transportation Modes, October 2008' (Manchester, NH: M.J. Bradley & Associates, 2008), p. 4, table 1.1

This section gives representative figures for the carbon footprint of the fuel burned by different transport types (not including the carbon footprints of the vehicles or related infrastructure themselves). The precise figures vary according to a wide range of factors.

Flight

Some representative figures for CO₂ emissions are provided by LIPASTO's survey of average direct emissions (not accounting for high-altitude radiative effects) of airliners expressed as CO₂ and CO₂equivalent per passenger kilometre:

· Domestic, short distance, less than 463 km (288 mi): 257 g/km CO₂ or 259 g/km (14.7 oz/mile) CO₂e

· Long distance flights: 113 g/km CO₂ or 114 g/km (6.5 oz/mile) CO₂e

However, emissions per unit distance travelled is not necessarily the best indicator for the carbon footprint of air travel, because the distances covered are commonly longer than by other modes of travel. It is the total emissions for a trip that matters for a carbon footprint, not the merely rate of emissions. For example, a greatly more distant holiday destination may be chosen than if another mode of travel were used, because air travel makes the longer distance feasible in the limited time available.

Road

CO₂ emissions per passenger-kilometre (pkm) for all road travel for 2011 in Europe as provided by the European Environment Agency:

· 109 g/km CO₂ (Figure 2)

For vehicles, average figures for CO₂ emissions per kilometer for road travel for 2013 in Europe, normalized to the NEDC test cycle, are provided by the International Council on Clean Transportation:

· Newly registered passenger cars: 127 g CO₂/km

· Hybrid-electric vehicles: 92 g CO₂/km

· Light commercial vehicles (LCV): 175 g CO₂/km

Average figures for the United States are provided by the US Environmental Protection Agency, based on the EPA Federal Test Procedure, for the following categories:

· Passenger cars: 200 g CO₂/km (322 g/mi)

· Trucks: 280 g CO₂/km (450 g/mi)

· Combined: 229 g CO₂/km (369 g/mi)

Rail

In 2005, the US company Amtrak's carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per passenger kilometre were 0.116 kg, about twice as high as the UK rail average (where much more of the system is electrified),^[55] and about eight times a Finnish electric intercity train.

Sea

Average carbon dioxide emissions by ferries per passenger-kilometre seem to be 0.12 kg (4.2 oz).^[57] However, 18-knot ferries between Finland and Sweden produce 0.221 kg (7.8 oz) of CO₂, with total emissions equalling a CO₂ equivalent of 0.223 kg (7.9 oz), while 24–27-knot ferries between Finland and Estonia produce 0.396 kg (14.0 oz) of CO₂ with total emissions equalling a CO₂ equivalent of 0.4 kg (14 oz).

The carbon footprints of products

Several organizations offer footprint calculators for public and corporate use, and several organizations have calculated carbon footprints of products. The US Environmental Protection Agency has addressed paper, plastic (candy wrappers), glass, cans, computers, carpet and tires. Australia has addressed lumber and other building materials. Academics in Australia, Korea and the US have addressed paved roads. Companies, nonprofits and academics have addressed mailing letters and packages. Carnegie Mellon University has estimated the CO₂ footprints of 46 large sectors of the economy in each of eight countries. Carnegie Mellon, Sweden and the Carbon Trust have addressed foods at home and in restaurants.

The Carbon Trust has worked with UK manufacturers on foods, shirts and detergents, introducing a CO₂ label in March 2007. The label is intended to comply with a new British Publicly Available Specification (i.e. not a standard), PAS 2050, and is being actively piloted by The Carbon Trust and various industrial partners. As of August 2012 The Carbon Trust state they have measured 27,000 certifiable product carbon footprints.^[62]

Evaluating the package of some products is key to figuring out the carbon footprint. The key way to determine a carbon footprint is to look at the materials used to make the item. For example, a juice carton is made of an aseptic carton, a beer can is made of aluminum, and some water bottles either made of glass or plastic. The larger the size, the larger the footprint will be.

Food

In a 2014 study by Scarborough et al., the real-life diets of British people were surveyed and their dietary greenhouse gas footprints estimated.^[64] Average dietary greenhouse-gas emissions per day (in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent) were:

· 7.19 for high meat-eaters

· 5.63 for medium meat-eaters

· 4.67 for low meat-eaters

· 3.91 for fish-eaters

· 3.81 for vegetarians

· 2.89 for vegans

Textiles

The precise carbon footprint of different textiles varies considerably according to a wide range of factors. However, studies of textile production in Europe suggest the following carbon dioxide equivalent emissions footprints per kilo of textile at the point of purchase by a consumer:^[65]

· Cotton: 8

· Nylon: 5.43

· PET (e.g. synthetic fleece): 5.55

· Wool: 5.48

Accounting for durability and energy required to wash and dry textile products, synthetic fabrics generally have a substantially lower carbon footprint than natural ones.

Materials

The carbon footprint of materials (also known as embodied carbon) varies widely. The carbon footprint of many common materials can be found in the Inventory of Carbon & Energy database, the GREET databases and models, and LCA databases via openLCA Nexus

Cement

Cement production and carbon footprint resulting from soil sealing was 8.0 Mg person⁻¹ of total per capita CO₂ emissions (Italy, year 2003); the balance between C loss due to soil sealing and C stocked in man-made infrastructures resulted in a net loss to the atmosphere, -0.6 Mg C ha⁻¹ y⁻¹.

Environmental pollution and its management ENS 301 1+1

Oct 27, 2022

CDM and carbon foot print

16