INDEX
Serial Number Topic Page Number Signature
1 Introduction 1
Origin of Carbon
2 2
Footprint
Objective of Carbon
3 4
Footprint
Standards and
4 5-6
Regulations
5 Methodology 6-7
Measuring Carbon
6 8
Footprint
Formulae for measuring
7 8-9
Carbon Foot printing
8 Observation Table 9-11
Analysis of
9 12
Observation/Results
10 Conclusion 13
11 References 14
Introduction
Carbon Foot print: - A carbon foot print is historically defined as the total
set of greenhouse gas emissions caused by an individual, event, organization, or product,
expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent. In most cases, the total carbon foot print cannot be
exactly calculated because of inadequate knowledge of and data about the complex interactions
between contributing processes, especially which includes the influence on natural processes
storing or releasing carbon dioxide. For this reason, Wright, Kemp, and Williams, have
suggested to define the carbon foot print as:
A measure of the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2)
and methane (CH4) emissions of a defined population,
system or activity, considering all relevant sources, sinks
and storage within the spatial and temporal boundary of
the population, system or activity of interest. Calculated as
carbon dioxide equivalent using the relevant 100-
year global warming potential (GWP100). Greenhouse
gases (GHGs) can be emitted through land clearance and
the production and consumption of food, fuels,
manufactured goods, materials, wood, roads, buildings,
transportation and other services. For simplicity of
reporting, it is often expressed in terms of the amount of
carbon dioxide, or its equivalent of other GHGs, emitted.
Most of the carbon foot print emissions for the average U.S. household come from "indirect" sources,
i.e. fuel burned to produce goods far away from the final consumer. These are distinguished from
emissions which come from burning fuel directly in one's car or stove, commonly referred to as "direct"
sources of the consumer's carbon foot print. The concept name of the carbon foot print originates
from ecological foot print, discussion, which was developed by Rees and Wackernagel in the 1990s
which estimates the number of "earths" that would theoretically be required if everyone on the planet
consumed resources at the same level as the person calculating their ecological foot print. However,
given that ecological foot prints are a measure of failure, Anindita Mitra (CREA, Seattle) chose the more
easily calculated "carbon foot print" to easily measure use of carbon, as an indicator of unsustainable
energy use. In 2007, carbon foot print was used as a measure of carbon emissions to develop the energy
plan for City of Lynnwood, Washington. Carbon foot prints are much more specific than ecological foot
prints since they measure direct emissions of gases that cause climate change into the atmosphere.
Origin of Carbon Foot printing
Carbon foot printing is a relatively new field. The predecessor to carbon foot printing, ecological foot
printing (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996) is a measure of resource use, and determines how much land
area is required to maintain a given population indefinitely. The phrase carbon foot printing, however,
did not appear in literature until later, as described by Wiedmann and Minx (2008), when it was
universally agreed that emissions of greenhouse gasses needed to be reduced to prevent excessive
warming. Life Cycle analysis (LCA) is a predecessor to product carbon foot printing and has historically
been used to compare products. Literature on LCA dates back as far as the 1960s, as described by
Guinee et al. (2011). LCA has always been used as a method for comparing sets of similar ´ products
based on benchmarks, such as cost of manufacture, energy consumption, water consumption etc.
However it was not until carbon foot printing first became popular that greenhouse gas emissions were
included in such analyses. An example of an early study into LCA was Hunt et al. (1974) in a report to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in which several beverage containers were assessed and
compared. In 1988 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed by the world
meteorological organization and the United Nations environment program. The goal was to address the
issue of climate change and in 1990 the first working group of the IPCC was held. They compiled and
assessed available literature on climate change and published the First Assessment Report (FAR)
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2000). This was a major milestone in carbon foot
printing as it was the first global effort towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The panel
met again in 1995 and produced the Second Assessment Report (SAR), the Third Assessment Report
(TAR) in 2001, and the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in 2007. These reports further discussed the
state of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, as well as likelihood of potential climate change
caused by greenhouse gasses. They also enacted legislation to facilitate the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions.
