EMISSION COMPARISON OF UNDERGROUND TRENCHLES CONSTRUCTION METHODS FOR CANADA'S OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY

Better information on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigation potential in the agricultural sector is necessary to manage these emissions and identify responses that are consistent with the food security and economic development priorities of countries. Critical activity data (what crops or livestock are managed in what way) are poor or lacking for many agricultural systems, especially in developing countries. In addition, the currently available methods for quantifying emissions and mitigation are often too expensive or complex or not sufficiently user friendly for widespread use.The purpose of this focus issue is to capture the state of the art in quantifying greenhouse gases from agricultural systems, with the goal of better understanding our current capabilities and near-term potential for improvement, with particular attention to quantification issues relevant to smallholders in developing countries. This work is timely in light of international discussions and negotiations around how agriculture should be included in efforts to reduce and adapt to climate change impacts, and considering that significant climate financing to developing countries in post-2012 agreements may be linked to their increased ability to identify and report GHG emissions (Murphy et al 2010, CCAFS 2011, FAO 2011).

BackgroundPolicies to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can yield public health benefits by also reducing emissions of hazardous co-pollutants, such as air toxics and particulate matter. Socioeconomically disadvantaged communities are typically disproportionately exposed to air pollutants, and therefore climate policy could also potentially reduce these environmental inequities. We sought to explore potential social disparities in GHG and co-pollutant emissions under an existing carbon trading program—the dominant approach to GHG regulation in the US and globally.Methods and findingsWe examined the relationship between multiple measures of neighborhood disadvantage and the location of GHG and co-pollutant emissions from facilities regulated under California’s cap-and-trade program—the world’s fourth largest operational carbon trading program. We examined temporal patterns in annual average emissions of GHGs, particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, and air toxics before (January 1, 2011–December 31, 2012) and after (January 1, 2013–December 31, 2015) the initiation of carbon trading. We found that facilities regulated under California’s cap-and-trade program are disproportionately located in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods with higher proportions of residents of color, and that the quantities of co-pollutant emissions from these facilities were correlated with GHG emissions through time. Moreover, the majority (52%) of regulated facilities reported higher annual average local (in-state) GHG emissions since the initiation of trading. Neighborhoods that experienced increases in annual average GHG and co-pollutant emissions from regulated facilities nearby after trading began had higher proportions of people of color and poor, less educated, and linguistically isolated residents, compared to neighborhoods that experienced decreases in GHGs. These study results reflect preliminary emissions and social equity patterns of the first 3 years of California’s cap-and-trade program for which data are available. Due to data limitations, this analysis did not assess the emissions and equity implications of GHG reductions from transportation-related emission sources. Future emission patterns may shift, due to changes in industrial production decisions and policy initiatives that further incentivize local GHG and co-pollutant reductions in disadvantaged communities.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study to examine social disparities in GHG and co-pollutant emissions under an existing carbon trading program. Our results indicate that, thus far, California’s cap-and-trade program has not yielded improvements in environmental equity with respect to health-damaging co-pollutant emissions. This could change, however, as the cap on GHG emissions is gradually lowered in the future. The incorporation of additional policy and regulatory elements that incentivize more local emission reductions in disadvantaged communities could enhance the local air quality and environmental equity benefits of California’s climate change mitigation efforts.

