9780429109881_previewpdf

CARBON
FOOTPRINT
ANALYSIS
Concepts, Methods,
Implementation, and Case Studies
Industrial Innovation Series
Series Editor
Adedeji B. Badiru
Department of Systems and Engineering Management
Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) – Dayton, Ohio
PUBLISHED TITLES
Carbon Footprint Analysis: Concepts, Methods, Implementation, and Case Studies,
Matthew John Franchetti
Computational Economic Analysis for Engineering and Industry, Adedeji B. Badiru &
Olufemi A. Omitaomu
Conveyors: Applications, Selection, and Integration, Patrick M. McGuire
Global Engineering: Design, Decision Making, and Communication, Carlos Acosta, V. Jorge Leon,
Charles Conrad, and Cesar O. Malave
Handbook of Industrial Engineering Equations, Formulas, and Calculations, Adedeji B. Badiru &
Olufemi A. Omitaomu
Handbook of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Adedeji B. Badiru
Handbook of Military Industrial Engineering, Adedeji B.Badiru & Marlin U. Thomas
Industrial Control Systems: Mathematical and Statistical Models and Techniques, Adedeji B. Badiru,
Oye Ibidapo-Obe, & Babatunde J. Ayeni
Industrial Project Management: Concepts, Tools, and Techniques, Adedeji B. Badiru, Abidemi Badiru,
& Adetokunboh Badiru
Inventory Management: Non-Classical Views, Mohamad Y. Jaber
Kansei Engineering - 2 volume set
• Innovations of Kansei Engineering, Mitsuo Nagamachi & Anitawati Mohd Lokman
• Kansei/Affective Engineering, Mitsuo Nagamachi
Knowledge Discovery from Sensor Data, Auroop R. Ganguly, João Gama, Olufemi A. Omitaomu,
Mohamed Medhat Gaber, & Ranga Raju Vatsavai
Learning Curves: Theory, Models, and Applications, Mohamad Y. Jaber
Modern Construction: Lean Project Delivery and Integrated Practices, Lincoln Harding Forbes &
Syed M. Ahmed
Moving from Project Management to Project Leadership: A Practical Guide to Leading Groups,
R. Camper Bull
Project Management: Systems, Principles, and Applications, Adedeji B. Badiru
Quality Management in Construction Projects, Abdul Razzak Rumane
Social Responsibility: Failure Mode Effects and Analysis, Holly Alison Duckworth &
Rosemond Ann Moore
Statistical Techniques for Project Control, Adedeji B. Badiru & Tina Agustiady
STEP Project Management: Guide for Science, Technology, and Engineering Projects, Adedeji B. Badiru
Systems Thinking: Coping with 21st Century Problems, John Turner Boardman & Brian J. Sauser
Techonomics: The Theory of Industrial Evolution, H. Lee Martin
Triple C Model of Project Management: Communication, Cooperation, Coordination, Adedeji B. Badiru
FORTHCOMING TITLES
Essentials of Engineering Leadership and Innovation, Pamela McCauley-Bush & Lesia L. Crumpton-Young
Project Management: Systems, Principles, and Applications, Adedeji B. Badiru
Sustainability: Utilizing Lean Six Sigma Techniques, Tina Agustiady & Adedeji Badiru
Technology Transfer and Commercialization of Environmental Remediation Technology, Mark N. Goltz
CARBON
FOOTPRINT
ANALYSIS
Concepts, Methods,
Implementation, and Case Studies
Matthew John Franchetti

Defne Apul
Boca Raton London New York
CRC Press is an imprint of the

Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
© 2013 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
No claim to original U.S. Government works

Version Date: 20120501
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4398-5784-7 (eBook - PDF)
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts
have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume
responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers
have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to
copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has
not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmit-
ted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without written permission from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.
com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood
Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and
registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC,
a separate system of payment has been arranged.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used
only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at

http://www.crcpress.com
Contents
Preface ......................................................................................................................xi
Acknowledgments .............................................................................................. xiii
Author Biographies ...............................................................................................xv
Section I Why Carbon Footprint Analysis

and Reduction?
1 Definitions of Carbon Footprint Analysis and Related Concepts .......3

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 3
1.2 Carbon Footprint Analysis .................................................................. 6
1.3 Greenhouse Gases................................................................................. 7
1.4 Global Warming, Climate Change, and Global Change ................. 8
1.5 Life Cycle Assessment and Embedded Carbon................................ 9
1.6 Other Footprints: Water, Nitrogen, Ecological Footprints ............ 14
1.7 Pollution Prevention ........................................................................... 17
1.8 Sustainability and the Triple Bottom Line ...................................... 18
1.9 Acronyms .............................................................................................22
1.10 Units ......................................................................................................22
References ....................................................................................................... 23
2 Benefits of Energy and Greenhouse Gas Reduction and

Minimization................................................................................................. 25
2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 25
2.2 Environmental Benefits ...................................................................... 26
2.3 Economic Benefits ............................................................................... 29
2.4 Corporate Image Benefits ...................................................................30
2.5 Personal and Social Benefits .............................................................. 31
References ....................................................................................................... 31
3 Environmental Laws and Regulations ..................................................... 33

3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 33
3.2 The U.S. Clean Air Act ....................................................................... 33
3.3 The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 ...............................................34
3.4 Energy Policy Act of 2005 ..................................................................34
3.5 American Clean Energy and Security Act ...................................... 35
3.6 Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule ......................... 35
3.7 Kyoto Protocol ..................................................................................... 35
References ....................................................................................................... 36
v
vi Contents
Section II Carbon Footprint Analysis Methods
4 Standards for Carbon Footprint Analysis ............................................... 39

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 39
4.2 Product-Based Standards ................................................................... 39
4.3 Activity-Based Standards .................................................................. 41
4.4 Iterative Carbon Management Steps ................................................43
References ....................................................................................................... 45
5 GHG Protocol ................................................................................................ 47

5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 47
5.2 GHG Protocol Overview .................................................................... 47
5.3 The GHG Protocol’s Overarching Principles .................................. 50
5.4 Greenhouse Gases............................................................................... 50
5.5 Boundary Setting ................................................................................ 57
5.6 Organizational Boundary Setting .................................................... 58
5.7 Operational Boundary Setting .......................................................... 59
5.7.1 Scope 1 Emissions .................................................................. 59
5.7.2 Scope 2 Emissions .................................................................. 60
5.7.3 Scope 3 Emissions ..................................................................63
5.8 Temporal Boundary Setting ..............................................................64
References .......................................................................................................64
6 Metrics and Performance Measurement for Carbon Footprint

Analyses ......................................................................................................... 67
6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 67
6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Measurement........................................ 67
6.2.1 Absolute Measures ................................................................ 68
6.2.2 Measures Indexed to Output ............................................... 68
6.2.3 Measures Indexed to Input................................................... 69
6.2.4 Measures Indexed to Throughput ....................................... 69
6.2.5 Measures Indexed to Activity .............................................. 69
6.3 Business and Financial Measurement ............................................. 69
6.4 Customer and Stakeholder Satisfaction Measurements ................ 71
Reference ......................................................................................................... 73
7 Energy and Greenhouse Gas Calculators Available on the Internet ... 75

7.1 Overview of Calculators and Comparisons .................................... 75
7.2 American Forests ................................................................................ 75
7.3 Bonneville Environmental Foundation ...........................................77
7.4 Clearwater ............................................................................................77
7.5 The Conservation Fund...................................................................... 78
7.6 Green Mountain Energy .................................................................... 78
7.7 TerraPass............................................................................................... 78
Contents vii
7.8 The U.S. Department of Energy—Home Energy Saver ................. 79

7.9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) ........................... 79
8 Carbon Footprints of Some Entities ......................................................... 81

8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 81
8.2 Carbon Footprint of Persons, Organizations, and Nations .......... 81
8.3 Embedded Carbon of Products .........................................................84
References ....................................................................................................... 86
Section III Systems Approach to Project Implementation
9 Introduction: The System Approach to Carbon Footprint and

Energy Reduction ......................................................................................... 89
10 The Six Sigma Systems Approach for Deployment .............................. 93

10.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 93
10.2 Define Stage ......................................................................................... 95
10.3 Measure .............................................................................................. 100
10.4 Analyze ............................................................................................... 101
10.5 Improve............................................................................................... 101
10.6 Control ................................................................................................ 102
10.7 Summary ............................................................................................ 103
References ..................................................................................................... 104
11 Deployment Alternatives .......................................................................... 105

11.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 105
11.2 Choosing a Waste Minimization Provider or Partner ................. 107
11.3 Essential Elements of the Deployment Plan ................................. 108
12 Creating a Successful Project Launch .................................................... 111

12.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 111
12.2 Executive Leadership........................................................................ 111
12.3 Strategic Goals ................................................................................... 112
12.4 Resources............................................................................................ 114
12.5 Metrics ................................................................................................ 117
12.6 Culture ................................................................................................ 118
12.7 Communications ............................................................................... 118
12.8 Lessons Learned................................................................................ 119
12.9 Summary ............................................................................................ 121
Reference ....................................................................................................... 121
13 The General Approach to Greenhouse Gas and Energy Analyses ... 123
13.1 Introduction to the Systems Approach Framework ..................... 123
13.2 Establish the Team and Define the Project (Step 1) ...................... 124
viii Contents
13.2.1 Upper-Management Support ............................................. 126