Objective of Carbon Foot printing
The aims of your carbon foot print assessment will depend on the nature of your
business. As a manufacturer, your priority may be to conduct an internal site assessment then
assess the emissions up the supply chain. Retailers of consumer goods may go further to assess
specific product carbon foot prints, including the use and end of life phases, and then implement
a communications strategy. Our objectives are to:
promote a range of activities, including but not limited to public education, to affect
personal, home and business behavior, incorporating transport issues;
encourage and achieve reduction, reuse and recycling initiatives;
work with local councils and other civic bodies to promote local trade initiatives and to
reduce waste;
Work towards achieving Transition Town status.
Standards and Regulations
Another major milestone in carbon foot printing was the Kyoto Protocol (United
Nations, 1998). Six greenhouse gasses were determined to be the primary contributors to global
warming, and country level targets were set for reductions of these emissions. Each of the
greenhouse gasses have different impacts depending on their chemical composition and the
length of time they remain in the atmosphere. To attempt to standardize emissions reporting, the
quantity of each gas is multiplied by its global warming potential, calculated as the amount of
carbon dioxide that would have the equivalent environmental impact over a specified period of
time. The gasses are reported in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (kgCO2e). There are
several international standards for carbon foot printing. The first standard to define carbon foot
printing was the greenhouse gas protocol (World Resources Institute and World Business
Council for Sustainable Development, 2000). This formed the basis for most other carbon foot
printing standards. The greenhouse gas protocol defines three scopes: Scope 1 is direct
emissions, e.g., gas used in generators or fuel consumed by owned transport. Scope 2 is indirect
emissions, e.g., purchased electricity and heat. Scope 3 is other indirect emissions, e.g., products,
and un owned transport. In the UK, legislation has been passed to reduce carbon emissions, in
the form of Carbon Reduction Commitments (CRCs) (The Environment Agency et al., 2012).
This scheme originally accounted for emissions in scopes 1 and 2, but has been simplified and
now only includes emissions associated with electricity and, in some cases, energy from heating
(The Environment Agency et al., 2013).
The International Standards Organization
(ISO) has developed the ISO 14000 series
(International Standards Organization,
2009) based on the greenhouse gas
protocol. The standards within the series
that are most relevant to product carbon
foot printing are ISO 14040 Life cycle
assessment (International Standards
Organization, 2006a) and ISO 14064
Greenhouse gasses (International
Standards Organization, 2006b,c,d).
ISO14040 lays out a framework for
calculating the carbon foot print of a
product using LCA. ISO14064 defines the quantification of greenhouse gasses at a product and
organizational level, as well as providing methods for verifying the quality of data used to
calculate emissions.
Whilst CRCs focus on the reporting and reduction of scope 1 and 2 emissions, studies have
shown that scope 3 accounts for a significant amount of carbon emissions. For example between 1990
and 2008 the scope 3 emissions of the UK government had risen in proportion from 65% to 77% of total
emissions (Wiedmann and Barrett, 2011). Additionally it was estimated that in 2010 procurement
accounted for 65% of carbon emissions within the NHS (NHS Sustainable Development Unit, 2012),
which describes an increase in proportion from the 2004 emissions, which were 60%, (NHS Sustainable
Development Unit, 2009). This clearly shows that scope 3 emissions constitute a significant portion of
emissions, and that these emissions are not being accounted for by legislation. Matthews et al. (2008)
states that, whilst standards normally require reporting of tier 1 and 2 emissions (equivalent to scope 1
and 2 defined by the greenhouse gas protocol), it is important to also report on tier 3 emissions
(equivalent to scope 3 defined in the greenhouse gas protocol). They claim that, for the majority of
organizations, the tier 3 emissions are approximately 74% of total emissions. This shows that a large
number of the standards only require an organization to report a small portion of their emissions. Whilst
CRCs focus on the reporting and reduction of scope 1 and 2 emissions, studies have shown that scope 3
accounts for a significant amount of carbon emissions. For example between 1990 and 2008 the scope 3
emissions of the UK government had risen in proportion from 65% to 77% of total emissions (Wiedmann
and Barrett, 2011). Additionally it was estimated that in 2010 procurement accounted for 65% of carbon
emissions within the NHS (NHS Sustainable Development Unit, 2012), which describes an increase in
proportion from the 2004 emissions, which were 60%, (NHS Sustainable Development Unit, 2009). This
clearly shows that scope 3 emissions constitute a significant portion of emissions, and that these
emissions are not being accounted for by legislation. Matthews et al. (2008) states that, whilst standards
normally require reporting of tier 1 and 2 emissions (equivalent to scope 1 and 2 defined by the
greenhouse gas protocol), it is important to also report on tier 3 emissions (equivalent to scope 3
defined in the greenhouse gas protocol). They claim that, for the majority of organizations, the tier 3
emissions are approximately 74% of total emissions. This shows that a large number of the standards
only require an organization to report a small portion of their emissions.
