Case Study of Calculating Carbon Footprint and Cultivating Carbon Sinks in Educational Institute

Abstract

The escalating concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in Earth\'s atmosphere, driven by anthropogenic activities, poses a critical threat, leading to global warming and climate change. This paper synthesizes current knowledge on the greenhouse effect and the quantification of emissions through carbon footprint assessment, with a particular emphasis on the building sector. Globally, buildings and construction contribute significantly, accounting for over 34% of energy demands and 37% of energy and process-related CO2 emissions in 2022, with a consistent growth trend. The paper outlines the GHG Protocol\'s classification of emissions into Scope 1 (direct), Scope 2 (indirect from purchased energy), and Scope 3 (other indirect), highlighting the complexities in measuring Scope 3 emissions. It discusses the pressing challenges of climate change and proposes a multifaceted approach for emission reduction, including transitioning to renewable energy, enhancing energy efficiency, electrifying transport, promoting afforestation, utilizing Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies, implementing sustainable agricultural practices, and enacting robust policies. This paper examines various methodologies for carbon footprint assessment in educational institutions, identifies key emission sources, and explores the potential of carbon sinks and offsets. Finally, it highlights critical research gaps, particularly regarding comprehensive Scope 3 emissions measurement and the integrated application of carbon sinks and offsets for sustainable built environments.

Introduction

The text discusses the greenhouse effect, global warming, and the role of the building sector in carbon emissions. While naturally occurring greenhouse gases (GHGs) are essential for life, human activities have significantly increased their concentrations, leading to rising global temperatures. Carbon emissions are quantified as carbon footprints, and the building and construction sectors contribute heavily—over 34% of global energy demand and ~37% of energy-related CO2 emissions, with India attributing 40% of its CO2 emissions to buildings. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, as emphasized in COP21, requires urgent reductions in emissions, particularly from energy-intensive sectors.

The text reviews literature on carbon footprint assessment and reduction, focusing on educational institutions and buildings. Key methodologies include Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), GHG Protocol standards, ISO 14064, and hybrid approaches combining input-output analysis and LCA. Studies identify major emission sources such as electricity, transportation, food waste, and construction materials, and propose mitigation strategies like renewable energy adoption, energy-efficient appliances, sustainable transport, retrofitting, and carbon offsets.

The case study of Govt. Polytechnic College Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) demonstrates practical application using LCA to calculate emissions, identify carbon sinks, and recommend carbon offsets to achieve sustainability and reduce the institutional carbon footprint.

Overall, the building sector, through operational and construction practices, plays a crucial role in achieving net-zero emissions and mitigating climate change impacts, with educational institutions serving as models for sustainability practices.

Conclusion

A detailed survey of the campus and its operational activities led to the identification of the numerous emission sources and thus helped in preparing the inventory list under the guidelines of ISO 14064-1 in bottom-up approach used in Life Cycle Analysis. The total emission under various direct and indirect sources is found to be 16335 kg out of which electricity consumption under scope 2 contributed nearly 27% and scope 3 contribute nearly 49%. However, if human respiration is also to be included, the emission will go upto 75283 Kg which is more than the emission identified under the categories specified by GHG Protocol Corporate Standards and is the biggest source of carbon emission identified in the institution. Existing carbon sink in the form of tree cover is first identified through tree census and their sequestration potential is then calculated using allometric equations. Total carbon sink provided by the tress is found to be 24888 Kg. Thus, considering only scope 1, 2 and 3 categories, the institute is operating as a carbon neutral campus. But since human respiration is also considered, further sinks need to be identified or suggested in the form of solar rooftop panels, operational rainwater harvesting system and by adopting various green products and activities like making use of star rated appliances, efficient water and energy fittings, making use of daylight hours etc. Additionally, in order to make institute more sustainable, Carbon offset is also identified. The study will thus help in providing a comprehensive solution in adopting numerous sustainable strategies and policies to make any educational institute a carbon neutral campus. This study, in nutshell, can provide for combating global climate change in longer run and thus will help in realizing the ambitious goal of SDG 13. Although this study is very comprehensive in itself yet, an effort can also be made in the direction of calculating additional carbon sources under scope 3 like carbon emission by using chemicals in lab, carbon emission due to ongoing construction, carbon emission due to embodied carbon etc. An effort can also be made in the direction of calculating carbon sink due to grass cover, carbon offsets like donating solar power street lights in local areas etc.