13.2.2 The Project Team .................................................................. 126
13.2.3 Initial Training and Introductory Meeting ...................... 127
13.2.4 Project Goals and Metrics ................................................... 128
13.2.5 Team Charter ........................................................................ 128
13.2.6 Project Timeline ................................................................... 129
13.2.7 Project Budget....................................................................... 129
13.3 Existing Records Review (Step 2) ................................................... 131
13.4 Process Mapping and Production Analysis (Step 3) .................... 136
13.5 On-Site Data Collection (Step 4) ...................................................... 142
13.5.1 Preparation for On-Site Data Collection ........................... 142
13.5.2 Assessment Guide ............................................................... 147
13.6 Data Analysis (Step 5)....................................................................... 148
13.7 Identify Minimization Opportunities (Step 6) ............................. 149
13.8 Determine, Evaluate, and Select Alternatives (Step 7) ................ 152
13.8.1 Generating Alternatives ...................................................... 152
13.8.2 Common Minimization Alternatives ............................... 156
13.8.3 Screening Alternatives ........................................................ 157
13.8.4 Analyzing and Selecting Alternatives .............................. 160
13.8.4.1 Case Study Discussion—Evaluating and
Selecting Alternatives ......................................... 169
13.9 Documentation and the Deployment Plan (Step 8)...................... 179
13.9.1 Overview of the Deployment Plan .................................... 179
13.9.2 Obtaining Funding .............................................................. 180
13.9.3 Contents of the Documentation and Deployment Plan ... 181
13.9.3.1 Cover Sheet .......................................................... 181
13.9.3.2 Overview .............................................................. 182
13.9.3.3 Assessment Findings and Recommendations ... 182
13.9.3.4 Assumptions, Dependencies, and
Constraints ........................................................... 182
13.9.3.5 Operational Readiness ....................................... 182
13.9.3.6 Timeline for Implementation............................. 182
13.9.3.7 Training and Documentation ............................ 183
13.9.3.8 Notification of Deployment ............................... 183
13.9.3.9 Operations and Maintenance Plans ................. 183
13.9.3.10 Contingency Plan ................................................ 183
13.9.3.11 Appendices .......................................................... 184
13.10 Implementation and Execution (Step 9) ......................................... 184
13.11 Validate the Program versus Goals (Step 10) ................................ 185
13.12 Monitor and Continually Improve Performance (Step 11) .......... 186
14 Employee Training ..................................................................................... 189

14.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 189
14.2 Strategy ............................................................................................... 189
14.3 Agendas for Training........................................................................ 191
Contents ix
Section IV Case Studies

15 Higher Education Carbon Management ................................................ 195
15.1 Organizations and Programs That Encourage and Support
Carbon Footprint Analysis and Management .............................. 195
15.2 Case Study of the University of Toledo.......................................... 201
15.2.1 Background and Acknowledgments ................................ 201
15.2.2 Using Wiki Technology to Facilitate Communication ... 202
15.2.3 Project Process ...................................................................... 203
15.2.4 Project Boundaries and Raw Data ..................................... 207
15.2.5 Emissions Summary............................................................ 212
15.2.6 Emissions Projections.......................................................... 212
15.2.7 Scope 1 Reduction Strategies.............................................. 213
15.2.10 Carbon Offsets...................................................................... 216
15.2.11 Education .............................................................................. 217
References ..................................................................................................... 217
16 Energy Analysis and Minimization in Manufacturing ..................... 219

16.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 219
16.2 Methodology...................................................................................... 220
16.3 Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 220
16.3.1 Offices .................................................................................... 220
16.3.2 Entryway ............................................................................... 221
16.3.3 Kitchenette ............................................................................222
16.3.4 Manufacturing .....................................................................222
16.3.5 Other Areas...........................................................................223
16.4 Cost Savings Opportunities/Recommendations .........................223
16.4.1 Offices ....................................................................................223
16.4.2 Entryway ...............................................................................225
16.4.3 Kitchenette ............................................................................ 226
16.4.4 Manufacturing ..................................................................... 226
16.4.5 Other Areas........................................................................... 227
16.5 Recommendations and Summary .................................................. 227
17 Energy Analysis and Minimization in Health Care ........................... 231

17.1 Introduction and Background......................................................... 231
17.2 Methodology...................................................................................... 231
17.3 Lighting Results ................................................................................ 232
17.4 Lighting Recommendations ............................................................234
17.4.1 Lighting Sensors on the Exterior of the Parking
Structure................................................................................234
17.4.2 LED Tube Retrofits for the F40T12 Bulbs ..........................234
17.4.3 LED Retrofits for Exit Signs ................................................ 235
x Contents
17.5 Economic Analysis of Lighting Recommendations ..................... 235

17.6 Environmental Impact ..................................................................... 239
17.7 Other Areas for Energy Reduction ................................................. 241
References ..................................................................................................... 242
18 Energy Analysis in Minimization in Construction and

Manufacturing ............................................................................................ 243
18.1 Background ........................................................................................ 243
18.2 Methodology...................................................................................... 243
18.3 Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 244
18.3.1 Machine Shop ....................................................................... 244
18.3.2 Warehouse ............................................................................ 244
18.3.3 Office ...................................................................................... 244
18.4 Cost-Saving Opportunities .............................................................. 245
18.4.1 The Machine Shop ............................................................... 245
18.4.2 Warehouse ............................................................................ 246
18.4.3 Office Area ............................................................................ 246
18.4.4 Other Areas........................................................................... 246
18.5 Recommendations and Summary .................................................. 247
Preface
The negative impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human

activities are dramatically reshaping the environmental, political, and social
landscape. Numerous research reports have linked these emissions to global
warming, pollution, violent weather patterns, and species extinction. To mit-
igate these negative impacts, governments around the world have passed
legislation to measure and reduce carbon emissions, most notably, the Kyoto
Treaty. Many governmental, private and nonprofit organizations, local move-
ments, and individuals understand that climate change is one of the most
pressing sustainability problems of our generation. They have been track-
ing their GHG emissions and have begun taking steps toward adapting to
a world that is marked with energy and climate crises. These developments
iterate the importance and need to properly measure and reduce energy and
GHG emissions.
While the topic is timely and urgent and somewhat haphazardly prac-
ticed, the relevant content and skill set for carbon footprint management
has been published in bits and pieces in a wide range of papers, reports, and
standards. It is difficult for an individual or an organization to understand
how the different kinds of technical information and practices fit together
toward reducing their carbon footprint. Lack of a reference book on carbon
management also became a problem for us in the classes we teach. Both of
us teach sustainability-related engineering courses and wished there was a
comprehensive technical book on carbon management that we could share
with our students. We hope to have overcome these issues with the writing
of this book.
Carbon Footprint Analysis: Concepts, Methods, Implementation, and Case Studies
provides up-to-date technical information and practical guidance on mea-
suring and reducing energy and GHG emissions. It is a reference book for
both individuals and organizations aiming to reduce their carbon footprints.
This book provides a comprehensive framework for carbon management
and is separated into four parts:
• Section I provides definitions, concepts, benefits, and background

information regarding carbon footprint analyses.
• Section II discusses the GHG accounting methods.
• Section III provides the general systems framework for conducting
an audit.
• Section IV features four case studies in higher education, service,
and manufacturing organizations.
xi
xii Preface
Some sections of the book have detailed discussions on the concepts,

whereas others introduce the concepts and explain how the different
concepts fit together. Each chapter has a list of references that readers can
consult for further learning. For instructors considering adopting this book,
we are compiling a separate reference document filled with active learning
exercises related to book content. These exercises will be posted on our web-
sites when available.
We are confident and excited that this book will help individuals and orga-
nizations in their efforts to reduce their carbon footprints and begin adapt-
ing to a carbon-constrained world. We hope readers will enjoy learning and
practicing carbon footprint analysis.
Matt Franchetti and Defne Apul

Acknowledgments
Defne Apul thanks all her colleagues and students who have shared a
vision for climate action and worked together in various local sustainabil-
ity projects. University of Toledo Spring 2010 and Spring 2011 sustainability
engineering students are especially acknowledged for paving the way for
analyzing carbon footprint of institutions as part of a class project. Their
hard work is presented in Chapter 15.
Acknowledgments also go to her son, Derin Apul, who has been the inspi-
ration for all sustainability learning and actions that she has taken since
he’s been born. Finally, a special thanks to her husband, Tolga Apul, for his
patience and support without which this book would not have come to be.
Matthew Franchetti would like to thank the Lucas County Board of

Commissioners and the Lucas County Solid Waste Management District for
their continued support of sustainability research in Northwest Ohio. The
research funding provided by these groups made the case studies and prac-
tical results possible.
In addition, Matthew Franchetti would like to acknowledge his wife, Laura,
and children, Jack and Kate, for their support and inspiration during the
development of this book.
xiii
Author Biographies
Dr. Matthew Franchetti is an assistant professor of Mechanical, Industrial,

and Manufacturing Engineering and the director of Undergraduate Studies
of the Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Programs at the University of
Toledo. He also is the director of the Environmentally Conscious Design
and Manufacturing Laboratory and principal investigator of the Business
Waste Reduction Assistance Program, a joint effort with the Lucas County
Solid Waste Management District, a research group that has assisted more
than 100 companies in various sustainability assessments. Dr. Franchetti
received his PhD in 2003 and his MBA in 2000 from the University of
Toledo. He has worked as an industrial engineer and technical manager
for the U.S. Postal Service and has extensive consulting experience in the
automotive industry. Dr. Franchetti is Certified Six-Sigma Black Belt from
the American Society of Quality (ASQ) and has consulting and research
experience with more than 25 companies across the country. He has pub-
lished more than 60 books, articles, and conference proceedings in the field
of sustainability.
Dr. Defne Apul is an associate professor of Civil Engineering at the

University of Toledo. She received her PhD from the University of New
Hampshire in 2004 and joined the University of Toledo shortly after.
Dr. Apul’s expertise is in environmental engineering with a focus on sus-
tainability engineering. Her prior research has spanned a wide variety of
topics from recycled material use in road construction to surface water qual-
ity, geochemical modeling, and risk assessment. Her research focus and pub-
lications in the most recent years have been on life cycle assessment and
ecological design principles related to infrastructure issues. Dr. Apul devel-
oped and currently teaches the sustainability engineering and life cycle
engineering classes at the University of Toledo.
xv
Section I
Why Carbon Footprint

