This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0734242X09346702v1 27/8/696    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Gentil, E. C. Articles by Christensen, T. H. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gentil, E. C. Articles by Christensen, T. H. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Greenhouse gas accounting and waste management

¹ Technical University of Denmark
² Veolia Environnement, Paris

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: ege{at}env.dtu.dk.

	Abstract

Accounting of emissions of greenhouse gas (GHG) is a major focus within waste management. This paper analyses and compares the four main types of GHG accounting in waste management including their special features and approaches: the national accounting, with reference to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the corporate level, as part of the annual reporting on environmental issues and social responsibility, life-cycle assessment (LCA), as an environmental basis for assessing waste management systems and technologies, and finally, the carbon trading methodology, and more specifically, the clean development mechanism (CDM) methodology, introduced to support cost-effective reduction in GHG emissions. These types of GHG accounting, in principle, have a common starting point in technical data on GHG emissions from specific waste technologies and plants, but the limited availability of data and, moreover, the different scopes of the accounting lead to many ways of quantifying emissions and producing the accounts. The importance of transparency in GHG accounting is emphasised regarding waste type, waste composition, time period considered, GHGs included, global warming potential (GWP) assigned to the GHGs, counting of biogenic carbon dioxide, choice of system boundaries, interactions with the energy system, and generic emissions factors. In order to enhance transparency and consistency, a format called the upstream-operating-downstream framework (UOD) is proposed for reporting basic technology-related data regarding GHG issues including a clear distinction between direct emissions from waste management technologies, indirect upstream (use of energy and materials) and indirect downstream (production of energy, delivery of secondary materials) activities.

First published on October 6, 2009, doi:10.1177/0734242X09346702

Waste Management & Research 2009;27:696.

A more recent version of this article appeared on November 1, 2009


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?