A Carbon and Ecological Footprint analysis of Luton Borough Council

Transcription

1 A Carbon and Ecological Footprint analysis of Luton Borough Council Includes quantification of greenhouse gas emissions Prepared for Best Foot Forward Bringing sustainability down to earth May 2008

2 Carbon and Ecological Footprint Analysis of Luton Borough Council A Carbon Footprint Analysis of Luton Borough Council Commissioned by: Luton Borough Council Town Hall Luton LU1 2BQ Contact : Donald Bowler donald.bowler@luton.gov.uk Web: Phone: Fax: Prepared by: Best Foot Forward Ltd. 9 Newtec place Magdalen Road Oxford OX4 1RE BFF Staff: Craig Simmons, Richard Sheane, Kevin Lewis mail@bestfootforward.com Web: Tel: Fax: Company Registration Checked: Paul Cooper (7 th April), Craig Simmons (18 th April) Comments incorporated: LBC (2 nd May), LBC (May12th) May 08

3 Carbon and Ecological Footprint Analysis of Luton Borough Council Best Foot Forward Best Foot Forward (BFF), one of Europe's leading sustainability organisations, specialises in carbon and Ecological Footprints and offers analysis services, training and management tools. Founded in 1997, BFF is widely credited with popularising the Footprint concept in the UK following the award-winning Island State study of the Isle of Wight s economy, a guide on footprinting businesses, produced for the Association of Chartered and Certified Accountants, and the publication, in 2000, of Sharing Nature s Interest: Ecological Footprints as an indicator of sustainability. BFF s mission statement is to help organisations, regions and communities to reduce their Footprint. Best Foot Forward have unrivalled experience and an enviable track record having helped over one hundred organisations and undertaken in excess of 300 Footprint studies. The company has advised on everything from reducing the supply chain impacts associated with African apple production and distribution to managing Greater London s Ecological Footprint. Best Foot Forward s multinational team of analysts and consultants are based in Oxford, England. The company is also able to draw on a network of global partners and associates offering local knowledge, where appropriate, and additional sectoral expertise when required. In 2005, Best Foot Forward were conferred the prestigious Queen s Award for Sustainable Development. This corporate knighthood specifically recognised their contribution to corporate sustainability.

4 Carbon and Ecological Footprint Analysis of Luton Borough Council Executive summary Luton Borough Council was responsible for 55,919 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions (tco 2 e), of which 51,796 tonnes were carbon dioxide (tco 2 ). The council s operations had an Ecological Footprint of 20,371 global hectares (gha) 1 in these base-year accounts calculated from LBC data drawn from These results are used in this report to inform an integrated footprint reduction strategy. There is now a broad consensus that we need to make humankind s activities more environmentally sustainable. As both policy-makers and service providers in their own right, the public sector is recognised as being both part of the problem and part of the solution. Addressing the challenge of sustainable development requires concerted effort from all sections of society. The UK s local authorities will collectively spend 80 billion, a quarter of all public expenditure, delivering 700 different services through the work of 2 million employees and about 20,000 elected representatives. Luton Borough Council is committed to sustainable development and minimising the impacts of its own operations. To help achieve this objective, the Council has commissioned this study which analyses and reports on the authority s greenhouse gas (GHG) and carbon emissions (CO 2 ), and Ecological Footprint (EF). The results provide a useful indication of which are the operations with the most significant impacts, essential to inform management strategies, and set a base-year reference against which to judge the success of future reductions. Figure 1: Luton Borough Council GHG emission components, by scope 1 For more information about the Ecological Footprint see Appendix B Best Foot Forward, 2008 i

5 Carbon and Ecological Footprint Analysis of Luton Borough Council As a consumer of external goods and services, Luton Borough Council recognises the need to consider both direct emissions, from utilities and transport fuel and indirect emissions, arising from the consumption of materials and production of waste. This study follows International Standards to clearly define both the organisational and operational boundaries used to quantify Luton Borough Council s impacts. This comprehensive approach to the accounting of environmental impacts is challenging but encourages the adoption of more holistic solutions. Luton Borough Council s staff led the data collection process internally and worked with BFF to clarify uncertainties. The input data required (physical consumption units, such as kwh, tonnes, vehicle kilometres and litres of fuel) is not routinely collected by organisations, and one valuable outcome from the study was the highlighting of areas for which ongoing data collection needs to improve. Data Electricity, gas, oil and water Business travel Data Quality Medium- High Medium- Low Table 1: Assessment of data quality Data coverage Medium- High Medium Commuting Medium Medium Short Life Purchases Long Life Purchases Food Medium Medium Medium- Low - - Medium Recycled High High waste Landfilled High Medium waste Land area High High Comments Submitted data made up approximately 95% of the total Gross Internal Area (GIA) for electricity and 93% for gas. Oil consumption estimated. Petrol, LPG and Grey Fleet data taken from EST (2007) Green Fleet report. Data from commuter survey of LBC staff excl. schools. No data on trip distances. Top 10 estimated weights by LBC Top 10 estimated weights by LBC Cost data only for dry food. No material breakdown. The results show the total annualised greenhouse gas (CO 2 e) and carbon dioxide emissions (CO 2 ), and the Ecological Footprint of Luton Borough Council during the period 2005/07 were 55,919 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (tco2e), of which 51,796 tonnes were carbon dioxide (tco 2 ), and 20,371 global hectares (gha) respectively. The totals are subdivided into discrete components, which show: Utilities accounted for between 40% (Ecological Footprint) and 58% (carbon dioxide) of the LBC totals. The largest greenhouse gas impacts come from gas consumption at 22% (Direct GHG Emissions, Scope 1 ), electricity consumption at 20% (Energy Best Foot Forward, 2008 ii

6 Carbon and Ecological Footprint Analysis of Luton Borough Council Indirect GHG Emissions, Scope 2 ) and car drivers commuting to work at 22% (Other Indirect GHG Emissions, Scope 3 ). The bulk of emissions come from energy and transport activities rather than the use of externally produced goods and services. As Luton Borough Council is primarily a provider of services, this emissions profile is to be expected. Figures 1 and 2 show the overall annual carbon emissions and Ecological Footprint, whilst Figure 3 shows the overall annual Greenhouse gas emissions by scope. Figure 1: Breakdown of annual carbon Figure 2: Breakdown of annual dioxide emissions of LBC (05-07) Ecological Footprint of LBC (05-07) Short-life Purchases 0.4% Food 0.3% Long-life Purchases 1% Business Travel 6% Waste 8% Land Use 0% Utilities 59% Food 0.6% Long-life Purchases 0.8% Business Travel 5% Short-life Purchases 0.3% Waste 18% Land Use 16% Utilities 39% Commuting 26% Commuting 20% Figure 3: Breakdown of annual of Greenhouse gas emissions of LBC ( ), by scope 25,000 Food: tco2e 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Short Life Purchases: Long Life Purchases: Business Travel Waste: Commuting: Energy To develop key performance indicators, results are commonly normalised using selected denominators. This facilitates the ongoing monitoring of performance and efficiency over time. For Luton Borough Council, total income, members of staff and the gross internal floor area were available as comparators. Best Foot Forward, 2008 iii

7 Table 2: Key Performance Indicators used in normalisation of results Key performance indicator tco 2 e tco 2 Global hectares Per member of staff Per m 2 of Gross Internal Area Per M Turnover Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) can also be used to compare similar organisations. Although the Audit Commission are in the process of collating comparable datasets for Local Authorities, at the time of writing these are not available. It is anticipated that interpreting these, even when they do become available, will be problematic due to the many variations between local authorities, the services they deliver and the means of delivery (which is often a unique mix of public and private provision). For example, some local authorities (LAs) still manage their own social housing stock whereas others have out-sourced this function. Some LAs have ownership or historical responsibility for managing vast areas of public land others have minor landholdings. Yet, some focussed like-for-like benchmarking of service-based organisations can be informative. As presented within the main body of this report, Best Foot Forward has found Luton Borough Council s performance on selected measures to be around average. For example, Figure 4 shows the UK benchmark for LBC commuters modes of travel. Figure 4: Relative use of different transport modes for commuting, LBC and UK 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 6% 14% 3% 78% Current Commute 18% 4% 2% 76% Average UK Commuter methods Car Walking/Cycling Bus Train & Others Best Foot Forward, 2008 iv

8 The final section of the report builds on the analysis and a review of current LBC policy to suggest recommendations for the formulation of a corporate climate change strategy. These recommendations are presented in six sections: Staff capacity; LBC policy; Utility usage; Staff commuting; Procurement (including food) and waste; Business travel. The key macro-level recommendations distilled from the analysis of LBC s activities are: LBC staffing capacity for co-ordinating internal and external climate change related work is insufficient and needs to be addressed urgently. It is understood that budget has been set aside for this. Similarly, specific responsibility for climate change work needs to be assigned to an elected member and senior manager. Each directorate should also have a climate change champion. A number of essential documents require creation or enhancement to enable effective carbon management: Corporate Energy Policy; Green Travel Plan; Sustainable Procurement Policy; Transport Environmental Policy. Carbon reduction targets and policies are missing from all relevant LBC documents. The findings of this base-year study should be used as a platform to fast track the embedding of climate-related policies and actions in existing and future LBC documents (see above). An over-arching Climate Change Strategy adapted from the results and recommendations of this report should pull together these areas and set overall emissions reductions targets agreed by key staff. Luton Borough Council will meet the threshold for inclusion in the new Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) and will face financial penalties if it does not reduce emissions from energy use. This should focus initial carbon reduction efforts on gas and electricity use the area also highlighted by this study as the largest contributor of greenhouse gases. Data availability and reporting for future emissions analyses required under National Indicator 185 and the CRC needs to be improved in all areas. As part of improving procedures relevant staff must be assigned responsibility for gathering and reporting on this data to a Climate Change Officer. Best Foot Forward, 2008 v

9 As utilities account for 57% of LBC GHG emissions, full support must be given to the ongoing development of a corporate energy policy. This document must draw wide boundaries and include all areas of council function, including schools and care homes, or it will fail to address the most energy-hungry council areas. A review of LBC data on energy benchmarking of buildings has highlighted huge potential to decrease energy use across the whole of the council estate. In particular, focus should be on sector-specific projects e.g. schools and homes. Further work is needed to assess the commuting behaviour of all LBC staff which is currently unknown. This data will improve emissions calculations and help guide initiatives to reduce car dependency. A waste audit of LBC departments/buildings is needed to get higher resolution information on recycling rates and the composition of landfill waste. This will highlight opportunities for improved waste management within the LBC estate. Simple adjustments to business travel expense forms will enable better measurement and management of these emissions. Recommendations from a recent Energy Saving Trust report on LBC vehicles should be implemented. Neighbourhood emissions from flights landing and taking off from London Luton Airport were calculated to be almost twice that of LBC s whole estate. Although LBC does not have operational control of the airport, as the owner it could use dividends to compensate for these emissions through the support of council and/or wider community renewable energy provision and energy efficiency projects. Best Foot Forward, 2008 vi

10 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Climate change and corporate social responsibility Doing business in a resource constrained world Luton Borough Council Purpose and objectives of the study Methodology Environmental measures Scope of the study Data quality Greenhouse Gas and Ecological Footprint analysis Total footprint overview Utilities Transport Purchases and Waste Food Land Use Recommendations to reduce GHG emissions Recommendations summary Staffing capacity LBC policy Utilities (gas, electricity and oil) Staff commuting Waste and procurement (including food) Business travel GHG emission removal projects - Carbon offsetting...66 Appendix A: Input data and assumptions...67 Appendix B: What are footprint analyses?...73 Appendix C: Energy use by council function...80 Appendix D: Results Compendium...81 Appendix E: Glossary (adapted from ISO )...87 Appendix F: Abbreviations Best Foot Forward, 2008

11 1 Introduction 1.1 Climate change and corporate social responsibility Climate change, caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases most notably carbon dioxide in the Earth s atmosphere, has been identified as one of the greatest challenges facing humankind. All elements within our society nations, governments, business and citizens will be profoundly affected over future decades. Climate change has implications for both human and ecological systems and may lead to significant changes in biological production, natural resource use and, consequently, economic activity. In response to the threats posed by climate change, international, regional, national and local initiatives are being developed and implemented to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This report follows the International Standard ISO (ISO, 2006) Greenhouse gases Part 1: Specification with guidance at the organisation level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals, and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (WRI & WBCSD, 2004): a corporate accounting and reporting Standard revised edition. Such GHG initiatives rely on the quantification, monitoring, reporting and verification of GHG emissions and/or removals. This report covers the accounting and reporting of the six greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF 6 ). As the most abundant greenhouse gas, responsible for 85% of total UK GHG emissions in , carbon dioxide released primarily from fossil fuel burning (oil, diesel, petrol, coal, natural gas and so on) has come under particular scrutiny. Both direct and indirect GHG emissions are included in the results presented in this report. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol states: Direct GHG emissions are emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the company. Indirect GHG emissions are emissions that are a consequence of the activities of the company but occur at sources owned or controlled by another company...the terms direct and indirect as used in this document should not be confused with their use in national GHG inventories where direct refers to the six Kyoto gases and indirect refers to the precursors NOx, NMVOC, and CO. 1 Best Foot Forward,

12 1.2 Doing business in a resource constrained world Although the focus of much recent legislation and regulation, GHG emissions are not the only environmental concern. Consumption of all classes of resources; metals, minerals and biomass materials as well as fossil fuels are on the increase. Figure 1.2.1: Historic and projected global use of resources (Source: mosus.net) These wider resource impacts are captured by the Ecological Footprint indicator included in this report. The Ecological Footprint methodology used for this report follows the International Footprint Standards V1.0, as applicable to organisations. Updates to these standards are expected in autumn ISO identifies four benefits of GHG reporting which can be applied, more broadly, to accounting for all energy and material resources: Corporate risk management: for example, the identification and management of risks and opportunities; Voluntary initiatives: for example, participation in voluntary GHG registry or material reporting initiatives; Trading markets: for example, the buying and selling of GHG credits or trading in reclaimed materials; Regulatory/government reporting: for example, credit for early action, negotiated agreements or national reporting programmes. The drivers for change are not just regulatory but include in the case of Local Authorities pressure from the public, staff, funding bodies and other stakeholders. Local Authorities are also expected to set an example for other private and public sector bodies to follow. This leadership is a key aspect of recommendations set out in the recent Local Government Association report on climate change Best Foot Forward,