Analysis and Reduction?
1
Definitions of Carbon Footprint
Analysis and Related Concepts
1.1 Introduction
According to the world-recognized business and environmental author Paul
Hawken, “Sustainability is about stabilizing the currently disruptive rela-
tionship between Earth’s two most complex systems—human culture and
the living world” (Hawken 2008). Sustainability strives to align human prog-
ress and the Earth’s ecological system so that both are operating in harmony
and in a synergistic manner that does not deteriorate or destroy the other.
Perhaps today’s largest and most dramatic misalignment between human
progress and the Earth’s ecological system is the humans’ impact on the cli-
mate. While many other environmental problems exist, climate change and
its associated implications on Earth rise in temperature is one of the most
pressing sustainability issues of our generation.
The perils of climate change have received increased worldwide atten-
tion since the early 1990s via respected scientists and high-profile advocates,
including former U.S. vice president Al Gore. As the Earth’s average tempera-
ture rises, many scientists predict and are already observing rising sea levels,
an increasing number and intensity of violent hurricanes, mass flooding, and
long periods of drought accompanied by higher extinction rates of species
and a decrease in the worldwide food supply. Scientists have attributed the
climate change phenomena to increased energy and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), associated with human activity. At
the center of these human activities is the burning of fossil fuels (e.g., for such
things as gasoline-powered automobiles, electricity generated from coal, and
other fossil fuel-burning activities) and various industrial/manufacturing
processes that emit GHGs.
The public is still largely unaware of the climate change science and issues.
Several activist and educational websites do an excellent job of summarizing
the information and engaging the public; they are worth exploring for both
the novice and advanced reader. For example, the Climate Communication
website (http://climatecommunication.org/) “publicizes and illuminates the
3
4 Carbon Footprint Analysis
latest climate research in plain language, making the science more accessible
to the public and policy makers.” It has separate data- and science-based
sections on what is happening to our climate, how it will affect us, and what
we can do. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) also have
science-based educational websites on climate change with specific links for
the public, kids, or educators (e.g., http://climate.nasa.gov/; http://epa.gov/
climatechange/). The nonprofit organization Post Carbon Institute (http://
www.postcarbon.org/) aims to aid the transition to a world in which our
civilization no longer depends on hydrocarbon fuels, and no longer emits
climate-changing levels of carbon into the atmosphere.
Two websites with very simple messages have been especially effective in
educating and engaging the public with condensed and simple ideas. For
example, the CO2Now website (http://co2now.org/) makes it easy to see the
most current CO2 level and its implications. At the writing of this book, in
September 2011, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 389.00 parts per
million (ppm), up from 384.79 ppm and 386.80 ppm in Septembers of 2009
and 2010, respectively. A second website, the 350 website (http://www.350.
org) aims to build a global grassroots movement to solve the climate crisis. It
explains in the simplest terms how the preindustrial CO2 concentration was
275 ppm, how it has been rising at about 2 ppm every year, and how the most
recent science suggests that we need to bring it down to at least 350 ppm to
achieve a safe and relatively stable planet Earth. The 350 ppm target comes
from Hansen et al.’s (2008) seminal paper, which noted that “if humanity
wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed
and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing
climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current
385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that.” Unfortunately, the
atmospheric CO2 concentration has been above 350 ppm since 1988, and
the necessary political effort to bring it down to the 350 level was still miss-
ing at the writing of this book.
The level of atmospheric CO2 concentration is important for our civiliza-
tion because it determines the extent of adverse impacts on Earth’s systems.
In 2005, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 379 ppm, and the increase in
Earth’s temperature was 0.74°C above preindustrial levels (Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2007). The sea level is expected to rise 0.4 to
3.7 m for CO2 concentrations up to 790 ppm, and temperature is expected
to rise up to 6.1°C above preindustrial levels (IPCC 2007). This rise in sea
level will have catastrophic results on the 70% of the world’s population that
reside in coastal areas. For global average temperatures rising above 3.5°C
from preindustrial levels, model projections suggest significant extinctions
(40 to 70% of species assessed) around the globe (IPCC 2007). The upper safe
limit for avoiding serious economic and ecological threats was determined
to be 2°C (IPCC 2007).
Definitions of Carbon Footprint Analysis and Related Concepts 5
Climate change is often linked to and discussed in the context of energy

use because the climate and energy are inseparable issues. On one hand is
the rising of atmospheric GHG concentrations primarily due to burning of
fossil fuels. On the other hand, there is the issue of peaking of fossil fuels.
Within the lifetime of today’s generation, fossil fuel’s availability is expected
to decline to a point that will cause major energy crises. Therefore reducing
fossil fuel use is beneficial in managing and adapting to both the climate
change and the energy crises problems.
Adapting to a world that does not rely on fossil fuels is now a priority
effort for many organizations. This motivation comes from both the environ-
mental problems with burning of fossil fuels as well as the limited supply of
fossil fuels that are estimated to peak or have peaked in the twenty-first cen-
tury. The scientific explanation for this peaking and reduction of fossil fuel
supplies in today’s and future generations comes from the Hubbert peak the-
ory proposed by American geophysicist King Hubbert. Hubbert peak theory
has been most commonly applied to and discussed in the context of peak oil,
but it also applies to other fossil fuels such as peak natural gas and peak coal,
since all fossil fuels are limited in supply and nonrenewable within the time
frame of the human civilization. Sometimes the phrase “post carbon” is used
to refer to a world that does not rely on fossil fuels and to promote the cur-
rent transition to such a world. The Post Carbon Institute has popularized
the use of the phrase “post carbon.”
Action related to climate change and adaptation efforts to a postcarbon
world are already apparent in all aspects of our society. These actions are
often tied to larger sustainability initiatives. For example, local food move-
ments and buy-local campaigns aim to promote local economy, and while
doing so they also promote strategies that are typically less reliant on fos-
sil fuels and extensive uses of energy. Reduced transportation distances for
foods and goods reduce the fossil fuel demand. Similarly, local food systems
are often less dependent on fossil fuel-derived pesticides.
At the international level, to mitigate the negative impacts of climate
change, governments around the world have passed legislation to mea-
sure and reduce carbon emissions, most notably the Kyoto Treaty and the
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. These events iterate the
importance and need to properly measure and reduce energy and GHG
emissions. While addressing climate change is likely to be one of the most
important tasks of our generation, and there exist many resources on climate
science, a systems perspective on how to measure and manage the GHG
emissions, especially for organizations, has been missing in the literature.
This book addresses this issue by presenting information compiled from
various resources and from the authors’ own experience in this matter.
Many analytical models have been developed to help companies achieve
the goal of energy and GHG reduction. One such method, the systems
approach, is presented in this book. This method has been applied to over
20 companies and has achieved demonstrated environmental and economic

results. The model hinges on the business maxim “If you can’t measure it,
you can’t manage it.” The purpose of the model is to quantify energy and
GHG emissions and achieve the following goals:
• Identify important sources of emissions and prioritize areas of emis-

sion reductions and increasing efficiencies.
• Begin adapting to a postcarbon world by reducing GHGs and the
organization’s reliance on energy and fossil fuels.
• Increase business competitiveness through reduced energy costs
and optimized use of raw materials.
• Improve corporate image as companies become more green.
• Reduce pollution through reduced energy usage, and the application
of clean and renewable energy sources.
The primary goal of this type of work is to empower companies and orga-
nizations to reduce environmental impact and operating costs by limiting
the amount of energy used and GHGs emitted for their operations. This
includes minimizing GHG emissions, energy consumption, transportation
and storage, reducing environmental fees, and limiting pollution to improve
the quality of the environment. Many organizations are able to increase
profit by reducing energy costs, raw-material purchases, and other operating
costs. However, many companies do not have the capability to perform an
energy and carbon footprint analysis evaluation due to time constraints and
lack of knowledge in the field.
This book provides a detailed framework and reference material for energy
and carbon footprint analysis and reduction. In this chapter, we discuss the
terms, definitions, and concepts related to carbon footprint analysis. In the
environmental field, people often have differing expectations upon hearing
many of the common terms. To compound the problem, finding universal
definitions for these terms can be challenging, as many companies and gov-
ernment agencies create their own designations, often using combinations
of technical and operational components. This next section discusses these
key terms and definitions as they relate to the topics covered in this book.
1.2 Carbon Footprint Analysis

First and foremost, it is important to define carbon footprint analysis. Carbon
footprint analysis is the measurement of GHG-emitting processes, their ori-
gins, and their composition and amounts. The GHG sinks and removal rates
should also be included in a carbon footprint analysis to determine the “net”

emission rates. In general, the phrase “carbon footprint” is typically loosely
used to indicate the extent of GHG emissions resulting from a person’s or
an organization’s activities. It is also possible to estimate the carbon foot-
prints of nations, events, products, or services. The phrase “carbon footprint
analysis” is synonymous with the phrase “greenhouse gas inventory.” The
word carbon is used because CO2 is the predominant GHG being emitted
from humans’ actions. Yet other GHG emissions, including methane (CH4)
and nitrous oxide (N2O), also have significant contributions to global warm-
ing. So as to have one unit for reporting results, emissions from these other
gases are normalized to the mass of CO2, and the carbon footprint results
are reported as mass of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) (e.g., kg of CO2e or metric
tons of CO2e).
Many people use energy footprint and carbon footprint phrases inter-
changeably, since most of a person’s, product’s, or organization’s emissions
come from fossil fuel-based energy use. The phrase “carbon footprint” is
therefore often associated with GHG emissions from the use of fossil fuel-
based energy. However, technically this is incorrect since fossil fuels are not
the only sources of GHGs. Depending on the characteristics of the organiza-
tion or product, other sources such as industrial processes, agriculture, land
use, land-use change, forestry, and waste may be relevant in inventorying
greenhouse gases and calculating the carbon footprint.
Carbon footprint analysis is often accomplished through an audit or
assessment procedure. This involves tracking and quantification of data
and possibly a walk-through of the facility if relevant. Energy and carbon
footprint reduction is the process of reducing energy and GHG emissions
through energy reduction, process/equipment changes, and the reallocation
of resources. From a corporate perspective, the energy and carbon footprint
audit typically involves:
• Researching the company’s process and overall energy and GHG

generation
• Designing recommendations to maximize process efficiency and
reduce energy and GHG emissions and energy costs
• Giving to the companies a detailed reference list of vendors that
complement the recommendations
1.3 Greenhouse Gases
GHGs are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within
the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the
greenhouse effect and the warming of the Earth. The primary energy emis-
sions and GHGs in the Earth’s atmosphere are water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O
(laughing gas), and ozone. All these GHGs are found naturally on Earth. In
carbon footprint analysis, typically six types of gases included in the Kyoto
Protocol are accounted for: CO2, CH4, N2O, and other anthropogenic gases
such as sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocar-
bons (PFCs).
1.4 Global Warming, Climate Change, and Global Change

