Michael Jackson’s ‘Heal the World’ is a reminder for us that as humans we have the ability and opportunity to heal just as often as we cause socio-ecological wounds knowingly or unknowingly.Something to remember while reading this article and considering your organisational and/or individual approach to travel.
Our transport systems and socio-ecological injustice
Our transport systems play a major role in shaping the overall condition of the planet we inhabit : Coasts are being reclaimed to make way for coastal roads directly jeopardizing the lives of marine organisms and fisher folk. Other life supporting ecosystems such as mangroves are being choked to make space for airports and its accompanying infrastructure. Forests and farmlands are being destroyed for high-speed intercity travel. In the everyday world the comfort of smoke-emitting vehicles is prioritized over cyclists, pedestrians and other living beings, too. Vehicles and the infrastructure they necessitate, no matter where they are based, contribute to carbon pollution and impact the lives of the vulnerable, the most! How do we know who is vulnerable? Well, they are the people and living beings whose voices you’ll barely hear on the news and won’t hear directly on social media sites at all. These are the voices smothered by concerns over GDP and social status. Reflect on this a bit and you’ll know who we are talking about.
Transportation is therefore one of the many factors contributing to carbon pollution and the climate crisis it catalyzes. For instance, people and other beings have to battle floods, droughts and climate crisis induced calamities. There have also been reports of people losing lives due to health ailments propagated by pollution, too. You might be wondering what you can do about this. This article shares a humongously impactful but not yet widely popularised way to contribute to a sustainable and just world- by rethinking our priorities and our travel choices.
We are here to convey the need to minimize and as far as possible replace a seemingly clean and convenient, yet monstrous and deeply unjust mode of travel – air travel. To let you know that this vital yet seemingly impossible proposition is in fact a possibility, we’ll also share our experience of working towards this within our own organisation and with WIPRO Ltd. (IT company) .
Why reconsider air travel?
The airline industry cleans up its appearance pretty well but only after smothering life giving ecosystems and causing much carbon pollution. Beginning at the airplane and airport construction and continuing with fuel extraction and other processes, air travel is far from clean. Additionally, the seemingly ‘clean’ interiors of airplanes and airports, are breeding grounds for social inequity. They constantly endanger the health of both social and ecological systems. To support this here is some data compiled by our collaborating network to counter aviation, StayGrounded.
Air travel is accessible unequally across the globe :
This mode of travel that is accessible to only the privileged few is in fact one of the largest climate crisis perpetrators :
One of the many reasons the total climate impact of aviation is not recognised is because of a lack of focus on the non-carbon dioxide emissions by the sector :
You might wonder, ‘Why not transition to e-fuels and other existing alternatives?’However, while climate mitigating alternatives like biodiesel and solar powered or electric aircrafts might seem promising, they are for the time being at least ‘deficient’. Solar PVs have a negligible impact, biodiesel availability is insufficient to meet the present let alone future demand (not to mention its own climate impacts) and the expected timeline for electric aircraft in regular commercial operations is not earlier than the end of the 2030s. For details of these critiques refer to the ‘Airline industry’s response’ section of this article. So if the choice of fuel or power source for air travel is not enough, what will get us closer to a sustainable travel?
Beginning to step away from air travel: The cBalance and Wipro experience
The first step to reducing air travel is to re-think about the criteria we use to evaluate it. You may think it is a more hygienic, fast and comfortable means of transport. You may also see its necessity for in-person business meetings. Why would we sacrifice such a convenient, comfortable and efficient mode of travel? This is where considering the sociological and ecological injustices and looking at the present day realities of our time, inclusive of the covid-19 pandemic and other natural and human-induced disasters, has changed the stakes. If sacrificing comfort is our concern, can we sacrifice the lives of our fellow humans and other non living beings just for comfort? If hygiene is our concern, can we ignore the dumping of toxic GHG gases in the air, impacting the health of the present and future generations of humans and other beings? If travel time is our concern, do we really need to travel that much? (Hasn’t the covid- 19 situation revealed that virtual meetings get much of the job done.) Or can we make the time spent travelling something that adds to our lives, something that we can be present to, if not look forward to?
Since 2015 we have been supporting Wipro Ltd. in studying their organisation’s flying patterns and suggesting ways to reduce carbon pollution from air travel. Wipro has managed a 15-20% reduction of climate impact from air travel, between 2015 and 2020. This reduction has been gradual and has involved them integrating the following suggestions in their organisations travel policies:
Choosing non-stop flights over multi-stop flights, as far as possible.
Choosing virtual meetings over in-person ones whenever possible.
As is evident from these measures, Wipro attempts not only to reduce the impact of their flying but also to reduce flying itself. This is based on the knowledge that over a 1,000 km journey, an air traveler emits 285 kgs of CO2 kilometer while a railway passenger in even an AC executive-class compartment emits 30 kgs while in a comfortable AC bus the same passenger emits 70 kgs (Ref 1). Wipros policy includes that journeys in India that are less than 12 hours long need to be by train, unless employees are supposed to be back in the office on the next day. At cBalance we ourselves take this measure a step further. Everyone from the most-experienced to the youngest team member travels by rail for domestic travel irrespective of the number of hours of travel. However, this policy is not implemented without consideration. If someone is unwell or unable to sit for long hours or if there is an emergency and air travel is unavoidable we do consider it. Such a progressive policy may take some work to be implemented in organisations such that it is applied appropriately. It may require challenging conversations around what is a ‘need’ and what is a ‘want’. It may require challenging conversations around positions of power and economics. However, it is precisely because of the disproportionate impact and injustice that those with privilege have caused and continue to cause that this is the direction in which we must move and that the privileged must make the start. For example, it will be of little use if policies such as Wipro’s are not applicable to employees across all grades. Fortunately, Wipro is in the process of addressing such loopholes.