13 1.3 Luton Borough Council Luton Borough Council is an urban unitary authority responsible for delivering a wide range of services to 186,800 residents. In the data year of this study the council had control of some 85 schools, 11 community centres and a variety of other assets e.g. community centres and care homes. In all the council employed in excess of 9,300 staff across all of these locations 1. Its total income was 456m for 2005/6. The authority also had over 8,400 council dwellings which it is responsible for maintaining although domestic energy use by council tenants was considered out-ofscope for the purposes of this analysis 2. Almost uniquely among English local authorities, the council also owns a major regional airport. Although it does not have operational or financial control of London Luton Airport it does receive a substantial annual dividend. Due to the ownership structure, the airport and associated GHG emissions and footprint were not considered to be in scope. In terms of expenditure, more than 156m was spent by the authority on procurement in the study year 3. This was spent on everything from construction to recruitment. 1.4 Purpose and objectives of the study Luton Borough Council commissioned this study to assess the GHG, carbon and Ecological Footprint of their offices and activities within a typical year. The report includes the impact of energy use, materials and products purchased and waste disposed associated with day-to-day activities. The results will enable Luton Borough Council to identify the components with the largest footprint and obtain a baseline against which to develop a strategy for reducing their environmental impacts. In this way it is possible to prioritise areas of improvement, set targets and develop a practical and achievable timetable for impact reduction. The information can also be used to develop reduction strategies through which Luton Borough Council can identify cost saving opportunities, risk mitigation and efficiency improvements and strengthen their profile as a council committed to sustainability. Doing this places Luton Borough Council in a good position to meet increasing demands from central government and the community to reduce resource use and mitigate climate change. It is highly likely that future taxation and legislation will regulate greenhouse gas and carbon emissions further, and early action will be advantageous to the council for instance in meeting the scoping and reporting requirements of the Carbon Reduction Commitment 4. 1 Luton Borough Council Statement of Accounts for 2005/6 Pg Originally it was proposed that National Indicator 185 (CO 2 reduction from local authority operations) should include energy-related emissions from council dwellings (e.g. electricity, gas and oil). However the latest definitions have removed social housing. Emissions from schools remain. 3 Data provided by Luton Borough Council 4 Mandatory UK cap-and-trade scheme targeting carbon emissions (direct CO 2 energy and indirect electricity) from the large non-energy intensive business and public sectors Best Foot Forward,

14 2 Methodology 2.1 Environmental measures What the indicators say Environmental sustainability is a complex subject whose measurement cannot be readily reduced to a simple, single number. This analysis used three indicators: Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), Greenhouse gases (GHG), Ecological Footprint (EF) Each separate indicator gives an answer to a single question. Each indicator s question is different: CO 2 : What weight of direct and indirect carbon dioxide emissions were emitted from Luton Borough Council s activities during a typical year? GHG (CO 2 e): What weight of direct and indirect Greenhouse gases were emitted from Luton Borough Council s activities during a typical year? Ecological Footprint: How much of the productive capacity of the planet is required to support LBC s activities in a typical year? With these three particular questions it is important to note that: CO 2 is included as a one of the Greenhouse gases in CO 2 e, and CO 2 also constitutes a major part of the Ecological Footprint. Making sense of multiple answers Asking multiple questions inevitably results in multiple answers. Policy-makers have tended to focus on carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) as a proxy headline indicator of climate change impact. The apparent correlation between CO 2, GHG and EF highlights the importance of burning fossil fuels as an environmental issue. The Luton Borough Council base-year accounts use CO 2 as a proxy headline indicator. However, CO 2 fails to capture a range of other important environmental issues. GHG measures the complete spectrum of climate change emissions as defined in the Kyoto Protocol 1 and the EF addresses the sustainable use of natural resources Best Foot Forward,

15 2.1.1 What is a carbon footprint? Emissions occur during the everyday operation of an organisation or other enterprise. These can be direct that is arising from the direct use of fossil fuels by the organisation (for example, for office heating or fuelling pool cars) or they can be indirect. Indirect, or embodied, emissions arise from fuel consumed outside of the organisation, which are nonetheless related to the conduct of their business. For example, business flights, the procurement of raw materials, goods and services. The following definition of a carbon footprint is adapted from the Carbon Trust: A carbon footprint is: The total set of greenhouse gas emissions caused directly and indirectly by an individual, event, organisation or product expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 e) What is an Ecological Footprint? The Ecological Footprint takes a broader view of resource consumption than the carbon footprint, and is thus a more comprehensive indicator of environmental impact. According to the Global Footprint Network 2 it is: A resource accounting tool which addresses underlying sustainability questions. It measures the extent to which humanity is using nature's resources faster than they can regenerate. The Ecological Footprint has been successfully used to assess and communicate the environmental impacts of countries, regions, organisations, lifestyles and products. Effectively, it measures the human consumption of natural resources in productive area units and considers abiotic (metals and minerals for example) and biotic (plant and animal life) resources, as well as the impacts of the carbon footprint (fossil fuels). The Ecological Footprint is measured in global hectares (gha), to represent the amount of productive area required, on a global scale, to maintain a particular activity. See Appendix B for a more detailed explanation of the concept Best Foot Forward,

16 2.2 Scope of the study Organisational boundaries The structure of organisations can be complex and GHG accounting follows financial accounting with the application of certain rules. For GHG accounting, emissions can be assigned to organisational structures according to two basic models 1 : Control: the organisation accounts for all quantified GHG emissions and/or removals from facilities over which it has financial or operational control; or Equity share: the organisation accounts for its portion of GHG emissions and/or removals from respective facilities. For Luton Borough Council GHG accounting purposes BFF have chosen the control accounting rule. This means, for example, that emissions from London Luton Airport and energy use in social housing are excluded from this analysis. So, according to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Under the control approach, a company accounts for 100 percent of the GHG emissions from operations over which it has control. It does not account for GHG emissions from operations in which it owns an interest but has no control. Control can be defined in either financial or operational terms. When using the control approach to consolidate GHG emissions, companies shall choose between either the operational control or financial control criteria. 1 The company has financial control over the operation if the former has the ability to direct the financial and operating policies of the latter with a view to gaining economic benefits from its activities. As a result, for Luton Borough Council GHG accounting purposes BFF have chosen the financial control option. The implications of these boundary choices are illustrated in Figure 2.2.1a. The key implications of this definition are that even though LBC owns many council houses, the day-to-day energy costs are paid for by the tenants and so are not included in the analysis. This is in line with the latest National Indicator definitions from the Department of Communities and Local Government. Related staffing impacts are covered as the analysis includes LBC s Housing & Community directorate. Secondly, the resources used in running London Luton Airport are not included. 1 Best Foot Forward,

17 Figure 2.2.1a: The Financial Control Organisational Boundaries for Luton Borough Council Best Foot Forward,

18 2.2.2 Operational boundaries The organisation per se does not emit GHGs. Instead it is the activities of that organisation that lead to GHG emissions and this explains the requirement for operational boundaries to be identified. Or, as the GHG Corporate Protocol states: For effective and innovative GHG management, setting operational boundaries that are comprehensive with respect to direct and indirect emissions will help a company better manage the full spectrum of GHG risks and opportunities that exist along its value chain. To aid the definition of the operational boundary, both ISO and the GHG Protocol use the concept of Scopes to divide GHG emissions between activities. The two Standards vary scope definitions slightly and this footprint study follows ISO According to this document, the scopes can be defined as follows: Direct GHG emissions and removals (Scope 1): The organisation shall quantify direct GHG emissions from facilities within its organisational boundaries. The organisation should quantify GHG removals from facilities within its organisational boundaries. Direct GHG emissions from electricity, heat and steam generated and exported or distributed by the organisation may be reported separately, but shall not be deducted from the organisation's total direct GHG emissions. NOTE The term exported refers to electricity, heat or steam that is supplied by the organisation to users outside the organisational boundaries. CO 2 emissions from the combustion of biomass shall be quantified separately. Energy indirect GHG emissions (Scope 2): The organisation shall quantify indirect GHG emissions from the generation of imported electricity, heat or steam consumed by the organisation. NOTE The term imported refers to electricity, heat or steam that is supplied from outside the organisational boundaries. Other indirect GHG emissions (Scope 3): The organisation may quantify other indirect GHG emissions based on requirements of the applicable GHG programme, internal reporting needs or the intended use for the GHG inventory. NOTE Examples of organisational activities that might result in other indirect emissions are included in Annex B. 1 The ISO Standard is dry and uses subtle language. For example, shall = Required, should = Recommended and may = Open choice. Best Foot Forward,

19 In essence, Scope 1 includes direct fossil fuel use within the organisational boundary, Scope 2 includes energy consumed by the organisation from fossil fuels combusted outside of the organisation boundary and Scope 3 includes all other indirect emissions. The included components of each scope for Luton Borough Council GHG accounting is illustrated in Figure 2.2.2a below. Figure 2.2.2a: The Operational Boundaries and included components for Luton Borough Council, by scope Best Foot Forward,

20 2.3 Data quality The following data were provided by LBC for 2005/2007: Total annual organisation electricity consumption in kwh; Total annual organisation gas consumption in kwh; Total annual organisation oil consumption in litres; Total annual water consumption in cubic metres; General information about the organisation: total land use, gross internal area and number of staff; Staff commuting based on a survey of LBC staff, excluding schools. It includes total number of staff travelling by transport mode, including car driver, car passenger. motorbike, bus, rail, walking and cycling and other; Business travel based on vehicle fuel use. It includes total fuel use, vehicle numbers by class and fuel type and a previous report on the grey fleet. The grey fleet are employee owned vehicles used for business travel and data included distance travelled and CO 2 emissions for various engine sizes; Top 10 annual purchases by weight, including product descriptions, cost and quantity; Top 10 capital purchases by weight, including product descriptions, cost and quantity; Total annual costs of dry food items and total kg of fresh fruit and vegetables; Weight of annual waste, disaggregated by waste management option and partly disaggregated by material type. The data was generally of a medium quality and medium to high in coverage. Transport data provided by Luton Borough Council was the weakest and required significant additional assumptions and analysis. Cost and number figures were provided for annual and capital purchases and subsequent weights (kg) were estimated. Devil in the Detail Physical data gaps for purchases were estimated by BFF, before full weight estimates were re-submitted by LBC. The weight estimates calculated by BFF and LBC revealed data differences and assumptions for lightbulbs and toner cartridges in particular BFF estimated lightbulbs to be Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs (CFL), whereas LBC s weight estimate suggests lightbulbs purchased are energy-hungry incandescents. The switch to energy efficient bulbs could save around 70% of electricity used for lighting. BFF have completed several analyses of toner cartridges recently and used an average weight applied to the LBC number figures to derive total weight. The estimate submitted by LBC suggests a weight per cartridge twice that of the BFF estimate. Best Foot Forward,

21 Waste data was generally the strongest, but included not only LBC waste but also that of LBC residents. Though rather noble of LBC, this assumption led to a significant over-estimate of waste produced. Discussions with LBC gave annual estimates of total waste sent to landfill and recycling management options by LBC alone. In addition, the recycling total was broken down by individual material types (paper, plastic for example) but no further information was given for landfilled waste. This commentary on data quality is summarised in Table 2.3a below. Table 2.3a: Assessment of data quality Data Electricity, gas, oil and water Business travel Data Quality Medium- High Medium- Low Data coverage Medium- High Medium Commuting Medium Medium Short Life Purchases Long Life Purchases Food Medium Medium Medium- Low - - Medium Recycled High High waste Landfilled High Medium waste Land area High High Comments Submitted data made up approximately 95% of the total GIA for electricity and 93% for gas. Oil consumption estimated. Petrol, LPG and Grey Fleet data taken from EST (2007) Green Fleet report. Data from commuter survey of LBC staff excl. schools. No data on trip distances. Top 10 estimated weights by LBC Top 10 estimated weights by LBC Cost data only for dry food. No material breakdown. Table 2.3a rates some data categories as medium-low, but this is common in footprint studies. Readers should be aware that gathering physical data for footprint calculations can be challenging, as it cannot generally be drawn directly from accounting records or procurement specifications. The data required for the analysis involves units such as weight, distances and energy consumption while standard records tend to be focussed on financial costs. Despite this initial barrier, Luton Borough Council collated data has proven sufficient to complete these reference base-year accounts. Best Foot Forward,

22 3 Greenhouse Gas and Ecological Footprint analysis 3.1 Total footprint overview Luton Borough Council was responsible for 55,919 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions (tco 2 e), of which 51,796 tonnes were carbon dioxide (tco 2 ). The council s operations had an Ecological Footprint of 20,371 global hectares (gha) in these base-year accounts calculated from LBC data drawn from To simplify the presentation of the results, only CO 2 is graphically presented as the headline indicator in areas where all three indicators (CO 2, GHG and EF) agree. Where a different issue is highlighted, the relevant indicator(s) will also be presented in figures. For this study, a difference of more than 20% was the threshold for presenting these differences. This was the case for purchases, waste and food. The results of all three indicators are discussed throughout the report text and presented in associated tables. Utilities (gas, electricity and oil) were the single largest component across all three indicators (57% of GHG, 58% of CO 2 and 40% of EF), followed by commuting (26% GHG, 26% CO 2 and 20% EF) and waste (9% GHG, 8% CO 2 and 18% EF). Because of the agreement between GHG and CO 2 indicators Figure 3.1a shows the composition of CO 2 emissions from Luton Borough Council s activities. Figure 3.1b shows the relative composition of the Ecological Footprint of Luton Borough Council s activities in the base year. This varies from the GHG and CO 2 indicators as it includes LBC s direct land use (565 hectares). Figure 3.1a: Breakdown of the CO 2 emissions of Luton Borough Council (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) Short-life Purchases 0.4% Food 0.3% Long-life Purchases 1% Business Travel 6% Waste 8% Land Use 0% Utilities 59% Commuting 26% Best Foot Forward,

23 Figure 3.1b: Breakdown of the Ecological Footprint of Luton Borough Council (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) Food 0.6% Short-life Purchases 0.3% Land Use 16% Long-life Purchases 0.8% Business Travel 5% Utilities 39% Waste 18% Commuting 20% Land use contributes 16% of the Ecological Footprint. Due to the exclusion of GHG sinks 1, land use contributes 0% to the other indicators. Land use includes the land directly used by LBC, e.g. the Town Hall and schools on built land and some woodland areas. Other land uses, such as the factories of suppliers is included in the other components of the Ecological Footprint, but not specifically identified. A breakdown of the GHG and CO 2 emissions and the Ecological Footprint can be found in Table 3.1a. The components have been normalised against total council income, gross internal area and total number of staff. These are useful generic key performance indicators (Table 3.1b). Table 3.1a: Annual GHG and CO 2 emissions, and Ecological Footprint of LBC (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) Greenhouse Gases (tonnes CO 2 e) Carbon Footprint (tonnes CO 2 ) Ecological Footprint (gha) Total 55,919 51,796 20,371 of which Utilities 32,081 29,831 8,141 Commuting 14,307 13,598 4,008 Waste 4,855 4,212 3,574 Business Travel 3,497 3,287 1,062 Long-life Purchases Food Short-life Purchases Land Use 0 0 3,260 1 ISO : 2.3 greenhouse gas sink: physical unit or process that removes a GHG from the atmosphere. Best Foot Forward,

24 Table 3.1b: Normalised annual GHG and CO 2 emissions, and Ecological Footprint of LBC (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) Greenhouse Gases (tonnes CO 2 e) Carbon Footprint (tonnes CO 2 ) Ecological Footprint (gha) Normalisation metrics Per staff member Per Office space (m²) Per m Turnover Overview of results by scope Figure 3.1c: Overview of emission results by scope boundaries tco2 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Food: Short Life Purchases: Long Life Purchases: Business Travel Waste: Commuting: Energy The results presented by scope only refer to the GHG and CO 2 indicators. These two indicators show the same trends for LBC results by scope and so CO 2 is used to illustrate the trend. As can be seen in the above diagram other indirect emissions (Scope 3) account for almost as much direct emissions (Scope 1). These hidden Scope 3 emissions can be reduced through implementation of green travel plans, improved procurement and waste strategies. Scope 1 emissions (gas, oil and LBC vehicle fuel) can be reduced by increasing building heating efficiencies and creating a greener vehicle fleet. Finally, Scope 2 (purchased electricity) can be reduced by buying/generating low-carbon energy and reducing overall usage. Best Foot Forward,