It is interesting to note that the concept of global warming has become popu-
lar in the past couple of decades but has been around for more than a century.
A Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius is credited as the first person to
hypothesize (he did so in 1896) that human activity and the resulting fossil
fuel combustion may result in increased global warming (American Institute
of Physics 2011). He argued that a relationship existed between atmospheric
CO2 concentrations and temperature. Limited mainstream attention was
paid to the issue until the 1980s when scientists observed the annual mean
temperature of Earth begin to rise. The curve increased to such a high degree
that the global warming theory began to gain traction. In 1988, the United
Nations and the World Meteorological Organization formed the IPCC to
study the impact of the greenhouse effect (Climate Change Challenge 2011).
Over 2000 experts serve on the IPCC in a wide variety of fields and back-
grounds. The IPCC is considered the leading organization regarding GHG
emissions and global warming, and the group releases periodic climate
change reports.
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth’s near-
surface air and oceans since the mid-t wentieth century and its projected
continuation (Universal Green Society 2011). The Earth’s average surface tem-
perature was about 14.5°C in 2006 (IPCC 2007). This temperature is a com-
bined estimate from land and sea surfaces. For example, in the last century
(from 1901 to 2000) the global mean annual surface temperature estimates
were 8.5°C for land surface, 16.1°C for sea surface, and 13.9°C for land and
sea surface combined (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-
National Climatic Data Center [NOAA-NCDC] 2011). The combined surface
temperature has been increasing since the preindustrial times, although
land regions have warmed faster than the oceans (IPCC 2007).
IPCC is the world’s leading authority on climate change science. IPCC
reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical, and socioeco-
nomic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of
climate change. IPCC’s assessment reports are the most widely used and
cited resources on climate change. IPCC published its First Assessment
Report (FAR), Second Assessment Report (SAR), Third Assessment Report

(TAR), and Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007,
respectively. In AR4, IPCC noted that the global surface temperature rise
over the 100-year period from 1906 through 2005 was 0.74 ± 0.18°C (IPCC
2007). According to AR4, for the last 50 years the linear warming trend
has been 0.13°C (0.10 to 0.16°C) per decade (IPCC 2007). Eleven of the last
12 years (1995–2006) ranked among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental
record of global surface temperature (since 1850) (IPCC 2007). More recently,
researchers at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) reported
that the global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on
record (NASA GISS 2011). Most of the observed temperature increase since
the middle of the twentieth century has been caused by increasing concen-
trations of GHGs, which result from human activity such as the burning of
fossil fuel and deforestation.
Global warming is a concern, but the increasing temperatures by them-
selves are not the primary reason for the concern from global warming.
Global warming changes Earth’s climate, which then adversely affects Earth’s
physical (e.g., freshwater availability, sea level), chemical (e.g., ocean pH), and
biological (species adaptation) systems irreversibly and away from param-
eters upon which our current civilization relies. Therefore it is the effect of
global warming on Earth’s systems and these systems’ effect on our civili-
zation that are of concern. For this reason, climate change or global change are
more appropriate terms for understanding and addressing the problem than
the term global warming. GHGs cause global warming, and global warming
causes climate change, which then causes global change. Global warming
refers to the increase in Earth’s surface temperatures. Climate change refers
to the change in Earth’s climate due to these increased temperatures. These
changes include, among others, changes in precipitation patterns, freshwater
availability, glacier and sea ice amount, ecosystem health, and biodiversity.
Global change is the most encompassing term and refers to global change of
all kinds, some of which are due to climate change (e.g., sea levels, ocean pH,
biodiversity) and others to effects such as population, globalization, econ-
omy, and pollution.
1.5 Life Cycle Assessment and Embedded Carbon

A life cycle assessment (LCA, also known as life cycle analysis, eco-balance,
and cradle-to-grave analysis) is the investigation and evaluation of the envi-
ronmental impacts of a given product or service caused or necessitated by
its existence (Oakleaf Intelligent Waste Management 2011). The purpose of
LCA is to evaluate a product or service based on the environmental dam-
ages that may be associated with its production, use, and disposal so that the
Raw material
extraction
Impacts Impacts
Material
End of life
processing
Impacts
Life Cycle
Impacts
Assessment
Impacts Impacts
Production/
Use Manufacturing/
Assembly
Impacts Impacts
Impacts
FIGURE 1.1
Life cycle assessment concept showing product life cycle phases and associated impacts
including impacts from transportation.
least harmful option can be determined. LCA is a method to account for the
impact and effects of the technological chains responsible for the production
and use of goods and services.
A schematic of the LCA approach is shown in Figure 1.1. The term life cycle
refers to the notion that a fair, holistic assessment requires the assessment
of raw-material production, manufacture, distribution, use, and disposal
including all intervening transportation steps necessary to or caused by the
product’s existence (Greenlabs 2011). The sum of all those steps—or phases—
is the life cycle of the product. The assessment of this life cycle provides a
comprehensive approach to understanding the impact of the product. The
LCA concept can be used to optimize the environmental performance of a
single product (eco-design) or to optimize the environmental performance of
a company (Greenlabs 2011).
Analysis of many different environmental impacts is possible in LCA
(Table 1.1). Environmental impacts may be assessed at midpoint level
TABLE 1.1
Life Cycle Environmental, Social, and Economic Impact Types
Environmental Impacts Social Impacts Economic Impacts
Climate change Human rights Labor costs
Resource depletion Working conditions Material costs
Land use Health and safety
Water use Cultural heritage
Biodiversity Governance
Acidification
Eutrophication
Ecotoxicity
Human toxicity
Ozone depletion
Photochemical ozone creation
(e.g., climate change, acidification, eutrophication) or end-point level (e.g.,

human health, natural resources) (Bare and Gloria 2006). In addition, social
and economic impacts can now be incorporated into the LCA framework
using social LCA (SLCA) and life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) frameworks.
Most recently, life cycle sustainability analysis (LCSA) has emerged as the
primary sustainability tool with its consideration of all three pillars of sus-
tainability (economic, social, and environmental) (Guinee et al. 2011; United
Nations Environmental Program/Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry [UNEP/SETAC] Life Cycle Initiative 2011). Many different types
of life cycle sustainability impacts can be considered (Table 1.1). The carbon
footprint analysis is only a measure of the climate change impact, whereas
the other environmental, social, and economic impacts may be relevant and
important for decision making on a given problem or analysis.
There are many uncertainties in methods used to estimate the impacts
used in life cycle studies. Yet due to the presence of more developed sci-
ence and databases, perhaps the impact that can be estimated with least
uncertainty is the global warming potential, which is a measure of the GHG
emissions. In the global warming potential impact category, emissions from
different GHGs are normalized to the equivalence of CO2 and expressed as
mass (metric tons or pounds) of CO2 equivalence. Global warming poten-
tial is likely the most popular life cycle impact category analyzed in most
recent years.
By its use of the global warming potential impact category, LCA pro-
vides an important methodological framework for carbon footprint studies.
However, we emphasize again that carbon footprint analysis is only one of
the outcomes of a more comprehensive LCA (Table 1.1). LCA is designed to
analyze all relevant impact categories. Analyzing just the global warming
implications may provide a limited perspective of the problem and may
result in “shifting of burdens.” In other words, for a given product, ser-

vice, or activity the environmental impacts typically involve not just global
warming but also other types of impacts such as eutrophication, acidifica-
tion, human toxicity, terrestrial toxicity, or land use, among others. A more
informed decision can be made if all relevant environmental impacts are
quantified. Focusing only on carbon footprint analysis at the expense of not
evaluating other impacts may provide a limited perspective and, as stated
previously, result in shifting the burden, for example, from global warming
to eutrophication. While this book is on carbon footprint analysis, the read-
ers are cautioned on the limitation of making decisions based just on carbon
footprint data. More thorough and balanced decisions can be made if all
relevant environmental impacts are analyzed.
LCA methodology was developed for analysis of products or services, but
theoretically, the LCA framework can be used to estimate the carbon foot-
print of any entity such as a person, industry, organization, community, or
nation. When LCA and the global warming impact category are used for
products, and the analysis excludes the operation and end-of-life phases,
sometimes the term carbon footprint may be replaced with embedded carbon.
Embedded carbon is a measure of the sum of GHG emissions that have hap-
pened at each step from mining the raw material to producing intermedi-
ate materials and finally the ultimate product. Similarly, the term embedded
energy of a product indicates the sum of all energy used in making the product.
While the LCA approach can theoretically be applied to pretty much
anything (e.g., organization, industry, or community), it has been primar-
ily developed for and applied to analysis of products or services. There are
two reasons for this. First, LCA tracks emissions from all life cycle phases of
the entity of interest. For products, it is fairly simple to identify what the
life cycle phases are, and once these phases are determined, the emissions
from them can be quantified. However, for persons, organizations, com-
panies, or communities, the life cycle phases are too long and too variable,
and are therefore impossible or irrelevant to determine. Second, LCA tracks
direct emissions, indirect emissions from electricity, and other indirect emis-
sions from upstream and downstream processes. Indirect emissions from
upstream and downstream processes are very difficult to accurately quan-
tify. As the entity being studied gets more complex (as in organizations and
industries), it becomes almost impossible to quantify these indirect emissions
because the entity would have too many of them to be tracked. These emis-
sions can be more easily quantified and modeled for products or services
whose boundaries and interactions with other entities are better understood.
Where the LCA framework becomes irrelevant or cannot be easily applied
to estimate the carbon footprint of a person, company, or an organization,
a narrower scope approach can be used that measures not all the life cycle
phases but just the emissions for a given period, typically for one year.
Therefore, the carbon footprint of a company refers to its annual emissions
from its operations. The GHG Protocol is the primary methodology used in
such measurements. In such studies direct emissions and indirect emissions
from electricity use are always tracked. Measurement of indirect upstream
and downstream emissions is optional. The relationship between LCA and
the GHG Protocol is further discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.
LCA is a fairly new but booming scientific field. LCA concepts date back
to the 1960s and 1970s when the first studies on product comparisons were
made. Some popular comparisons of the time were paper (disposable) ver-
sus cotton (washable) baby diapers; glass versus carton versus plastic milk
packaging; and comparison of nine types of beverage containers made
from glass, plastic, aluminum, or steel (Guinee et al. 2011). In the 1990s,
LCA became popular worldwide and its methods were standardized by
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and SETAC. In
the 2000s, LCA methods were developed further. In addition LCA stud-
ies became ever more abundant. This can be seen from a simple keyword
search in Web of Knowledge, which is one of the most extensive and popular
research database for academic journal, conference proceeding, and website
content. A search in Web of Knowledge using the keywords life cycle assess-
ment shows that the number of articles on this topic is increasing every year
and has increased from about 200 in 1995 to 1300 in 2010 (Figure 1.2). While
this simple keyword search might have captured some articles not related to
LCA (e.g., articles on life cycles of organisms), the increasing trend is due
to the booming of LCA literature.
1400
1200
Number of articles from “life cycle
assessment” keyword search
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
FIGURE 1.2
Number of published LCA-related articles in content covered by Web of Knowledge.
1.6 Other Footprints: Water, Nitrogen, Ecological Footprints