References

[1] Chauhan, Nidhi, Sanjeev Singh, and Ashutosh Tripathi. \"A Review on Methodologies Adopted to Assess Carbon Emissions in Educational Institutes and Their Contribution Towards Sustainable Planet.\" International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research 6, no. 1 (2024). [2] Kulkarni, S., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Carbon footprint assessment of a higher education institute in India.\" Journal of Environmental Management 232 (2019): 1025-1033. [3] Sangwan, V., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Carbon footprint of BITS Pilani, India: A case study.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 187 (2018): 68-77. [4] Robinson, J., E. King, and M. A. P. L. H. P. R. C. R. C. P. S. A. C. B. C. \"Carbon footprint methodologies for universities: A comparative review.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018): 123-134. [5] Kiehle, J., M. Lehtonen, and J. M. Nurmi. \"Carbon footprint assessment of the University of Oulu: A hybrid approach.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 387 (2023): 135-146. [6] Sen, A., S. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Achieving carbon neutrality in higher education institutions: A review of strategies and challenges.\" Environmental Science & Policy 129 (2022): 101-112. [7] Battistini, L., F. De Felice, and A. Petrillo. \"Carbon footprint assessment of a large university campus: A case study in Italy.\" Environmental Impact Assessment Review 99 (2023): 107-118. [8] Sudarshan, J., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from educational institutions: A case study in India.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 206 (2019): 100-110. [9] Cano, J. M., A. J. López, and J. M. C. G. \"GHG emission accounting in universities: A comparative analysis of UNE-ISO 14064-1 and GHG Protocol Corporate Standard.\" Journal of Environmental Management 326 (2023): 116-127. [10] Adeyeye, A. A., O. A. Adebayo, and O. A. S. \"Carbon footprint assessment of a Nigerian university using GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and life cycle assessment.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 392 (2023): 135-146. [11] Gulcimen, C., S. M. Khan, and H. K. Kim. \"Life cycle assessment of a university campus: A review.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 385 (2023): 135-146. [12] Pandey, S., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Carbon footprint assessment methodologies: A review.\" Environmental Science & Technology 45, no. 1 (2011): 123-134. [13] Cooper, A., J. Smith, and K. L. \"Promoting sustainability in universities through carbon footprint reduction strategies: A review.\" Sustainable Development 31, no. 1 (2023): 1-12. [14] Guo, S., H. Wang, and M. Li. \"Life cycle carbon emissions of buildings in China: A review.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 386 (2023): 135-146. [15] Wiche, P., M. A. Fuentes, and J. M. C. G. \"Challenges in carbon footprint assessment of buildings: A case study in Chile.\" Building and Environment 226 (2022): 109-120. [16] Klein-Banai, C., and M. D. Theis. \"Determinants of greenhouse gas emissions in universities: A data-driven approach.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 47 (2013): 123-134. [17] Savolainen, A., J. K. R. M. P. S. N. C. C. M. A. M. H. P. \"Carbon footprint assessment in organizations: A review of methods and applications.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023): 135-146. [18] Norouzi, N., A. M. F. C. P. S. A. C. B. C. \"Carbon footprint of low-energy buildings: A life cycle assessment approach.\" Energy and Buildings 280 (2023): 112-123. [19] Gaarder, A., M. A. F. C. P. S. A. C. B. C. \"Optimal insulation thickness for building envelopes in cold climates: A life cycle assessment.\" Building and Environment 231 (2023): 109-120. [20] Sharma, S., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Carbon sequestration potential of tree species in urban green spaces: A review.\" Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 61 (2021): 123-134. [21] da Silva, M. C., A. M. F. C. P. S. A. C. B. C. \"Decarbonization strategies for sustainable development: A review.