25 LBC s carbon footprint on Luton For comparison purposes, domestic energy use accounts for 5.6 tonnes of CO 2 per average Luton household per year (2005) 1. Annual carbon dioxide emissions from Luton Borough Council are comparable to the carbon dioxide associated with almost 9,500 (13%) average Luton households per annum. LBC staff, the UK and the world LBC s total impact equates to 5.6 tonnes of CO 2 per staff member per year. This is close to the average of office-based organisations studied by Best Foot Forward at 6.8 tonnes of CO 2 per staff member. BFF s own carbon footprint, towards the lower end of the organisations studied, is around 1.3 tonnes per staff member per year. The UK average per capita CO 2 emissions (consumption-based) can be estimated as 11.7 tonnes per annum 2 including the emissions from aviation, shipping and net imports (which are not included in DEFRA s carbon estimate 3 ). So if employees are thought to be responsible for an equal share of their workplace s emissions, working at Luton Borough Council accounts (on average) for an amount of CO 2 equivalent to 48% of their current UK per capita share. To put these figures into context, the latest IPCC report says that to avoid the most dangerous climate change we need to make global cuts in greenhouse gas emissions of 85% (based on 2000 emission levels) by This means that by 2050, using a conservative global population estimate of 9 billion people 5, we need to reach a global emissions level of 0.4 tonnes of CO 2 per person per year 6. This is a 97% reduction from the UK s current per capita CO 2 emissions, and a linear path to this level would require annual cuts of just over 2% (of current emissions) per year; however, as explained in a recent Tyndall Centre report, much steeper, earlier cuts of 6% - 9% per annum between now and 2030 are probably required to prevent cumulative emissions from reaching a dangerous level DEFRA (2007) (Footnote 11) gives an estimate of UK kgco 2 /capita emissions. This however excludes the emissions from the manufacture and transport of imported trade goods and services. To estimate this, kgco2/capita from the UK s net trade (imports exports) were derived from the UK National Footprint Account (Global Footprint Network, 2006) (2003 data) the 2006 total figure has been divided by the UK population, estimated at 60.6 million at 4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Summary for Policymakers, Table SPM.6 5 Based on UN projections see 6 Based on global emissions of billion tonnes in 2000, from 7 See and Best Foot Forward,

26 3.1.1 Office benchmarking It is useful for organisations to benchmark their performance with other organisations. The more similar the comparative organisations are, the more powerful benchmark results become. This information is not widely available, however BFF collected data 1 can be used for office-based organisations. Figure 3.1.1a shows the CO 2 and Ecological Footprint per staff member of Luton Borough Council as compared to BFF s office and five sample offices (see footnotes for details of these organisations). It should be noted that LBC s estate contains a wide variety of building types not just offices. So for ongoing management emissions benchmarks should really be calculated per building using data collected at building/departmental level. Not all information was available to this scale at the time of this study (e.g. waste and procurement) and so could be collected by LBC in the future as a way of benchmarking emissions of LBC operations at a departmental level. Figure 3.1.1a: CO 2 and Ecological Footprint office benchmarks in tco 2 and gha per staff member (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) global hectares (gha) and tonnes of CO LBC BFF Office 1 Office 2 Office 3 Office 4 Office 5 Ecological Footprint (EF/staff member) Tonnes CO2 per staff member Figure 3.1.1a shows Luton Borough Council is situated towards the midpoint of the sample with emissions of 5.6 tco 2 per staff member and an Ecological Footprint of 2.19 gha. No comparable benchmarks were available for total council spend. 1 BFF: Best Foot Forward Office 1: The headquarters of a specialist food company with 22 staff in Outer London Office 2: A government agency with 100 staff in a Central London office Office 3: A membership organisation with 4 offices and 200 staff, mostly in London Office 4: Global HQ of a major multinational, 2950 staff Office 5: Regional headquarters of a government agency with 260 staff Best Foot Forward,

27 3.2 Utilities Luton Borough Council utility usage accounted for 57% of total GHG emissions (tco 2 e), 58% of total CO 2 emissions (tco 2 ) and 40% of the Ecological Footprint. Utilities include energy and water consumption by Luton Borough Council as defined in Sections and Because the three indicators, GHG, CO 2 and EF agree, CO 2 is used as a headline indicator for utilities. Utilities contributed the most to all three Luton Borough Council footprints. They accounted for 57% of GHG and 58% of CO 2 emissions, and 40% of the Ecological Footprint. As all three indicators show a very similar results trend for utilities and therefore CO 2 is used as the headline indicator to illustrate the component results in Figure 3.2a below. Of the total utilities component, gas was consistently the most significant subcomponent accounting for 38% of GHG and 37% of CO 2 emissions, and 37% of the Ecological Footprint. This was closely followed by electricity consumption (excluding streetlights), accounting for 35% of all three indicators. Heating oil accounted for 22% of GHG and 23% of CO 2 emissions, and 23% of the Ecological Footprint. Table 3.2a shows the full set of results for utilities. It is worth noting that LBC buildings electricity accounted for 24% of the kwh consumption and 35% of the CO 2 emissions yet streetlight electricity accounted for 10% of the kwh consumption and 4% of the CO 2 emissions. The difference can be explained by the different suppliers contracted to supply this electricity (see box below on nuclear energy). Table 3.2a - Annual GHG and CO 2 emissions, and Ecological Footprint from LBC utilities (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) Units (kwh) Units (litres) GHG Footprint (tonnes CO 2 e) CO 2 Footprint (tonnes CO 2 ) Ecological Footprint (gha) Total 82,359, ,372,000 32,080,839 29,830,588 8,141 Gas 53,987,165 12,435,606 11,121,356 3,035 Electricity 19,921,826 11,165,747 10,472,406 2,858 Oil 2,600,000 7,110,269 6,952,400 1,897 Streetlights 8,450,500 1,157,594 1,085, Water 261,772, , , Best Foot Forward,

28 Fact or Fusion? Nuclear energy as a low carbon energy source Because electricity is produced by a variety of fuels, such as the burning of fossil fuels, the harvest of renewable energy or nuclear fusion, the carbon intensity of electricity can vary markedly from supplier to supplier. LBC building electricity is supplied by Scottish & Southern Energy, which as a company used 10.2% renewables in its fuel mix for electricity production in ElectricityInfo.org (2007 data) reports that Scottish & Southern Energy produces electricity at an average carbon intensity of kgco 2 /kwh, slightly higher than UK National Grid average emissions at 0.48 kgco 2 /kwh. According to the Digest of UK Energy Statistics, (BERR ) an additional 7.5% needs to be added to these estimates to account for losses during transmission of electricity across the National Grid. This results in a UK average of kgco 2 /kwh (DEFRA, ) and kgco 2 /kwh for Scottish & Southern Energy. It should be noted that the Carbon Reduction Commitment, which will drive large organisations to reduce emissions, ignores the source of the electricity and is based purely on consumption, using average grid carbon intensities per kwh. LBC streetlight electricity is supplied by British Energy, which is not a domestic energy supplier and therefore does not appear on ElectricityInfo.org. Instead information about British Energy s fuel mix was taken from The key difference with British Energy s fuel mix is that it is heavily reliant on nuclear power (it operates eight nuclear power stations and one coal fired power station). Total electricity produced was taken from British Energy s Indicators At A Glance 4 part of their CSR report 2006/07. The resulting emissions of this electricity production were taken from British Energy s Environment 5 section of their CSR Report 2006/07. Assuming the same 7.5% losses assumed for transmission over the National Grid, the emissions intensity of British Energy was calculated as 0.13 kgco 2 /kwh. All three indicators used in this study show nuclear energy to have a low carbon intensity. This is not an error with any of these indicators, but simply highlights that none address the typical environmental issues associated with nuclear energy, e.g. radioactive materials and risk. Or, in other words: If you are concerned about pollution and/or risk associated with nuclear energy, then the indicators used for this study do not ask the right questions; or If you only ask nuclear energy the questions posed by these indicators, then nuclear energy could be part of a solution for addressing climate change. 1 ElectricityInfo.org 1, accessed 8 th April para 5.66, page Best Foot Forward,

29 Figure 3.2a: Breakdown of the annual CO 2 emissions for LBC utilities use (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) Streetlights 4% Water 0.7% Oil 23% Gas 37% Electricity 35% If LBC building and streetlight electricity are accounted together, then electricity becomes the largest sub-component of utilities. As discussed in the Fact or Fusion? box above, the carbon intensity of electricity is variable between different suppliers. Table 3.2b illustrates the impact a switch of electricity supplier could have for LBC. The consumption of gas was the second biggest hitter from LBC activities utilities use when streetlight and buildings electricity were combined. There are fewer supplier-side options for addressing this impact than there are for electricity (i.e. switching supplier will not give any benefit according to the indicators used in this study as all gas is assumed to have the same carbon intensity when combusted on site). Other than the technology to deliver energy to LBC, options to reduce gas use mainly address consumption. For instance, the Town Hall study (Carbon Trust, 2007) found that gas consumption was benchmarked between Typical and Good Practice and recommended the Town Hall older Hamworthy gas boilers for replacement. In order to affect reductions in gas consumption similar studies and monitoring schemes will need to be implemented across the LBC estate to illuminate where the biggest savings for smallest effort can be made. These recommendations are beyond the scope of this high-level analysis. Best Foot Forward,

30 Figure 3.2b: Impact of switching electricity supplier on LBC s total GHG and CO 2 emissions, and Ecological Footprint (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) Electricity Supplier (incl. Streetlights) % of electricity generated from renewable sources Carbon intensity (kgco 2 /kwh) GHG (tonnes CO 2 e) CO 2 (tonnes CO 2 ) Ecological Footprint (gha) Percent changes in total LBC emissions if supplier was used for all electricity, incl. streetlights %CO 2 e %CO 2 %EF British Energy ,886,589 3,645, % -15% -11% British Gas ,433,062 11,661,026 3,182 0% 0% 0% Ecotricity ,285,258 9,646,591 2,633-4% -4% -3% EDF Energy ,575,691 16,484,321 4,499 9% 10% 7% Good Energy % -22% -15% npower/rwe ,666,443 16,569,438 4,522 10% 10% 7% Powergen ,242,933 16,172,226 4,413 9% 9% 6% Scottish & Southern Energy ,911,899 14,923,843 4,073 6% 6% 5% ScottishPower ,479,764 19,208,065 5,242 15% 15% 10% Ultilita ,974,126 14,044,301 3,833 5% 5% 3% 1 See 'Fact or Fusion?' Box for information about the low carbon intensity electricity of British Energy. 2 Although Ecotricity do not yet generate all of their electricity from renewable sources, they are a not-for-profit company who re-invest their entire financial surplus into building new renewable generation capacity; accordingly, the carbon intensity of their electricity continues to fall year-on-year. Best Foot Forward,

31 3.2.1 Utilities benchmarking Luton Borough Council s utilities consumption has been benchmarked by the Carbon Trust (2007) for the Town Hall. The report found that gas consumption was about typical whereas electricity consumption was a cause for concern, which led to an overall performance of poor. Figures 3.2.1a-3.2.1c compare the impact associated with LBC s total electricity and gas consumption per member of staff with other offices studied by BFF 1. 16,000 Figure 3.2.1a: Electricity and gas consumption benchmark (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) kwh per staff member 12,000 8,000 4,000 0 LBC BFF Example office 1 Example office 2 Example office 3 Example office 4 Example office 5 Electricity Use (kwh) Gas (kwh) 1 BFF: Best Foot Forward: Office 1: The headquarters of a specialist food company with 22 staff in Outer London; Office 2: A government agency with 100 staff in a Central London office; Office 3: A membership organisation with 4 offices and 200 staff, mostly in London; Office 4: National headquarters of international organisation, Outer London; Office 5: Regional headquarters of a government agency with 260 staff Best Foot Forward,

32 Figure 3.2.1b: Electricity consumption benchmarks (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) 10,000 9,000 kwh per staff member 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 LBC BFF Example office 1 Example office 2 Example office 3 Example office 4 Example office 5 Electricity Use (kwh) Figure 3.2.1c: Gas consumption benchmarks (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) 7,000 6,000 kwh per staff member 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 LBC BFF Example office 1 Example office 2 Example office 3 Example office 4 Example office 5 Gas (kwh) These benchmark comparisons show Luton Borough Council to be around average of the BFF sample organisations. In contrast to the Town Hall study, overall LBC s gas consumption is the key issue when addressing energy consumption. Figure 3.2.1d shows these benchmarks in CO 2 emissions as opposed to consumption. Best Foot Forward,

33 Figure 3.2.1d: Electricity and gas CO 2 emission benchmarks (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) 6 tco2 per staff member LBC BFF Example office 1 Example office 2 Example office 3 Example office 4 Example office 5 Electricity Use (tco2) Gas (tco2) Water footprints As shown in Figure 3.2a, water contributes little to the overall footprints measured in this analysis. This relatively low footprint arises from the energy used in the purification and transportation of mains water. No account is taken of the separate, but important, issue of water availability or the impact of scarce water supplies on biodiversity. To take account of these increasingly important issues, a new indicator, the water footprint 1, has been developed. It measures the total volume of freshwater that is used to produce the goods and services consumed by the individual or community. For example, the production of one kilogram of beef requires approximately 16 thousand litres of water, while to produce and transport the raw materials needed for one cup of coffee we currently use 140 litres of water. 1 Best Foot Forward,

34 3.2.2 The Carbon Reduction Commitment The Carbon Reduction Commitment Scheme (CRC) will apply mandatory emissions trading to cut carbon emissions from large commercial and public sector organisations. It covers around 10% of the UK economy wide emissions, and will provide incentives for organisations to save money through energy efficiency. For more information on how the Carbon Reduction Commitment will operate see the Appendices. Initial indications from data gathered as part of this analysis suggest that the Luton Borough Council estate will be covered by this new instrument: the total electricity use for known half-hourly metered properties in 2005/6 was 6,800 MWh. This is in excess of Carbon Reduction Commitment threshold of 6,000 MWh. As a result it is essential LBC put in place the staffing capacity to measure and report energy use and emissions for this scheme. It will also encourage local authorities to curb emissions or face additional costs The New Performance Framework for Local Authorities Luton Borough Council is also subject to an official system of benchmarking through the government s National Indicators (NI) these underpin the new performance framework. Whilst most address issues affecting the whole Local Authority (e.g. recycling rates) some indicators refer to the organisation itself. The climate-related ones include: NI 185 CO 2 reductions from local authority operations, and NI 188 Planning to Adapt to Climate Change The following pages set out the key issues surrounding these indicators and establishes what actions are needed by LBC to comply with reporting requirements and reach good performance. Best Foot Forward,

35 NI CO 2 reductions from local authority operations The aim of this indicator is to measure the progress of local authorities (LA) to reduce emissions from their operations which are under their control and to encourage them to demonstrate leadership on tackling climate change. Measurement against this indicator will require each LA calculate their emissions from analysis of energy bills. Carbon emissions are defined as the total amount of direct and indirect CO 2 emitted as a result of activities involved in the daily functions of LBC: Council Buildings Streetlights Leisure centres Schools Council vehicle fleet Employee commuting It should be noted that this indicator does not cover all Scope 3 emissions (only staff commuting) and so does not encourage reduced material consumption, better recycling or improved procurement policies. This is likely to mean councils focus attention on their Scope 1 and 2 emissions in order to meet this target. Data is to be provided annually by LBC using a standard spreadsheet tool published on the Defra website 1. The tool also calculates NO x and PM 10 emissions (NI 194). Data is needed in the following areas: Fuel and electricity use in buildings and streetlights energy amounts (kwh) and types by individual stationary sources. Figures for Gross Internal Area also needed for energy use benchmarking. NB Social housing is not to be included in this analysis. Transport Data required on distances travelled and vehicle types and/or fuel volumes used. Both commuter and business travel included. Action required by LBC to complete indicator analysis Completion of tool will require significant investment of LBC staff time. Travel data will require significant research into commuter behaviour an environmental impact which Luton has not quantified. No guidance is given on how to do this, but a travel survey using Department for Transport methods would be a possibility. Action required by LBC to achieve good performance Deliver year-on-year emissions reductions from council estate. 1 Best Foot Forward,

