GHG accounting & reporting in waste management

Transcription

1 GHG accounting & reporting in waste management Emmanuel Gentil Technical University of Denmark (Emmanuelle Aoustin, Veolia & Thomas H. Christensen, DTU) Dakofa/ISWA Waste and climate conference 3 rd -4 th Dec Facts about the waste industry One of the most highly regulated industrial sectors (after the nuclear industry ) Post-consumer waste <5 % of total global emissions About 90 % of GHG from uncontrolled landfills Currently uses 4 GHG accounting approaches Different scopes and expected different results Potential for GHG mitigations From energy and material recoveries 1

2 Reporting our waste management emissions GHG W GHG M GHG E Waste Material Waste Material Geographic boundaries Global National Regional Local Company 2

3 Different accounting mechanisms sectoral guidance on reporting National and international Global GHG emissions per sector per year GHG protocols Operational and organisational performance/efficiency per year mechanisms (, ) Global consistency among similar projects per year Life cycle assessment () Total consequence of managing present waste for 100 yrs All useful for different decision making processes Differences between systems Different geographic boundaries Different supply chains assumptions Different temporal boundaries Historical Vs future Different GHG included Different global warming references 21 Vs 25 eq.tonne -1 CH 4 (GWP 100 ) Nothing wrong: because different OBJECTIVES 3

4 National models National models 4

5 reporting mechanism (Guidelines 2006) Waste Waste Industry Collection Transport Other sectors Intermediate facilities IPPU Reuse Recycling IPPU AFOLU CH 4, N 2 O Biological Bio (AFOLU) Foss Mass burn Thermal Bio (AFOLU) CH 4, N 2 O Landfill Bio (AFOLU) (Stored Cbio) Stored Cbio (AFOLU) reporting mechanism (Guidelines 2006) Designed to avoid double-counting as far as possible BUT Emissions may be missed Large sectoral distance between waste and other sectors E.g. Waste transfer stations and MRF? Issues on imports and exports? Are all the biogenic emissions attributed to AFOLU? 5

6 National models GHG protocol Waste Company Company A ACompany B SCOPE 1 DIRECT: Foss -(Bio ) - CH 4 -N 2 O SCOPE 2 Collection Transport Intermediate facilities Reuse Recycling Biological Thermal Avoided emissions Landfill Materials SCOPE 3 Operational & boundaries Using Accounting Systems 6

7 National models Clean Development Mechanism CH 4 Bio (Not included) Elec. Heat Baseline Determined by modelling Elec. Heat Project Activity Elec. Heat Calculated Certified Emission Reduction (CER) 7

8 National models Life Cycle Assessment PRODUCTS Raw Material extraction Manufacture Distribution Use Waste management Source: McDougall,

9 Waste approach Society Waste management system GHG Destruction (NEW) Thermal Displaced MSW Industrial Waste Containers Intermediate facilities Biological Reuse Recycling Agriculture (AFOLU) Raw Material Avoided Landfill Displaced Sink Net GHG emissions Import Export Co- GHG avoided Transport High uncertainty Carbon storage National models 9

10 Upstream Operating Downstream Indirect: Upstream Impacts ( - eq) Direct: Waste management Impacts ( - eq) Indirect: Downstream Impacts ( - eq) Accounted: Emissions, CH 4, N 2 O, Not accounted: Accounted: Emissions, CH 4, N 2 O, Not accounted: Accounted: Emissions, CH 4, N 2 O, Not accounted: Ensure reporting transparency and show recovery efficiency Please don t forget the GWP reference: e.g. AR4, 2007 Reporting examples Indirect: Upstream tonne - eq: ZZ per t of waste CC total (xx 10 3 t) Accounted: Provision of fuel (y kg / l of diesel) production (z kwh/t) Not accounted: Construction of facilities Baling wire (Illustration only) Direct: Waste management tonne -eq: ZZ per t of waste CC total (xx 10 3 t) Accounted: Fuel conversion (x l of diesel/t) Not accounted: Staff travelling Indirect: Downstream tonne -eq: CC per t of waste DD total (xx 10 3 t) Accounted: Material recycling Not accounted: Transport to recycling facility 10

11 Discussion about UOD Double counting? Who claim the environmental benefits? Substitutional value of downstream activities? Valorisation potential of materials and energy Emission factors from upstream processes consumption and ancillary materials Timescale perspective? Landfill UOD Historical? Annual? Future consequences of present activities? Imports and exports? Could be included easily but more uncertainty Core Data Upstream GWP calculated GHG accounted Unaccounted Operating GWP calculated GHG accounted Unaccounted Downstream GWP calculated GHG accounted Unaccounted National models 11

12 UOD Stacking Reuse Recycling Biotreatment Incineration Landfill Year Area Year 1 Country 1 Year 2 Country 2 Year 3 Country 3 Year 4 Country 4 Year n Country n National models Key messages Undeveloped waste management Contributes to GHG emissions Developed waste management Reduction in direct operating GHG emissions Contribute to GHG mitigation ( & materials) Not possible to change accounting methodologies Different scopes Industry needs to be consistent, robust and transparent To demonstrate the performance of mitigation potential UOD framework is a mean to show core data Can be used for different reporting scopes Its mains advantage is its simplicity Large opportunities for further mitigation Let s get moving 12