scholarly journals ESTIMATIONS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT FROM ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION DURING COVID-19 LOCKDOWN AND PRE-LOCKDOWN IN BUTUAN CITY

Author(s):  
L. C. S. Asube ◽  
R. L. Sinadjan

Abstract. The electricity consumption for commercial, residential, and industrial sectors is considered the primary cause of increasing carbon dioxide emissions. To calculate the carbon footprint, the researcher used Carbon Footprint Ltd. This study aims to quantify the carbon footprint associated with the consumption of electricity by sectors (residential, commercial, industrial, public buildings, and streetlights) in Butuan City during the pre-lockdown period (January and February), and then compare these with the carbon footprint calculated during the lockdown period (March and April 2020). A GIS-based approach was applied to generate the spatial distribution across the 86 barangays of Butuan City. The study findings that the carbon footprint in the lockdown period is ∼ −17% lower than the mean carbon footprint calculated for the pre-lockdown period. In absolute values, the total estimated carbon footprint during the pre-lockdown and lockdown period was ∼ 10,947 mtCo2e and ∼ 9,138 mtCo2e, respectively. Furthermore, the findings imply that the central and northern areas have the highest impact of savings on average ∼ 130 mtCo2e of greenhouse gas avoided by barangays. This research provides quantitative insight to understand the measured generated in lockdown and pre-lockdown periods.

Biomedicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 692-693
Author(s):  
Manjula Shantaram

If one has a passion for the planet, then this is the right time to drastically lower the carbon emissions. A carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) that are generated by our actions. The average carbon footprint for a person in the United States is 16 tons, one of the highest rates in the world. Some carbon emissions will probably never be eradicated entirely from certain industries, such as air travel or construction. When emissions cannot be further reduced, carbon offsetting is the next best thing, says Winters (1). Offsetting emissions is paying for or investing in organisations that can extract carbon from the atmosphere to help others reduce their footprint. It could include investing in reforestation projects or new technologies that suck carbon out of the atmosphere and sequester it underground permanently, technologies to replace jet fuel with alternative green fuels, or switching fossil-fuel-powered facilities with hydrogen-powered facilities.    Unless the global economy meets the aims of the Paris Agreement, keeping climate change well below 2°C, the world is expected to suffer extreme weather conditions leading to mass migration and global catastrophe. The argument for global companies to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is clearer than it has ever been. Business operations around the world are now subject to greater climate and transition risks. Consumers are insisting for eco-friendly products and responsible corporate behaviours. Investors are increasingly embracing capital-allocation strategies that take environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues into account. Policy makers and government organizations are exploring the potential regulation of carbon emissions. The more aggressive the targets, the better the results.   In COP26 climate summit in Glasgow held in November 2021, it was made clear that the current climate crisis has been precipitated by unsustainable lifestyles and wasteful consumption patterns mainly in the developed countries. The world needs to awaken to this reality. Globally, the building and construction sectors account for nearly 40% of global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in constructing and operating buildings (2). Current building codes address operating energy but do not typically address the impacts of embodied carbon in building materials and products. However, more than half of all GHG emissions is related to materials management (including material extraction and manufacturing) when aggregated across industrial sectors (3).   In order to reduce our carbon footprint, we can start an eco-friendlier life. In winter, instead of heating, insulate the loft and walls which will make sure our home retains heat during the winter and stays cool in summer. By switching to a company that provides electricity from solar, wind, or hydroelectric energy, we can reduce our household emissions. Buy energy efficient electrical appliances. Additionally, make sure to turn off and unplug anything we are not using. It takes energy and resources to process and deliver water to our homes. So, by using less water, we can help the environment and lower our carbon footprint. The food we eat can have a significant impact on the environment. For example, meat and dairy products require a lot of land, water and energy to produce. They also create a lot of methane, a greenhouse gas. Moreover, food shipped from overseas uses a lot more resources than local produce. By eating fewer animal products, especially red meat, (or choosing a plant-based diet) and shopping for locally sourced food, we can make a big difference.  Why not support our local farmers’ market?   Powering empty rooms and office space is a huge energy drain. By making sure we turn off lights and appliances when they are not in use, we can make sure we are not wasting power. we can also request to install automatic, movement-sensing lights and energy-saving LED bulbs to address the issue. It has never been easier to collaborate with others online. Whether through sharing documents using cloud storage or video conferencing instead of travelling, we can reduce our waste and emissions. Try moving away from printed documents where possible, and encourage others to work on their digital skills for the workplace. Cycling and walking are two of the most environmentally friendly ways to travel. And, not only are they good for the planet, but they are also good for our health. If we can, choose to cycle or walk to work where possible. ‘Reduce, reuse, recycle’ is a popular slogan. Companies of all sizes use a host of different products in their day-to-day running. Whether it has things like paper, electronic devices, packaging, or water, it all has a carbon footprint. By reducing the amount of waste, we generate, reusing IT equipment, and recycling waste, we can make a real difference. Single use plastics may be convenient, yet they are fairly dreadful for the environment. Not only do they pollute our waterways and oceans, but they also require energy to produce and recycle. We can stop using things like disposable coffee cups and cutlery to reduce our company’s carbon footprint. Instead of preaching, let us practise and bring a change.