36 NI 188 Planning to Adapt to Climate Change This indicator was created to ensure local authority preparedness to manage risks to service delivery, the public, local communities, local infrastructure, businesses and the natural environment from a changing climate, and to make the most of new opportunities. The indicator measures progress on assessing and managing climate change risks and opportunities, and incorporating appropriate action into local authority and partners strategic planning. Local authorities should report the level of preparedness they have reached against the 5 levels of performance, graded 0 to 4. Action required by LBC to complete indicator analysis Assessment of current level by LBC staff. Action required by LBC to achieve good performance Year-on-year improvement in levels: Level 0: The authority has not assessed and managed climate risks and opportunities, or incorporated appropriate action into local authority strategic planning; Level 1: Public commitment and initial risk-based assessment; Level 2: Comprehensive risk-based assessment and prioritised action in some areas; Level 3: Comprehensive action plan and prioritised action in all priority areas; Level 4: Implementation, monitoring and continuous review. Following adoption of a Climate Change Strategy LBC will be Grade 1. Best Foot Forward,

37 3.3 Transport Luton Borough Council s Transport activities included Commuting and Business Travel and accounted for 32% of total GHG emissions (tco2e), 33% of total CO2 emissions (tco2) and 25% of the Ecological Footprint. Because the three indicators agree, CO 2 is used as a headline indicator for transport. Transport was the second most significant component of Luton Borough Council s activities, accounting for 32% of GHG and 33% of CO 2 emissions, and 25% of the Ecological Footprint. The transport component includes commuting to and from work by LBC staff and business travel for work purposes as defined by the LBC Organisational Boundary (Section 2.2.1) and Operational Boundary (Section 2.2.2). Overall, commuting was responsible for 81% of the transport CO 2 emissions and business travel for 19%. The reporting of Luton Borough Council s transport emissions is the most complex component to assign to ISO scopes. The use of scopes means that fuel use by company-operated vehicles are reported in Scope 1, whilst company-operated vehicle manufacture, maintenance and disposal, along with all commuting, are accounted in Scope 3. The transport component detail and associated impacts are shown in Table 3.3a and Figures 3.3a and 3.3b. Of the total transport component, car/van driver commuters produced by far the largest impact accounting for 70% of GHG and CO 2 emissions, and 69% of the Ecological Footprint. The second biggest hitter was the diesel fuel for LBC vehicles, accounting for 14% of GHG and CO 2 emissions, and 15% of the Ecological Footprint. Commuting by bus accounted for 5% across all three indicators, with car/van passenger commuters accounting for 4% of GHG and CO 2 emissions, and 3% of the Ecological Footprint. It is worth highlighting that commuting by walking or cycling has no impact across any of the three indicators as they are considered zero-carbon. This result is irrespective of the distance travelled by these modes. Best Foot Forward,

38 Table 3.3a: Annual GHG and CO 2 emissions, and Ecological Footprint LBC transport (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) Units (Pass km) GHG Footprint (tonnes CO 2 e) CO 2 Footprint (tonnes CO 2 ) Ecological Footprint (gha) Total N/A* 17,805 16,884 5,070 of which Business travel N/A* 3,497 3,287 1,062 Diesel Vehicles N/A* 2,412 2, Grey Fleet: 1201 to 1600 cc Petrol vehicles LPG Vehicles Grey Fleet: 1601 to 2000 cc Grey Fleet: Up to 1200 cc Grey Fleet: 2001 cc and above Electric Vehicles Commuting 69,056,454 14,307 13,598 4,008 Car/van driver 51,023,853 11,824 12,444 3,498 Bus 9,418, Car/van passenger 2,562, Train 3,767, Other 334, Motorbike 204, Walk 1,317, Cycle 427, Note: N/A* not available. LBC vehicle data submitted as litres of fuel used. Best Foot Forward,

39 A Sustainable Cycle The National Travel Survey collects and disseminates data on who, why, when and how people travel in the UK. Their Cycling Factsheet (DfT, 2007) 1 findings include: 43% of people aged 5 and over own a bicycle and a further 1% have use of a bicycle. Over two thirds (68%) of all trips and over half (58%) of car trips are under 5 miles, approximately a half hour cycle ride, and 37% of adults agree that 'Many of the short journeys I now make by car I could just as easily cycle, if I had a bike' (BSAS). If the 37% of willing adults who currently drive to work at LBC were to cycle instead, this could reduce commuting CO 2 emissions by almost 4,500 tco 2 per year, or 32%. To try before you buy, Company of Cyclists 2 runs The Cycle 50% Challenge. This enables commuters to try cycling to work with all equipment and advice supplied. To aid the 57% of people aged over 5 who do not own a bicycle, the Government has launched a Cycle to Work scheme, which enables employees who intend to use a bicycle for commuting to get a tax-free bike. Further details are available from one of the scheme s providers, Cyclescheme 3, with full details of all Government actions for cycling at: 4. Most of the commuting CO 2 emissions come from car driving commuters who account for some 87%. This release of CO 2 was the single most significant sub-component of the total transport analysis, accounting for 70% (see Table 3.3a). Any modal switch away from cars would reduce LBC s transport CO 2 emissions. The biggest reductions would be achieved by car drivers switching to walking or cycling Best Foot Forward,

40 Figure 3.3a: Breakdown of the annual CO 2 emissions for commuting by LBC staff (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) Other 0.7% Car/van passenger 4% Train 2% Walk 0% Motorbike 0.2% Bus 6% Cycle 0% Car/van driver 87% Figure 3.3b: Breakdown of the annual CO 2 emissions for business travel by LBC staff (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) Grey Fleet: 1601 to % Grey Fleet: Up to % Grey Fleet: 2001 and above 1.2% Electric Vehicles 0.1% LPG Vehicles 6% Petrol vehicles 7% Diesel Vehicles 70% Grey Fleet: 1201 to % Best Foot Forward,

41 Options for reducing transport CO 2 emissions can focus on technology the fuel and/or vehicle used and/or consumption the distance travelled. Of particular interest is that no public transport modes were reported for business travel for Luton Borough Council activities. Switching from private car to public transport is one option for reducing the impact associated with transport. Some starting points can be found in the recommendations section. An example of a successful technology reduction option is the Green-Link cycle courier service. The carbon impact of this scheme cannot be shown here due to the lack of distance data submitted (see Figure 3.3a). Zero emission couriers Prior to 2004, Luton relied on employees at key outstations located away from the Town Hall to collect and deliver post and internal mail, and on a courier service to deliver and collect internal mail for schools. Following a feasibility study and a pilot scheme between February and July 2004 by Company of Cyclists into the use of a cycle courier to perform these tasks, they continued to provide an ad-hoc service during the rest of In January 2005, the council formally set up the Green-Link cycle courier service, which included use of an electric van, to deliver to local schools. The remit currently includes deliveries for the council s Education and Social Services, and Housing and Community Living. However according to transport staff interviewed for this report its use is patchy and so could be further encouraged by LBC departments perhaps making their use a condition for certain types/urgency of dispatch. Diesel fuel accounts for 70% of the emissions from LBC business travel. One option for the reduction of this component is to source sustainable biodiesel such as biodiesel produced from waste vegetable oil, as reported by the Bedfordshire Green Business Network in December Further suggestions for reducing these emissions are given in the recommendations section. 1 Best Foot Forward,

42 Figure 3.3c Breakdown of the annual transport CO 2 emissions from LBC activities (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) Diesel Vehicles Grey Fleet: 1201 to 1600 Petrol vehicles LPG Vehicles Grey Fleet: 1601 to 2000 Grey Fleet: Up to 1200 Grey Fleet: 2001 and above Electric Vehicles Car/van driver Bus Car/van passenger Train Other Motorbike Walk Cycle The dominant vehicles used for Luton Borough Council activities are cars for both commuting and business travel. Driving a fuel-efficient or hybrid car can reduce emissions by around 40%. When the occupancy of a car is only one, the CO 2 emissions associated with that passenger will be reduced by over 70% if the transport mode is switched to bus, train or underground. Walking and cycling are the most carbon efficient modes of transport due to zero emissions when stationary or operating Commuter benchmarking Given the significance of Luton Borough Council s commuting, it is compared here with other organisations. Figures 3.3.1a and 3.3.1b compare the impact associated with commuting per member of staff at LBC and other offices studied by BFF 1. 1 BFF: Best Foot Forward Office 1: The headquarters of a specialist food company with 22 staff in Outer London Office 2: A government agency with 100 staff in a Central London office Office 3: A membership organisation with 4 offices and 200 staff, mostly in London Office 4: National headquarters of international organisation, Outer London Office 5: Regional headquarters of a government agency with 260 staff Best Foot Forward,

43 Figure 3.3.1a: Commuting distance benchmark (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 LBC BFF Example office 1 Example office 2 Example office 3 Example office 4 Example office 5 Commuter (km) Figure 3.3.1b: Commuting CO 2 benchmark (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) LBC BFF Example office 1 Example office 2 Example office 3 Example office 4 Example office 5 Commuter (tco2 per staff member) The results show that Luton Borough Council staff commute typical distances, yet have slightly higher than typical CO 2 emissions, compared to other organisation studied by BFF. The transport modes used for commuting by Luton Borough Council Best Foot Forward,

44 staff are contrasted against the average commuter modes of travel in Great Britain 1. Figure 3.3.1c is based on the total distance travelled by each mode of transport. Figure 3.3.1d: Relative use of different transport modes for commuting (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 6% 14% 3% 78% Current Commute 18% 4% 2% 76% Average UK Commuter methods Car Walking/Cycling Bus Train & Others As shown, Luton Borough Council has a slightly higher commuter car usage than the Great Britain average commuter, 78% of the total distance travelled against 76% of the average. Bus commuting accounted for 14% of the total distance travelled by LBC staff, compared to 4%. Walking and cycling had a slightly larger representation in LBC commuters than in the average, accounting for a 3%, compared to 2%. The site location is critical in influencing commuting modes, and travel plans must develop solutions on this basis. It is an unexpected finding to find car dependency so high for an urban centre, if most staff live in Luton. However, no commuting distance data was submitted by Luton Borough Council and national average commuting distances by mode were assumed. This is an area which Luton must collect data on in the future. 1 Department for transport:. Best Foot Forward,

45 London Luton Airport Air travel makes a growing contribution to climate change and currently accounts for 6.3 per cent of UK total carbon dioxide emissions. Projections show that at an annual growth rate of only half of that experienced by UK aviation in 2004, the aviation sector could account for 50% of permissible emissions in LBC is almost unique among English local authorities in its ownership of a major airport. London Luton Airport was excluded from this study as defined by the LBC Organisational Boundary (Section 2.2.1) and Operational Boundary (Section 2.2.2). However, the airport and air travel is a significant component of Luton life and some issues are further explored. The airport is of great economic significance, supporting over 8,000 jobs locally. It also provides a significant income for the council in 2007, it accounted for 2% of income (c. 9m). As a result, any restriction on airport growth would have financial implications. In 2007, 9.94 million passengers used London Luton Airport. Some 93% of passengers were flying on scheduled services and 85% of passengers were on international flights. As a regional airport, over three quarters of passengers were from the South East and East of England in particular Greater London (33%). CO 2 emissions from aircraft movements in the Luton Airport neighbourhood Using records of airline movements from the airport s Annual Monitoring Report 2006 and known fuel consumptions of different aeroplane models it is possible to calculate that more than 100,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide were emitted during the taxiing, takeoff, initial climb-out and landing of aeroplanes from the ten largest operators at London Luton Airport. To put this in context, this is nearly twice the total GHG footprint of Luton Borough Council as calculated in this study and almost six times its transport GHG footprint. If total aircraft movements were to more than double and reach 240,000 per annum as was supported by the 2003 White Paper The Future of Air Transport in the UK, then it is likely these emissions would rise proportionately. Using airport profits for environmental good One way of using airport income for environmental good and so offset or compensate for a proportion of emissions would be to set up a Revolving Energy Fund (REF) to finance increased investment in energy efficiency measures in the Council. To do this a capital fund is established with money from the airport to invest in energy and water efficiency projects that will provide future energy cost savings. Then, in future budgets, these savings are allocated to the REF so that the money can be reinvested in further energy efficiency projects. Through this process, a REF can grow and allow councils to pursue energy saving projects that might not be funded through standard budget processes. Projects focussed on emission-reductions could also address renewable energy provision. 1 Best Foot Forward,

46 3.4 Purchases and Waste Luton Borough Council s material procurement and waste activities included short and long-life purchases as well as waste and recycling. These activities accounted for 10% of total GHG emissions (tco 2 e), 10% of total CO 2 emissions (tco 2 ), but 19% of the Ecological Footprint. The three indicators show general agreement across the component, but both CO 2 e and EF vary from CO 2 at specific points. At these points, all three indicators will be graphically presented. Materials procurement and waste management was the third most environmentally significant of Luton Borough Council s activities, accounting for 10% of GHG and CO 2 emissions, and 19% of the Ecological Footprint. This component includes: short-life purchases, such as toner cartridges; long-life purchases, such as computer equipment; waste, such as paper (which is recycled, composted or landfilled). Overall, in terms of CO 2 emissions short-life purchases were responsible for 15%, long-life purchases 11%, recycled waste 19%, compost 0.1% and mixed landfilled waste 66%. This component was the most complex in terms of avoiding double counting. For example, if paper was bought in an accounting year and then recycled within that same accounting year, there is the possibility of accounting the same paper, twice once when purchased and once when recycled (See Assumptions in Appendix A). The purchases and waste component detail and associated impacts are shown in Figures 3.4a and 3.4b. Purchases data was submitted as the Top 10 items by weight for both short-life and long-life items. In addition, long-life purchases were submitted as a typical annual purchase year so no adjustments were made to account for the lifespan of items. This data gives no indication of the proportion of Luton Borough Council s total purchases represented. Waste data is regularly collected and reported by LBC and therefore assumed more robust and representative of the bigger waste picture. Best Foot Forward,

47 Table 3.4a: Annual GHG and CO 2 emissions, and Ecological Footprint from the purchases and waste of Luton Borough Council activities (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) Sub-component Units (kg) GHG Footprint (kg CO 2 e) CO 2 Footprint (kg CO 2 ) Ecological Footprint (gha) Total purchases & waste 3,001,008 5,777 4,958 3,803 of which Total purchases 86, of which Short-life Purchases 57, Toner Cartridges 28, Cleaning Products 29, Light Bulb Long-life Purchases 29, Computer monitors 3, Desktop Computers 7, Computer Servers 3, Laptops Chairs 3, Fridges Mobile Phones Small Desktop printers 3, Filing Cabinet 2, Large Network Printers 1, Desk Fax Machines Television Wallpaper Telephone Data Projectors Total waste 2,914,080 4,855 4,212 3,574 of which Waste Recycled 936,000 1, Recyclables: Paper 619, Recyclables: Card 237, Recyclables: Plastic 56, Recyclables: Aluminium 6, Recyclables: Steel 18, Waste to Compost 224, Compost 224, Waste to Landfill 1,753,438 3,739 3,266 3,262 Mixed waste Landfilled 1,753,438 3,739 3,266 3,262 Best Foot Forward,