Executive Summary: The California Climate Action Registry, which was initially established in 2000 and began operation in Fall 2002, is a voluntary registry for recording annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The purpose of the Registry is to assist California businesses and organizations in their efforts to inventory and document emissions in order to establish a baseline and to document early actions to increase energy efficiency and decrease GHG emissions. The State of California has committed to use its ''best efforts'' to ensure that entities that establish GHG emissions baselines and register their emissions will receive ''appropriate consideration under any future international, federal, or state regulatory scheme relating to greenhouse gas emissions.'' Reporting of GHG emissions involves documentation of both ''direct'' emissions from sources that are under the entity's control and indirect emissions controlled by others. Electricity generated by an off-site power source is consider ed to be an indirect GHG emission and is required to be included in the entity's report. Registry participants include businesses, non-profit organizations, municipalities, state agencies, and other entities. Participants are required to register the GHG emissions of all operations in California, and are encouraged to report nationwide. For the first three years of participation, the Registry only requires the reporting of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, although participants are encouraged to report the remaining five Kyoto Protocol GHGs (CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6). After three years, reporting of all six Kyoto GHG emissions is required. The enabling legislation for the Registry (SB 527) requires total GHG emissions to be registered and requires reporting of ''industry-specific metrics'' once such metrics have been adopted by the Registry. The Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) was asked to provide technical assistance to the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) related to the Registry in three areas: (1) assessing the availability and usefulness of industry-specific metrics, (2) evaluating various methods for establishing baselines for calculating GHG emissions reductions related to specific actions taken by Registry participants, and (3) establishing methods for calculating electricity CO2 emission factors. The third area of research was completed in 2002 and is documented in Estimating Carbon Dioxide Emissions Factors for the California Electric Power Sector (Marnay et al., 2002). This report documents our findings related to the first areas of research. For the first area of research, the overall objective was to evaluate the metrics, such as emissions per economic unit or emissions per unit of production that can be used to report GHG emissions trends for potential Registry participants. This research began with an effort to identify methodologies, benchmarking programs, inventories, protocols, and registries that u se industry-specific metrics to track trends in energy use or GHG emissions in order to determine what types of metrics have already been developed. The next step in developing industry-specific metrics was to assess the availability of data needed to determine metric development priorities. Berkeley Lab also determined the relative importance of different potential Registry participant categories in order to asses s the availability of sectoral or industry-specific metrics and then identified industry-specific metrics in use around the world. While a plethora of metrics was identified, no one metric that adequately tracks trends in GHG emissions while maintaining confidentiality of data was identified. As a result of this review, Berkeley Lab recommends the development of a GHG intensity index as a new metric for reporting and tracking GHG emissions trends.Such an index could provide an industry-specific metric for reporting and tracking GHG emissions trends to accurately reflect year to year changes while protecting proprietary data. This GHG intensity index changes while protecting proprietary data. This GHG intensity index would provide Registry participants with a means for demonstrating improvements in their energy and GHG emissions per unit of production without divulging specific values. For the second research area, Berkeley Lab evaluated various methods used to calculate baselines for documentation of energy consumption or GHG emissions reductions, noting those that use industry-specific metrics. Accounting for actions to reduce GHGs can be done on a project-by-project basis or on an entity basis. Establishing project-related baselines for mitigation efforts has been widely discussed in the context of two of the so-called ''flexible mechanisms'' of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol) Joint Implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

Major US electric utility climate pledges have the potential to collectively reduce power sector emissions by one-third

The impact of uncertainties on predicted greenhouse gas emissions of dairy cow production systems

During the last decade, developing more sustainable transportation modes has become a primary objective for car manufacturers and governments around the world to mitigate environmental issues, such as climate change, the continuous increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and energy depletion. The use of hydrogen fuel cell technology as a source of energy in electric vehicles is considered an emerging and promising technology that could contribute significantly to addressing these environmental issues. In this study, the effects of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Battery Electric Vehicles (HFCBEVs) on global GHG emissions compared to other technologies, such as BEVs, were determined based on different relevant factors, such as predicted sales for 2050 (the result of the developed prediction model), estimated daily traveling distance, estimated future average global electricity emission factors, future average Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) emission factors, future global hydrogen production emission factors, and future average HFCBEV emission factors. As a result, the annual GHG emissions produced by passenger cars that are expected to be sold in 2050 were determined by considering BEV sales in the first scenario and HFCBEV replacement in the second scenario. The results indicate that the environmental benefits of HFCBEVs are expected to increase over time compared to those of BEVs, due to the eco-friendly methods that are expected to be used in hydrogen production in the future. For instance, in 2021, HFCBEVs could produce more GHG emissions than BEVs by 54.9% per km of travel, whereas in 2050, BEVs could produce more GHG emissions than HFCBEVs by 225% per km of travel.

The increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is a global concern due to its impact on climate change. To address this challenge, the development of corporate GHG inventories is crucial, enabling organizations to understand and mitigate their emissions. This study aims to statistically analyze whether there was a significant increase in GHG emissions over a 10-year period by organizations from various sectors of the economy that voluntarily published their inventories in the Brazilian GHG Protocol Program. Data were obtained from the inventories of 66 organizations that published at 2013 and 2022 in the Brazilian GHG Protocol Program. The data was processed and analyzed using Minitab software to determine the significance level of the increase in GHG emissions. A total increase of 159,264,734.26 tCO2e in GHG emissions was observed from 2013 to 2022, with 29 organizations reporting higher emissions and 37 showing reductions. However, statistical analysis demonstrated that there was no significant increase in GHG emissions over the study period. The results highlight the importance of organizations conducting their GHG inventories to enhance transparency and make strategic decisions aimed at mitigating their emissions. Publishing inventories allows for monitoring progress and identifying priority areas for effective interventions. No significant increase in GHG emissions was observed over the 10-year period; therefore, this study reinforces the importance of preparing GHG inventories by organizations. The findings can impact public policies on climate change, supporting the introduction of regulations that mandate the development of inventories and the setting of emission reduction and offsetting targets.

Energy-related activities are a major contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A growing body of knowledge clearly depicts the links between human activities and climate change. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil and other human activities has released carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and other heat-trapping GHG emissions into the atmosphere and thus increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 emissions. The main human activities that emit CO2 emissions are (1) the combustion of fossil fuels to generate electricity, accounting for about 37% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 31% of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2013, (2) the combustion of fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel to transport people and goods, accounting for about 31% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 26% of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2013, and (3) industrial processes such as the production and consumption of minerals and chemicals, accounting for about 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 12% of total ...

Both peat utilization and peatlands themselves contribute to increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This article examines how peatlands with naturally high GHG emission levels affect net GHG emissions during the life cycle of peat. GHG emissions were measured from three drained peatland sites with high GHG emission levels. The impact of peatland type on the GHG emissions was considered when peat was assumed to replace coal in an energy production facility. The emission reduction levels achieved with the use of peat fuel originating from high-emission level peatlands stood at 35% compared to coal use and 30% compared to the average peat emission value. The findings indicate that GHG emissions can be reduced overall when peat from high-emission peatlands is utilized instead of coal. Lower emissions are primarily achieved because the harvesting of peat from high-emission level peatlands reduces the GHG emission levels of those lands.