Similarly, while smaller organisations like ours have long chosen virtual meetings with overseas partners and other sustainable choices, events in recent years are necessitating that even larger companies reconsider their choice to fly. The Stay Grounded network presently comprises 160 members across the globe who are doing the same. And there are of course organisations beyond the network acting in the same direction to minimize socio-ecological injustices of the air travel industry. There are even some governments making efforts to minimize air travel too.
Moving into ‘Fair Travel’
‘An average medium-haul domestic return flight from Bangalore to Mumbai emits climate pollution (i.e. greenhouse gasses) that neutralizes the benefit of 100 trees – essentially, cut down forever. This can be seen as personally chopping down 1 tree at the end of the return flight, each time we fly’(ref 2)
Since travel is a major component of IT and Finance/BPO service companies, the Fair Travel program is focused on working with pioneering IT and BPO/finance companies in India through a participatory method called ‘Carbon Reduction Action Groups’ (CRAGs). When successfully employed in global enterprises CRAGs will enable a mixed group of employees to set their own carbon footprint reduction targets, including climate impacts from business-related air travel. These groups will then be able to work toward co-creating their roadmap to achieve these reduction targets. As with Wipro, cBalance’s FairTravel program will provide the necessary training and support to achieve these. FairTravel will also provide carbon footprinting and other decision support, along with communications support for Corporate Sustainability teams to amplify these pioneering efforts. For more details on this program please visit this link.
For many of us, some of our fondest memories include travelling and some of our greatest achievements include working together to address challenges. Fair Travel is an opportunity to ensure that our collective journey is made up of responsible choices and that we continue to have fond travel memories and satisfying work. We need to begin now. Let’s heal the world and make it a better place for you and for me and the entire human (and non-human) race!
References:
Based on independently verified India-specific emissions factors developed by cBalance and audited by Western State Colorado University (WSCU)
Only what is “Good for the Planet” is “Good for me”: The Conscious Consumer
“I experienced dry skin because of chemicals in my dishwashing soap. The discomfort made me switch to soapnut”, a friend explained as I was researching what made consumers choose consciously made products. My friend is part of a growing tribe of people who take health/sustainability/social justice matters into their hands and resort to making their own house cleaning, body care, food products, etc., themselves. Such endeavours have occasionally grown to provide these products at a small scale, either locally or to niche mostly urban groups, for example through farmers markets or through boutique and pop up stores both online and offline. They are the modern avatar of the home or cottage industry with the supply chain and financial accoutrements of the formal sector and the marketing savvy of the digital age. The credibility of the manufacturer (often self referenced as ‘artisan’) is typically established through direct contact/relationship or word of mouth and maintained through having simple products with limits to scale in terms of production and sales capacity and a highly responsive feedback loop. Because such enterprises usually involve intense efforts and levels of commitment that are not aligned with the global scale and fast pace of many, although growing in popularity, they are far from the norm.
On the other end of the spectrum are products whose standards we take for granted. Often these are mandated by law or industry norms and concern quality and manufacturing processes including conditions under which it is handled and supplied and the absence of known “contaminants”. Producers or suppliers may additionally bolster product sales with claims of convenience, accessibility and cost and with alluding to “desirability” or “goodness”. But who defines and who measures these? And where do these criteria fit with the emerging demands of the conscious consumer for “good for me, good for people, good for planet”?
While the individual consumer’s search for responsible products may have been initiated by any variety of personal concerns and motivations (often expressed as interrelated) there is also a groundswell in the same direction by civil society organisations and media. Where information on companies violating human rights and environmental laws may have once been the sole concern of activists or NGOs, their relevance to common people and their consumption habits is being recognised and highlighted. Rather than follow from individual motivations these are guided by a motivation best expressed by Wendell Berry in Native Hill, “We have lived by the assumption that what was good for us would be good for the world… We have been wrong. We must change our lives, so that it will be possible to live by the contrary assumption that what is good for the world will be good for us. And that requires that we make the effort to know the world and to learn what is good for it. We must learn to cooperate in its processes, and to yield to its limits.” Consumers, at an individual level, have begun to eschew brands that do not meet perceived ethical norms (with celebrities and influencers ceasing to endorse them). At a collective level they have begun to participate in movements such as climate strikes, in person and through digital campaigns which push governments and suppliers to be responsible for the sourcing, manufacturing, use and disposal of products. They push for the creation of new standards and new ways to hold producers accountable.
