AES CARBON AUDIT REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Climate change resulting from human activity is now recognized as one of the most urgent
environmental issues facing the global community. In an attempt to manage the situation,
governments and industry are adopting targets such as those set at the Kyoto conference in
1997, which aim to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Carbon auditing, the focus of
this study, plays a critical role in establishing the baseline Carbon Dioxide (CO ) emissions
2
of an organization in order to develop the most effective strategies to save energy and
reduce its carbon footprint.

The purpose of this carbon audit exercise is to establish an accurate estimate the quantity of
CO2 emissions for the AES and a framework for the school to analyze and manage its
energy and carbon demand. The carbon methodology incorporates the principles of life
cycle analysis conforms to ISO and other internationally recognized standards for assessing
and quantifying emissions.

This carbon audit includes an estimate of carbon emissions from both direct and indirect
activities associated with the running of a school, such as those resulting from the embodied
energy in the production and transportation of food and paper supplies. In addition, with the
assistance of the AES student environmental club, we have conducted a survey of randomly
selected students in at the high school, middle and elementary levels. This survey of
student activities, behavior and attitudes is designed to expand and enrich the qualitative
aspects of the data as well as to a cross-check and verify the quantitative results.

We find…..

We recommend….

AES Carbon Survey 1

INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS A CARBON AUDIT?
A carbon audit measures the environmental impact – or carbon footprint – that a business,
institution or community has on the climate in terms of the total amount of greenhouse gases
(measured in units of carbon dioxide) generated by the sum of its energy consuming and
waste producing activities. Many activities generate carbon emissions, which contribute to
accelerating global warming and climate change. By estimating the school’s carbon footprint
we can get a better sense of what our impact is, and identify ways we can reduce our impact
on the environment.

This survey covers five main activities which generate carbon emissions:

1. Energy
2. Water
3. Waste
4. Resources
5. Food
6. Transportation

Several of these activities overlap in terms of their impact. For example, the carbon
emissions from operating a swimming pool involve both the consumption of water and the
energy used to pump, filter and heat it. The survey will help us identify the activity-based
sources of carbon emissions at the school which contribute to its overall carbon footprint.

PROCESS: HOW WE DID IT?

Step 1: Establish commitment

A senior member of the administration on board will make the Carbon Audit much easier.

Step 2: Determine roles and responsibilities.

Forming a student group or a leadership group to conduct the Carbon Audit brings a lot of
enthusiasm, and this can be excellent educational opportunity.

Step 3: Define scope

This often is the most difficult step. The Survey covers a set of main activities and these
needs to be defined at the beginning of the survey.

Step 4: Choose a method.

The most widely recognized standard for conducting a GHG emissions inventory is the
Greenhouse Gas Protocol.

Step 5: Gather data, and crunch the numbers.

This step can be challenging, particularly if the necessary records are difficult to gather or
interpret. It helps to have a clear picture of the recordkeeping procedures in place, but it's
still easy to get lost in the data.

Step 6: Contextualize
Now that the results are in, what do they mean? What are the next steps? Is this part of a
larger base-lining effort or a comprehensive campus-sustainability initiative? Taking a critical
look at the carbon footprint results enables a campus to prioritize projects.

AES Carbon Survey 2

METHODOLOGY: HOW DO WE CALCULATE A TON OF CO2?

Estimating carbon emissions from human activities, especially in a complex and interactive
community like a school, is an inexact science at best. Much depends upon the accuracy of
the data we get and the assumptions we have to make about the emissions generated by
those activities. In general, where there are alternative methods of estimating emissions, we
have opted for the approach that produces the lowest estimate. We focused on the
operation of the AES School, its classes, offices, buildings and commuting of staff and
students. We have generated our estimates from information of the Facility Managers and
the students.

The exception to this decision is on the global warming impact of car travel. We have
multiplied the figure for the carbon dioxide output of car by various factors, according to the
size and type to account properly for the effect of the other pollutants emitted into the high
atmosphere. This multiplier is not universally agreed upon, but reflects the prevailing
scientific consensus.

OBJECTIVES: CHANGING THE WORLD, ONE FOOTPRINT AT A

TIME

The overall project objective is to develop a carbon audit that can be used by AES to
compile a carbon footprint as a starting point to reduce its emissions in order to contribute
towards preserving the environment not in present but in future also.