Legislation to cap and trade greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was approved by a 219-212 vote of the United States House of Representatives on June 26, 2009. Cap and trade policy articulated in the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) act of 2009 regulates GHGs including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and nitrogen trifluoride. Debate over the ACES act focused heavily on economic issues contrasted against concerns about climate change1. However, discussion largely ignored the potential for cap and trade legislation to contribute to reductions in levels of other harmful air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and ozone precursors that share emission sources with GHGs. Under the bill, domestic GHG emissions are to be capped at 2005 annual levels, and reduced to 17% of those marks by 20502. The bill provides for an initial round of pollution permits to be made available, some free, others at auction. Subsequently, these permits can be bought and sold in the open market by organizations such as utility companies and manufacturing firms. A key provision in the ACES act requires the president to impose tariffs on countries that do not implement similar regulations on GHG emissions. While other potentially viable legislation, such as a tax on carbon emissions, has been proposed3, the current cap and trade legislation is the first bill to pass in either the House or Senate. The greenhouse gases regulated under the ACES act do not generally pose serious direct health risks. For example, nitrous oxide is used in dental procedures, and carbon dioxide is an ingredient in carbonated beverages. Other GHGs, like nitrogen trifluoride and sulfur hexafluoride, are not harmful at their current concentration levels, but can be hazardous to persons working with them if safety precautions are not taken. Instead, substantial human health benefits from cap and trade legislation could potentially come from reductions in ambient levels of harmful pollutants, such as particulate matter and ozone, that share emissions sources with GHGs. For example, 94% of CO2 emissions in the US result from combustion of fossil fuels, with electricity generation and transportation alone comprising nearly 70%. These are also the leading source of sulfur dioxide, fine particles having diameter small than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), and precursors to ozone such as mono-nitrogen oxides (NOx)4. While the time scale for potential impacts of cap and trade legislation on climate change and related health benefits is likely decades or centuries, ancillary air pollution mitigation could have immediate health benefits. In two nationwide epidemiological studies, daily levels of ambient ozone and PM2.5 have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular and respiratory mortality5 and to increased risk of emergency hospital admissions, especially for heart failure6, respectively. Estimates of the potential health benefits attributable to reductions in harmful air pollutants resulting from mitigation of GHG emissions, at the city, region and national, have been substantial7. While US cap and trade legislation would likely reduce domestic air pollution levels, two caveats deserve consideration. First, methods for reducing GHG emissions typically reduce air pollution levels, but not always. This problem can be highlighted using airplanes as an example8. Two methods to reduce CO2 emissions from airplanes are to decrease aircraft weight or increase engine combustion temperatures. The former reduces both GHG and air pollution emissions, whereas the later reduces GHG emissions at the cost of increasing precursors to ozone. In the broader context of energy production, it is likely cap and trade legislation would drive a shift away from fossil fuel combustion to sources such as solar technology that produce much less air pollution. However, the exact technology development path is still uncertain. A second problem is the potential for domestic cap and trade legislation to transfer US emissions to newly industrialized nations. Countries facing lower production costs associated with looser regulations on GHG emissions would have an economic advantage over manufacturing industries in the US. However, increased air pollution from new manufacturing could be a key public health issue for developing regions, such as China's Pearl River delta, where air pollution levels are already much higher than standards in the US9. The economic and physical systems that would be affected by cap and trade legislation are extremely complex, and impacts on air pollution will have to be considered in a broad context. For example, while the absence of tariffs would likely push manufacturing, air pollution and related negative health effects to developing regions, those regions might experience health benefits associated with increased per capita income. The discussion is similarly complex in the physical domain. For example, some air pollutants, such as sulfate particulate matter, can contribute to short term climate cooling. Though still somewhat unclear, there is an emerging debate over the possibility that air pollution mitigation could actually exacerbate global warming in the short term10. While it faces potentially significant opposition and alteration in the Senate, the cap and trade bill recently passed in the House has progressed further through Congress than any other similar legislation. There is tremendous potential for legislation regulating GHG emissions, via cap and trade or other strategies, to simultaneously decrease emissions of harmful air pollutants and reduce morbidity and mortality attributable to cardiovascular and respiratory illness. Such improvements in public health have been linked to economic benefits from recovered workforce productivity8, and add important support for progress on cap and trade legislation versus delayed action.