48 Figure 3.4a: Annual CO 2 emissions from LBC materials procurement (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) carbon dioxide (tco 2) Toner Cartridges Cleaning Products Light Bulb Desktop Computers Computer monitors Computer Servers Laptops Chairs Fridges Mobile Phones Small Desktop Filing Cabinet Desk Large Network Television Fax Machines Wallpaper Telephone Data Projectors Short-life Purchases Long-life Purchases Figure 3.4b: Annual CO 2 emissions from the waste of LBC activities (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) Recyclables: Paper 12% Recyclables: Card 6% Other 22% Recyclables: Plastic 3% Recyclables: Aluminium 0.2% Recyclables: Steel 0.2% Waste to Landfill 78% Waste to Compost 0.1% Best Foot Forward,

49 Of the total purchase and waste component, mixed waste to landfill was by far the most significant, accounting for 65% of GHG and 66% of CO 2 emissions, and 86% of the Ecological Footprint. The impact of this component was influenced by the amount of waste and the composition of that waste. Whereas recycled waste was disaggregated by material type, no such information was available for mixed waste sent to landfill. This was assumed to be typical commercial waste, which constitutes a large portion of paper (See Assumptions in Appendix A). The second most significant component was recyclables: paper, accounting for 10% of GHG and CO 2 emissions, and 4% of the Ecological Footprint. Because of the recycled nature of this component, it did not show a significant difference in the three indicator trend analyses. This suggests that the main driver behind this component being so significant is the sheer volume of recycled paper being processed by LBC. Purchasing and waste recycling to reduce your Ecological Footprint: Organic materials like paper, card and wood have a relatively significant Ecological Footprint. Using recycled paper and card, and reused wood products could reduce significantly the GHG and CO 2 emissions, and Ecological Footprint. Options for reducing purchases and waste CO 2 emissions can focus on technology the source of the item, whether it is recycled or reused and/or consumption how much is consumed. Of particular interest is that the most significant component cannot be identified beyond mixed waste sent to landfill. One basic recommendation for tackling this component is to improve data collection and monitoring of the physical flow of materials through the organisation. The premise behind this is if you don t measure it, you can t manage it. Best Foot Forward,

50 Indicator Trends for purchases and waste Trend comparisons of the three indicators, CO 2, GHG and EF, for the purchases and waste component highlighted some differences for a few of the items in particular. Examples of these differences are presented in Figures 3.4c-3.4f, which illustrate issues highlighted by both the GHG and EF indicators for long-life purchases and waste. Figure 3.4c Annual GHG and CO 2 emissions, and the Ecological Footprint of the Purchases of a selection of Long-Life items for Luton Borough Council activities (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) CO2 (C tonnes), GHG (Ce tonnes) and EF (gha) Desktop Computers EF (gha) CO2e (Ce tonnes) CO2 (C tonnes) Computer monitors Computer Servers CO2e (Ce): Computer Monitors Laptops Chairs The biggest variation from the long-life purchases CO 2 indicator by the GHG indicator was for computer monitors (179%). This variation highlights that non-carbon greenhouse gases are an additional issue, which affects not only computer monitors, but also laptops (148%), printers (138%), fax machines (125%) and telephones (121%). Previous work by BFF has identified methane and SF 6 to be particular issues during the manufacture of LCD computer monitors 1. 1 A key source identified during the previous analysis was the US EPA study Desktop Computer Displays A Life-Cycle Assessment, available at Best Foot Forward,

51 Figure 3.4d: GHG and CO 2 emissions and Ecological Footprint of a selection of long-life items (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) CO2 (C tonnes), GHG (Ce tonnes) and EF (gha) EF (gha) CO2e (Ce tonnes) CO2 (C tonnes) EF (gha): Wallpaper Fridges Mobile Phones Filing Cabinet Desk Large Network Printers Television Fax Machines Small Desktop printers Wallpaper Telephone Data Projectors The biggest variation from the CO 2 indicator by the EF indicator was for wallpaper (589%). This highlights that bioproductive resources are an additional issue, which affects not only wallpaper, but also desks (161%). For wallpaper and desks, the issue is the forest area required to provide the wood and paper. LBC submitted no data that indicated if any wallpaper purchased was made from recycled paper. Figure 3.4e: GHG and CO 2 emissions, and Ecological Footprint of recycled and composted waste (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) CO2 (C tonnes), GHG (Ce tonnes) and EF (gha) Recyclables: Paper Recyclables: Card EF (gha) CO2e (Ce tonnes) CO2 (C tonnes) Recyclables: Plastic EF (gha): Recyclable Card Recyclables: Aluminium CO2e (Ce): Compost Recyclables: Steel Compost Best Foot Forward,

52 The biggest variation from the recycled and composted waste CO 2 indicator by the EF indicator was for recyclables: card (152%). This highlights again the additional issue of bioproductive resources, which affects not only recyclables: card, but also compost (144%). The biggest variation from the recycled and composted waste CO 2 indicator by the GHG indicator was compost (1409%), which highlights the importance of noncarbon greenhouse gases for this item. In this case, the issue is methane, which has a global warming potential 23 times that of carbon dioxide (IPCC, ). Figure 3.4f: Annual GHG and CO 2 emissions, and the Ecological Footprint of Mixed Waste Landfilled from Luton Borough Council activities (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) CO2 (C tonnes), GHG (Ce tonnes) and EF (gha) 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, EF (gha) CO2e (Ce tonnes) CO2 (C tonnes) EF (gha): CO2e (Ce): Mixed waste Landfilled This biggest hitter of the purchases and waste component was mixed waste landfilled (Figure 3.4f), which showed variation from the CO 2 indicator by the EF (366%) indicator. The assumed composition of mixed commercial waste constitutes a large portion of paper and card, where the use of forest for wood production accounts for the EF variation. 1 Best Foot Forward,

53 Sustainable Procurement There is currently no Luton-specific Sustainable Procurement Policy a generic Procura+ document is available on the council website. The LBC Procurement Strategy 2007/8 briefly addresses sustainability issues and acknowledges work is required in this area by the council including training of staff and benchmarking. In fact LBC s whole procurement strategy is due to be redrafted and sustainability will be a major theme of the new document. In addition, the council are at the early stages of developing a training programme around sustainable procurement with Action Sustainability, a social enterprise in Camden. LBC also sits on the National Sustainable Procurement Stakeholders Group. Under the guidance of the Global to Local Foundation, all local authorities on the group have completed a questionnaire about their purchasing activities. The findings should inform future LBC policy. The following case studies highlight good practice being carried out by other urban local authorities: The London Borough of Croydon has implemented an environmental procurement policy to ensure that the authority optimises the environmental benefits of purchasing decisions. The policy is being communicated across the authority from senior level through to an Environment Forum which includes a senior officer from every department. The following text was also inserted in the tender documents, which bidders need to follow: As part of the Environmental Procurement Policy the Contractor will be expected to ask for use of recycled materials wherever feasible. Contractors should get quotes for standard materials and recycled material alternatives on all possible occasions. The Contractor is to consider other areas to maximise environmental performance by seeking high standards in: the re-use of materials; energy efficiency and renewable energy; water conservation; regard to BREEAM standards. The London Borough of Sutton runs training sessions about their Environmental Purchasing Policy. A key part of training is to consider the contract-specific environmental aspects and whether an environmental impact assessment is needed. The borough also ran two workshops for suppliers. A local business network operated these events, which comprised tutorials and interactive sessions. The attendees were given the option of one day s free consultancy as a follow-up. The workshops were attended by over 20 firms and were regarded as a success. The London Borough of Lewisham wanted to go beyond supporting renewable energy through its purchases, and move to enhancing the renewable market. A partnership agreement has been formulated to supply electricity on a 12+ year contract, from a named wind farm. Any shortfall is made up by the supply of equivalent Climate Change Levy exempt green electricity, and any over-supply can be sold onto the market. Providing a guarantee of electricity consumption by the local authority would enable additional investment to be found for development of wind turbines and there could be a discount for the authority. Best Foot Forward,

54 An e-government Truth Recent research by Best Foot Forward for the Department of Communities and Local Government into the carbon footprint of five services provided by an urban local authority has shown substantial carbon savings can be achieved through the provision of well-designed online services. The study included the CO2 emissions associated with those aspects of the five council services which could conceivably be reduced (or increased) by a shift to online provision. This includes paper use, travel to council offices by service users, and server electricity use. It also includes an estimated hourly CO2 impact of the energy and materials required to support a member of office staff (electricity, heating, stationery, office equipment, commuting, etc). The total CO2 emissions from the data obtained in the study are shown in the table below, along with the estimated potential savings from a set of scenarios with a greater use of online systems (see report 1 for details of the scenarios). Table 3.4b: Total carbon footprint of selected council services, and savings associated with different online scenarios (kg of CO2) Service Current Annual CO2 Online Scenario CO2 Annual Saving Annual Saving (%) % of Total Saving Planning 29,319 24,676 4,643 16% 6% Schools 10,519 5,822 4,697 45% 6% Registrar 43,684 30,876 12,808 29% 16% Env. Services 20,026 11,181 8,845 44% 11% Council Tax 180, ,179 48,439 27% 61% TOTAL 284, ,734 79,432 28% 100% Well-designed online services properly integrated with day-to-day staff activities and the needs of service users were found to have a much better chance of creating carbon savings; these measures were also more likely to be successful if incorporated into a wider carbon management plan. A shift to online council services equivalent to the scenarios studied in the report, rolled out across the whole of England, could save between 11,915 and 14,457 tonnes of CO2 per annum. This is equivalent to the average annual domestic energy use of between 1,900 and 2,300 UK households. 1 Best Foot Forward,

55 3.5 Food Luton Borough Council s food consumption included fresh fruit and vegetables and dry food, and accounted for 0.5% of total GHG emissions (tco 2 e), 0.2% of total CO 2 emissions (tco 2 ), and 0.5% of the Ecological Footprint. The CO 2 and GHG indicators show general agreement across the component, except for Dry Food, but the EF indicator varies from the other two for most items. At these points, the relevant indicators will be graphically presented. Luton Borough Council s Food consumption accounted for 0.5% of GHG and 0.2% of CO 2 emissions, and 0.5% of the Ecological Footprint. This component includes fresh fruit and vegetables and dry food including tea bags, sugar and baked beans. Overall, fresh fruit and vegetables were responsible for 53% and dry food 47% of the CO 2 emissions. This component is unusual for organisation studies and not normally included. However, comparisons throughout this study used the complete results, due to the insignificance of the component, The minimal contribution of the food component is of particular interest. The EF indicator is sensitive to direct land use, whilst the GHG indicator is sensitive to certain agricultural production methods. Therefore, although for different reasons, both the GHG and EF indicators are sensitive to food consumption. In addition, 52% of LBC staff work in schools and work by BFF for the Field Studies Council found that food accounted for between 19% and 25% of a total school s CO 2 emissions 1. The LBC Fruit and Veggie Box LBC s fruit and vegetable supplier, Histon Produce, have a strong awareness of sustainability issues and sourced as much as possible locally. The company produces a weekly chart showing which items are imported, so schools can adjust their purchasing patterns to eat seasonal vegetables. Previous work by Best Foot Forward 2 highlighted, that according to the CO 2 and EF indicators, the food production method used is a significant component of the total life cycle impact. The relationship of all three indicators for LBC s food consumption is discussed in detail below. Unfortunately, no data about Histon Practice sources were available for this analysis For example, see the Northern Ireland Food Scenario, part of the Northern Limits report. Best Foot Forward,

56 Table 3.5a: Annual GHG and CO 2 emissions, and Ecological Footprint from LBC food consumption (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) Units (kg) GHG Footprint (tonnes CO 2 e) CO 2 Footprint (tonnes CO 2 ) Ecological Footprint (gha) Total 305, of which Fresh Fruit and Vegetables 277, Tomatoes 29, Potatoes 79, Orange 48, Cabbage 21, Lettuce 11, Apple 32, Cucumbers 5, Onion 30, Cauliflower 3, Carrots 16, Dry Food 27, Food (dry) 27, Figure 3.5a: Annual CO 2 emissions from LBC food consumption (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) Tomatoes 15% Orange 9% Potatoes 8% Lettuce 6% Cabbage 5% Apple 4% Cucumbers 3% Onion 1% Food (dry) 42% Carrots 1% Cauliflower 1% Best Foot Forward,

57 The most striking feature of this component is the indicator values per consumption of the main food types, i.e. fresh fruit and vegetables and food (dry). Food (dry) for example, accounts for 9% of the total food consumed, whilst accounting for 71% of GHG and 47% of CO 2 emissions, and 30% of the Ecological Footprint. These findings are shown in Figure 3.5b. Figure 3.5b: Annual GHG and CO 2 emissions, and the Ecological Footprint of LBC fresh fruit, vegetables and dry food consumption (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) tonne of food, CO2 tonnes, GHG tonnes and gha Fresh Fruit and Vegetables: Dry Food: tonnes CO2 (tonnes) CO2e (tonnes) EF (gha) Best Foot Forward,

58 Indicator Trends for Food Trend comparisons of the three indicators, CO 2, GHG and EF, for the food component highlighted a variety of differences for many of the items consumed. These differences are presented in Figures 3.5c-3.5.d, which illustrate issues highlighted by both the GHG and EF indicators. Figure 3.5c: GHG and CO 2 emissions, and the Ecological Footprint of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable consumption of Luton Borough Council activities (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) CO2 (C tonnes), GHG (Ce tonnes) and EF (gha) Tomatoes Orange Potatoes EF (gha) Ce (tonnes) C (tonnes) EF (gha): Cabbage CO2e (Ce): Cabbage Lettuce Cabbage Apple Cucumbers Onion Cauliflower Carrots The biggest variation from the fresh fruit and vegetable CO 2 indicator by the EF indicator was for apples (1056%). This variation highlights bioproductive resources are an additional issue, which affects not only apples, but all the fruit and vegetable crops. Unsurprisingly, the issue is the land required to produce the fruit and vegetable crops. UK average agricultural methods (Lillywhite et al ), including glasshouses, were assumed for various fruit and vegetable crops. The assumed glasshouse crops, tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuce, show a lower EF variation (139%). This shows that glasshouse production increases both energy use (CO 2 indicator) and yield, the latter leading to a reduced land use. 1 FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=wq0101&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=1 0#Description Best Foot Forward,

59 Field crops, such as cabbage, cauliflowers, onions and carrots show a higher EF variation (carrots 771%, cabbage and cauliflowers 859% and onions 978%). This highlights both the lower energy use, but also the lower yield for these crops, which leads to a greater emphasis on the cropland. The biggest variation from the fresh fruit and vegetable CO 2 indicator by the GHG indicator was for cabbage and cauliflower (167%). This variation highlights that noncarbon greenhouse gases are an additional issue, which affects not only cabbage and cauliflower, but also onions (132%). Previous work by BFF has identified the issue to be N 2 O emissions from fertiliser use. Figure 3.5d Annual GHG and CO 2 emissions, and the Ecological Footprint of the Food (dry) consumption of Luton Borough Council activities (Base Year, 60 calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) This biggest hitter of the food component was food (dry), which showed variations from the CO 2 indicator by both the GHG and EF indicators. The biggest variation was for the GHG indicator (310%). Previous work by BFF (Lillywhite et al ) has identified the GHG methane and N 2 O to be particular issues for agriculture. The EF variation (183%) reflects the importance of direct land use for the production of food crops in general. CO2 (C tonnes), GHG (Ce tonnes) and EF (gha) EF (gha) Ce (tonnes) C (tonnes) EF (gha): Food (dry) Food (dry) CO2e (Ce): Food (dry) 1 FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=wq0101&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=1 0#Description Best Foot Forward,

