Greenhouse gas accounting for inventory, emissions trading and life cycle assessment in the land-based sector: a review
Annette Cowie A D , Richard Eckard B and Sandra Eady CA Rural Climate Solutions, NSW Department of Primary Industries/University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
B Primary Industries Climate Challenges Centre, Department of Primary Industries, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic. 3010, Australia.
C CSIRO Livestock Industries, McMaster Laboratory, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: annette.cowie@une.edu.au
Crop and Pasture Science 63(3) 284-296 https://doi.org/10.1071/CP11188
Submitted: 19 July 2011 Accepted: 20 March 2012 Published: 28 May 2012
Journal Compilation © CSIRO Publishing 2012 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
Governments, organisations and individuals have recognised the need to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To identify where savings can be made, and to monitor progress in reducing emissions, we need methodologies to quantify GHG emissions and sequestration. Through the Australian Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) landholders may generate credits for reducing emissions and/or sequestering carbon (C).
National GHG inventories for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and accounting under the Kyoto Protocol use a sectoral approach. For example, fuel use in agriculture is reported in the transport component of the energy sector; energy use in producing herbicide and fertiliser is included in the manufacturing section of the energy sector; sequestration in farm forestry is reported in the land use, land-use change and forestry sector, while emissions reported in the agriculture sector include methane (CH4) from ruminant livestock, nitrous oxide (N2O) from soils, and non-carbon dioxide (CO2) GHG from stubble and savannah burning. In contrast, project-level accounting for CFI includes land-use change, forestry and agricultural sector emissions, and significant direct inputs such as diesel and electricity. A C footprint calculation uses a life cycle approach, including all the emissions associated with an organisation, activity or product. The C footprint of a food product includes the upstream emissions from manufacturing fertiliser and other inputs, fuel use in farming operations, transport, processing and packaging, distribution to consumers, electricity use in refrigeration and food preparation, and waste disposal.
Methods used to estimate emissions range from simple empirical emissions factors, to complex process-based models. Methods developed for inventory and emissions trading must balance the need for sufficient accuracy to give confidence to the market, with practical aspects such as ease and expense of data collection. Requirements for frequent on-ground monitoring and third party verification of soil C or livestock CH4 estimates, for example, may incur costs that would negate the financial benefit of credits earned, and could also generate additional GHG emissions.
Research is required to develop practical on-farm measures of CH4 and N2O, and methods to quantify C in environmental plantings, agricultural soils and rangeland ecosystems, to improve models for estimation and prediction of GHG emissions, and enable baseline assessment. There is a need for whole-farm level estimation tools that accommodate regional and management differences in emissions and sequestration to support landholders in managing net emissions from their farming enterprises. These on-farm ‘bottom-up’ accounting tools must align with the ‘top-down’ national account. To facilitate assessment of C footprints for food and fibre products, Australia also needs a comprehensive life cycle inventory database.
This paper reviews current methods and approaches used for quantifying GHG emissions for the land-based sectors in the context of emissions reporting, emissions trading and C footprinting, and proposes possible improvements. We emphasise that cost-effective yet credible GHG estimation methods are needed to encourage participation in voluntary offset schemes such as the CFI, and thereby achieve maximum mitigation in the land-based sector.
References
BSI (2008) ‘PAS 2050: 2008 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services.’ (British Standard Institution: London) Available at: www.bsigroup.com/en/Standards-and-Publications/Industry-Sectors/Energy/PAS-2050 (accessed 9 February 2011)Coleman K, Jenkinson DS (1996) RothC26.3. A model for the turnover of carbon in soil. In ‘Evaluation of soil organic matter models using existing long-term datasets’. (Eds DS Powlson, P Smith, JU Smith) pp. 237–246. (Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg)
Commonwealth of Australia (2010) ‘National greenhouse accounts (NGA) factors.’ (Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency: Canberra, ACT)
Commonwealth of Australia (2011) Securing a clean energy future: the Australian government’s climate change plan. Available at: www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Consolidated-Final.pdf (accessed 15 December 2011).