The footprint concept has been applied to the use of three other globally
relevant resources: water, nitrogen, and ecosystems. Developers and lead-
ers of each of these concepts have designed websites to educate the public
and allow them to calculate their individual water footprint (http://www.
waterfootprint.org), nitrogen footprint (N-Print Calculator 2011), or ecologi-
cal footprint (http://www.footprintnetwork.org).
The nitrogen and water footprint concepts are similar to the energy footprint
concept. They are indicators for indirect and direct use of an environmental
indicator, in this case reactive nitrogen and freshwater, respectively. The water
footprint concept and its importance are relatively easy to understand because
freshwater water quantity and quality issues are abundant in the news and
people have a general understanding of their water needs. The water footprint
concept provides a quantitative metric to enhance this understanding.
In contrast to the abundance of popular news on carbon and water foot-
prints, the knowledge and discussion of the nitrogen footprint has been
fairly limited, and the public is largely oblivious of the relevance and impor-
tance of the nitrogen footprint concept. The nitrogen footprint is a quanti-
tative metric used to better understand humans’ disruption of the global
nitrogen cycle. The disruption of the global nitrogen cycle is due to humans’
extensive conversion of unreactive nitrogen (N2) to more reactive forms of
nitrogen (e.g., N2O, nitrate [NO3–], nitrite [NO2–], ammonia [NH3], and
ammonium [NH4+]). This conversion has had adverse impacts on human
and ecosystem health. Before industrialization, human creation of reactive
nitrogen and the dispersal of this reactive nitrogen to the environment were
insignificant. Between 1860 and the early 1990s, reactive nitrogen creation
by anthropogenic processes increased by 10-fold (15 to 156 Tg reactive N per
year) (Galloway et al. 2004) from burning of fossil fuels, biological nitrogen
fixation in human-cultivated land, and conversion of atmospheric, nonreac-
tive N2 to ammonia fertilizer using the Haber-Bosch process.
The Haber-Bosch process has made the lives of half of humanity possible
by increasing food production (Erisman et al. 2008); however, it also had
major impacts on the nitrogen cycle by increasing N2O concentrations in air
and NO3– concentrations in soil and water. These increased concentrations
then cause major environmental problems, such as worsening the green-
house effect, reducing the protective ozone layer, adding to smog, contribut-
ing to acid rain, and contaminating drinking water. The National Academy
of Engineers has identified managing the global nitrogen cycle as one of the
14 grand challenges of engineering. The nitrogen footprint concept and asso-
ciated tool is an important step toward better managing the global nitrogen
cycle and addressing this grand challenge.
The interpretation of the ecological footprint is slightly different from
that of water, carbon, energy, or nitrogen footprints. While the former are
expressed in terms of the quantity of water, carbon, energy, or nitrogen, the

ecological footprint is expressed in terms of global hectares. Ecological foot-
print is a measure of humanity’s demand from nature and measures how
much biologically productive land and water an individual, population, or
activity requires to produce all the resources it consumes and to absorb the
carbon dioxide emissions it generates (http://www.footprintnetwork.org). In
2007, the ecological footprint of Earth (2.7 global hectares per capita) was 1.5
times more than Earth’s biocapacity (1.8 global hectares per capita) suggest-
ing that 1.5 planet Earths are needed to sustain human’s current demands
from nature. Since more is being demanded than what the Earth can pro-
vide, we are currently in an ecological deficit (of 0.9 global hectares per capita
[2.7 – 1.8 = 0.9]). This imbalance is referred to as overshoot and indicates that
we are depleting Earth’s life-supporting natural capital by demanding more
than what the Earth can annually provide.
The per capita carbon, nitrogen, ecological, and water footprints for the
United States and the world are shown in Table 1.2. Since the nitrogen foot-
print calculator is currently in development, the world per capita nitrogen
footprint was unavailable at the time of writing this book. For carbon, water,
and ecological footprints, the U.S. per capita footprints are higher than the
world per capita footprints.
One can imagine that the footprint concept can be expanded to other envi-
ronmental problems. For example, Rockstrom et al. (2009) identified the safe
operating space for humanity with respect to the Earth system. They set
boundaries for nine Earth-system processes; climate change, rate of biodi-
versity loss, nitrogen cycle, phosphorus cycle, stratospheric ozone depletion,
ocean acidification, global freshwater use, change in land use, atmospheric
aerosol loading, and chemical pollution (Table 1.3). Of these nine Earth sys-
tems, the boundaries of climate change, biodiversity loss, and nitrogen cycle
have been crossed and there now exist footprint calculators for each one of
TABLE 1.2
Annual per Capita Carbon, Nitrogen, Water, and Ecological Footprints of a U.S.
and a World Resident
U.S. World
Resident Resident
Footprint Type Units Footprint Footprint Data Source
Carbon footprint Kg CO2e equivalence 24.5 5.6 Baumert, Herzog,
per year per capita and Pershing
(2005)
Water footprint M3 of water per year 2842 1385 Mekonnen and
per capita Hoekstra (2011)
Nitrogen footprint Kg reactive nitrogen 41.4 Unavailable Leach et al. (2011)
per year per capita
Ecological footprint Global hectares per 8.0 2.7 Global Footprint
of consumption capita per year Network (2010)
TABLE 1.3
Planetary Boundaries Identified by Rockstrom et al. (2009)
Earth System Proposed Current Preindustrial
Process Parameters Boundary Status Value
Climate change (i) Atmospheric 350 387 280
concentration (parts per
million by volume)
(ii) Change in radiative 1 1.5 0
forcing (watts per meter
squared)
Rate of biodiversity Extinction rate (number of 10 >100 0.1–1
loss species per million species
per year)
Nitrogen cycle (part Amount of N2 removed 35 121 0
of boundary with from the atmosphere for
the phosphorus human use (millions of
cycle) tonnes per year)
Phosphorus cycle Quantity of P flowing into 11 8.5–9.5 –1
(part of boundary the oceans (millions of
with the nitrogen tonnes per year)
cycle)
Stratospheric ozone Concentration of ozone 276 283 290
depletion (Dobson unit)
Ocean acidification Global mean saturation state 2.75 2.90 3.44
of aragonite in surface sea
water
Global freshwater Consumption of freshwater 4000 2600 415
use by humans (km3 per year)
Change in land use Percentage of global land 15 11.7 Low
cover converted to
cropland
Atmospheric aerosol Overall particulate concen To be determined
loading tration in the atmosphere,
on a regional basis
Chemical pollution Emission rates, To be determined
concentrations or Earth
system effects of persistent
organic pollutants,
plastics, endocrine
disruptors, heavy metals,
and nuclear waste
Note: For processes shaded in gray, the boundaries have been crossed.
these problems. Although ecological footprint is not a direct measure of bio-

diversity, it has been adopted by the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership as
a biodiversity indicator because it provides an indicator of the pressure on
ecosystems and biodiversity by measuring the competing level of ecological
demand that humans place upon the biosphere. There is a water footprint
estimation method and a calculator even though the global freshwater use
planetary boundary has not yet been crossed. To the authors’ knowledge,
there do not exist widely accepted methods and calculator tools for estimat-
ing the footprints for other Earth-system processes. This will be an area of
ongoing research to develop other indicators to estimate humans’ footprint
on earth.
1.7 Pollution Prevention
Pollution prevention is the broadest and most difficult term to concisely
define. In essence, it is the overall process of reducing waste and preventing
pollution from entering the environment through the air, water, or ground.
It encompasses both the aspects of source reduction and waste reduction.
USEPA has defined pollution prevention as follows (USEPA 2011): “Pollution
prevention means source reduction, as defined under the Pollution Prevention
Act, and other practices that reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants
through:
• Increased efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, water, or

other resources, or
• Protection of natural resources under conservation.”
Davidson et al. (2007) made an interesting observation in placing pollution

prevention in historical context (Table 1.4). They note that in the 1950s there
was little environmental concern. In 1960, the world population had become
TABLE 1.4
Changes in Global Population and Ways of Dealing with Environmental Problems,
1950–Present
Approximate World
Year Population Way of Dealing with Environmental Problems
1950 2.5 billion Little concern
1960 3.0 billion Rise in environmental interest
1970 3.7 billion Dilution and end-of-pipe treatment
1980 4.5 billion Modified operation/control for pollution prevention
1990 5.3 billion Green design: Resource conservation and improved efficiency
2000 6.1 billion Environmental, economic, and social sustainability: Systems
engineering
Note: Adapted from C. Davidson, H. S. Matthews, Davidson, C., H. S. Matthews, M.
Hendrickson, W. Bridges, B. R. Allenby, J. Crittendon, Y. Chen, E. Williams, D. Allen,
and C. Murphy, Environmental Science and Technology 41(14): 4847–50, 2007.
3 billion, and there was a rise in environmental interest. In the 1970s, the
environmental engineering field emerged with end-of-pipe treatment meth-
ods. In the 1980s, the world population was more than 4 billion, and the
concept of pollution prevention became popular. This environmental solu-
tion was deemed insufficient and was complemented with the green design
concept in the 1990s, when resource conservation and improved efficiency
were promoted for addressing environmental problems. Finally, in the 2000s
when the world population was now over 6 billion, the need for systems
engineering and economic, social, and environmental sustainability con-
siderations emerged. As of the writing of this book, the world population
was expected to reach 7 billion before the end of 2011, and the sustainability
engineering and systems approach to solving problems remain popular and
accepted paradigms for the engineering profession.
1.8 Sustainability and the Triple Bottom Line