Globally, agriculture is directly responsible for 14% of annual greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions and induces an additional 17% through land use change, mostlyin developing countries (Vermeulen et al 2012). Agricultural intensification andexpansion in these regions is expected to catalyze the most significant relativeincreases in agricultural GHG emissions over the next decade (Smith et al 2008,Tilman et al 2011). Farms in the developing countries of sub-Saharan Africa andAsia are predominately managed by smallholders, with 80% of land holdingssmaller than ten hectares (FAO 2012). One can therefore posit that smallholderfarming significantly impacts the GHG balance of these regions today and willcontinue to do so in the near future.However, our understanding of the effect smallholder farming has on theEarth’s climate system is remarkably limited. Data quantifying existing andreduced GHG emissions and removals of smallholder production systems areavailable for only a handful of crops, livestock, and agroecosystems (Herrero et al2008, Verchot et al 2008, Palm et al 2010). For example, fewer than fifteenstudies of nitrous oxide emissions from soils have taken place in sub-SaharanAfrica, leaving the rate of emissions virtually undocumented. Due to a scarcity ofdata on GHG sources and sinks, most developing countries currently quantifyagricultural emissions and reductions using IPCC Tier 1 emissions factors.However, current Tier 1 emissions factors are either calibrated to data primarilyderived from developed countries, where agricultural production conditions aredissimilar to that in which the majority of smallholders operate, or from data thatare sparse or of mixed quality in developing countries (IPCC 2006). For the mostpart, there are insufficient emissions data characterizing smallholder agricultureto evaluate the level of accuracy or inaccuracy of current emissions estimates.Consequentially, there is no reliable information on the agricultural GHG budgetsfor developing economies. This dearth of information constrains the capacity totransition to low-carbon agricultural development, opportunities for smallholdersto capitalize on carbon markets, and the negotiating position of developingcountries in global climate policy discourse.Concerns over the poor state of information, in terms of data availability andrepresentation, have fueled appeals for new approaches to quantifying GHGemissions and removals from smallholder agriculture, for both existing conditionsand mitigation interventions (Berry and Ryan 2013, Olander et al 2013).Considering the dependence of quantification approaches on data and the currentdata deficit for smallholder systems, it is clear that in situ measurements must bea core part of initial and future strategies to improve GHG inventories and

Taking Stock of Strategies on Climate Change and the Way Forward: A Strategic Climate Change Framework for Australia

Human demand for food has been increasing as population grows around the world. Meanwhile, global temperature has been rising with the increase of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Although soil mulching (SM) is an effective method to increase crop yield because it could conserve soil moisture and temperature, it is also an important factor affecting GHG productions and emissions. At present, research results in terms of the impact of SM on agricultural GHG emissions are still inconsistent. Therefore, a meta-analysis was used to quantitatively analyze the impact of SM on crop yield and GHG emissions in China. Overall, SM significantly enhanced not only crop yield, but also GHG emissions. Compared with no soil mulching (NSM), SM improved crop yield by 21.84%, while increased global warming potential (GWP) by 11.38%. To minimize the negative impact of SM on GHG, for maize and wheat in arid, semi-arid and semi-humid zones, it is recommended to use flat full mulching with grave or straw plus drip irrigation under neutral or weakly alkaline soil with bulk density <1.3g cm-3. For rice in humid regions, it is advisable to apply SM to minimize GHG emissions by significantly decreasing CH4 emissions.

Modeling of energy consumption and related GHG (greenhouse gas) intensity and emissions in Europe using general regression neural networks

To curb global warming, the calculation of the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must be discussed. The GHG protocol, an international GHG accounting standard, requires the calculation of indirect GHG emissions, called Scope 3 GHG emissions, throughout the supply chain. Accurate calculation of GHG emissions requires primary data, such as sensor data. However, because Scope 3 GHG emissions cross multiple organizations, the calculation of indirect emissions has some problems from the perspectives of trade secrecy, cost of aggregation, and data integrity. In this study, we propose an architecture to solve those problems using homomorphic encryption. Trade secrets are protected because GHG emissions are calculated in encrypted form. Aggregation is simplified because the calculated data are stored in the database organized for information extraction. If there is a problem with the data, it can be traced back. To evaluate the validity of the proposed architecture, we performed a case study focusing on GHG emissions from vehicle travel, which is part of a real supply chain. We experimentally evaluated the computation time at the edge and the data capacity to be communicated on the local 5G network. Consequently, our proposed architecture worked well and could be used to calculate Scope 3 GHG emissions.