Quantifying Dublin City Enterprise Board’s carbon footprint & Developing a footprint reduction plan CarbonDecisions Update January 16, 2009.

Quantifying Dublin City Enterprise Board’s carbon footprint

&Developing a footprint reduction plan

CarbonDecisions

Update January 16, 2009

Contents

• Scope of the study– Emission sources

• Analysis and benchmarking– Carbon footprint– Energy efficency

• What’s working well• Opportunities for improvement• Key findings• Next steps

Scope: emission sources

1.Direct combustion and process

2. Electricity

3. Employee commuting

3. Purchases

3. Waste

3. Business travel

Standards• WSCBD Greenhouse Gas Protocol• Global Footprint Network

Challenges• Data has not been easily available for

some sources. eg electricity• Assumptions have been conservative

3. Water

Emission sources

Total annual carbon emissions

DCEB footprint tonnes of CO2Utilities 24Travel 8Purchases and waste 4

37

Benchmark against similar organisations

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Office 1 Office 2 Office 3 DCEB employee Sustainable

ton

nes o

f C

O2

DCEB's Carbon Footprint

Utilities65%

Travel23%

Purchases and w aste12%

• Carbon emissions of an average DCEB employee make up approximately 30% of the overall footprint of the average Irish citizen

• Sustainable levels are approx 1-2 tonnes per annum*source EPA, WWF

Footprint in context

Footprint in context

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Irish average w orld average sustainable India Sw eden DCEB employee

ton

nes

of

CO

2

Carbon emissions from utilities

Electricity makes up the vast majority of the carbon emission sources

DCEB's utility footprint

Water0%

Gas20%

Electricity80%

Benchmarking energy efficiency

• The DCEB office is performing a good level of energy efficiencyNote: There is a relatively low density of employees/square

metre

*Source: SEI and the Carbon Trust (UK)

Energy usage per square metre

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

DCEB off ice Example off ice1

Good Example off ice2

Poor Example off ice3

Example off ice4

kWh

per

m2

Business travel emission profileDCEB Business travel emissions

Car20%

Train1%

Plane79%

Business travel by distance

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

Flights Car Motorbike Luas

km

What’s working well

• Commuting profile – The majority of the team use public transport

• Energy usage within the office is relatively low

Cost effective opportunities for improvement

• Utilities– Switch electricity provider

• Work with the building owner to switch to a renewable energy provider (eg Airtricity)

– Increase the office’s energy efficiency • Develop an energy awareness programme for staff to further reduce

emissions– Eg. Refit the rooms to use CFLs and motion sensors

• Travel– Use bicycle couriers instead of motorbike couriers for shorter trips– Reduce international airtravel by 20% (reduce by one trip / year)

• Purchases and Waste– Implement a green procurement policy

• Switch to post consumer recycled paper• Reuse toner cartridges

– Recycling plan for brown waste

Quantification of reductions

• There are cost effective actions offer an opportunity to reduce DCEB’s emissions by approximately 50%

Carbon foortprint Reduction opportunities

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Utilities Travel Purchases and w aste

ton

nes

of

CO

2

pre reduction

post reduction

Key findings

• The carbon emissions from the DCEB are relatively consistent with other companies in the services industry.

• The energy efficiency is relatively high on a square metre basis but about average on a per person basis.

• There are several quick-win cost effective opportunities for reduction in CO2 emissions

Suggested next steps

1. Publicise results amongst staff2. Agree a reduction target for 2009

1. Nominate a champion2. Publicise DCEB’s environmental policy and plan

3. Implement a carbon emissions reduction plan1. Meet the building landlord

• Switch electricity provider to a renewable one• Start bringing in low energy technology

2. Develop energy awareness program3. Implement a green procurement policy

4. Review progress in Q4 of 2009

Questions?

CarbonDecisions