2014 ◽  
Vol 962-965 ◽  
pp. 1495-1499
Author(s):  
Chung Yi Chung ◽  
Chang Ling Miaw ◽  
Yung Chuan Huang ◽  
Chao Cheng Chung ◽  
Tien Jen Lo

This study investigates and analysis the carbon dioxide emissions focus on student’s campus activities in the Tajen University during the school year. Survey queries includes commute distance, using means of transport, means of transport emissions, food consumption survey, the amount of waste, recycling and electricity consumption. The collected information was integrated into the carbon footprint calculation. This study investigated a total of 70 college students with 60 valid questionnaires in 85.7% recovery rate. Using descriptive statistics analysis quantitatively describing the students’ basic attributes and utilize analysis of variance to analyze the differences between students’ differences and their associated on carbon dioxide emissions. In this study, the result showed Tajen University students’ carbon footprint averaged 2.31±0.37 kg/person-day. Carbon footprint analysis results indicate that student age, grade, and gender difference between latent variables have different scenarios on carbon footprint model, such as, different genders no significant difference by measuring the carbon footprint, but of different ages and grade under test carbon footprint had a significant difference.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 42
Author(s):  
Monik Kasman ◽  
Anggrika Riyanti ◽  
Novia Rezki Apriani

Every individual or agency activity will generate greenhouse gas emissions which could be countable and expressed as equivalent to carbon dioxide. One of the activities that produce carbon emissions is activities carried out on the campus, one of which is  Batanghari University. Batanghari University consists of 5 faculties, namely the Faculty of Teacher Training and Science, Faculty of Law, Faculty of Economics, Faculty of Engineering and Faculty of Agriculture with a total population of Batanghari University of 5,582 people including 5,278 students, 210 lecturers and 94 education staff. This study aims to analyze the amount of carbon emissions generated from activities of the Batanghari University and to compare the percentage of total carbon emissions produced from each scope. Calculation of carbon emissions using the method of The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol), by dividing it into 3 scopes, including calculating the carbon footprint from transportation activities, emission form the used of gas, and emissions from electricity used and the used of paper. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions calculated by using the IPCC (International Panel On Climate Change) method. The results showed that the total carbon footprint produced at the Batanghari University for 6 months was 790.24 ton.CO2-eq. The distribution of emissions based on the scope as follows : scope 1 activity of electricity consumption was 162,705 ton.CO2-eq; scope 2 activities of using LPG was 0.609 ton.CO2-eq; and the scope 3 transportation activities of lecturers, students and education staff was 625.91 ton.CO2 -eq and paper usage activity are 1.0247 ton.CO2-eq. The largest carbon footprint was generated from transportation activities at 79.2% and the smallest was the use of LPG at 0.07%.


2021 ◽  
Vol 900 ◽  
pp. 183-187
Author(s):  
Odunlami Olayemi Abosede ◽  
Akeredolu Funso Alaba

The emissions of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrocarbon from four stroke-powered motorcars and two stroke-powered motorcycles and tricycles in Southwest Nigeria were examined using an automotive 4-gas analyer. Results show that tricycles produced more hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions than motorcycles, while motorcycles emitted more of these pollutants than the gasoline fueled motor cars. (The gasoline fueled motorcars produced lowest hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide while the tricycles produced the highest hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions). On the contrary, motor cars had the highest mean value of carbon dioxide followed by the motorcycles, while tricycles had the least. This could be attributed to the presence of the catalytic converters in some of the motor cars oxidizing carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide. The mean values of hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide emissions from motorcars are 630ppm, 10200ppm and 59900ppm. This is much higher than the NESREA (National Environmental standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency) standards as well as Euro II and Euro III (European standards) for vehicular emission. The mean values for hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide emissions from motorcycles and tricycles are (2150ppm, 21530ppm and 31200ppm) and (2820ppm, 24880ppm and 38710ppm) respectively. These results do not comply with Nigeria and European emission standards for hydrocarbon, and carbon monoxide. Tricycles and motorcycles account for higher concentrations of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide pollutants from mobile sources, while they emit carbon dioxide minimally.