60 3.6 Land Use Luton Borough Council s land use activities included built land (e.g. for schools and offices) as well as woodland. It was excluded from the GHG and CO 2 indicators but accounted for 16% of the Ecological Footprint. The CO 2 and GHG indicators were not valid indicators for this component. As a result the EF indicator was used as the headline indicator for land use. This study does not included sinks or removals of emissions from the atmosphere and as a result, the CO 2 and GHG indicators do not account this component. However, DEFRA report a CO 2 estimate for each UK local authority. The DEFRA estimates for the Luton Borough Council area are given in Table 3.6a below. Table 3.6a: Luton Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) CO 2 emissions and sinks (DEFRA, 2005) Local Authority and Government Office Region Luton kgco 2 /capita tco 2 Total of which LULUCF Emissions: Agricultural Soils And Deforestation LULUCF Emissions: Other 13 2,341 LULUCF Removals -12-2,180 Table 3.6a shows that land in Luton releases and absorbs carbon dioxide. Due to the balance of land types in Luton, these exchanges result in a net emission of carbon dioxide of 1 kg CO 2 /capita. The Ecological Footprint includes land use, as it is a bioproductive resource. As one of the assumptions within the EF indicator method, built land is assumed to occupy former cropland. The land use component detail and associated impacts are shown in Figures 3.6b. Best Foot Forward,

61 Table 3.6b: The annual Ecological Footprint from LBC land use (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) Land Use ha EF (gha) EF % Total 565 3, % of which Built (Total) 421 2,453 75% School Built land % Woodland % Figure 3.6a: The annual Ecological Footprint from LBC land use (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07) School Built land 23% Built (Total) 75% Woodland 2% The most striking feature of this component is the indicator values per consumption of the land uses. Built (total) for example, occupies 421 hectares, whilst accounting for an Ecological Footprint of 2,453 global hectares this is because built land is assumed to be ex-arable land in all cases. Best Foot Forward,

62 4 Recommendations to reduce GHG emissions When considering what action to take to reduce the GHG and CO 2 emissions, and the Ecological Footprint of LBC, it is important to take two factors into account: The scale of each individual impact, and How much control and influence Luton Borough Council has over that impact. While it is of course important to focus on the big hitters, those actions which offer quick wins or are important in encouraging further change should not be ignored. This section presents some suggested starting points for reducing the GHG, CO 2 and EF indicators of different components of Luton Borough Council s activities. These are initial ideas born out of the analyses described earlier and a thorough officer review is recommended to assess their scheduling, practicality and feasibility in the light of LBC s existing policies and plans. They are presented in order of significance: 1. Utility usage (i.e. electricity, gas & oil in all buildings) 2. Staff commuting 3. Procurement and waste management 4. Business travel The nature of this top level analysis means that emissions recommendations for individual buildings are not possible, but should be developed internally. All recommendations presented are essential; however the most urgent ones are marked with red tabs and should be addressed as soon as possible. Best Foot Forward,

63 4.1 Recommendations summary The key messages distilled from the analysis of LBC s activities are: LBC staffing capacity for co-ordinating internal and external climate change related work is insufficient and needs to be addressed urgently. It is understood that budget has been set aside for this. Similarly, specific responsibility for climate change work needs to be assigned to an elected member and senior manager. Each directorate should also have a climate change champion. A number of essential documents require creation or enhancement to enable effective carbon management: Corporate Energy Policy; Green Travel Plan; Sustainable Procurement Policy; Transport Environmental Policy. Carbon reduction targets and policies are missing from all relevant LBC documents. The findings of this study should be used as platform to fast-track the embedding of climate-related policies and actions in existing and future LBC documents (see above). An over-arching Climate Change Strategy adapted from the results and recommendations of this report should pull together these areas and set overall emissions reductions targets agreed by key staff. Luton Borough Council will meet the threshold for inclusion in the new Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) and will face financial penalties if it does not reduce emissions from energy use. This should focus initial carbon reduction efforts on gas and electricity use the area also highlighted by this study as the largest contributor of greenhouse gases. Data availability and reporting for future emissions analyses required under National Indicator 185 and the CRC needs to be improved in all areas. As part of improving procedures relevant staff must be assigned responsibility for gathering and reporting on this data to a Climate Change Officer. As utilities accounts for 57% of LBC GHG emissions, full support must be given to the ongoing development of a corporate energy policy. This document must draw wide boundaries and include all areas of council function e.g. schools and care homes, or it will fail to address the most energy-hungry council areas. A review of LBC data on energy benchmarking of buildings has highlighted huge potential to decrease energy use across the whole of the council estate. In particular focus should be on sector-specific projects i.e. schools and homes. Further work is needed to assess the commuting behaviour of all LBC staff which is currently unknown. This data will improve emissions calculations and help guide initiatives to reduce car dependency. Best Foot Forward,

64 A waste audit of LBC departments/buildings is needed to get higher resolution information on recycling rates and the composition of landfill waste. This will highlight opportunities for improved waste management within the LBC estate. Simple adjustments to business travel expense forms will enable better measurement and management of these emissions. Recommendations from a recent Energy Saving Trust report on LBC vehicles should be implemented. Neighbourhood emissions from flights landing and taking off from London Luton Airport were calculated to be almost twice that of LBC s whole estate. Although LBC does not have operational control of the airport, as the owner it could use dividends to compensate for these emissions through the support of council and/or wider community renewable energy provision and energy efficiency projects. Best Foot Forward,

65 4.2 Staffing capacity Finding No LBC staff responsible for co-ordinating internal and external climate change work Proposal Create full-time post of Climate Change Officer or similar 1 Rationale Responding to climate change through mitigation and adaptation is a massive undertaking cutting across multiple departments and areas of operation. Addressing these issues requires the complete attention of at least one full-time staff member Finding The overall quality of LBC s environmental data was assessed as medium, with many areas lacking e.g. knowledge of procurement across the organisation and commuting habits of staff. Proposal Assign staff to implement data collection and reporting framework to feed into LA emissions tools from Defra 1 and Carbon Trust 2. Rationale Reliable monitoring and data collection is essential. Without good quality measurement, action planning is likely to be poorly focused, target-setting problematic and progress difficult to determine. Finding Climate change not explicit responsibility of elected Luton Borough Council cabinet member or senior manager Proposal Make climate change responsibility of cabinet member and senior manager in executive Rationale Effective climate change work needs support and championing at the highest levels of local government Finding Climate change is not championed within different directorates Proposal Each directorate should have climate change champion consider giving award for climate change champion of the year? Climate change should also feature on meeting agendas where suitable. Rationale Climate change work cuts across all local authority departments and so needs broad support Finding There is no official staff training on climate change issues Proposal Provide training for new and existing staff on climate change and how they can make a difference Rationale Everyday decisions and behaviour across the council will affect its emissions. In particular raise awareness of alternative commuting options and simple energy efficiency and recycling measures. Senior managers should also be trained in implications of Carbon Reduction Commitment and National Indicator Best Foot Forward,

66 4.3 LBC policy 6 Finding No explicit targets for cutting GHG emissions in any internal or external LBC policies Proposal Set target for year-on-year reductions in corporate emissions based in international and national climate change targets. Rationale Carbon reduction targets need to be mainstreamed into all relevant LBC policy documents especially energy, transport and procurement. There is no agreed approach for setting targets at an organisational level although nationally there are commitments to reduce emissions by 12.5% by 2010 (under the Kyoto Protocol), 26-32% by 2020 and at least 60 % by 2050 (Draft Climate Change Bill, 2007), all from 1990 baseline levels 1. If the 60% figure 2050 is adopted, then Luton Borough Council can start to achieve modest targets of c. 2-3% cuts per annum which will form a trajectory of low carbon operations over the coming decades. Preferable, Luton Borough Council should commit to maximum reductions in key areas as soon as possible in recognition that early emission reductions are more valuable in the fight against climate change. Finding Climate change adaptation not addressed in LBC policies Proposal Undertake climate change adaptation risk assessment of all council functions e.g. transport using UK Climate Impacts Programme tools 7 Rationale Climate change will affect the functioning of all council departments and requires objective assessment so that policies can be adjusted to allow for adaptation of LBC operations. 8 Findings Neighbourhood emissions of flights to and from London Luton Airport (which is owned but not managed by LBC) emit almost twice as much carbon dioxide as the whole of the LBC estate. The airport is expanding and most passengers do not use local public transport. Proposal Set-up a Revolving Energy Fund with seed money from Luton Airport dividend to start a rolling programme of energy efficiency measures across key areas of LBC estate. Rationale Air travel contributes a significant and growing volume of the UK s greenhouse gases. By using a proportion of the dividend received from London Luton Airport, LBC could offset these emissions and be seen to use this money for environmental good. 1 Best Foot Forward,

67 4.4 Utilities (gas, electricity and oil) Utilities are responsible for 57% of all LBC GHG emissions Finding No energy management strategy for whole of LBC estate Proposal Produce LBC energy management strategy with boundaries set as wide as possible (i.e. to include buildings which are under arms length control of council e.g. schools and sport centres) 9 Rationale Energy use is the largest contributor to LBC s GHG footprint. To effectively collect data and target efficiency programmes a comprehensive strategy and action plan need to be in place which clearly defines which buildings are included and who is the energy contact within each building/department. Finding LBC will probably be covered by new Carbon Reduction Commitment Proposal Assign responsibility for co-ordinating response to Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) reporting requirements. Audit all buildings for exact of half-hourly meters. 10 Rationale Co-ordinating the council s response to the Carbon Reduction Commitment will be key part of meeting emissions targets. LBC s inclusion in the mandatory scheme is dependant on resolving uncertainties over extent of half-hourly meters in LBC estate and actual electricity consumption in 2007/8. See Appendices for more background information on the CRC Finding No procedures in place for ongoing emissions analysis for reporting against National Indicators and Carbon Reduction Commitment Proposal Climate Change Officer to use Carbon trust Local Authority carbon emissions tool: Rationale With increased capacity, LBC staff should be able to undertake emissions analyses using this tool. This analysis can be used to report annual changes in emissions from commuting, energy use, business travel, materials consumption and waste management. Data gathered for this tool can be used to also report against National Indicator 185 (CO 2 reduction from Local Authority operations) which requires only specific energy usage data. Finding There was incomplete/conflicting energy data and benchmarking information supplied for this analysis Proposals Consolidate efforts to benchmark all council estate gas, electricity and oil usage and check data/benchmarking consistency. Use updated ratings to target first round of energy efficiency projects at specific sectors/building types. Rationale Ongoing measurement of energy use by building type is key to focusing efficiency improvements and awareness raising Best Foot Forward,

68 Utilities recommendations (continued) Finding No LBC Energy Management Group (or similar) Proposal Set-up group with representatives from all key council functions, e.g.: offices & depots; schools; care homes; community centres etc. to support development of sector/building specific programmes and targets for emissions reductions. Rationale Different departments will have different energy demands so advice will need to be tailored. Setting up a group with representatives from the key council areas will allow best practice to be shared. Group can also cascade energy efficiency initiatives/training. Finding Limited LBC capacity to provide energy advice & support externally Proposal Increase capacity to support LBC Energy Manager and Fuel Poverty staff in the provision of energy advice internally AND externally (with the support of partners e.g. Energy Savings Trust). Rationale It is important to raise awareness of energy conservation to town residents, workers and businesses. This should be achieved through: monitoring and targeting site-specific energy and water consumption; carrying out energy audits and giving conservation advice; producing energy site reports; maintaining and disseminating energy and water conservation promotional material. Finding Funding is currently limited for energy efficiency measures Proposal Use Salix Finance to fund energy efficiency measures. Rationale Salix Finance (an independent, not-for-profit company set up by the Carbon Trust) secures the delivery of practical carbon saving projects in the public sector, through suitable financial vehicles. They primarily provide interest-free, matched funding, structured so that the energy savings pay the total fund back over time. Finding No climate-friendly procurement policy for electronic goods Proposal Embed energy efficiency and carbon reduction measures in procurement policy for electrical equipment 16 Rationale LBC spend a significant amount of money every year on electrical goods for offices, homes and community buildings. By specifying the performance of key goods e.g. computer screens, overall energy demand can be reduced. Best Foot Forward,

69 Utilities recommendations (continued) Finding Carbon Trust report on Town Hall energy use gives building-specific advice and recommendations Proposals Implement recommendations of Carbon Trust energy report. Undertake similar analyses across LBC estate 17 Rationale This study analyses emissions and proposes recommendations at the macro level. Future building-specific analyses must be done to target energy efficiency investment. Energy audits could be done internally by competent staff or externally by independent advisers Findings Buildings electricity is supplied by Scottish & Southern (whose energy mix is 10.2% renewables). Streetlight electricity is supplied by British Energy (who have a high dependence on nuclear energy). Proposals Switch electricity supply to company with lower carbon intensity (see www. electricityinfo.org) and Table 3.2b. Develop green procurement policy on whether to purchase nuclearderived electricity. Rationale Although LBC are purchasing Climate Change Levy exempt electricity from Scottish & Southern (S&S) BFF accounting rules apply average carbon emissions per kwh for each energy supplier. Changing supplier can be viewed as an easy way of reducing organisational emissions but it should be not seen as a way of ignoring widespread inefficiencies in consumption. It should be noted that the Carbon Reduction Commitment, which will drive large organisations to reduce emissions, ignores the source of the electricity and is based purely on consumption, using average UK grid carbon intensities per kwh. Finding There is limited external and internal communication of LBC emissions and energy efficiency performance Proposals Display historic greenhouse gas emissions data & benchmarks prominently in all buildings over 500m 2. Consider producing league table of benchmarked energy use and/or emissions by department for internal use. Consider financial incentives for meeting emissions reduction targets based on these analyses. Rationale New European legislation will require that energy certificates are displayed in public authority buildings with a total useful area greater than 1000m 2. By extending this labeling to include smaller buildings and historic carbon emissions, LBC will show its commitment to climate change and help promote changes in staff behaviour. These communication documents should be relatively easy to output from monitoring spreadsheets. Best Foot Forward,

70 4.5 Staff commuting Staff commuting accounts for 26% of all LBC GHG emissions LBC must show leadership here if it is to influence local businesses to change. Finding There is lack of understanding of LBC staff commuting patterns Proposal Conduct a full staff travel survey to better assess travel habits e.g. distances, destinations, modes by department and building. See for help on this. 20 Rationale Based on some sound assumptions in the light of limited data, emissions from staff commuting were seen to be very significant. To get a more accurate measure of these emissions and to monitor the effectiveness of staff travel initiatives better data is needed Findings No evidence of effective staff green travel plan for LBC operations. Basic commuter survey shows high car dependence. Limited evidence of effective travel planning in the community. Proposals Implement and monitor staff Green Travel Plan to include all areas of council function e.g. schools, offices, community centres etc. Use survey findings to drive development of novel transport solutions for staff e.g. car sharing clubs with dedicated parking bays, commuter shuttle buses etc. Employ full-time Travel Plan officer to co-ordinate and monitor council and community travel plan projects. Promote Cycle to Work Scheme with incentives e.g. showering facilities, cyclist breakfasts, improved cycle storage & security. Review car park policies and consider financial disincentives e.g. increased car parking charges (revenues from which are ring-fenced to invest in green travel facilities). Rationale Implementing a Green Travel Plan is the accepted way of organisations reducing car dependency. Finding Commuting impacts can be included in NI 185 assessment Proposal Designated staff member should complete the Commuting sheet of Carbon Trust Baseline & Forecasting Tool for ongoing monitoring. This will feed into reporting requirements for National Indicator 185. Rationale By including commuter emissions in targets LBC will more fairly reflect true corporate emissions and give platform for improving public transport patronage by its own staff. Finding No evidence of home working promotion at LBC Proposal Promote home-working where feasible 23 Rationale Studies 1 have estimated that even with increased residential heating and lighting demands, well managed home working can lead to an overall decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. 1 For example: Best Foot Forward,

