The global system of greenhouse gas emission flux is one that is complex, dynamic and ever changing. It is one that involves stationary as well as transient sources and sinks. It is greatly affected by ambient, environmental conditions that are beyond the influence of humanity but it is also greatly affected by society driven economics and culture. The debate over emission responsibility thus be- comes appreciably complex, particularly with the economic and legal implications that are likely to develop as a result of society’s move towards climate change
realisation.
Should we attribute emissions to the end user of a product or at point of production of the product? Responsibility lies with whom? If the objective is to minimise emissions, given the supply and demand structure of our economy, responsibility should lie with the end user. This would then minimise the dispos- able nature of the market and encourage less production and thus fewer emissions. Such an approach is however particularly difficult to achieve since the point of use of a product is generally not the point of source of the emission. At the point of use, the product has already been distributed and thus accounting of associated greenhouse gas can only be achieved based on assumptions about the production method and materials used.
Greenhouse gas reporting clearly becomes less complex when responsibility is attributed to the point of production, often the point of the actual source of greenhouse gas. In this case, greenhouse gas associated with an item is counted along side that of many similar items, thus simplifying and ensuring accuracy in the inventory.
Consider for example a computer monitor. This is an item that is mass produced in a factory, it is built primarily of fossil fuels and minerals, all of which are produced and processed at mines, smelters and other types of processing plants around the world. Should the greenhouse gas associated with a computer monitor be attributed to the individual who purchases the item, in which case, how do you consider the thousands of sources of greenhouse gas emissions that were required for the production of the item? The item was produced because of a demand and thus it was the purchaser who is in reality responsible for the associated emissions. But if the emissions were accounted for at the point of source of the emission then they can be much more easily summed. The factory that produced the monitor, the point of production of the item, is of course part of the economy too. Should it be free of any responsibility since it is simply assembling processed materials and passing the product on to the consumer? But of course it wouldn’t exist either if
it were not generating profits, thus how do we attribute appropriate greenhouse gas responsibility to them?
Following from this debate is that of the emissions associated with an item post production but prior to acquisition by the consumer. This section of a prod- uct’s life cycle may include delivery, storage and method of acquisition such as sales at a shop and thus all associated activities; marketing of the product, main- tenance of the product and so on. Each of these activities may have considerable associated greenhouse gas, but to whom do we attribute them to? Hence the complexity of greenhouse gas emission reporting.
The philosophical debate discussed presently, regarding the rights and re- sponsibilities over greenhouse gas sources and sinks, is likely to be resolved by considering the scope of the inventory and its required outputs. Thus it is of critical importance that such defining conditions are made clear and unambiguous prior to any attempt at developing the model. If for example a greenhouse gas emission inventory is scoped in terms of a geographical area, as is the case for the community inventory in the present study, consideration must be given to land use within the defined boundary as this will contribute to the combined total flux of emissions from within the scope. It maybe found however that much of the subject land is undeveloped and in fact contains natural processes that produce greenhouse gas, should this emission flux then be attributed to the current man- agers of that parcel of land despite the land manager having little to no influence over that specific emission flux? Similarly, if a natural land use is sequestering greenhouse gas, should it then be considered a greenhouse gas sink and attributed to the manager of that parcel of land. The answers to these questions may be found by considering the required outputs of the model. For the present study, an investigation into natural processes will likely do little to establish the primary anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission sources over which we have control and thus while it is considered an element of the inventory scope, it may be considered beyond the requirements of the study and thus should be neglected.
In order to assist greenhouse gas emission inventory developers and pol- icy makers distribute greenhouse gas emission responsibility and to avoid double counting of emissions, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative introduced a method to delineate direct and indirect emission sources. By categorising emission sources as such, greenhouse gas emission inventory developers can be clear on where their responsibility lies with regards to their particular inventory requirements, as de- fined by their policy makers. The methodology defines three ‘scopes’ for emission accounting and reporting purposes. Namely, the following:
Scope 1: All direct greenhouse gas emissions.
Scope 2: Indirect greenhouse gas emissions from the consumption of
purchased electricity, heat or steam.
Scope 3: Other indirect emissions, such as the extraction and pro-
duction of purchased materials and fuels, transport-related activities in vehicles not owned or controlled by the report- ing entity, electricity-related activities not covered in Scope 2, outsourced activities, waste disposal, etc.
[World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2004]
Direction on the design of national greenhouse gas inventories is provided at the international level for the IPCC by Eggleston et al. [2006], and then domes- tically, on reporting greenhouse gas emissions to the federal government by the Department of Climate Change [2009b] and the Department of Climate Change [2008d]. A benchmark methodology is also provided for corporate or oganisational based inventories by Ranganathan et al. [2004]. Principles from these method- ologies are drawn on throughout the present study as appropriate to suit the objectives of the present study.
As discussed in section 3.2.1, the development of a model to establish a greenhouse gas emission inventory should be conducted based on its validity with
regards to the required outputs. For the purposes of the present study, a green- house gas emission inventory is required in order to provide a basis for further research into climate change mitigation measures. The required outputs are thus to establish the overarching sources of greenhouse gas, and to then categorise, prioritise and apply them to a mitigation technology comparison review. Fur- thermore, it is intended that this be done for the community’s emission profile, a considerably more complex task than what would be the case for an individual or- ganisation. With this in mind, the present study diverges from commonly applied methodology that would be applicable at the corporate level, while maintaining the accepted principles of greenhouse gas accounting.