Cowie AL, Pingoud K, Schlamadinger B (2006) Stock changes or fluxes? Resolving terminological confusion in the debate on land-use change and forestry. Climate Policy 6, 161–179.
| Stock changes or fluxes? Resolving terminological confusion in the debate on land-use change and forestry.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cowie AL, Kirschbaum MUF, Ward M (2007) Options for including all lands in a future greenhouse gas accounting framework. Environmental Science & Policy 10, 306–321.
| Options for including all lands in a future greenhouse gas accounting framework.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
DCCEE (2010a) ‘National carbon offset standard.’ (Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency: Canberra, ACT)
DCCEE (2010b) ‘Design of the carbon farming initiative. Consultation Paper.’ (Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency: Canberra, ACT)
DCCEE (2010c) ‘Australian national greenhouse accounts. National Inventory Report 2008, Volume 1.’ (Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency: Canberra, ACT)
de Klein CAM, Eckard RJ (2008) Targeted technologies for nitrous oxide abatement from animal agriculture. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 14–20.
| Targeted technologies for nitrous oxide abatement from animal agriculture.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXovVKi&md5=dc84c7b73c83e65c908ca4316c1dc1ceCAS |
Dornburg V, Marland G (2008) Temporary storage of carbon in the biosphere does have value for climate change mitigation: a response to the paper by Miko Kirschbaum. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 13, 211–217.
| Temporary storage of carbon in the biosphere does have value for climate change mitigation: a response to the paper by Miko Kirschbaum.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Eady SJ, Ridoutt B (2009) Setting reporting periods, allocation methods and system boundaries for Australian agricultural life cycle assessment. In ‘Proceedings of the 6th Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment – Sustainability Tools for a New Climate’. February 2009, Melbourne. (Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society) Available at: http://conference.alcas.asn.au/2009/Program.htm (accessed 2 May 2012)
Eckard RJ, Grainger CJ, de Klein CAM (2010) Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production – a review. Livestock Science 130, 47–56.
| Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production – a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinee J, Heijungs R, Hellwege S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 91, 1–21.
| Recent developments in life cycle assessment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Bernsten T, Betts R, Fahey DW, Haywood J, Lean J, Lowe DC, Myhre G, Nganga J, Prinn R, Raga G, Schutz M, Van Dorland R (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In ‘Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’. (Eds S Solomon, D Qin, M Manning, Z Chen, M Marquis, KB Averyt, M Tignor, HL Miller) pp. 129–234. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK)
Girod B, de Haan P (2009) GHG reduction potential of changes in consumption patterns and higher quality levels: evidence from Swiss household consumption survey. Energy Policy 37, 5650–5661.
| GHG reduction potential of changes in consumption patterns and higher quality levels: evidence from Swiss household consumption survey.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Government of Alberta (2011) Technical guidance for offset project developers. Version 2.0. Specified gas emitters regulation. Available at: http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7915.pdf (accessed 9 February 2011).
Gustavsson L, Karjalainen T, Marland G, Savolainen I, Schlamadinger B, Apps M (2000) Project-based greenhouse-gas accounting: guiding principles with a focus on baselines and additionality. Energy Policy 28, 935–946.
| Project-based greenhouse-gas accounting: guiding principles with a focus on baselines and additionality.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Harris S, Narayanaswamy V (2009) Review of Australian and international agricultural life cycle assessment examples. Report prepared for Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.
IPART (2010) Greenhouse gas benchmark rule (carbon sequestration) No. 5 of 2003. Available at: www.greenhousegas.nsw.gov.au/documents/Rule-CS-May10.pdf (accessed 9 February 2011).
IPCC (1997) ‘Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume 1: greenhouse gas inventory reporting instructions. Volume 2: greenhouse gas inventory workbook. Volume 3: greenhouse gas inventory reference manual.’ (Eds JT Houghton, LG Meira Filho, B Lim, K Tréanton, I Mamaty, Y Bonduki, DJ Griggs BA Callander) (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Meteorological Office: Bracknell, UK) Available at: www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs1.htm (accessed 9 February 2011).