It is in this larger arena that national and international supplier platforms, online brands as well as those with physical stores, can perform a democratising function by scaling up the establishment of a new ethic for business. They bring desirable but optional standards closer to being non negotiable starting grounds. It is often the supplier platform which is the keeper of the consumers trust, from whom transparency and accountability is demanded and which stands to lose credibility when ethical norms are breached. This is beyond the traditional logistical role of connecting demand to supply. The platform can prove its integrity by investing in processes of product and producer verification. Often for small scale producers who may not have the financial capacity to undergo expensive quality testing and certification it is the supplier platform that can provide this “service”. On the other side this service breaks down the complexity of the modern product and production process and gives consumers the necessary information to make informed choices between these products/producers based on various criteria.
Life Cycle Assessment: Building Supplier and Producer Responsibility
The Better India (TBI) is an online social impact platform. One of its initiatives is its one-stop-shop that connects consumers with eco-sensitive and socially just products. Since the majority of today’s production processes involve multiple stages across diverse locations with numerous exchanges between “hands” involved, suppliers like The Better India who do not source nor sell their products locally and perhaps even the producers themselves who make these products but do not source their raw material locally may easily be unaware of all the impacts of their products. However, in an age of information technology, this is no longer a good excuse and it is precisely the effort to verify the products and producers that engender trust in suppliers and brands like TBI. TBI approached us at cBalance to help them identify house cleaning products by small scale producers that are made from “natural” and “eco-friendly” ingredients, “non-toxic” and “safe” for both users and the planet. They were keen to educate themselves and break down the elements that make up these commonly used terms. They also wanted to ensure a process that would allow them to impartially assess and choose the best options as well as to support production needs for producers who do not have the means to address these standards. The products ranged from floor cleaners to laundry detergents and from toilet cleaners to dishwashing detergents and multipurpose cleaners.
We supported TBI by conducting a life cycle assessment (LCA) of each product. ‘The term “life cycle” refers to the major activities in the course of the product’s life-span from its manufacture, use, and maintenance, to its final disposal. It is a “cradle-to-grave” approach which encompasses all activities right from the gathering of raw materials from the earth to create the product and ends at the point when all materials are returned to the earth’[i]. The process involves compiling a list of relevant material and energy inputs besides environmental emissions during a products life cycle and assessing the environmental impacts associated with these inputs and emissions. Life cycle assessment stages are illustrated in the diagram below (image 1).
For TBI’s purposes we also added non-ecological impact categories including social impact (contribution to local livelihoods), ethical sourcing (source of raw material), product effectiveness (eg. grease removal efficiency, stain removal efficiency, etc), product pricing and supply scale potential as part of the overall assessment. The categories would be combined into a ‘Household Cleaner Supplier Scorecard’ which would aid the TBI team in objectively and thoughtfully narrowing down on suppliers.
In order to be able to make appropriate assessments and comparisons cBalance developed appropriate data collection methods including supplier questionnaires, disclosure sheets, site visits and procuring product samples ( for external lab tests) . We also conducted research on the hazardous impacts of product components on human and ecosystem health. All product information was analysed using a uniquely developed ‘Excel- based LCA tool’. These LCA calculations were later combined with calculations of non-ecological aspects to develop the ‘Household cleaner supplier scorecard’ for product comparison.
The scorecard revealed that while few supplier products had negligible ecological impact, a few of them had an unexpectedly high ecological impact. This enabled the TBI team to recognise a dearth of knowledge on negative impacts of product components among some suppliers. They recognised the need for capacity building of producers through providing handholding support to overcome product shortcomings. Additionally, TBI also worked towards ensuring reusable and refillable product packaging; an endeavour that demands consumer responsibility to return bottles for recycling and purchase refill packages to minimize life-cycle impact.
Way forward: Creating common ground
Amidst fears of “greenwashing” it is the shift in perspective away from blaming and shaming that is highlighting the way forward for consumers, producers and the market in general. TBI used the LCA not only to evaluate products and choose between suppliers but also to identify areas for improvement for itself and producers. As other producers and suppliers similarly pick up and assume responsibilities as TBI did, they are offering essential elements of trust that have long been missed in the exploitative global economy.
Another shift is in creative collaborations and making way for new language and shared standards of what is acceptable or not in production processes, and for engaging in transparent and verifiable practices. Typically LCA softwares are expensive, but an excel based LCA tool such as cBalance developed makes such efforts more affordable. For TBI it served not just as an evaluation tool but as a product enhancement tool, indicating aspects that need to be altered to minimize negative impact. In a different collaboration, such as with the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises it holds the potential to enable many more suppliers and even producers to be part of creating and upholding standards. The LCA tool can also be used to facilitate conversation among stakeholders, the results when presented in varying forms can serve different functions including to educate consumers. Indeed, even when the tools themselves are not necessary, such as in the contexts that we began this article with, the clarity that such frameworks bring to the table can spur many more creative possibilities. Given the times we are living in, the interconnectedness of our market systems and the social and ecological systems they depend on cannot be denied. Ensuring responsible products is therefore a responsibility that can only get lighter, easier, cheaper with more people to shoulder it.
“What is ‘enough’ in construction and even in life in general? What are we looking at in terms of impact when we construct a massive glass building in the middle of tropical cities like Pune or Mumbai or Bangalore? Are we just constructing something that gives us a panoramic view of the city and serves no other function?Isn’t this similar to spending crores on making an oven and then spending crores more to refrigerate it?”