Methodology
There are two major approaches to product carbon foot printing. The process method and
the input-output method. These methods approach the problem of carbon foot printing
differently. The process method, a form of LCA, is a bottom-up approach. Each process in the
products life cycle, within the boundaries defined by the particular method, are assigned a
quantity of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, a summation of this provides a full
carbon foot print. The input-output method is a top-down approach based on carbon intensities.
A carbon intensity is a measure of emissions relative to a unit of a quantity, for example the
carbon intensity of transport could be emissions per unit distance. In an input-output method,
carbon intensities are defined for a number of categories. The product is assigned to one of these
categories and an attribute of the product, e.g., price or weight, is multiplied by the carbon
intensity to give the carbon foot print. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages. For
example the input-output method takes less time to apply, requires less computation, and
requires considerably less data to produce a carbon foot print than the process method. The
process method on the other hand provides a greater level of detail about the product than the
input-output method, e.g., it details the carbon foot print for each stage of the products life cycle
that are within the scope of the analysis. The process method also uses more product specific
data, for example if the manufacturer of a product uses low carbon materials then the carbon foot
print, as calculated by the input-output, will be incorrect, as the low carbon materials will not be
considered. When calculating a process carbon foot print a degree of interpretation is required to
identify all processes that are associated with a product e.g., all the transportation used, all the
manufacturing processes, etc.. Because of this it is possible to calculate multiple different carbon
foot prints for the same product using the same method. This issue is less prevalent when
calculating an input-output carbon foot prints because the only decision required is the category
to which the product belongs. Tillman (2000) describes the effect of decision making on the
outcome of a life cycle analysis, and claims that the choices are largely dependent on the goal
and scope of the study. There is no correlation between the foot prints calculated using the
process method and the input-output method. While the two methods represent the same carbon
foot print, Barnett et al. (2013) show that the input-output and process methods are producing
different results. It is concluded by Lenzen and Dey (2000) that, in the case of energy
requirements (a significant component of a product carbon foot print), the process model
underestimates by up to 50%. They claim this is due to boundary setting, i.e., what is included in
the analysis. There are five stages to a product’s life cycle: mining and extraction of raw
materials, production, Distribution/ retail, use, and disposal/ recycling of the product, as
described by Carbon Trust et al.
(2008). Different product carbon foot
printing methods assess different
stages of a product’s life cycle. The
most common type of analysis is
known as cradle-to-gate, and only
incorporates emissions from
extraction of raw materials to
distribution/ retail. A full life cycle
assessment analysis is also known as
cradle-to-grave, and incorporates the
entirety of the product’s life cycle. Another form of analysis, known as cradle-to-cradle,
incorporates the entirety of a product’s life cycle, as well as recycling of materials. Neither the
process method nor the input-output method provides an ideal carbon foot print. Many hybrid
approaches have therefore been developed (Acquaye et al., 2011, Suh and Huppes, 2005,
Gemechu et al., 2011) in an attempt to reduce the data requirements, time and computation
required to perform a process analysis, while providing a more granular result than the
input/output analysis. Hybrid product carbon foot printing is a new field and as such no
standardized approach has yet been developed. The hybrid techniques usually apply methods
from both input-output and process carbon foot printing, for example Meinrenken et al. (2012)
develop emissions factors for product components (input-output method) and applies these to the
components of the products life cycle (process method), thus providing a more granular carbon
foot print than would be produced by the input-output method, whilst requiring less data than the
process method. The selection of product carbon foot printing technique is largely dependent on
the number of products being foot printed and the amount of available data, as well as the time
available to perform the analysis. Commercial applications have shown that, for a large
organization trying to identify an optimal strategy to reduce the carbon foot print of their
procurement, the input-output level of analysis provides a sufficient level of granularity. For an
organization that supplies a small number of similar products however, a process analysis is
better suited because it shows which processes in the product’s supply chain have the largest
impact in terms of carbon emissions, and allows a more comprehensive comparison of different
products. The organization supplying the products will also likely have enough data about the
products to perform a process level analysis.