71 4.6 Waste and procurement (including food) Waste management and procurement accounts for 11% of LBC GHG emissions Local authorities procure a wide range of goods and services from external organisations. These all result in a variety of environmental impacts which are far harder to track and measure. However, if an organisation is to be serious about addressing its environmental impacts, they must be accounted for. As part of this analysis emissions from material and food purchasing were calculated but services were not due to data/time constraints. LBC should adopt a leadership position to send a message to the supply chain. This will encourage local low carbon innovation Finding No climate-relevant sustainable procurement document Proposal Produce a Sustainable Procurement Policy and set explicit targets for climate-friendly expenditure e.g. for recycled paper use. Follow UK government procurement Quick Wins guidance which sets minimum environmental standards covering a range of commonly-purchased goods, including IT equipment, paper etc. Every significant procurement and investment decision should also have an assessment of implications on resilience to climate change. Institute a No More Carbon policy where each significant purchase and investment decision should achieve a carbon impact less than the existing/replaced product or service. Luton Forum members should produce a guide on sustainable procurement for members and network. Rationale A guidance document setting out procurement policies which will lead to an overall reduction in emissions is essential. See the Local Authority and Environmental Management and Procurement website for help in developing this document: Finding No evidence of carbon assessment of purchased goods/services Proposal Start carbon dialogue with key material & service suppliers. If, and when, PAS is adopted, specify that all major suppliers of goods and services to the Council comply with it. LBC should start reporting internally the proportion of procurement decisions where carbon was assessed and the number of key suppliers committing to supporting reduction commitments. Rationale Encouraging suppliers to comply with accepted emission measurement standards will promote reductions along the supply chain and allow LBC to better gauge other hidden Scope 3 emissions (see Section for more on emission scopes ). 1 The publicly available specification (PAS) method for measuring embodied GHG emissions of products and services will enable organisations, e.g. local authorities, to effectively measure the climate change related impacts of purchased products and services with a view to using this information to improve their climate change related procurement performance. It is currently being developed by the British Standards Institute at the request of Defra. See for more information. Best Foot Forward,

72 Waste and procurement (continued) Finding Lack of high resolution data on waste composition and recycling Proposal Undertake complete waste audit of council buildings/departments. Put procedures/staffing in place to better monitor waste and recycling performance at departmental/building level. Rationale Better data is essential to inform initiatives to: reduce consumption, increase re-use & recycling and material substitution. For help on waste audit methods see Finding No evidence of sustainable procurement training across LBC Proposal Set in place sustainable procurement training and support for staff involved in procuring significant goods and/or services. Rationale Increasing awareness of the impacts of procurement and the alternative options available is key to reducing related emissions. Finding No evidence of LBC-wide waste and recycling training Proposal Ensure basic recycling facilities are supplied in all offices. Support behavioural change at all levels through simple measures such as removing desk side bins. Consider creating waste reduction league table with incentives. Rationale Increasing awareness of the impacts of waste and the alternative options available is key to reducing related emissions. Improvements in recycling rates can be achieved by providing staff with appropriate and easy-to-use waste management alternatives. Finding Unidentified mixed waste sent to landfill accounts for 66% of waste and procurement emissions Proposal Set departmental targets for the reduction in total waste arisings and research more about its composition (through waste audit) to enable better management. Rationale Without measuring and analysing waste production at departmental/building level effective management is difficult. Finding Emissions from the purchase and disposal of paper and card account for 15% of waste and procurement emissions. Proposal Rethink office practices and publications e.g. printing policies, reuse of half-used paper and electronic dissemination of external newsletters and communications. Rationale It makes sense to target initial efforts at materials which make up largest impact. Finding Emissions from the purchase and disposal of PCs, laptops, monitors and servers account for 10% of waste and procurement emissions. Proposal Rethink IT procurement policy. Also consider energy consumption during use phase (captured in utilities section above). Rationale It makes sense to target initial efforts at materials which make up largest impact. Best Foot Forward,

73 Waste and procurement (continued) 32 Finding No staff responsible for ongoing analysis of LBC waste emissions Proposal Designate LBC staff member to complete relevant sections on Other sheet of Carbon Trust Baseline & Forecasting Tool for ongoing monitoring. Rationale Ongoing analysis of waste emissions is essential to track improvements over time. A member of LBC staff needs responsibility for this for it to be actioned properly. Finding No commercial recycling service offered by LBC Proposal Follow the example of other urban authorities and offer a commercial recycling service for internal and external use. 33 Rationale Luton still has a significant manufacturing sector and would benefit from a commercial recycling service. The service would also be able to collect LBC waste for recycling. Best Foot Forward,

74 4.7 Business travel 1 Business travel accounts for 6% of LBC GHG emissions Finding There is no LBC Transport Environmental Policy Proposal Create an LBC Transport Environmental Policy document with policies distilled from following recommendations. 34 Rationale A guidance document for LBC staff setting out green transport policies is essential first step in creating the environment for related emission cuts Finding Only business travel data available was total miles (grey fleet) or fuel use (LBC fleet) Proposal Require business mile claimants to provide vehicle type, age and fuel consumption figures for grey fleet this information can feed back into more footprint analyses and stimulate transport initiatives. Implement procedures to enable easier monitoring of LBC fleet fuel use by vehicle type and purpose. Rationale Higher resolution data is essential to better measure and manage the impact of business travel in both grey and LBC vehicle fleets. Finding No knowledge of fuel efficiencies of grey fleet Proposal Phase in a cap on per km CO 2 emissions of grey fleet vehicles. Provide eco-friendly pool cars for those staff with poor performing cars e.g. electric scooters/biodiesel cars/hybrid cars Consider incentivising the use of low-emission grey fleet vehicles by adjusting business mile reimbursement to reflect vehicle emissions. Rationale Better knowledge and control of staff cars is needed to manage emissions from this area. It is also closely linked to commuting behaviour, which is major source of LBC emissions. Finding LBC spends millions of pounds on transport services (c. 4m in study years) such as taxis, van and bus hire. Proposal Start dialogue with suppliers to encourage use of fuel efficient vehicles for council business. Require that vehicles must meet minimum emissions standard. Enable staff to submit data on vehicle type and distance travelled for transport services. Analyse use of vehicle hire and seek low carbon alternatives e.g. internal electric vehicle use, walking or cycling (include section on vehicle hire in staff travel survey). Rationale Higher resolution data is essential to better measure and manage the impact of hired transport. 1 Many of the recommendations here support the findings of the Energy Savings Trust Green Fleet Review commissioned by LBC in Best Foot Forward,

75 38 Finding No staff member responsible for ongoing analysis of LBC business travel emissions Proposal Designated staff member to complete Transport sheet of Carbon Trust Baseline & Forecasting Tool for ongoing monitoring. They should work alongside person responsible for collating commuter data. This information will feed into reporting requirements for National Indicator 185. Rationale Ongoing analysis of business travel emissions is essential to track improvements over time. A member of LBC staff needs responsibility for this for it to be actioned properly. Finding There is a policy emerging for the LBC s vehicles to use biodiesel. Proposal Continue to use cleanest fuels available and ensure any biodiesel used is sustainably sourced 39 Rationale There are concerns being raised about deforestation and damage to foreign wildlife habitats caused by planting biocrops e.g. palm oil. There are also social concerns over the conflict between crops for fuel and crops for food in the third world. Finding No evidence of staff training on eco-driving Proposal Provide advice to staff on fuel-efficient driving techniques 40 Rationale Research shows that by adopting eco-driving techniques drivers can cut fuel use (and therefore emissions) by up to 8% Finding A zero emissions courier is available (Greenlink) for use by LBC staff but uptake is patchy across the organisation Proposal Extend and encourage/require use of zero-emissions courier service for certain classes of delivery. Rationale The system is already in place to provide zero-carbon alternatives, so good use should be made of the service to promote its expansion and potential use by external businesses. 1 Driving Standards Agency Best Foot Forward,

76 5 GHG emission removal projects - Carbon offsetting For those organisations wishing to achieve quick wins in carbon reductions, carbon offsetting has become an easy way of removing emissions from the accounts. The underlying theory is that a unit of carbon dioxide kept out of the atmosphere has the same climate benefit whether it is saved by Luton Borough Council improving or by subsidising more efficient cooking stoves in Africa or low energy light bulbs in Sri Lanka. So if a local authority wants to reduce their climate impacts, paying someone somewhere else to reduce emissions would appear to be a valid alternative to changing their own behaviour. If someone else is happy to save a tonne of carbon for a payment or 10 and you would rather pay that than change your behaviour, surely everyone wins from the trade? The idea is so obviously sensible that it has become an important part of climate change policy, and a booming industry. However, there are now growing concerns that a great deal of the offsetting currently being offered either as a voluntary measure to consumers or as part of international climate diplomacy (it plays an important part in the Kyoto Protocol) is ineffective or even harmful for a variety of reasons. At the most basic level, there is technical uncertainty over whether offsetting projects will actually reduce emissions. For example the (many) offsetting projects based on planting woodlands will only actually save carbon if the trees are kept healthy for decades to come, and the carbon then either kept permanently out of circulation (e.g. by use in long term buildings) or used to displace fossil fuel (e.g. in power generation) which is impossible to guarantee decades ahead, especially in developing countries. The other key criticism of offsetting (that often gets forgotten) is that of timescale. To truly counteract the warming impact of a certain set of emissions, then the offsets would have to avert carbon at the same rate that it was being produced. If a company emitted 100 tonnes of CO 2 in 2008, that carbon is in the atmosphere having a warming effect right now. Putting a scheme in place to avert 100 tonnes of CO 2 gradually over the next ten years will not prevent the same amount of warming that the company s already-released 100 tonnes will cause over that ten year period. The uncertainties become even greater and projects more open to abuse where savings depend on estimates of reductions in emissions compared to what would otherwise have happened. This is so-called additionality. Projects may also cause other environmental or social harm: for example displacing indigenous peoples or causing replacement of biodiverse natural forest with monoculture energy plantations. Finally, some question the morality of allowing the rich in developed countries to shift responsibility for their environmental over consumption onto poor people in developing countries, who generally already have much smaller environmental footprints. On a practical level, offsetting is not accounted for in National Indicator or Carbon Reduction Commitment methods and so would not help councils meet targets under these schemes. Best Foot Forward,

77 Appendix A: Input data and assumptions Input data The input data used for the study came directly from Luton Borough Council. Table A.1 shows the input data used for this study. Table A.1: Input data for Luton Borough Council Base-Year Accounts (Based on data drawn from ) Component Unit Utilities Gas 53,987,165 kwh Electricity 19,921,826 kwh Oil 2,600,000 litres Streetlights 8,450,500 kwh Water 261,772,000 litres Commuting Car/van driver 51,023,853 pkm Bus 9,418,426 pkm Car/van passenger 2,562,200 pkm Train 3,767,370 pkm Other 334,901 pkm Motorbike 204,662 pkm Walk 1,317,113 pkm Cycle 427,929 pkm Business Travel Diesel Vehicles 687,782 litres Grey Fleet: 1201 to ,398 miles Petrol vehicles 88,000 litres LPG Vehicles 101,050 litres Grey Fleet: 1601 to ,800 miles Grey Fleet: Up to ,200 miles Grey Fleet: 2001 and above 71,170 miles Electric Vehicles 2 vehicles Purchases & Waste Short-life Purchases Toner Cartridges 28,000 kg Cleaning Products 29,120 kg Light Bulb 21 kg Long-life Purchases Desktop Computers 7,974 kg Computer monitors 3,905 kg Computer Servers 3,213 kg Laptops 462 kg Chairs 3,154 kg Fridges 900 kg Mobile Phones 46 kg Best Foot Forward,

78 Component Unit Filing Cabinet 2,680 kg Desk 880 kg Large Network Printers 1,941 kg Television 200 kg Fax Machines 88 kg Small Desktop printers 3,370 kg Wallpaper 678 kg Telephone 288 kg Data Projectors 9 kg Waste Recycled Recyclables: Paper 619,000 kg Recyclables: Card 237,000 kg Recyclables: Plastic 56,000 kg Recyclables: Aluminium 6,000 kg Recyclables: Steel 18,000 kg Waste to Compost Compost 224,642 kg Waste to Landfill Mixed waste Landfilled 1,753,438 kg Food Fresh Fruit and Vegetables: Tomatoes 29,000 kg Orange 48,987 kg Potatoes 79,845 kg Lettuce 11,033 kg Cabbage 21,485 kg Apple 32,228 kg Cucumbers 5,517 kg Onion 30,079 kg Cauliflower 3,224 kg Carrots 16,546 kg Dry Food: Food (dry) 27,922 kg Land Use Built (Total) 421 ha School Built land 129 ha Woodland 15 ha Normalisation Staff members 9,294 people Gross Internal Area 376,456 m 2 Total LBC spend 05/ m Best Foot Forward,

79 Assumptions Energy assumptions Data for LBC s gas and electricity consumption was submitted as annual kwh, requiring no further assumptions for analysis. Data for oil was submitted as annual litres, also requiring no further assumptions for analysis. Transport assumptions Data submitted for LBC s travel was incomplete and further assumptions were required for analysis. Commuting: Data submitted for LBC staff commuting was based on a survey. This survey only addressed the mode of travel used for commuting. Data was missing on the distance travelled by each mode and this was assumed using the National Travel Survey as shown in Table A.2. Table A.2: Average commuting distance 2006 for employed people Source: National Travel Survey (per person per trip) UK Car/van Car/van Other Other Region Walk driver passenger private public Average Eastern The modes in Table A.2 do not directly align with the modes reported by LBC commuters. The aggregated modes from the National Travel Survey were disaggregated by BFF for this study (Table A.3). Table A.3: Mode aggregation of the National Travel Survey, disaggregated by BFF NTS Mode Walk Car driver Car passenger Other private Other Public Includes Walk Car/van driver Car/van passenger Bicycle, Private hire bus, Motorcycle/moped, Other private vehicles Bus in London, Other local bus, Non-local bus, LT Underground, Surface rail, Taxi/minicab, Other Public Best Foot Forward,

80 Further assumptions to enable the analysis of LBC commuters were: Table A.2 distances are for a single trip, e.g. to work, so were doubled to give distances per staff per day, by mode, The Other mode was assumed to be Taxi, BFF assumed Taxi as Other private and therefore a single trip distance of 4.08 miles (Figure A.2), Commuter car occupancy was assumed as 1.2 people (National Travel Survey), Commuter taxi occupancy was assumed as 1 person. Car/van passengers may car share with LBC employees, or not. No data was available to determine the case. BFF assumed that Car/van passengers travelled in non-lbc employee cars and vans. Business Travel: Data submitted for Business Travel comprised: Number of vehicles by fuel type, i.e. diesel, petrol, lpg and electric, and by vehicle type, e.g. cars, vans <3.5t and vehicles > 3.5t, Energy Savings Trust report on the Grey Fleet including CO 2 emissions and vehicle miles, Litres of Diesel consumed, Energy Savings Trust report on the Grey Fleet estimated Petrol and LPG fuel consumption in litres. Accounting for Business Travel was complicated by the use of scopes as set out by the ISO and GHG Protocol Standards. Therefore, vehicle use, accounted in Scope 1, was accounted separately to vehicle manufacture, maintenance and disposal, which were accounted in Scope 3. Fuel use data, supplied in litres was used directly to account for Scope 1 emissions. Scope 3 emissions were calculated by use of BFF derived conversion factors (see Appendix B for further details). Best Foot Forward,