These are the questions Mr. Nilesh Vohra, a young builder of Kanchan Developers, Pune was asking himself after a conference on ‘Defaulting Green’ in Kerala a few years ago. Nilesh is part of theGreen Buildings Committee of the Pune chapter of a nationally recognised builders association in Indiaand met inspiring green building consultants and developers through this forum. These are his initial manoeuvres into responsible construction practices.
Nileshs’ questions draw attention to the need for constructing buildings that are not solely driven by social notions of a ‘premium’ building (in this case, glass buildings), but also consider the social, economic and environmental implications of designing such buildings, which when not considered are detrimental to society and the environment as a whole.
Why should the building economy consider moving towards green building construction, immediately? [footnote-(fn1)] In an era of human-induced climate crisis (fn2), we need to limit global warming to less than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, since estimates state that an increase in temperatures beyond 1.5°C will accelerate the climate crisis, resulting in increased unpredictable and uncontrollable occurrence of disasters such as floods, droughts, biodiversity loss, cyclones, etc. These episodes impact vulnerable sections of society in-equitably; not only are those from economically poorer backgrounds impacted first, but women, children, the elderly and sick are also vulnerable. Everyone, irrespective of who we are, will bear the consequences of climate collapse. The damage to buildings and other property, goes without saying, too. In order to avoid such damage, climate scientists caution towards reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 45% before 2030 and reaching net-zero emissions by 2075. The role of the building economy in contributing to GHG emissions and its potential to mitigate it are stated in the image (UNEP, 2012).
If constructing a ‘safe’ building is a non-negotiable value , considering the implications of the building economy on the environment, can green buildings be an option or are they a necessity?
According to India Brand Equity Foundation (2018), the number of Indians living in urban areas will increase from 434 million in 2015 to about 600 million by 2031, increasing the demand for residential and commercial buildings, both. Recognising the projected increase in construction activities, there seems to be ample opportunity to move towards responsible green building construction. Easy to say “Construct green buildings.” but how do we go about constructing these? What are the steps we have to take to implement these ideas in reality? How do we encourage and support the likes of Nilesh Vohra in making these a priority, amidst all the other logistical and bureaucratic challenges of building in these times? Based on our experience with carbon footprinting and ongoing dialogue with stakeholders contributing towards building construction, we offer some perspective that can facilitate the move forward.
Carbon Footprinting: A means towards responsible construction
What is carbon footprinting and how is it useful? Carbon footprinting is a measurable, verifiable and comparable instrument that entails measuring the carbon emissions during different operations and activities, in this case, building activities. This supports identifying alternatives to reduce emissions and where these would be most effective, thereby minimizing the negative impacts of construction on the environment. By quantifying carbon reduction efforts in building construction, meaningful and comparable information can be shared with building sector counterparts as well as potential buyers creating a base of evidence and commitment towards responsible construction. Carbon footprinting of building projects is a means for builders to begin demonstrating care for the larger world we belong to.
Just as one would not simply measure blood sugar levels of a diabetic without the intent to reduce them, responsible building, therefore, does not end with measuring the carbon footprint of a project. Incorporating actionable steps to mitigate emissions that are avoidable is the most important part.
The cBalance Carbon Footprint Experience
We supported carbon footprinting of the Royal Orange County Residential Housing Project as well as for two townships of Lohegaon and Zandewadi in Pune, respectively. Besides this, internal capacity building and skill development for the Orange County Foundation team was conducted to equip them with skills for calculating the carbon footprint of their construction projects. [Links to detailed reports of the three projects mentioned, are given in a box below. An overview of learnings from engagement with carbon footprint projects is provided at the end of this section, too.]
In the case of Orange County, a comparison was made between their previous projects and the Royal Orange County (ROC) Residential Housing Project which incorporated low carbon efforts such as eco-friendly architectural design buildings, renewable energy, waste management, wastewater management and low-carbon embodied construction and building materials. The calculation of the carbon footprint of the construction phase by the Orange County team revealed 15% lower emissions for the ROC construction compared to their previous projects. It should also be noted that Orange County incorporates sustainable principles in its construction projects by default and comparing the life cycle carbon footprint (fn3) of the ROC with other builder projects in Pune would probably demonstrate a much larger difference in emissions.
In the case of Lohegaon and Zandewadi townships in Pune, Maharashtra, we were asked to conduct carbon footprinting at the request of VK:e environmental, an architecture consultant. The project builders were required to submit a carbon footprint projection report including measures they would undertake to mitigate emissions to the State Environment Committee (SEC), Maharashtra prior to the start of the project. At the time, there wasn’t a standardized protocol available for township carbon footprinting (currently a GHG Protocol for Cities is widely used), so CB used multiple protocols to ensure quality measurements. This was undertaken considering that multiple iterations of footprinting using different protocols would lead to similar conclusions which would strengthen belief in the mitigation recommendations that would be suggested.