Measuring Carbon Foot printing
An individual's, nations, or organization's carbon foot print can be measured by
undertaking a GHG emissions assessment or other calculative activities denoted as carbon
accounting. Once the size of a carbon foot print is known, a strategy can be devised to reduce it,
e.g. by technological developments, better process and product management, changed Green
Public or Private Procurement (GPP), carbon capture, consumption strategies, carbon offsetting
and others.
Several free online carbon foot print calculators exist, including a few supported by publicly
available peer-reviewed data and calculations including the University of California, Berkeley's
Cool Climate Network research consortium and Carbon Story. These websites ask you to answer
more or less detailed questions about your diet, transportation
choices, home size, shopping and recreational activities, usage
of electricity, heating, and heavy appliances such
as dryers and refrigerators, and so on.
The website then estimates your
carbon foot print based on your answers
to these questions. A systematic literature
review was conducted to objectively
determine the best way to calculate
individual/household carbon foot prints.
This review identified 13 calculation
principles and subsequently used the
same principles to evaluate the 15 most popular online carbon foot print calculators. A recent
study’s results by Carnegie Mellon's Christopher Weber found that the calculation of carbon foot
prints for products is often filled with large uncertainties. The variables of owning electronic
goods such as the production, shipment, and previous technology used to make that product, can
make it difficult to create an accurate carbon foot print. It is important to question, and address
the accuracy of Carbon Foot print techniques, especially due to its overwhelming popularity.
Carbon Foot prints can be reduced through the development of alternative projects, such as solar
and wind energy, which are environment friendly, renewable resources, or reforestation, the
restocking of existing forests or woodlands that have previously been depleted. These examples
are known as Carbon Offsetting, the counteracting of carbon dioxide emissions with an
equivalent reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The main influences on carbon foot
prints include population, economic output, and energy and carbon intensity of the economy.
These factors are the main targets of individuals and businesses in order to decrease carbon foot
prints. Production creates a large carbon foot print, scholars suggest that decreasing the amount of
energy needed for production would be one of the most effective ways to decrease a carbon foot print.
This is due to the fact that Electricity is responsible for roughly 37% of Carbon Dioxide emissions. Coal
production has been refined to greatly reduce carbon emissions; since the 1980s, the amount of energy
used to produce a ton of steel has decreased by 50%.
Formulae for measuring carbon foot print:-
For Household:
Electricity : use (kWh/yr) * EF (kg CO2e/kWh) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr)
Natural Gas : use (therms/yr) * EF (kg CO2e/therms) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr)
Fuel Oil: use (litres/yr) * EF (kg CO2e/litre) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr)
LPG : use (litres/yr) * EF (kg CO2e/litre) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr)
Waste : use (kg/week) * 52 * EF (kg CO2e/kg) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr)
Water : use (litres/day) * 365 * EF (kg CO2e/kWh) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr)
For Travelling:
Vehicle : distance (km/yr) /*EF (kg CO2e/km) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr)
Bus : distance (km/yr) * EF (kg CO2e/km) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr)
Metro: distance (km/yr) * EF (kg CO2e/km) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr)
Taxi: distance (km/yr) * EF (kg CO2e/km) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr)
Rail: distance (km/yr) * EF (kg CO2e/km) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr)
Flying : distance (km/yr)* 1.09 * EF (kg CO2e/km) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr)
For Food:
Red meat: consumption (kCal/day)*365*EF (kg CO2e/kCal) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr)
White meat: consumption (kCal/day)*365*EF (kg CO2e/kCal) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr)
Dairy: consumption (kCal/day)*365*EF (kg CO2e/kCal) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr)
Cereals: consumption (kCal/day)*365*EF (kg CO2e/kCal) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr)
Vegetables: consumption (kCal/day)*365*EF (kg CO2e/kCal) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr)
Fruit: consumption (kCal/day)*365*EF (kg CO2e/kCal) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr)
Oils: consumption (kCal/day)*365*EF (kg CO2e/kCal) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr)
Obs. No. 4 5 6
Members 4 2 4
Questions Normal Carbon Normal Carbon Normal Carbon
Value Footprint Value Footprint Value Footprint
Volume of LPG 20 0.01 16 0.01 16 0.01
(lit.)