Carbon footprint analysis has become a relevant concept and a neces-
sary practice because of the climate change crises. Since climate change
is one of the biggest challenges of the current sustainability efforts, it is
imperative that we define sustainability to understand the larger context
for carbon footprint analysis. Yet sustainability is difficult to define. There
exist some 300 definitions of sustainability and sustainable development
broadly within the domain of environmental management and the associ-
ated disciplines (Johnston et al. 2007). In reality there may be as many defi-
nitions of sustainability and sustainable development as there are groups
trying to define it (Sustainable Measures 2011). While sustainability has
been defined in many different ways, there is common agreement that the
sustainable development definition put out by the UN World Commission
on Environment and Development (WCED) in the 1987 Brundlandt report
is the most common one. The formal title of this report is “Our Common
Future”; however, the report and the definition are often referred to as
the Brundlandt report and the Brundlandt definition in recognition of
former Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland’s role as chair
of WCED. Based on the Brundlandt definition, “sustainable development
is development that meets the needs of the present without compromis-
ing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” While very
commonly used, this definition has been criticized for being an oxymo-
ron since “development” cannot be continuously sustained on Earth with
finite resources.
From an engineering perspective, sustainability has been defined as “the
design of human and industrial systems to ensure that humankind’s use of
natural resources and cycles do not lead to diminished quality of life due
either to losses in future economic opportunities or to adverse impacts on

social conditions, human health and the environment” in the seminal paper
titled “Sustainability Science and Engineering: The Emergence of a New
Metadiscipline” (Mihelcic et al. 2003). This is likely the most commonly cited
sustainability engineering definition. At the writing of this book, this seminal
paper was cited 124 times in Google Scholar.
Another common definition of sustainability is the triple bottom line (TBL)
concept. This term was first coined by John Elkington in 1994 (Elkington 2011)
and published by him in his 1998 book titled Cannibals with Forks (Elkington
1998). The World Summit on Sustainable Development, also referred to
as the Earth Summit 2002, helped in furthering the wide use of this con-
cept. The summit produced the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable
Development, which reported the summit’s convergence on a “collective
responsibility to advance and strengthen the interdependent and mutually
reinforcing pillars of sustainable development—economic development,
social development and environmental protection—at the local, national,
regional and global levels” (UN Documents 2011).
Many organizations use the TBL concept to measure sustainability suc-
cess and outcomes in three areas: economic, environmental, and social.
Sustainability as defined by the TBL concept is the intersection of strong per-
formance in economic, environmental, and social initiatives as displayed in
Figure 1.3. The TBL concept has also been defined as an evaluation method
for the 3 P’s: people, profit, and planet; or people, prosperity, and planet.
Viable
Environment Economic
Sustainability
Bearable Equitable
Social
FIGURE 1.3
The triple bottom line intersection.
In practical terms, TBL accounting means expanding the traditional report-

ing framework to take into account ecological and social performance in
addition to financial performance. To elaborate on each measurement of the
TBL, the “economic” bottom line is the economic value created by the orga-
nization for society. It differs from the traditional definition of profit in that
it encompasses value to society and the community in addition to internal
measures such as profit per share and rate of return. The “environmental”
bottom line refers to sustainable environmental practices. This component
focuses on living in harmony with the natural world and the elimination of
harm to all aspects of the environment. It involves carefully managing its
consumption of energy and nonrenewable resources and reducing manu-
facturing waste, as well as rendering waste less toxic before disposing of
it in a safe and legal manner. The “social” measurement of TBL pertains to
fair and beneficial business practices toward the labor force, the community,
and the region in which a corporation conducts its business. This compo-
nent emphasizes the interrelatedness of all three components of the TBL
and seeks to benefit all stakeholders. For companies, this measurement may
include aspects of “giving back” by contributing to strengthen and grow the
host community with such things as health care and education. The “social”
measurement is often the most difficult to quantify and can be problematic
and subjective.
The concept of TBL places strong emphasis on the stakeholders of an orga-
nization versus the shareholders. Stakeholders are individuals, groups, or
organizations that are influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the actions
of the company or organization. The TBL concept adds social and environ-
mental values to the traditional economic measures of an organization’s suc-
cess. In terms of organizational decision making, the TBL concept moves
beyond ranking alternatives based strictly on the financial bottom line and
requires evaluating alternatives based on how they will impact the envi-
ronment in terms of pollution, and how those alternatives will successfully
integrate into the culture of the organization or community. For example,
if a company is considering implementing an office recycling program, the
management team would need to evaluate each alternative program on eco-
nomic factors (initial costs, program costs, revenue, payback period, and
rate of return), environmental factors (waste diverted from landfills, energy
usage, and changes in emissions), and social factors (capability/willingness
of the employees to participate in the program and the positive and nega-
tive perceptions from the community related to the implementation of such
a program). An alternative may meet the requirements of one or two of the
TBL measures, but must meet all three to maximize sustainability success.
While many useful and some very popular sustainability definitions exist,
to this day there is no single universally accepted all-encompassing defini-
tion of sustainability, and many would argue that such a universal and rigid
definition should not exist considering the many different approaches and
contexts for sustainability. In addition, as noted in the Brundlandt report,
“sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a process

of change.” Given this understanding, it is then important to understand
the necessary conditions for creating sustainability change. Realizing this
problem, Swedish scientist Karl-Henrik Robèrt developed four system con-
ditions necessary for sustainability progress. These conditions now form the
foundation for the Natural Step process, a popular sustainability strategy
(http://www.naturalstep.org). These conditions are derived from the laws
of thermodynamics and state that “in the sustainable society, nature is not
subject to systematically increasing
1. concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth’s crust,

2. concentrations of substances produced by society,
3. degradation by physical means, and
4. in that society people are not subject to conditions that systemati-
cally undermine their capacity to meet their needs.”
The Natural Step process also supports the importance of economic,

social, and environmental aspects of sustainability. However, instead of the
TBL model, the Natural Step process uses three nested and interdependent
spheres (Figure 1.4). As noted in the U.S. Sustainability Primer, “The larg-
est sphere represents the environment, or earth, upon which all economic
and social progress ultimately depends. That’s our natural capital: it pro-
vides the ecosystem services and natural resources that we need to survive.
The middle sphere represents society, or human capital. Our economy is the
smallest circle because it is governed by the rules, regulations and structures
of the other two spheres. The economy depends on human capital and natu-
ral capital to thrive. You can’t have one at the expense of another” (Natural
Step 2009).
Environment
Society
Economy
FIGURE 1.4
The natural environment-constrained model of the economic, environmental, and social
aspects of sustainability.
1.9 Acronyms
Following is a list of commonly used acronyms in the sustainability field:
GHG: greenhouse gas

LCA: life cycle assessment
LCI: life cycle inventory
CAP: Climate Action Plan
CFC: chlorofluorocarbon
CFL: compact fluorescent lightbulb or compact fluorescent lighting
CO2: carbon dioxide
EDF: Environmental Defense Fund
GWP: global warming potential
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
kWh: kilowatt-hour (also MWh, megawatt-hour; GWh, gigawatt-hour)
LED: light-emitting diode
NRDC: Natural Resources Defense Council
UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
TBL: triple bottom line
TNC: The Nature Conservancy
WCS: Wildlife Conservation Society
WWF: World Wildlife Fund or Worldwide Fund for Nature
1.10 Units
In the field of carbon footprint analysis, measurements are typically
taken in terms of metric tons (1000 kilograms) of gas emitted per year
for a given product, activity, or process. In the United States the British
Gravitational system is still predominant, and pounds of gas emitted may
be used. Table 1.5 displays common metric system units for other mea-
surements typically taken during the energy and carbon footprint analy-
sis process.
TABLE 1.5
Commonly Used Metric System Units and Symbols
in Energy and Carbon Footprint Analysis
Quantity Measured Unit Symbol
Mass metric ton t
Temperature degree Celsius ºC
Volume cubic meter m3
Power kilowatt kW
Energy kilowatt-hour kWh
Time second s
Length kilometer km
Concentration parts per million ppm
References
American Institute of Physics. 2011. The Greenhouse Gas Effect. http://www.aip.org/
history/climate/co2.htm.
Bare, J., and T. Gloria. 2006. Critical Analysis of the Mathematical Relationships and
Comprehensiveness of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Approaches. Environmental
Science and Technology 40(4):1104–13.
Baumert, K. A., T. Herzog, and J. Pershing. 2005. Navigating the Numbers.
Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Policy, World Resources
Institute Report. http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers.pdf.
Climate Change Challenge. 2011. Causes of Climate Change. http://www.
climatechangechallenge.org/Resource%20Centre/Climate-Change/3-what_
causes_climate_change.htm.
Davidson, C., H. S. Matthews, M. Hendrickson, W. Bridges, B. R. Allenby, J. Crittendon,
Y. Chen, E. Williams, D. Allen, and C. Murphy. 2007. Adding Sustainability to
the Engineer’s Toolbox: A Challenge for Engineering Educators. Environmental
Science and Technology 41(14):4847–50.
Elkington, John. 1998. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century
Business. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society.
Elkington, John. 2011. Ideas beyond the Triple Bottom Line. http://www.
johnelkington.com/activities/ideas.asp.
Erisman, J. W., M. A. Sutton, J. Galloway, Z. Klimont, and W. Winiwarte. 2008. How a
Century of Ammonia Synthesis Changed the World. Nature Geoscience 1:636–39.
Galloway, J. N., F. J. Dentener, D. G. Caopne E. W. Boyer, R. W. Howarth, S. P.
Seitzinger, G. P. Asner, et al. 2004. Nitrogen Cycles: Past, Present, and Future.
Biogeochemistry 70:153–226.
Global Footprint Network. 2010. 2010 Data Tables. http://www.footprintnetwork.
org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_for_nations/.
Greenlabs. 2011. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). http://greenlabs-usa.com.
Guinee, J. B., H. Reinout, G. Huppes, A. Zamagni, P. Masoni, R. Buonamici, T.