Following were the findings after conducting life-cycle carbon footprints of the two townships:
Township
Emissions
Mitigation Potential
Business As Usual (BAU)
Low carbon scenario
Lohegaon
3.51 million ton CO2e
2.48 million ton CO2e
1.02 million ton CO2e
Zandewadi
3.15 million ton CO2e
2.24 million ton CO2e
0.90million ton CO2e
Recommendations were conveyed to enable the builders to incorporate low carbon measures during the building process. Few of the recommendations that were suggested include: 1. Using natural afforestation methods rather than conventionally used plantation-forestry methods to compensate for the carbon absorption capacity that would be lost due to irreversible damage caused to the land on which the construction would occur. This recommendation suggested planting native trees and using the Miyawaki method of afforestation. 2. Reducing energy consumption by integrating passive design techniques such as the use of thermal mass to reduce heat gain, insulating materials or cavity walls, appropriate shading strategies for fenestration, low-U glazing, low-E films, and heat-reflective paints. 3.Inclusion of structure and radiant cooling systems within all floor and ceiling slabs to mitigate solar heat gain through rooftops and walls. 4. Designing flats in a manner that enables integration of natural refrigerant-based split ACs should the flat owners choose to install an AC.
Illustrations of Passive cooling strategies.
In comparing the projects; Orange County through implementation of low carbon measures actually demonstrated mitigation gains, whereas in the case of the two townships only the potential mitigation gains were revealed. Thus, while we participated in SEC hearings to encourage the SEC to approve the carbon footprint report and clear the township projects only if the builders take steps that align with the recommendations made, this was the extent of our influence. It still remains the purview of the SEC and other industry boards/ government authorities to compel builders to implement actionable steps towards reduction, compared to BAU construction.
Way forward
If the potential for environmental safeguarding during construction is no longer in question, then other factors must influence the decision to do so. What would make it accessible and worthwhile for builders to carry out these activities? According to Nilesh two critical obstacles for builders are the lack of investment in the sector and the lack of demand from end-users. For both, carbon footprinting presents itself as a step towards addressing these gaps.
An open disclosure tool, similar to other online tools, requires users to merely submit relevant data, which is then automatically processed to display the final results. Such a tool would enable multiple builders to present their carbon footprint calculations which would essentially create a feedback loop that shows where buildings can undertake at least the well-known measures to control carbon emissions such as using local materials, ensuring energy reduction during the operations phase, conservation etc. A life cycle carbon footprint additionally shows not only the savings at the time of construction but also the potential future energy and emissions savings (during occupation). Last, but definitely not least, it also shows where sustainable solutions pay back over time even those that may initially cost more. With such data it is possible to show investors and government and regulatory bodies from the local municipal level right up to the national and international levels, that such benefits can and should be tied to decision making and evidence-based policy making that favours and rewards responsible construction.
CBalance can create an affordable, sensitive and user-friendly tool and would invite industry associations such as the Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India (CREDAI) to collaborate in this to encourage an increasing number of builders to voluntarily engage in carbon footprinting. This, along with recommendations based on the marginal abatement cost curve, can give builders a range of emissions mitigation opportunities from the least cost option to the highest cost. Additionally, our experience with building in-house capacity for carbon footprinting itself with the Orange County team showed that this too was not difficult. Thus, we recommend using a standard protocol for measurement and coupling in-house capacity building and engagement with consultants who are experienced in the field, to provide appropriate mitigation measures.
At this stage, it is in the collective hands of the builders to push for responsible construction processes at a larger scale, benefitting both, the building economy and the planet as a whole. If they have the vision and will to do so, carbon footprinting and cost-efficient sustainable alternatives like passive design techniques can easily replace ecologically destructive and expensive practices like air-conditioned glass buildings. Builders like Orange County have found ways to translate the wide variety of benefits it holds for residents and the wider community. Ultimately, raising the level of demand for responsible construction from multiple quarters can make shared responsibility and accountability a grounding and enlivening force for the building economy rather than an unwanted burden to be passed off or signed off on at the first opportunity. It will take many more Orange Countys and many more young builders like Nilesh to tip the scales and make sustainable the default. Whether you’re a builder, business person, government official, concerned consumer or citizen, at this juncture in time with climate chaos knocking at the doors of each one, which way you choose to step or what you choose to put your weight behind may change the course of not just your life but the nation and the planet too.
(1) A green building incorporates design techniques, materials and technologies that minimize its overall impacts on the environment and human health. This is achieved by better siting, design, material selection, construction, maintenance, removal, and possible reuse. Main outcomes are minimum site disruption, reduced fossil fuel use, lower water consumption, and fewer pollutants used and released during construction, occupation and disposal of the building. (UNESCAP, 2012)
This blog post discusses the results of a report written in 2011 by Vivek Gilani and Dr. Amit Garg on the subject of the potential for improving the coal efficiency and GHG intensity of the steel sector in India.
Facts:
The domestic cola production target for 2011-12 was 554 mt. India added 1660 MW generation capacity in July of 2011 (all thermal power), and Indian plants exceeded their power generation target that month. Additionally, Coal India Ltd (CIL) reported a 64.06% rise in profit after tax (PAT) during the first quarter (April-June) of 2011-12.