Volume of 6 0.00 5 0.01 4 0.00
Heating Oil (lit.)
Electricity Units 200 0.04 202 0.06 220 0.04
(kWh)
No. Of Vehicles 4 - - - 2 -
Owned
Fuel Consumed 200 0.46 - - 40 0.09
By Vehicles (lit.)
Distance - - - - - -
Travelled By
Train (km)
Distance - - 150 - - -
Travelled by Bus
(km)
Total Carbon 0.53 0.10 0.14
Foot print (tones
of CO2)
Do You Recycle Some Some Mostly
Waste
Food Preferences Non Vegetarian Non Vegetarian Vegan
Observation Table
Obs. No. 1 2 3
Members 8 4 7
Questions Normal Carbon Normal Carbon Normal Carbon
Value Footprint Value Footprint Value Footprint
Volume of LPG 32 0.01 30 0.01 33 0.01
(lit.)
Volume of Heating 7 0.00 5 0.00 2 0.00
Oil (lit.)
Electricity Units 330 0.03 621 0.13 260 0.03
(kWh)
No. Of Vehicles 1 - 3 - 3 -
Owned
Fuel Consumed By 15 0.03 253 0.6 53 0.12
Vehicles (lit.)
Distance Travelled - - - - 1600 0.06
By Train (km)
Distance Travelled - - - - - -
by Bus (km)
Total Carbon Foot 0.07 0.74 0.29
print (tones of
CO2)
Do You Recycle All Some Some
Waste
Food Preferences Non Vegetarian Vegan Non Vegetarian
Obs. No. 1 2 3
Members 5 5 5
Questions Normal Carbon Normal Carbon Normal Carbon
Value Footprint Value Footprint Value Footprint
Volume of 14 0.01 16 0.01 23 0.01
LPG(lit.)
Volume of 5 0.00 4 0.00 6 0.00
Heating Oil (lit.)
Electricity Units 201 0.03 240 0.04 180 0.03
(kWh)
No. Of Vehicles - - - - -
Owned
Fuel Consumed - - - - -
By Vehicles (lit.)
Distance - - 936 0.04 162 0.01
Travelled By
Train (km)
Distance 467.1 0.05 170.1 0.02 170.1 0.02
Travelled by Bus
(km)
Total Carbon 0.09 0.11 0.07
Foot print (tones
of CO2)
Do You Recycle Some Some Some
Waste
Food Preferences Non Vegetarian Non Vegetarian Non Vegetarian
Analysis
1) The Carbon Footprint of the 9 observed households vary from each other by a minute or
big difference depending on the use of quantity of different energy sources.
2) Among the 9 observed households footprint of six of them is below 0.15 tonnes. While
three exceeds this value, two of them exceeding 0.05 tonnes.
3) The total footprint of the house is 2.09 tonnes and their average is 0.232 tonnes.
4) The entire household surveyed recycle some of their wastes.
5) Most of the observed households are non-vegetarians as only two amongst them are
vegetarian
AVERAGE CARBON EMISSION PER PERSON BY COUNTRY
The average U.S. household carbon foot print is about 50 tons CO2e per year. The single largest
source of emissions for the typical household is from driving (gasoline use). Transportation as a
whole (driving, flying & small amount from public transit) is the largest overall category,
followed by housing (electricity, natural gas, waste, construction) then food (mostly from red
meat, dairy and seafood products, but also includes emissions from all other food), then goods
followed lastly by services. The carbon foot print of U.S. households is about 5 times greater
than the global average, which is approximately 10 tons CO2e per household per year. For most
U.S. households, the single most important action to reduce their carbon foot print is driving less
or switching to a more efficient vehicle.
Ways to reduce Carbon Foot printing
The most common way to reduce the carbon foot print of humans is to Reduce, Reuse,
Recycle, Refuse. In manufacturing this can be done by recycling the packing materials, by
selling the obsolete inventory of one industry to the industry who is looking to buy unused items
at lesser price to become competitive. Nothing should be disposed off into the soil, all the ferrous
materials which are prone to degrade or oxidize with time should be sold as early as possible at
reduced price. This can also be done by using reusable items such as thermoses for daily coffee
or plastic containers for water and other cold beverages rather than disposable ones. If that option
isn't available, it is best to properly recycle the disposable items after use. When one household
recycles at least half of their household waste, they can save 1.2 tons of carbon dioxide annually.