81 Waste assumptions Data submitted for the annual waste produced by LBC comprised: Total LBC waste sent for recycling, Total LBC waste sent to landfill, LBC recycled waste by material type, e.g. paper, card, plastic, steel and aluminium. The composition of the waste sent to landfill was missing. This was assumed as typical office waste, the material composition of which was based on several BFF studies. This used a mix of paper (40%), card (25%), plastic (17.5%) and steel (17.5%). Purchases assumptions Data submitted on LBC purchases comprised: Short-life annual purchases, Top 10 by weight, cost, quantity purchased and kg, Long-life purchases, Top 10 by weight, cost, quantity purchased, kg, lifespan (years) and whether the item was included in a typical purchase year? Short-Life Purchases: Short-life purchases are consumed within the study year. This classification means that short-life purchases may also be accounted in LBC s annual waste data. The short-life purchases and annual waste data are considered alongside each other to determine: Which source is more reliable, Which items are reported in both sources, and which may be double counting, Which source reports the highest data for duplicate items. LBC waste data was selected as the most reliable and robust data source. Table A.4 shows the components of the short-life purchases removed because of potential double counting. Best Foot Forward,

82 Table A.4: Accounting for LBC s Short-life Purchases Items Accounted Excluded Reason Copier Paper Double counting with recycled paper Toner Cartridges Gas Oil Double counting with Utilities Light Bulb Batteries Envelopes Manila Envelopes White Cleaning Products Double counting with landfilled mixed waste Double counting with recycled paper Double counting with recycled paper Plastic Cups Double counting with recycled plastic Long-Life Purchases: It is normal BFF practice to account long-life items by dividing their total impact over the lifespan (years) to derive an annual contribution. However, LBC marked all their long-life purchases as a typical purchase year. Therefore, all long-life items were assumed: to be annual purchases and therefore, the full impact was accounted in the base-year accounts, to not double count with waste. Caution with result interpretation The conversion factors used for calculating footprints are constantly changing as new studies are completed and data released from official sources. BFF commits to having the most up to date information available - we have a monitoring system to capture new data as it is published, and an internal process to ensure these data are rapidly incorporated into our tools. As a reader of this report, you should realise that the conversion factors used were appropriate at the time of writing but may be subject to change in the future. Best Foot Forward,

83 Appendix B: What are footprint analyses? Identification of sources and sinks The GHG, CO 2 and EF sources (consumption items) were identified by LBC, assisted by the BFF data specification and guidance supplied. BFF s data specification has been developed from the experience of many studies using these indicators and the concepts behind them. The data specification and guidance is supplied to aid clients in collecting the most robust, reliable and accurate data feasible considering current data practice, time and staff availability and knowledge. Direct GHG Emissions (Scope 1): The direct GHG emissions (Scope 1) identified for this study are given in Table B.1. Table B.1: Annual direct (Scope 1) GHG and CO 2 emissions of Luton Borough Council (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07 Luton Borough Council 2005/07 CO 2 (kgco 2 ) GHG (kgco 2 e) Direct GHG Emissions (Scope 1) 20,705,454 22,330,266 of which Business Travel: Fuel Use 2,631,698 2,784,392 Diesel Vehicles 1,808,867 1,894,989 Grey Fleet: 1201 to , ,769 Petrol vehicles 203, ,455 LPG Vehicles 151, ,208 Grey Fleet: 1601 to , ,726 Grey Fleet: Up to ,667 52,940 Grey Fleet: 2001 and above 33,787 35,303 Direct Energy: 18,073,756 19,545,875 Gas 11,121,356 12,435,606 Oil 6,952,400 7,110,269 Energy Indirect GHG Emissions (Scope 2): The energy indirect GHG emissions identified are given in Table B.2. Table B.2: Annual energy indirect GHG and CO 2 emissions of Luton Borough Council (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07 Luton Borough Council 2005/07 CO 2 (kgco 2 ) GHG (kgco 2 e) Energy Indirect GHG Emissions (Scope 2) 11,558,118 12,323,341 of which Direct Energy: 11,558,118 12,323,341 Electricity 10,472,406 11,165,747 Streetlights 1,085,712 1,157,594 Best Foot Forward,

84 Other Indirect GHG Emissions (Scope 3): The other indirect GHG emissions (Scope 3) identified for this study are given in Table B.3. Table B.3: Annual other indirect (Scope 3) GHG and CO 2 emissions of Luton Borough Council (Base Year, calculated from LBC data drawn from 2005/07 Luton Borough Council 2005/07 CO 2 (kgco 2 ) GHG (kgco 2 e) Other Indirect GHG Emissions (Scope 3) 19,545,454 21,277,107 of which Business Travel: Vehicles 654, ,995 Diesel Lorries 416, ,402 Grey Fleet: 1201 to ,781 63,162 Diesel Vans 58,081 62,650 LPG Vans 53,525 57,736 Grey Fleet: 1601 to ,097 24,155 Petrol Cars 16,311 17,830 Grey Fleet: Up to ,918 14,121 Petrol Vans 10,250 11,056 Grey Fleet: 2001 and above 4,964 5,426 Electric Vehicles 2,278 2,457 Commuting: 13,597,697 14,307,416 Car/van driver 11,823,755 12,443,873 Bus 839, ,859 Car/van passenger 593, ,878 Train 226, ,557 Other 92,388 97,234 Motorbike 21,837 23,016 Walk 0 0 Cycle 0 0 Water: 198, ,623 Short Life Purchases: 200, ,668 Toner Cartridges 143, ,712 Cleaning Products 56,064 56,795 Light Bulb Long Life Purchases: 543, ,695 Computer monitors 150, ,810 Desktop Computers 226, ,074 Computer Servers 91,304 97,931 Laptops 28,892 42,863 Chairs 12,013 13,241 Fridges 7,503 8,764 Mobile Phones 7,287 8,511 Filing Cabinet 4,878 5,509 Large Network Printers 2,827 3,915 Desk 3,085 3,623 Small Desktop printers 2,036 2,820 Best Foot Forward,

85 Luton Borough Council 2005/07 CO 2 (kgco 2 ) GHG (kgco 2 e) Fax Machines 2,194 2,742 Television 2,398 2,588 Wallpaper 1,047 1,123 Telephone 901 1,094 Data Projectors Waste: 4,211,533 4,854,747 Mixed waste Landfilled 3,266,453 3,738,931 Recyclables: Paper 518, ,738 Recyclables: Card 261, ,225 Recyclables: Plastic 140, ,077 Compost 5,436 76,625 Recyclables: Aluminium 10,140 12,002 Recyclables: Steel 8,100 9,148 Food: 138, ,962 Food (dry) 58, ,898 Tomatoes 33,866 34,613 Potatoes 10,390 12,389 Orange 11,022 12,247 Cabbage 6,585 11,001 Lettuce 6,831 7,026 Apple 4,814 5,341 Cucumbers 3,416 3,513 Onion 1,751 2,318 Cauliflower 988 1,651 Carrots GHG Sinks: All GHG sinks were excluded from this base-year study for LBC. This was decided by BFF based mainly on data availability and some data uncertainty. However, DEFRA publish GHG sink data for Luton borough for This data is derived from the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) part of the UK GHG Inventory accounts. Unsurprisingly, the DEFRA (Table 3.6a land use component) data shows LULUCF in the Luton borough to be insignificant and in fact, contributes a net increase in CO 2 emissions. Finally, the boundary of Luton borough was not aligned to the boundary of this study and made the data incompatible. Biomass: No combustion of biomass was included in the study. 1 Best Foot Forward,

86 Selection of quantification methodology Carbon and the Ecological Footprints have been successfully applied in different contexts to assess and communicate the environmental impacts of countries, regions, cities, organisations, lifestyles and products. Both indicators are becoming more and more popular as organisations are trying to communicate to stakeholders their environmental awareness. In addition, these indicators can serve as a foundation for further development of strategies and actions aimed at mitigating adverse environmental impacts of an organisation s activities. The Ecological Footprint was co-originated in the early 1990 s by Professor William Rees and Dr. Mathis Wackernagel. Ecological Footprint analysis 1 has rapidly taken hold and is now in common use in many countries at national and local levels; for example, the UK, Mexico, the United States, Canada, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy, Spain and Australia. The Ecological Footprint of a region or community can be said to be the bioproductive area (land and sea) that would be required to sustainably maintain current consumption, using prevailing technology. More recently, the Ecological Footprint has proven to be a resonant and accessible indicator of environmental sustainability. For the purposes of the Ecological Footprint calculation, land and sea area are divided into four basic types; bioproductive land, bioproductive sea, energy land (forested land and sea area required for the absorption of carbon emissions) and built land (buildings, roads etc.). The Ecological Footprint only includes land and sea areas required to sustain the natural resources consumed by humans (Figure B.1). Figure B.1: Land types used for Ecological Footprint analysis Bioproductive Land Energy land Bioproductive sea Built land 1 Those wishing to go beyond the outline given in this report are recommended to read Sharing Nature's Interest by Chambers, Simmons and Wackernagel, 2000 or Best Foot Forward,

87 Example 1: A cooked meal of fish and rice would require bioproductive land for the rice, bioproductive sea for the fish, and forested 'energy' land to re-absorb the carbon emitted during the processing and cooking. Example 2: Driving a car requires built land for roads, parking, and so on, as well as a large amount of forested 'energy' land to re-absorb the carbon emissions from petrol use. In addition, energy and materials are used for construction, maintenance and disposal of the car. CO 2 on the other hand expresses the impacts generated by the organisation or processes in terms of carbon emissions (expressed in kgco 2 ). In that regard it can serve as a tool that helps organisations adopting various strategies aimed at fighting climate change. All GHG, including CO 2, has more recently been adopted for several reporting standards and initiatives. The GHG Standards, ISO and the GHG Protocol, account the 6 main GHG defined in the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) methane (CH 4 ) nitrous oxide (N 2 O) hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) perfluorocarbons (PFCs) sulphur hexafluoride (SF 6 ). This approach of including all GHG is also applied by the Carbon Trust in the UK. Take only pictures - leave only footprints It is important to note that Ecological Footprint analysis is a snapshot methodology. It tells us how much bioproductive area would be required based on a specific data set it does not attempt to predict future or past impacts. It is likely that, due to technology changes and variations in material flows into the economy, the Ecological Footprint will change over time. In the period which data is recorded some of the input flow of materials will stay in the organisation, as stock, and some will flow out as waste. In both cases, these materials were considered to have been consumed. Low footprint economy As deterioration of the environment is becoming more and more recognised as a constraint to well-being, the need for the creation of a low footprint economy is being increasingly expressed. Due to the high prevalence of material consumption and waste generation in the western world, achieving long term environmental sustainability would require reduction in consumption by 80% from the current levels. Best Foot Forward refer to this as Living on One World or a LOW footprint. Best Foot Forward,

88 The Stepwise methodology The methodology used in this study was: Calculation, based on, activity data multiplied by separate GHG, CO 2 and EF conversion factors. The Corporate Stepwise GHG, CO 2 and Ecological Footprint calculations in this report follow the Stepwise methodology. The methodology, developed by Best Foot Forward (see Chambers et al, 2000), uses a component (or bottom-up ) approach to perform Ecological Footprint analysis. Though different data sources are used, the calculation method is wholly compatible with the compound (or top-down ) approach used by Wackernagel et al. in the Footprint of Nations studies (1997, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006), which use international trade statistics as a starting point. The Stepwise TM methodology, wherever possible, uses full life cycle impact data to derive GHG, CO 2 and Ecological Footprint conversion factors for key activities (the components ). For example, to calculate the GHG, CO 2 and Ecological Footprint of a car travelling one kilometre, fuel use, materials and energy for manufacture, maintenance and disposal of the vehicle, and the share of EU road space appropriated by the car are accounted for (Figure B.4). These conversion factors are then applied to the number of vehiclekilometres travelled. Table B.4: An example analysis for the GHG, CO 2 and Ecological Footprint of car travel (per vehicle-km) CO 2 emissions GHG emissions Energy land use Other land use Ecological Footprint A B C D C+D Total 2.51E E E E E-05 of which Scope 1: E E E-05 Vehicle operation E E E-05 Scope 3: E E E-05 Vehicle manufacture E E E-06 Vehicle maintenance 4.89E E E E E-06 Vehicle disposal 2.52E E E E E-07 Road construction E E E-06 Road maintenance 3.90E E E E E-06 Road disposal 6.62E E E E E-08 Scope 1: CO 2 data from DEFRA, ; CO 2 e is derived by BFF, 2008 based on Ecoinvent 2.0, ; EF is derived by BFF, 2008 based on NFA (energy) and EcoInvent 2.0, 2007 (energy and land use). Scope 3: CO 2 is derived by BFF, 2008, based on Ecoinvent 2.0, 2007; CO 2 e is derived by BFF, 2008, based on Ecoinvent 2.0, 2007; EF is derived by BFF, 2008 based on NFA 2005 (energy) and EcoInvent 2.0, 2007 (energy and land use) Licence purchased from 3 Licence purchased from Best Foot Forward,

89 A similar approach is used to derive a range of GHG, CO 2 and Ecological Footprint component values, representing the main categories of impact, before summing them to calculate total GHG, CO 2 emissions or a total Ecological Footprint for any product. The key components used in this study are: Utilities Transport Purchases & Waste Food Land Use Each of these key components is made up of smaller sub-categories. For example, Utilities is sub-divided into energy and water. Each of these subcategories can be broken down further. Using this component approach enables the calculation of GHG and CO 2 emissions, and Ecological Footprints at any level for a product, organisation, activity or region. Best Foot Forward,

90 Appendix C: Energy use by council function Energy use in LBC corporate offices and workshops accounts for only 12% of the total energy consumed across the authority s estate 1. Although it is tempting for local authorities to draw narrow boundaries in such exercises and address only a limited number of corporate facilities, by including services such as schools and care homes, councils could target work to reduce all scope emissions, equitably and effectively (Figure C.1). This approach is in line with the Government thinking set out in consultations on the Carbon Reduction Commitment 2. In doing so, this new climate change instrument attempts to address concerns of local authorities that have retained control of public services, which other councils have contracted out to third parties. Figure C.1: Total energy use (electricity, gas & oil) by council function for 2005/6 Car parks 1% Other educational 1% Social care & housing 22% Library & museums 1% Community centre 2% Arts & leisure 3% Warehouses & depots 4% Infant schools 6% Office 8% Secondary schools 16% Primary schools 15% Junior schools 9% Other 12% Combined with the knowledge that many LBC buildings have above average energy use per square metre 3, new projects to target energy efficiency improvements in schools and care homes (which together account for almost 70% of council energy use) have the potential to deliver significant and sustained emissions reductions. 1 Data from LBC energy reports for 2005/ Data from LBC on Gross Internal Area analysis by building for Best Foot Forward,