India’s coal import in 2011-12 was predicted to be 137.03 mt, with some ports seeing huge increases in the amount of incoming imported coal. The import of coking coal through Paradip port on the eastern coast of India increased from 258,479 in June 2011 to 668,574 in July, an increase of 410,095 tons, or 159%. Imports of PCI coal through Vizag port in July 2011 stood at 113,467 tons, 86,764 tons more than the 26,703 tons imported in June 2011. And the imports of Low Ash Metallurgical (LAM) coke through Paradip port in the month of July 2011 rose sharply to 60,590 tons, compared with 6,000 tons in June 2011
Domestic mining has many environmental impacts, including the issue of land usage. 171 coal mining proposals involving 28,862 hectares of forest land are awaiting forestry clearance as of June 30, 2011. 44 projects of Coal India Ltd (CIL) stuck under Comprehensive Environment Pollution India (CEPI) norms introduced b they MoEF.
Question:
Can the most efficient users of coal in India’s steel sector help India:
increase its energy independence
meet its climate change commitments
and even save some forests?
Trends:
The following chart displays the GHG intensity of production in the Indian steel sector.
As is evident from the results, coking coal is the largest contributor at 40%, with coal being the second largest at 26%. Steam turbines and grid electricity, at 12%, were also significant.
The following table describes the GHG intensity of production in various steel companies throughout the sector.
The following table, on the other hand, depicts the coal efficiency and GHG intensity enhancement of Indian steel companies. In the years 2008-2010, they substantially exceeded their COP15 commitments regarding GHG mitigation.
The following graph displays the coal savings, GHG intensity reduction, and COP15 commitment opportunities of the steel sector for the same years.
The following chart displays the abatement potential for India’s steel sector for each measure, along with the necessary assumptions. Potentially, the 2030 projected emissions of 735 million tons of CO2e per year could be reduced to 573 million tons. Energy efficiency processes alone have an abatement potential of 73 million tons, shifting to scrap-based EAF has a potential of 21 million tons, and shifting to gas-based DRI, 17 million tons.
Measures:
Energy Efficiency can be improved through improving processes, namely sinter plant heat recovery and coal moisture control. Pulverized coal injection, coke dry quenching, and recovering waste heat also helps optimize energy use.
Savings can come from shifting fuel as well, substituting coke used in BF/BOF furnaces with fuel based on biomass (charcoal). Replacing 10% of coke as the primary blast furnace tool can also make a very sizable contribution.
Technology chances can have a big impact. One example is direct smelting, which removes the need for coking plants. (There are issues with these technologies that need to be resolved, of course). Another is scrap-based steel making, which uses 1/3 of the energy required by standard blast furnaces. The issue here is that if 10% of the total production moved to this system, 70% of India’s steel would need to be recycled, which would come with an economic cost. Lastly, gas-based direct reduced iron and cogeneration, i.e. recovering gas from the BOF/BF process and cleaning and using it for power generation, can also help to reduce emissions.
Energy independence and the Indian steel sector:
Coking coal prices were $129 a ton in 2009-10 but increased to $225 a ton in the second quarter beginning in July 2010. India has a very high dependency on Australia for coking coal and would need 2.4 billion tonnes of steel/yr by 2030, meaning India would need to import 40% of its coal needs.
Conclusion/way forward:
The best practice gap was achieved by the cement industry in its production from coal, increasing the GHG intensity ration from 13.4 to 15.7 in 3 years. Best practice technology (BPT) replication is achievable using off-the-shelf technologies in India. BPT replication in Steel Industry alone can yield 36 million tons of coal savings and reduce India’s imports drastically as well as help India achieve more than 100% of its GHG emissions commitment to COP15 (reducing the GHG intensity of GDP by 20%-25% by 2020). We are not anti-coal as fuel but, rather, a rational promoter of the roadmap to use India’s and the globe’s diminishing coal supplies more efficiently. The most pressing needs are process optimization technology sharing throughout the steel industry and active promotion and incentivization of efficient users of coal and low-GHG intensity steel on platforms such as coal junction and metal junction.
Wipro, an Indian IT services multinational company desiring to become greener, commissioned cBalance to calculate its carbon footprint from business air travel so that strategies could be implemented to reduce these emissions. Wipro has an international presence and a wide geographic base and, thus, must use air transport in order to meet the needs of its clients. In the 2013-14 financial year, Wipro reported 103 thousand tons of CO2e GHG emissions from business travel, which was 13% of its total! Here lied a great opportunity for Wipro to substantially reduce its carbon footprint. So we set out to:
• estimate the carbon emissions factors for domestic and international airlines used by Wipro in 2014-15
• estimate a GHG inventory of Wipro’s business air travel based on the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard,
• make a rankings index of domestic and international airline carriers sorted by their GHG emissions factors,
• recommend a best-in-class air carrier for each sector of company air travel,
• model choices that could reduce GHG emissions (choosing the best airline, reducing the number of stops in a journey)
Not only would this be useful for Wipro, the results of the study could be potentially used by the public at large to reduce their own carbon footprints by simply by making the right decision at the time of booking a flight.
Methodology:
The scope of the project covered all airline business travel, international and domestic, of Wipro during the 2014-15 fiscal year: nearly 500,000 flight legs and about 1.3 billion passenger-km traveled. While about 60% of the flights were domestic, over three quarters of the distance traveled was from international flights.