2012 ◽  
Vol 610-613 ◽  
pp. 2120-2128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Xia Peng ◽  
Liang Huang ◽  
Yu Bo Zhao ◽  
Pan Chen ◽  
Lu Zeng ◽  
...  

Input-output model on cement plants were established. Carbon dioxide emissions of key steps and carbon footprint of products were calculated and predicted using the input-output model. The results showed that CO2 emission in the plant (the production of the plant is 1320000t a year) reached 910000 t a year and CO2 emission per ton product is 0.689 ton. Over 80% of the total CO2 was emitted during the process of firing,so the firing process is the key step for reducing CO2 emission in the cement plant. Carbon footprint of three kinds of cement products including ordinary portland cement, portland pozzolan cement and portland blast furnace slag cement are 0.76, 0.59, 0.72 respectively.


2022 ◽  
Vol 1 (15) ◽  
pp. 71-75
Author(s):  
Dmitriy Kononov

The strategy of low-carbon development of the economy and energy of Russia provides for the introduction of a fee (tax) for carbon dioxide emissions by power plants. This will seriously affect their prospective structure and lead to an increase in electricity prices. The expected neg-ative consequences for national and energy security are great. But serious and multilateral research is needed to properly assess these strategic threats


Author(s):  
E. A. Alabushev ◽  
I. S. Bersenev ◽  
V. V. Bragin ◽  
A. A. Stepanova

The Paris Agreement, adopted in December of 2015 at the 21st session of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties and effected from November of 2016, coordinates the efforts of states to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including carbon dioxide. One of its largest emitters to the atmosphere is the metallurgical industry. Among the proposed ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is the widespread use of hydrogen in the ferrous metallurgy. An overview of the problems that the ferrous metallurgy will face when replacing carbon-containing fuels with hydrogen is presented. It was noted that the use of hydrogen in the ferrous metallurgy contains such technological risks as high cost in comparison with currently used fuels and reducing agents; explosion hazard and corrosion activity, the need for a radical reconstruction of thermal units when using hydrogen instead of traditional for the ferrous metallurgy natural, coke and blast furnace gases, as well as solid fuels. It is shown that minimizing these risks is not always possible or economically feasible, and the result of using hydrogen in the ferrous metallurgy instead of carbon-containing fuel from the point of view of reducing greenhouse gas emissions may be low with a significant increase of economic and social risks.


Author(s):  
Lisa Kemmerer

Cheap meat, dairy, and eggs are an illusion—we pay for each with depleted forests, polluted freshwater, soil degradation, and climate change. Diet is the most critical decision we make with regard to our environmental footprint—and what we eat is a choice that most of us make every day, several times a day. Dietary choice contributes powerfully to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) and water pollution. Animal agriculture is responsible for an unnerving quantity of greenhouse gas emissions. Eating animal products—yogurt, ice cream, bacon, chicken salad, beef stroganoff, or cheese omelets—greatly increases an individual’s contribution to carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions. Collectively, dietary choice contributes to a classic “tragedy of the commons.” Much of the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed by the earth’s oceans and plants, but a large proportion lingers in the atmosphere—unable to be absorbed by plants or oceans (“Effects”). Plants are not harmed by this process, but the current overabundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes acidification of the earth’s oceans. As a result of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, the “acidity of the world’s ocean may increase by around 170% by the end of the century,” altering ocean ecosystems, and likely creating an ocean environment that is inhospitable for many life forms (“Expert Assessment”). Burning petroleum also leads to wars that devastate human communities and annihilate landscapes and wildlife—including endangered species and their vital habitats. Additionally, our consumption of petroleum is linked with oil spills that ravage landscapes, shorelines, and ocean habitat. Oil pipelines run through remote, fragile areas—every oil tanker represents not just the possibility but the probability of an oil spill. As reserves diminish, our quest for fossil fuels is increasingly environmentally devastating: Canada’s vast reserves of tar sands oil—though extracted, transported, and burned only with enormous costs to the environment—are next in line for extraction. Consuming animal products creates ten times more fossil fuel emission per calorie than does consuming plant foods directly (Oppenlander 18). (This is the most remarkable given that plant foods are not generally as calorically dense as animal foods.) Ranching is the greatest GHGE offender.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document