In order to achieve this project will aim to:

1. To identify and understand the magnitude of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions

associated with AES.
2. Develop a carbon audit for school, which improves on existing auditing facilities and
incorporates wider aspects associated with carbon emissions such as transport and
production of resources used in the school.
3. Carry out the carbon audit on AES to determine its effectiveness and to compare the
results with those from other schools from US.
4. To explore the changes required to reduce the carbon footprint by developing energy
conservation strategies for the school
5. To suggest the level of ambition to which the schools sector could aspire
6. To recommend actions and policy interventions for the AES and others to implement
or influence in order to deliver each of the scenarios

BENCHMARKING: HOW ARE WE DOING?

Case Studies of other US Educational Institutes
University of Pennsylvania
Benchmarking results.

The total carbon footprint for the University of Pennsylvania is 300,000 tons /annum.
The total population of the University of Pennsylvania is around 40,000.

AES Carbon Survey 3

As expected, the major contributions to greenhouse gas emissions are the purchased utility
energies used for the heating, cooling, and electrical supply of campus buildings.
In 2006 the University produced 7.1 tons of eCO2 per community member and 27.1 kg
eCO2 per square foot of building space. This accords with the rough data so far reported by
the other institutions.

Activities

1. Energy consumption through the use of steam, chilled water, electricity, and natural
gas.
2. Transportation through University fleets of cars, vans, buses, and trucks.
3. Solid Waste disposal
4. Refrigerant replacement.
5. Food preparation.

Smith College (Northampton, Massachusetts)

The total carbon footprint for the Smith College is 33,025 tons /annum
The total population of the Smith College is around 3,925
In 2004 the college produced 8.4 tons of eCO2 per community member.
A plethora of information was needed to calculate Smith College’s greenhouse gas
emissions. To obtain this information, many people within the Smith community and from the
City of Northampton were contacted. Institutional numbers (e.g., number of students per
year, operating budget, etc.) were provided by people in several different departments
throughout campus.

Activities

1. Sources for greenhouse gas emissions (along with the gas emitted) included:
2. Electricity in kWh purchased per year (CO2, CH4, N2O),
3. Natural gas in MMBtu combusted to produce steam and hot water(CO2, CH4, N2O)
4. Diesel and gasoline in gallons used by the university fleet per year (CO2, CH4,
N2O),
5. Solid waste in tons disposed of in the Northampton landfill per year (CH4),
6. Refrigerants gases in pounds replaced in refrigerator units on campus each year
(CFC and other gases) and
7. Food Production

The explicit goals of these Educational Institutes initiative are to:

1. Reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions.

2. Educate students and other members of their community about the relationship
between human activities and climate change.
3. Strengthen research on impacts, mitigation, and adaptation related to climate change
and variability.
4. Develop as a model sustainable community in the state and region.

AES Carbon Survey 4

FINDINGS: THE RESULTS ARE IN…

WORLD AMERICAN SCHOOLS BRITISH AES INDIAN

2 tons pc 7.5 tons pc SCHOOLS 3.7 tons pc SCHOOLS
3.8 tons pc .5 tons pc

Paper
Staff Commuting
School Bus 2%
3%
1%
Clothes
HVAC
0%
31% HVAC
Activities
Cars Food
26%
Cars
Clothes
School Bus
Paper
Staff Commuting

Food
12% Activities
25%

AES Carbon Survey 5

 Staff Commuting
Paper 3%
Food 2%
12%

School Bus Energy

1%
Cars
School Bus
Food
Energy
Paper
56%
Cars Staff Commuting
26%

AES TOTAL ANNUAL CARBON FOOTPRINT = 5045 TONS

WHICH IS COMPARABLE TO…

- DRIVING 25,000,000 Kms

- ADDING 1675 CARS TO INDIAN ROADS

- CUTTING AND BURNING 261,250 TREES

- DESTROYING 105 HECTARES (260 ACRES) OF FOREST

AES Carbon Survey 6

 100%
90%
80%
70%
60% High
50% Middle
Primary
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Car Food Activities Clothes

ENERGY

All electricity generation systems have a ‘carbon footprint’, that is, at some points during
their construction and operation carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted. Emissions can be both
direct – arising during operation of the power plant, and indirect – arising during other non-
operational phases of the life cycle. Fossil fuelled technologies (coal, oil, gas) have the
largest carbon footprints, because they burn these fuels during operation