The GHG emissions inventory was taken following the GHG Protocol’s Corporate Standard, which covers the accounting and reporting of the six greenhouse gases following the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), and requires adherence to the principles of relevance, completeness, consistency, transparency, and accuracy. Only the first three greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), are considered, as emissions of the other three were below the materiality threshold as defined by the ‘completeness’ principle. Operational boundaries have been specified according to the standard, which entails categorizing emissions as either direct or indirect emissions and choosing the scope for indirect emissions. The measured unit of reference flow is passenger-km of air travel and the unit of analysis is Metric Tonne of CO2e.
Wipro provided the raw data set (flights, airport codes, and carrier codes) and collection began by devising and administering a list of data needs identified by the Standard. Domestic short-haul and long-haul flights were defined as shorter and longer than 500 km, respectively, and international short-haul flights as up to 2,000 km, medium-haul flights as between 2,000 and 5,000 km, and long-haul flights as greater than 5,000 km. cBalance corrected errors and invalid entries in these data.
To develop emission factors, LTO (landing/takeoff) and cruise mode emissions were calculated for all aircraft models. Next, best-case per-passenger emission factors for finite distances were derived for every aircraft model (using maximum passenger capacity and load factor of 1). The same was done for additional finite distances on every aircraft model. Then, the per-passenger emissions for finite distances for each airline was calculated by summing the LTO and cruise-mode emissions (accounting for weighted average airline passenger capacities, airline-wide passenger load factors, and passenger to freight ratios). Finally, the same was done for additional finite distances for each airline. Unfortunately, the relative frequency of operation or share of annual passenger-kms performed by a given aircraft model in an airline’s fleet could not be taken into consideration due to the unavailability of the necessary data regarding domestic airline operations. Incorporating such statistics to arrive at a weighted average would provide a more rigorous approach.
Scenario Modelling:
cBalance also modelled two different scenario comparisons. The first compared the baseline to the best-in-class and found that if international flights were switched to the best-in-class scenario, it would result in savings of 41% of GHG emissions. For all Wipro’s international flights, the total savings would be 70.44 thousand tonnes of CO2e emissions. For domestic US flights, the best-in-class scenario results in 37% savings (7.47 thousand tonnes), and for domestic Indian flights the savings are 20% (3.92 thousand tonnes). The second compared multi-stop to non-stop flights and found that for international flights, 25% savings resulted from using non-stop flights, and for US domestic flights, the savings were 50%.
Conclusions:
From the fourth quarter of the 2015-16 fiscal year to the first quarter of the next, Wipro reduced the number of segments flown by 8.7%, but GHG emissions decreased 30% cumulatively and 23% per segment. Wipro was able to achieve such huge emission reductions by merely flying 7% fewer multi-stop segments and choosing ‘cleaner’ airlines.
Based on these findings, cBalance recommends that if the difference between the two airlines is less than 15%, pick the non-stop flight on the ‘dirtier’ airline instead of a flight on a ‘cleaner’ airline with a layover. If the difference is greater than 15%, on the other hand, pick a flight on a ‘cleaner’ airline with a layover as opposed to a non-stop flight on a ‘dirtier’ airline.
Air travel is a highly unsustainable activity that should be avoided when possible. Companies are pledging to take advantage of the teleconferencing capabilities enabled by our age of high speed internet to avoid unnecessary face-to-face meetings. When it is impossible to avoid such flights, companies and individuals can choose the optimal airline, reduced number of stops, and economy class, to reduce their GHG emissions. Something as easy as picking a non-stop flight can save dozens of kilograms of CO2e emissions. For some perspective on what that means, a large tree breathes about 12 kilos of CO2 a year. This is an easy way to reduce one’s carbon footprint.
SAI Life Sciences: An overview of the Energy Audit
Established in 1999, and utilizing its core group of experts, SAI Life Sciences has been identified to be one of the pioneers in drug manufacturing, development and discovery, solely for Pharma innovators. cBalance Solutions Pvt. Ltd (India) was contacted by them to conduct a complete thermal and electrical energy audit, which was carried over a period of 10-days from the 19th of January 2015 to the 28th of January 2015, in Karnataka.
SAI Life was aiming to achieve the objectives of a ‘green industry’ by conserving their natural resources and reducing their environmental impact from the various operations undertaken by them. In order to achieve this, the energy and related cost conservation potential based on technological interventions, architectural interventions and operational process changes needed to be determined. A comparative analysis of the financial feasibility of the proposed alternatives on a life cycle cost basis, needed establishing. All of the above, along with determining the greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation potential, in order to reduce SAI Life Sciences’ carbon footprint was undertaken by cBalance Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
The above curve is identified to be a Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC) for GHG emissions, which is often used as an important component of an institutionalized Sustainability Strategy. It helps in identifying the most cost-effective means of mitigating climate change impact, through several technological interventions and modifications in management practices. The MACC Curve helps in improving the planning of capital expenditure on Energy Efficiency, Water Conservation, Waste Reduction and Management projects, among many others, in a financially sustainable manner, while attaining the desired environmental and socio-economic sustainability benefits. Accumulating the economic benefits from the no-regret options and then stepping into the more challenging interventions is how this is generally done, thereby reducing the financial risk and ensuring longevity of the environmental program on the whole. The costs and benefits are calculated on the basis of real values of the financial parameters and resource conservation benefits of options reflecting the enhancement in technological alternatives.