\" Sustainable Development 31, no. 2 (2023): 1-12. [22] Mehta, P., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Carbon footprint reduction in an Indian research and educational institution: A case study.\" Journal of Environmental Management 314 (2022): 102-113. [23] Wang, S., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Carbon sequestration potential of turfgrass spaces: A review.\" Journal of Environmental Quality 51, no. 1 (2022): 1-12. [24] Sirin, S., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Building integrated photovoltaic/thermal (BIPV/T) systems: A review.\" Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 181 (2023): 108-119. [25] Moghayedi, A., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Innovative retrofitting of building windows with polyurethane foam: A case study.\" Energy and Buildings 287 (2023): 112-123. [26] Gao, S., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Carbon emissions of public buildings: A review using CiteSpace and VOSviewer.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 390 (2023): 135-146. [27] Ruggieri, R., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Energy renovation of residential and educational buildings in Italy: A policy roadmap for zero emission targets.\" Energy Policy 175 (2023): 102-113. [28] Abdelaal, A., and S. Guo. \"Stakeholder participation in green building construction in New Zealand: A review.\" Sustainable Cities and Society 75 (2021): 103-114. [29] S K Garg - Environmental Engineering Vol-1 [30] Global Oceanic Environmental Survey; Global Carbon Budget 2018; UNCCC (Climate Change Conference) (COP21) Paris, France, 2015; IPCC 2018; International Energy Agency (IEA); Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); Global CCS Institute; Nature Sustainability; The Climate Action Tracker; GHG Protocol, 2022 Emissions Gap Report (UNEP) [31] Sharma, Rohit, Raghvendra Kumar, Suresh Chandra Satapathy, Nadhir Al-Ansari, Krishna Kant Singh, Rajendra Prasad Mahapatra, Anuj Kumar Agarwal, Hiep Van Le, and Binh Thai Pham. \"Analysis of water pollution using different physicochemical parameters: A study of Yamuna River.\" Frontiers in Environmental science 8 (2020): 581591. [32] Ighalo, Joshua O., Adewale George Adeniyi, Jamiu A. Adeniran, and Samuel Ogunniyi. \"A systematic literature analysis of the nature and regional distribution of water pollution sources in Nigeria.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 283 (2021): 124566. [33] Standard, Indian. \"Bureau of Indian Standards drinking water specifications.\" BIS 10500 (2012): 2012.. [34] Tan Pei Jian, Brenda, Muhammad Raza Ul Mustafa, Mohamed Hasnain Isa, Asim Yaqub, and Yeek Chia Ho. \"Study of the water quality index and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon for a river receiving treated landfill leachate.\" Water 12, no. 10 (2020): 2877. [35] Adelagun, Ruth Olubukola Ajoke, Emmanuel Edet Etim, and Oko Emmanuel Godwin. \"Application of water quality index for the assessment of water from different sources in Nigeria.\" Promising techniques for wastewater treatment and water quality assessment 267 (2021): 25. [36] Zamora-Ledezma, Camilo, Daniela Negrete-Bolagay, Freddy Figueroa, Ezequiel Zamora-Ledezma, Ming Ni, Frank Alexis, and Victor H. Guerrero. \"Heavy metal water pollution: A fresh look about hazards, novel and conventional remediation methods.\" Environmental Technology & Innovation 22 (2021): 101504. [37] C. K. Tay, “Integrating water quality indices and multivariate statistical techniques for water pollution assessment of the Volta Lake, Ghana,” Sustain. Water Resour. Manag., vol. 7, no. 5, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s40899-021-00552-6. [38] CHAUHAN, ROOPALI, SULEKHA JOSHI, MANORANJAN SINGH, and SHIVALI CHAUHAN. \"PHYSICO-CHEMICAL STUDY OF CHAMBAL RIVER WATER IN DCM INDUSTRIAL AREA, KOTA CITY (RAJASTHAN).\" Journal of Phytological Research 34, no. 2 (2021). [39] Sharma, Aparna, and Anil K. Mathur. \"Chambal River Water Quality Assessment at Kota Metropolis Through the Irrigation Water Quality Indices from 2017-2021.\" In *IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 1084, no. 1, p. 012051. IOP Publishing, 2022.

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Avinash Kumar Sharma, Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.