Another easy option is to drive less. By walking or biking to the destination rather than driving,
not only is a person going to save money on gas, but they will be burning less fuel and releasing
fewer emissions into the atmosphere. However, if walking is not an option, one can look
into carpooling or mass transportation options in their area. Yet another option for reducing
the carbon foot print of humans is to use less air conditioning and heating in the home. By
adding insulation to the walls and attic of one's home, and installing weather-
stripping or caulking around doors and windows one can lower their heating costs more than 25
percent. Similarly, one can very inexpensively upgrade the "insulation" (clothing) worn by
residents of the home. For example, it's estimated that wearing a base layer of long underwear
(top and bottom) made from a lightweight, super insulating fabric like micro fleece can conserve
as much body heat as a full set of clothing, allowing a person to remain warm with the
thermostat lowered by over 5 °C. These measures all help because they reduce the amount of
energy needed to heat and cool the house. One can also turn down the heat while sleeping at
night or away during the day, and keep temperatures moderate at all times. Setting the thermostat
just 2 degrees lower in winter and higher in summer could save about 1 ton of carbon
dioxide each year.
Choice of diet is a major influence on a person's carbon foot print. Animal sources of protein
(especially red meat), rice (typically produced in high methane-emitting paddies), foods
transported long distance and/or via fuel-inefficient transport (e.g., highly perishable produce
flown long distance) and heavily processed and packaged foods are among the major
contributors to a high carbon diet. Scientists at the University of Chicago have estimated "that
the average American diet – which derives 28% of its calories from animal foods – is responsible
for approximately one and a half more tones of greenhouse gasses as CO2 equivalents – per
person, per year than a fully plant-based, or vegan, diet. Their calculations suggest that even
replacing one third of the animal protein in the average American's diet with plant protein (e.g.,
beans, grains) can reduce the diet's carbon foot print by half a ton. Exchanging two thirds of the
animal protein with plant protein is roughly equivalent to switching from a Toyota Camry to a
Prius. Finally, throwing food out not only adds its associated carbon emissions to a person or
household's foot print, it adds the emissions of transporting the wasted food to the garbage dump
and the emissions of food decomposition, mostly in the form of the highly potent greenhouse
gas, methane.
The carbon handprint movement emphasizes individual forms of carbon offsetting, like using
more public transportation or planting trees in deforested regions, to reduce one's carbon foot
print and increase their "handprint.
Furthermore, the carbon foot print in the food industry can be reduced by optimizing the supply
chain. A life cycle or supply chain carbon foot print study can provide useful data which will
help the business to identify critical areas for improvement and provides a focus. Such studies
also demonstrate a company’s commitment to reducing carbon foot print now ahead of other
competitors as well as preparing companies for potential regulation. In addition to increased
market advantage and differentiation eco-efficiency can also help to reduce costs
where alternative energy systems are implemented.
Conclusion
The average carbon foot print of India is 1.8 tones per capita. From the result we can see that the
average carbon footprint of the data is 0.42 which is good amount. It means that the amount of
carbon released in the atmosphere is less. From this we can conclude that people are aware about
the harmful effects of carbon and hence they are taking care of emission of carbon. From the
survey we also came to know that people recycle their waste which is good initiative for
controlling the release of carbon in the atmosphere.
Reference:
http://www.brighthub.com/environment/green-
living/articles/51601.aspx
https://archive.epa.gov/greenbuilding/web/html/about.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_building
http://www.agpom.org/greenpropertyresources/green-resources/history-
green-buildings/
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/environmental-sciences/the-objective-
of-green-building-concept-environmental-sciences-essay.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_in_Energy_and_Environment
al_Design
https://www.weetas.com/article/green-buildings-advantages-and-
disadvantages/
Acknowledgement
The success and final outcome of this project required a lot of
guidance and assistance from many people. The project given by the
University of Mumbai is Carbon Foot Printing. I give special thanks
to Board of Education, Principal, Head of Department of Zoology. I
would also like to thank Dr. Shailesh Tawade sir and Ms. Nikita
Bhadekar Ma’am for providing us such a nice support and guidance
and making me learn a lot of new things. At last but not the least I
would like to thank my dear friends for helping me in this project.