Ekvall, and T. Rydberg. 2011. Life Cycle Assessment: Past, Present, and Future.
Environmental Science and Technology 45(1):90–96.
Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, R. Berner, V. Masson-Delmotte,
M. Pagani, et al. 2008. Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity
Aim? Open Atmosphere Science Journal 2: 17–31.
Hawken, Paul. 2008. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Boston:
Back Bay Books.
IPCC. 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4): Synthesis
Report. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
Johnston, P., M. Everard, D. Santillo, and K.-H. Robert. 2007. Reclaiming the Definition
of Sustainability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 14(1):60–66.
Leach, A. M., J. N. Galloway, A. Bleeker, J. W. Erisman, R. Kohn, and J. Kitzes. 2011.
A Nitrogen Footprint Model to Help Consumers Understand Their Role in
Nitrogen Losses to the Environment. Environmental Development, forthcoming.
Mekonnen, M. M., and A. Y. Hoekstra. 2011. National Water Footprint Accounts: The
Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Production and Consumption. Value of
Water Research Report Series no. 50, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.
http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report50-NationalWaterFootprints-
Vol1.pdf.
Míhelcic, J., J. Crittenden, M. Small, D. Shonnard, D. Hokanson, Q. Zhang, H. Chen,
et al. 2003. Sustainability Science and Engineering: The Emergence of a New
Metadiscipline. Environmental Science and Technology 37(23):5314–24.
N-Print Calculator. 2011. Nitrogen Footprint Calculator. http://www.n-print.org/
sites/n-print.org/files/footprint_sql/index.html#/home.
NASA GISS. 2011. Research News: NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest
Year on Record. January 12 2011. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/
20110112/.
NOAA NCDC. 2011. Global Surface Anomalies. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/
anomalies.php#mean.
Natural Step. 2009. United States Sustainability Primer: Step by Natural Step. http://
www.iusb.edu/~csfuture/Primer_USEdition_print_072009.pdf.
Oakleaf Intelligent Waste Management. 2011. Glossary. http://www.oakleafwaste.
com/Glossary.aspx.
Rockstrom, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, A. Persson, S. Chapin, E. F. Lambin, T. M. Lenton,
et al. 2009. A Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Nature 461:472–75.
Sustainable Measures. 2011. Definitions of Sustainability. http://www.sustainablemea-
sures.com/node/35.
UN Documents. 2011. UN Documents: Gathering a Body of Global Agreements. World
Summit on Sustainable Development. September 4, 2022. http://www.un-
documents.net/jburgdec.htm.
Universal Green Society. 2011. Global Warming. http://ugsamerica.org/global-
warming.html.
UNEP)/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. 2011. Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment:
Making Informed Choices on Products. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.
USEPA. 2011. Climate Change—Greenhouse Gas Emissions. http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/individual.html.
References
1 Chapter 1 - Definitions of Carbon

Footprint Analysis and Related Concepts
American Institute of Physics. 2011. The Greenhouse Gas

Effect. http://www.aip.org/ history/climate/co2.htm.
Bare, J., and T. Gloria. 2006. Critical Analysis of the

Mathematical Relationships and Comprehensiveness of Life
Cycle Impact Assessment Approaches. Environmental Science
and Technology 40(4):1104–13.
Baumert, K. A., T. Herzog, and J. Pershing. 2005.

Navigating the Numbers. Greenhouse Gas Data and
International Climate Policy, World Resources Institute
Report. http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers.pdf.
Climate Change Challenge. 2011. Causes of Climate Change.

http://www.
Davidson, C., H. S. Matthews, M. Hendrickson, W. Bridges,

B. R. Allenby, J. Crittendon, Y. Chen, E. Williams, D.
Allen, and C. Murphy. 2007. Adding Sustainability to the
Engineer’s Toolbox: A Challenge for Engineering Educators.
Elkington, John. 1998. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple

Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Gabriola Island, BC,
Canada: New Society.
Elkington, John. 2011. Ideas beyond the Triple Bottom Line.

http://www. johnelkington.com/activities/ideas.asp.
Erisman, J. W., M. A. Sutton, J. Galloway, Z. Klimont, and

W. Winiwarte. 2008. How a Century of Ammonia Synthesis
Changed the World. Nature Geoscience 1:636–39.
Galloway, J. N., F. J. Dentener, D. G. Caopne E. W. Boyer,

R. W. Howarth, S. P. Seitzinger, G. P. Asner, et al. 2004.
Nitrogen Cycles: Past, Present, and Future.
Biogeochemistry 70:153–226.
Global Footprint Network. 2010. 2010 Data Tables.

http://www.footprintnetwork.
org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_for_nations/.
Greenlabs. 2011. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).

http://greenlabs- usa.com. TABLE 1.5 Commonly Used Metric
System Units and Symbols in Energy and Carbon Footprint
Analysis Quantity Measured Unit Symbol Mass metric ton t
Temperature degree Celsius ºC Volume cubic meter m 3 Power
kilowatt kW Energy kilowatt- hour kWh Time second s Length
kilometer km Concentration parts per million ppm
Guinee, J. B., H. Reinout, G. Huppes, A. Zamagni, P.

Masoni, R. Buonamici, T. Ekvall, and T. Rydberg. 2011.
Life Cycle Assessment: Past, Present, and Future.
Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, R. Berner,

V. Masson- Delmotte, M. Pagani, et al. 2008. Target
Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? Open
Atmosphere Science Journal 2: 17–31.
Hawken, Paul. 2008. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next

Industrial Revolution. Boston: Back Bay Books.
IPCC. 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change

2007 (AR4): Synthesis Report. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
Johnston, P., M. Everard, D. Santillo, and K.-H. Robert.

2007. Reclaiming the De�nition of Sustainability.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research 14(1):60–66.
Leach, A. M., J. N. Galloway, A. Bleeker, J. W. Erisman, R.

Kohn, and J. Kitzes. 2011. A Nitrogen Footprint Model to
Help Consumers Understand Their Role in Nitrogen Losses to
the Environment. Environmental Development, forthcoming.
Mekonnen, M. M., and A. Y. Hoekstra. 2011. National Water

Footprint Accounts: The Green, Blue and Grey Water
Footprint of Production and Consumption. Value of Water
Research Report Series no. 50, UNESCO- IHE, Delft, the
Netherlands.
Míhelcic, J., J. Crittenden, M. Small, D. Shonnard, D.

Hokanson, Q. Zhang, H. Chen, et al. 2003. Sustainability
Science and Engineering: The Emergence of a New
Metadiscipline. Environmental Science and Technology
37(23):5314–24.
N- Print Calculator. 2011. Nitrogen Footprint Calculator.

http://www.n- print.org/ sites/n-
print.org/�les/footprint_sql/index.html#/home.
NASA GISS. 2011. Research News: NASA Research Finds 2010

Tied for Warmest Year on Record. January 12 2011.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/ 20110112/.
NOAA NCDC. 2011. Global Surface Anomalies.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb- faq/ anomalies.php#mean.
Natural Step. 2009. United States Sustainability Primer:

Step by Natural Step. http://
www.iusb.edu/~csfuture/Primer_USEdition_print_072009.pdf.
Oakleaf Intelligent Waste Management. 2011. Glossary.

http://www.oakleafwaste. com/Glossary.aspx.
Rockstrom, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, A. Persson, S. Chapin,

E. F. Lambin, T. M. Lenton, et al. 2009. A Safe Operating
Space for Humanity. Nature 461:472–75.
Sustainable Measures. 2011. De�nitions of Sustainability.

http://www.sustainablemeasures.com/node/35.
UN Documents. 2011. UN Documents: Gathering a Body of

Global Agreements. World Summit on Sustainable
Development. September 4, 2022. http://www.un-
documents.net/jburgdec.htm.
Universal Green Society. 2011. Global Warming.

http://ugsamerica.org/global- warming.html.
UNEP)/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. 2011. Towards a Life

Cycle Sustainability Assessment: Making Informed Choices
on Products. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.
USEPA. 2011. Climate Change—Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

http://www.epa.gov/
2 Chapter 2 - Benefits of Energy and
Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Minimization
Baumert, K. A., T. Herzog, and J. Pershing. 2005.

Navigating the Numbers: Greenhouse Gas Data and
International Climate Policy. World Resources Institute
Report. http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers.pdf
(accessed October 18, 2011).
Esty, Daniel C., and A. Winston. 2006. Green to Gold: How

Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate,
Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Goudarzi, S. 2006. Quarter of Species Gone by 2050.

http://www.livescience.com/4056quarter- species-2050.html.
Patz, J., D. Campbell- Lendrum, T. Holloway, and J. Foley.

2004. Impact of Regional Climate Change on Human Health.
Nature 438:310–17.
Santa Barbra County Air Pollution Control District. 2011.

Air Pollutants and Our Health.
http://www.sbcapcd.org/sbc/pollut.htm.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011.