When calculated for SAI Life, the analysis included the Baseline Performance Management (different power consumption patterns), Compressed Air System, Thermo-pack System, HVAC-Refrigeration System (cooling systems), Boilers and Steam System and other loads (including UPS, Scrubbers and Vacuum ejection system).
After this in-depth analysis it was found that the total current annual electrical energy consumption was approximately 57.6 Lakh kWh/year. In addition to electricity, the Plant was identified to consume 3045 metric tonnes of Coal and Biomass Briquettes for thermal energy and 102,251 liters of diesel annually for power generation. It was also identified that the electricity related emissions were considered to be the most significant supplier to the energy related GHG emissions, contributing 61% of the total emissions. Thus, a method allowing for the mitigation of electricity consumption, in order to prevent climate change on a large scale was suggested to be of a higher priority in comparison to the thermal energy conservation. The HVAC-Refrigeration system was identified to be one of the most critical components of energy consumption, thereby accounting for approximately 33.6% of the total load, followed by the Compressor and Cooling Tower Load. These three sources were identified to cumulatively contribute to approximately 84% of the total energy demand of the plant.
Here is the “MACC for GHG emissions” in table form. We recommend project A to be implemented by SAI Life management first as it offers the highest GHG emission reduction with significant annual savings and low capital cost. Project A is followed by a prioritized list of projects based on these criteria.
Pr. ID
System
Project Description
Capital Cost (INR)
Annual Savings (INR)
Payback Period (yrs)
MAC (Carbon Not Discounted)
A
Boiler System
Reduce Steam Leakage Loss
0
7,24,994
0.00
-5084.88
B
Boiler System
Improve Condensate Recovery to 40%
0
1,41,369
0.00
-5084.88
C
Boiler System
Boiler Radiation Loss Reduction
2,31,951
6,57,963
0.35
-4863.87
D
Boiler System
Flue Gas Waste Heat Recovery
15,00,000
12,65,122
1.19
-4341.57
E
Compressed Air System
Harnessing the leakage in Nitrogen Distribution Line
0
8,63,802
0.00
-3744.47
F
Compressed Air System
Proper Maintenance of Air Compressor Block 06
0
5,42,321
0.00
-3744.47
G
Compressed Air System
Proper Maintenance of Nitrogen Air Compressor up to the Air Receiver Tank
0
2,62,490
0.00
-3744.47
H
Compressed Air System
Proper Maintenance of Air Compressor Block 01
0
2,22,807
0.00
-3744.47
Project A: Steam Leakage
Capital Cost: INR 2,31,591, Annual Savings: INR 7,24,994 , Payback period: 0 years, MAC (Carbon not discounted) : -5084.88
Steam Leakage across the Plant was investigated through visual observation and complimented with the use of a Thermal Imaging Camera. Various locations were identified, wherein active steam was found leaking and four spots were identified as steam leakage hotspots upon which the steal leakage reduction strategy should be focused. It is recommended that regular surveillance and an adequate maintenance program is made for the identification of leaks on pipelines, flanges and joints. Once identified, prompt mitigation strategies should be undertaken in order to harness the low-hanging-fruit energy saving opportunity.
Project B: Condensate Recovery
Capital Cost: 0, Annual Savings: INR 1,41,369, Payback period: 0 years, MAC (Carbon not discounted) : -4863.87
Condensate Recovery from the Steam Distribution System was found to be startlingly low, with only 1,000 liters out of 25,000 TPD being recovered as condensate. This implies an exceptionally low rate of recovery (4%) further implying the rest of the condensate to be drained. Based on observations and experiential learning, it is understood that aiming to achieve a 40% condensate recovery would help in yielding an annual energy savings of approximately 330 GJ per year, eventually saving INR 1.41 Lakhs per year.
Project C: Boiler Radiation Loss Reduction
Capital Cost: 0, Annual Savings: INR 6,47,963 , Payback period: 0.35 years, MAC (Carbon not discounted) : -5084.88
In order to prevent the radiation loss, primary fuel saving opportunities available to the plant include the installation of a solar thermal system, for Boiler Feed Water pre-heating, which is identified to reduce the annual fossil fuel consumption by about 37.7%. A Waste Heat Recovery system could also be installed in order to harness the available energy, reducing the fossil fuel consumption by approximately 30%. Using these technologies would help reducing the annual electricity consumption by 4.2%, yielding energy cost savings of about 12.9% of the current annual energy bill.
The above three projects are examples of the different recommendations that are made in order to reduce the GHG emissions of SAI Life’s operational activities. Once these recommendations are put into place, SAI Life Sciences can achieve the following positive impacts on the environment and its operational costs:
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2,907 metric tonnes of CO2 per year (equivalent to planting approximately 11,628 trees every year)
Conserve 15.3 lakh units of electricity every year (enough to power 1,279 average Indian homes per year)
Reduce its operational cost by INR 1.42 Crore every year
The capital cost for implementing all the proposed projects is approximately INR 1.42 Crore
The payback period for these investments is a very feasible 1.24 years.
cBalance provided a detailed report, which included an in-depth assessment as a part of the energy audit and conservation strategy. The final project report can be found at http://cbalance.in/case-studies/ under the name of SAI Life Sciences.
The following graph displays the coal savings, GHG intensity reduction, and COP15 commitment opportunities of the steel sector for the same years.