IPCC (2006) ‘2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Vol. 4, Agriculture, forestry and other land use.’ (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IGES: Hayama, Japan)
ISO (2006a) ‘ISO 14044: 2006 Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and frameworks.’ 2nd edn. 2006-07-01. p. 20. (International Standards Organisation: Geneva)
ISO (2006b) ‘ISO 14044: 2006 Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines.’ 1st edn 2006-07-01. p. 46. (International Standards Organisation: Geneva)
Kanyarushoki C, Fuchs F, van der Werf HMG (2008) Environmental evaluation of cow and goat milk chains in France. In ‘Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector – Towards a Sustainable Management of the Food Chain’. Zürich, Switzerland, November 2008. (Eds T Nemecek, G Gaillard) pp. 108–114. (Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART: Zürich, Switzerland) Available at: www.lcafood08.ch (accessed 9 March 2010).
Kerkhof AC, Nonhebel S, Mol H (2009) Relating the environmental impact of consumption to household expenditures: an input–output analysis. Ecological Economics 68, 1160–1170.
| Relating the environmental impact of consumption to household expenditures: an input–output analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kirkby CA, Kirkegaard JA, Richardson AE, Wade LJ (2011) C : N : P : S ratios in soil humus and implications for soil organic matter sequesteration (sic). Grains Research and Development Corporation Research Updates. Available at: www.grdc.com.au/director/events/researchupdates?item_id=9D389E7FD060981FA0BB4EAABE5E9938 (accessed 9 February 2011).
Kirschbaum MUF (2006) Temporary carbon sequestration cannot prevent climate change. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 11, 1151–1164.
| Temporary carbon sequestration cannot prevent climate change.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kirschbaum MUF, Cowie AL (2004) Giving credit where credit is due. A practical method to distinguish between human and natural factors in carbon accounting. Climatic Change 67, 417–436.
| Giving credit where credit is due. A practical method to distinguish between human and natural factors in carbon accounting.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXitlKhsrk%3D&md5=64c151d2737dcccfc48eea3bed671964CAS |
Parton WJ, Schimel DS, Cole CV, Ojima DS (1987) Analysis of factors controlling soil organic matter dynamics in an agroecosystem. Soil Science Society of America Journal 51, 1173–1179.
| Analysis of factors controlling soil organic matter dynamics in an agroecosystem.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaL2sXmtlGnsbw%3D&md5=337fd8e709d23726f111634b55a3a5c4CAS |
Peters GM, Rowley HV, Wiedemann S, Tucker R, Short MD, Schulz M (2010) Red meat production in Australia: life cycle assessment and comparison with overseas studies. Environmental Science & Technology 44, 1327–1332.
| Red meat production in Australia: life cycle assessment and comparison with overseas studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXkt1agug%3D%3D&md5=a64c7836cf2840150600f87f3fa90518CAS |
Rebitzer G, Loerincik Y, Jolliet O (2002) Input–output life cycle assessment: from theory to applications. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 7, 174–176.
| Input–output life cycle assessment: from theory to applications.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Schlamadinger B, Bird N, Brown S, Canadell J, Ciccarese L, Clabbers B, Dutschke M, Fiedler J, Fischlin A, Fearnside P, Forner C, Freibauer A, Frumhoff P, Hohne N, Johns T, Kirschbaum M, Labat A, Marland G, Michaelowa A, Montanarella L, Moutinho P, Murdiyarso D, Pena N, Pingoud K, Rakonczay Z, Rametsteiner E, Rock J, Sanz MJ, Schneider U, Shvidenko A, Skutsch M, Smith P, Somogyi Z, Trines E, Ward M, Yamagata Y (2007) Options for including LULUCF activities in a post-2012 international climate agreement: synopsis of LULUCF under the Kyoto Protocol and Marrakech Accords and criteria for assessing a future agreement. Environmental Science & Policy 10, 271–282.
| Options for including LULUCF activities in a post-2012 international climate agreement: synopsis of LULUCF under the Kyoto Protocol and Marrakech Accords and criteria for assessing a future agreement.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
UNFCCC (1992) ‘United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.’ (United Nations: New York)
UNFCCC (1998) ‘Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.’ (UNFCCC: Bonn, Germany)
Wood S, Cowie AL (2004) A review of greenhouse gas emission factors for fertiliser production. A report to IEA Bioenergy Task 38. Available at: www.ieabioenergy-task38.org/publications/GHG_Emission_Fertilizer%20Production_July2004.pdf (accessed 9 February 2011).