Energy consumption is a direct cause of CO2 emissions from a school. It is for this reason
that energy use is considered a significant aspect of schools activities and has been scoped
in to the carbon audit. Following a review of the energy records and bills for the last year, the
amount of electricity, gas and gas oil was determined. These figures have been used to
estimate the total energy consumption for the case studies and the resultant CO emissions
2
using conversion factors .The assumptions underlying conversion factors are vitally
important for broad acceptance of this method. Therefore extensive research has been
undertaken to source conversion factors that are reasonable and fair. This approach has
been used throughout the method whenever conversion factors have been used. The
method to estimate the emissions from energy use was similar to that in figure 2.2. In
addition to providing an overall consumption figure, it is beneficial for the schools to have a
breakdown of where the energy is being used. Where appropriate, inventories were made
for all the equipment in the design and technology, textile and home technology classrooms.
The use of computers at school for school related work will contribute directly to the schools
CO emissions from computer use. This component was incorporated in the carbon audit by
2
collecting information on duration of computer use by staff and students from the
questionnaires. A lighting survey at each school was conducted to determine the number,
type and usage of light fittings. This enabled estimates for energy consumption from lighting
under different scenarios to be carried out.

AES Carbon Survey 7

The total amount of Co2 emitted by the school by energy consumption is approx 2847
tonnes per annum.

Water Heating Water Pumps

2% 17%
Landscape Building HVAC
Lighting
Equipment
0%
Street Lights Landscaping
2% Building Lighting
Building HVAC
Building Lighting Street Lights
56%
6% Landscape Lighting
Landscaping Water Heating
0%
Water Pumps

Equipment
17%

RESOURCES

Schools are large consumers of resources – from paper and books to food and sports
equipment. A more deliberately eco-conscious approach to purchasing in schools can play
a key role in reducing the negative environmental impacts of consumption by focusing on
reducing the frequency and amounts of purchases and selecting greener alternatives.

At present the school generally follows a policy of “Best Quality” with respect to purchasing
whereby goods are purchased despite the supplier or the location of the source,
environmental considerations are not usually a priority. Due to norms and specific
requirements of the school, it is difficult for schools to restrict the companies from which it
purchases goods, to those in their region or country.

The school is often unaware of the source of many products used in the school since their
purchasing is usually done through a vendor such as the one who buy in goods from all over
the world to supply to schools. Pressure from school on suppliers and distributors to supply
goods that have been produced locally whenever possible will reduce the emissions from
transporting the products . The school may also be able to influence the modes of transport
used to deliver the goods.

Schools are major users of paper – what they buy and how they use it has a direct impact on
the environment. The main types and amounts of paper used within the school were
identified using the structured interview questions for the staff members. This method was
also used to determine the source and supplier of paper goods (photocopying paper and

AES Carbon Survey 8

exercise books). These details were used to calculate the CO emissions from the delivery of
2
paper goods to the school (see flow diagrams). Along with emissions from transportation of
the paper, an estimate of the emissions from paper production was made. This was
achieved using details of energy consumption for the paper and pulp industry and the
industry’s annual revenue. This simplified method is based on the energy analysis concept
and involves estimating the energy used and therefore the CO emissions from producing
2
one item based on the total number of items produced and the total amount of energy used
(See Figure).

The amount of paper purchased by staff and students to use for school purposes was also
included in the total paper consumption for the school. These amounts were estimated using
question in the student and staff questionnaires (see appendix 1 and 2). This element was
included in the carbon audit as the impact associated with its production and transportation
can be indirectly linked to the school because the paper bought by individuals is used for
school activities. This argument is based on the approach of impact identification within the
environmental impact assessment process which stipulates that all impacts (for example,
long term, short term, indirect, direct and cumulative) should be considered in any
assessment

The total amount of CO emitted by procurement and manufacturing of the paper

2
consumed2 at AES is approx 115 tones /annum.

Crafts paper
paper 4%

Corrugated Face
Cardboard boxes Tissue
0%
Office Paper(kgs)
Tissues (Toilet paper)
Tissues (Toilet Cardboard
paper) Corrugated boxes
Decoration paper
Crafts paper
Face Tissue
Office Paper(kgs)
76%

AES Carbon Survey 9

 100
90
80
70
60
50
40
Series1
30
20
10
0
Office Tissues Cardboard Corrugated Decoration Crafts Face
Paper(kgs) (Toilet boxes paper paper Tissue
paper)

WATER

Indirect CO emissions associated with water supply and sewage treatment have been
2
included in the audit because water is one of the main inputs to the schools. Details of the
CO emissions from pumping and treating water used by the school were taken from an
2
impact assessment tool.