Overview of Demographic Data.
http://www.bls.gov/bls/demographics.htm.
World Health Organization. 2010. Climate Change and Health

Fact Sheet.
3 Chapter 3 - Environmental Laws and
Regulations
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

2011. Kyoto Protocol.
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php.
USEPA. 2010. 2010–2014 Pollution Prevention (P2) Program

Strategic Plan. http://www.
epa.gov/p2/pubs/docs/P2StrategicPlan2010-14.pdf.
USEPA. 2011a. The Clean Air Act.

http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/.
USEPA. 2011b. Climate Change—Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

http://www.epa.gov/
USEPA. 2011c. Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.

http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.
USEPA. 2011d. The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.

http://www.epa.gov/p2/ pubs/p2policy/act1990.htm.
USEPA. 2011e. Summary of the Energy Policy Act.

http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/ laws/epa.html.
Wikipedia. 2011a. American Clean Energy and Security Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act (accessed
November 15, 2011).
Wikipedia. 2011b. Kyoto Protocol,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol (accessed
November 15, 2011). Section II Carbon Footprint Analysis
Methods
4 Chapter 4 - Standards for Carbon
Footprint Analysis
BSI. 2011. PAS 2050. Speci�cation for the Assessment of the

Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Goods and Services.
London: BSI.
GHG Protocol Initiative. 2004. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol:

A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (Rev. ed.).
Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
GHG Protocol. 2011. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative.

http://www. ghgprotocol. org/ (accessed August 11, 2011).
IPCC. 1996a. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas

Inventories. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
IPCC. 1996b. The Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty

Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Geneva,
Switzerland: IPCC.
IPCC. 1996c. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land- Use
Change and Forestry. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
USEPA. 2005. Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Protocol: Design Principles.
http://epa.gov/climateleaders/guidance/design-
principles.html.
5 Chapter 5 - GHG Protocol
Clean Air Cool Planet. 2008. Clean Air Cool Planet Campus
Carbon Calculator, v. 6.6. http://www.cleanair-
coolplanet.org/toolkit/inv- calculator.php (accessed
August 11, 2011).
Climate Registry. 2009. The Climate Registry.

http://www.theclimateregistry.org/ (accessed August 11,
2011).
Climate Registry. 2010. Local Government Operations

Protocol: For the Quanti�cation and Reporting of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories, v. 1.1. May 2010.
http://
EIA. 2011. Frequently Asked Questions: How Much Electricity

Does an Average American Home Use?
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3 (accessed
August 11, 2011).
GHG Protocol. 2011. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative.

http://www. ghgprotocol. org/ (accessed August 11, 2011).
GHG Protocol Initiative. 2004. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol:

A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (Rev. ed.).
http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/ corporate- standard
(accessed August 11, 2011)
GHG Protocol Initiative. 2010. Product Accounting and

Reporting Standard: Draft for Stakeholder Review.
http://www.ghgprotocol.org/�les/ghgp/public/ghgprotocol-
product- standard- draft- november-20101.pdf.
IPCC. 1995. IPCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change

1995, the Science of Climate Change. Working Group I
report.
IPCC. 2001. IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change

2001, the Physical Science Basis. Working Group I report.
IPCC. 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change

2007, the Physical Science Basis. Working Group I report.
USEPA. 2005. Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Protocol: Design Principles.
USEPA. 2007. eGRID Subregion GHG Output Emission Rates for

Year 2005. http://
USEPA. 2011a. The Clean Air Act.
http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/.
USEPA. 2011b. The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.

http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/ p2policy/act1990.htm.
8 Chapter 8 - Carbon Footprints of Some
Entities
Berners Lee, M. 2011. How Bad Are Bananas?: The Carbon

Footprint of Everything. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Greystone
Books.
Hammond, G., and C. Jones. Inventory of Carbon and Energy

(ICE), v. 2.0. http:// www.bath.ac.uk/mech-
eng/sert/embodied/.
USEPA. 2011. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and

Sinks: 1990–2009. EPA 430R-11-005.
10 Chapter 10 - The Six Sigma Systems
Approach for Deployment
Everett Decision Systems. 2011. Lean Six Sigma.

https://www.everettdecisions.com/ Lean_Six_Sigma.html.
Gupta, P. 2004. The Six Sigma Performance Handbook: A

Statistical Guide to Optimizing Results. New York: McGraw-
Hill Professional.
15 Chapter 15 - Higher Education Carbon
Management
ACUPCC. 2011. Mission and History.

http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment. org/about/mission-
history (accessed August 11, 2011).
Clean Air Cool Planet. 2011. Clean Air Cool Planet Campus
Carbon Calculator, v. 6.6. http://www.cleanair-
coolplanet.org/toolkit/inv- calculator.php.
Markowitz, E. M., and B. Doppelt. 2009. Reducing Greenhouse

Gas Emissions through Behavioral Change: An Assessment of
Past Research on Energy Use, Transportation and Water
Consumption.
17 Chapter 17 - Energy Analysis and
Minimization in Health Care
Carpenter, D. 2006. In Search of Ef�ciency. Health

Facilities Management.
Energy Star. 2011. Healthcare: An Overview of Energy Use

and Energy Ef�ciency Opportunities.
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/challenge/learn_more/
Healthcare.pdf.
Lory, C. 2011. Purchasing for Pollution

Prevention—Environmentally Preferable LED Exit Signs:
Saving Money and Protecting the Environment through Energy
Ef�ciency. http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/26/25928.pdf.
TheLEDLight. 2011. 111U SP 10° Spotlight,

http://www.theledlight.com/ spotlight_111U.html.
TheLEDLight. 111111U SP 10° Spotlight,

http://www.theledlight.com/spotlight_111111U. html.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2010. Average

Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-
Use Sector, by State. http://www.eia.doe.gov/
electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2011. Electric

Power Industry CO2 Emissions and Generation Share by Fuel
Type. http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/page/
co2_report/co2report.html#electric.
ZeroMercury.org. 2011. Data on Mercury Content of High-

Pressure Sodium (HPS) Lamps Available from Major US
Manufacturers. Green Purchasing Institute.

9780429109881_previewpdf

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

9780429109881_previewpdf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CARBON

Matthew John Franchetti

Boca Raton London New York

CRC Press is an imprint of the

© 2013 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

No claim to original U.S. Government works

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4398-5784-7 (eBook - PDF)

and the CRC Press Web site at

Section I Why Carbon Footprint Analysis

1 Definitions of Carbon Footprint Analysis and Related Concepts .......3

2 Benefits of Energy and Greenhouse Gas Reduction and

3 Environmental Laws and Regulations ..................................................... 33

Section II Carbon Footprint Analysis Methods

4 Standards for Carbon Footprint Analysis ............................................... 39

5 GHG Protocol ................................................................................................ 47

6 Metrics and Performance Measurement for Carbon Footprint

7 Energy and Greenhouse Gas Calculators Available on the Internet ... 75

7.8 The U.S. Department of Energy—Home Energy Saver ................. 79

8 Carbon Footprints of Some Entities ......................................................... 81

Section III Systems Approach to Project Implementation

9 Introduction: The System Approach to Carbon Footprint and

10 The Six Sigma Systems Approach for Deployment .............................. 93

11 Deployment Alternatives .......................................................................... 105

12 Creating a Successful Project Launch .................................................... 111

13.2.1 Upper-­Management Support ............................................. 126

14 Employee Training ..................................................................................... 189

Section IV Case Studies

16 Energy Analysis and Minimization in Manufacturing ..................... 219

17 Energy Analysis and Minimization in Health Care ........................... 231

17.5 Economic Analysis of Lighting Recommendations ..................... 235

18 Energy Analysis in Minimization in Construction and

The negative impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human

• Section I provides definitions, concepts, benefits, and background

Some sections of the book have detailed discussions on the concepts,

Matt Franchetti and Defne Apul

Matthew Franchetti would like to thank the Lucas County Board of

Dr. Matthew Franchetti is an assistant professor of Mechanical, Industrial,

Dr. Defne Apul is an associate professor of Civil Engineering at the

Why Carbon Footprint

Climate change is often linked to and discussed in the context of energy

20 companies and has achieved demonstrated environmental and economic

• Identify important sources of emissions and prioritize areas of emis-

1.2 Carbon Footprint Analysis

should also be included in a carbon footprint analysis to determine the “net”

• Researching the company’s process and overall energy and GHG

1.4 Global Warming, Climate Change, and Global Change

Report (FAR), Second Assessment Report (SAR), Third Assessment Report

1.5 Life Cycle Assessment and Embedded Carbon

(e.g., climate change, acidification, eutrophication) or end-­point level (e.g.,

result in “shifting of burdens.” In other words, for a given product, ser-

1.6 Other Footprints: Water, Nitrogen, Ecological Footprints

expressed in terms of the quantity of water, carbon, energy, or nitrogen, the

these problems. Although ecological footprint is not a direct measure of bio-

• Increased efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, water, or

Davidson et al. (2007) made an interesting observation in placing pollution

1.8 Sustainability and the Triple Bottom Line

either to losses in future economic opportunities or to adverse impacts on

In practical terms, TBL accounting means expanding the traditional report-

“sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a process

1. concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth’s crust,

The Natural Step process also supports the importance of economic,

GHG: greenhouse gas

Guinee, J. B., H. Reinout, G. Huppes, A. Zamagni, P. Masoni, R. Buonamici, T.

1 Chapter 1 - Definitions of Carbon

Section I Why Carbon Footprint Analysis

Section II Carbon Footprint Analysis Methods

Section III Systems Approach to Project Implementation

13.2.1 Upper-Management Support ............................................. 126

Section IV Case Studies

1.2 Carbon Footprint Analysis

1.4 Global Warming, Climate Change, and Global Change

1.5 Life Cycle Assessment and Embedded Carbon

(e.g., climate change, acidification, eutrophication) or end-point level (e.g.,

1.6 Other Footprints: Water, Nitrogen, Ecological Footprints

1.8 Sustainability and the Triple Bottom Line