An Assessment of the Carbon Footprint of Tropical Hardwood Sawn Timber Production

Assessment of the Carbon Footprint of Rubberwood Sawmilling in Peninsular Malaysia: Challenging the Green Label of the Material

“…It was noticeable from previous studies that GHGs were discharged during the consumption of electrical energy and diesel fuel energy during manufacturing activities (Milota et al 2005;Bergman and Bowe 2012;Ratnasingam et al 2015). A similar finding was also observed in this study.…”

“…3498 characteristics. With the findings of this study, the implausible comparison of the carbon footprint with other wood species is given noteworthy attention on account of the perspectives given by Martínez-Alonso and Berdasco (2015) and Ratnasingam et al (2015). …”

“…There were 128 rubberwood sawmills involved in the assessment of the carbon footprint. The life cycle assessment (LCA) approach was applied in this study, as it is the most widely used technique to evaluate a carbon footprint (Milota et al 2005;Bergman and Bowe 2012;Ratnasingam et al 2015). The standard and guidelines for the standardization of the carbon footprint was performed in compliance with the ISO/TS 14067 (2013).…”

“…Generally, wood is characterized as an environmentally friendly material due to its potential to store carbon during its conversion to end-products (Martínez-Alonso and Berdasco 2015; Ratnasingam et al 2015). In contrast, the loss of wood during the production processes was accounted as carbon loss.…”

“…The possible noted factors were the sawmill process, inconsistency in the system boundary, sawmill efficiency, differences in emission factors, and transportation activities. In addition, another viewpoint from Ratnasingam et al (2015) that needs to be considered is the log bioresources.com Ratnasingam et al (2017). "Rubberwood C footprint," BioResources 12(2), 3490-3503.…”