The CO emitted by the supply and distribution of the water is 475 tonnes per annum
2

WASTE

Waste produced has been included in the carbon audit since it represents “the grave” for the
life cycle of the majority of products used within the schools. Indirect CO emissions from its
2

AES Carbon Survey 10

transportation to disposal facilities and the emissions from the breakdown or combustion of
the waste have been incorporated..

FOOD

Chilled or frozen food require much more energy for storage (and hence a higher carbon
footprint). Frozen foods also tend to be stored for longer and so will have accumulated a
higher carbon footprint by the time they are consumed. If you are concerned about
freshness, try buying local food from farmers markets.

Packaging Cleaning
3% 1%
Energ
y
Red Meat
Bake Chicken
ry Fish
Red Meat
Dairy Products
45%
Beverages Processed Food
10% Beverages
Bakery
Energy
Processed Food
Packaging
9%
Cleaning
Dairy Products Chicken
12% 3%
Fish
.5%

The CO emitted by processing and procuring of food is 644 tonnes per annum
2

AES Carbon Survey 11

 TRANSPORTATION

When you travel in a car, each gallon of gasoline you burn produces carbon in the form of
carbon dioxide. The amount of CO2 produced depends on the fuel efficiency of your vehicle
and the distance you travel.

The significance of transport to and from the school in terms of carbon dioxide emissions
has been highlighted in Section with findings .In order to collect information about transport
trends, several questions were compiled as part of the school and staff questionnaire
(Appendix 1 and 2).
The questions aimed to determine:

The mode of transport used to get to and from the school.

The distances traveled.

Number of passengers per vehicle.

Make and model of the vehicle.

Fuel type.

Area of residence.
In addition to this information, details of the CO emissions for each vehicle were required.
2
This was collected from the Indraprastha Gas Limited (IGL) Governments’ Vehicle
Certification Agency’s web site which has a database of CO emissions for all buses. CO
2 2
emissions were calculated for each car individually, even though this was a time consuming
process, because it would result in a more accurate indication of transport emissions
compared to using average vehicle emissions. Figure highlights the steps used to calculate
emissions arising from transportation via bus.
Within the Excel spreadsheet, a macro was used to calculate the emissions arising from car
travel to and from the school. Some of the journeys to school were made as part of other
journeys, for example traveling to work. As a consequence the emissions for car travel were
estimated separately for those journeys which were carried out for the school run and those
which formed part of another journey

Unfortunately, the final CO emissions from transport to and from the school will be slightly
2
underestimated because the database provided information on relatively new car models
only, which will inevitably be more efficient than their older counterparts. Ideally emissions
from older vehicles should have been used in the calculations. However, this was not a
viable option since there are no databases available with this information.

Transport is an essential component to include in a carbon audit. This is highlighted by the

fact that overall traffic levels have risen by 1.3% between 2000 and 2001 and over the last
10 years the proportion of journeys to school by car has nearly doubled from 16% to 30%).
The school runs accounts for morning rush hour traffic and only about 26% of children of all
ages travel to school by bus. Many parents feel that there is no reasonable alternative to
driving their children to school. School related transport has a significant effect on the level
of CO in the atmosphere because 0.25 Kg – 0.5 Kg of CO is emitted for every km that a
2 2
passenger car travels (this will vary depending on the make of the vehicle). During 2008 the
total number of km traveled by 25 vehicles owned by the school was approx .2 million km,
and this figure is set to rise. These vehicles emitted approx 50 tones/annum. It was noted

AES Carbon Survey 12

that the total number of km traveled by the parents or wards is approx 5 million km by
approx 600 cars per annum.
The total amount of CO emitted by the vehicles is approx 1331 tones /annum.
2
The school should set achievable targets to reduce these CO levels by expanding its
2
bussing system.

Carbon footprint per student for those who use cars to commute to school is 0.65 tonnes
per annnum.
Carbon footprint per student for those who use buses to commute to school is .16 tonnes
per annnum

School Car
3%
School Bus
5%

School Car
School Bus
Private Car

Private Car
92%

RECOMMENDATIONS: STRATEGIES TO REDUCE AES’ CO2

FOOTPRINT

1. School leaders, staff, pupils and managers should be aware of their carbon
emissions and should monitor them year by year.

2. School should take direct action to reduce their carbon emissions and achieve a 10
per cent reduction from 2008 levels.

3. School buildings are energy efficient with visual displays of energy consumption.
AES has low carbon energy generation technologies, at the scale of the individual
building, a cluster of buildings, or the community scale. School staff, pupils and the
wider community has an understanding of the school’s energy performance and how
it is being improved.

4. Pupils and staff should choose to walk, cycle or use public transport to travel to and
from school. Car use should be minimal.

AES Carbon Survey 13

 5. School leaders, staff, pupils and managers should be aware of their carbon
emissions and should monitor them year by year.

6. School recycles or composts a wide range of its waste, and will act as hubs for
community recycling schemes. Smarter procurement will significantly reduce the
amount of waste generated, so that only a fraction of today’s amount is sent to
landfill.

7. School supports its wider community to reduce carbon emissions through

showcasing best practice and developing awareness, skills and knowledge.

G. Tree planting

Until now, all the elements of the school carbon audit have focused on areas where CO is
2
emitted. A section on tree planting has been incorporated into the audit to take into account
the emissions that can be removed from the atmosphere via sequestration by vegetation, in
these case trees. Even though the amount of CO sequestered will not be significant, this
2
element has been incorporated since sequestration completes the carbon life cycle and is
therefore in keeping with the LCA approach taken in designing the audit. The amounts of
CO sequestered by trees have been estimated for Carbon Management (ECCM, 2000) and
2
the number of trees planted at school determined from the staff interviews.

Number of trees X 20.3 Kg CO2 per year = CO2 (Kg)

planted per year for the next 50 years sequestered per
annum

Benefits of the tool ~ CO Reduction

2
A tool that explicitly offers benefits to a school, for example in the form of cost savings and
increased efficiency, will be seen as more desirable and the likelihood of it being
implemented will significantly increase. Demands on a school’s time and resources are
significant. Therefore, anything that is going to impose further on the valuable time of its staff
and resources will have to provide clear and desired benefits. One such benefit is the
accounting of CO and energy use. This will allow reduction and monitoring efforts to be
2
focused on problem areas.

- Student Involvement

Another potential benefit is the involvement of the students in the execution of the audit,
which could provide a valuable learning resource and teaching tool. However, the survey
indicates the need to emphasize the results and benefits that will be gained from
undertaking the audit or assessment.

- Development of an EMS

AES Carbon Survey 14

The majority of tools do make some contribution towards the development of an
environmental management system or environmental policy .The tools provide a method for
carrying out a review similar to an initial environmental review, which is considered an
essential foundation in the development of an environmental management system (EMS).
The use of the tools in developing an EMS that can be certified to ISO 14001 or EMAS
should be maximized. This could be achieved by including a component that requires targets
and objectives to be set and reviewed periodically. This is essential for the making of a
successful EMS

- CO offsetting
2
All but two of the resources have a slightly negative approach to impact assessment or
auditing since they do not provide the option of carbon or impact offsetting. This could be
achieved by carbon sequestration by plants. The idea of offsets is closely linked with
two of the Kyoto Protocol mechanisms, the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint
Implementation. Although it is often difficult to verify that the emission reductions associated
with carbon offsets are real and measurable, they should be included in a carbon audit
because the user will be able to see a positive outcome of their actions in addition to the
overwhelming negative outcomes. By encouraging the planting of trees as a potential carbon
offsetting mechanism, the level of CO produced by a school may be reduced.
2

Procurement Recommendations

1. Increase the uptake of “low-carbon food” by school.

2. Reduce and reuse paper as well as procurement of recycled paper
3. Reuse and repair of furniture, and procurement of more durable furniture
4. Water efficiency measures introduced in school buildings.
5. Reduce emissions from construction procurement through increased recycled
materials, and energy efficiency site measures.
6. Increase recycled content in procured products.
7. Sustainable procurement has become the norm; the price of sustainable sourced
goods s equal to – or less than – that of non-sustainable alternatives. Schools find it
easy to take procurement decisions as they can access useful information about
sustainability and costing takes into account all the impacts of a product.

Recommendations for Specific Activities for the 10% Challenge

1. Reduce red meat consumption by 25% which will lead to reduction in 1% of AES’s
carbon footprint.
2. Water efficiency measures to be introduced into school buildings. Low flow fixtures to
be installed to reduce energy consumption by 10% this will result in the reduction of
AES carbon footprint by 1%.
3. Expand the bussing system and increase the number of the students using the
school bus from 360 to 600 which will reduce the CO2 footprint by 6.5%.
4. Reduce the transportation of the students to schools through private cars by 25%.
5. Install occupancy sensors or co2 sensors in the old building to reduce the HVAC
footprint by 5% of which will result in the reduction of total carbon footprint by 1.5%.
6. Reduction in the consumption of office paper by 10%

AES Carbon Survey 15