Assessing the carbon footprint of a Colombian University Campus using the UNE-ISO 14064–1 and WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol Corporate Standard

Abstract

Higher education institutions (HEIs) transfer skills and knowledge between industries, the government, and the public, playing a vital role at educating future leaders in creating a globally sustainable system. Therein, evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from an educational institute is the first step towards the proposed reduction targets at the local, national, and international levels. In this research, we report the first approximate carbon footprint calculation of emissions corresponding to scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3 emissions for the main urban campuses of Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Medellín, using the UNE-ISO 14064–1 and WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol Corporate standard. The carbon footprint in 2019 was approximately 7250.52 tons CO2 eq, and 0.432 tons CO2 eq per person. Scope 1 emissions accounted for about 2.84% of the carbon footprint, while scope 2 and 3 emissions each contributed nearly 14% and 83%, respectively. The largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions were the transportation process (58.51%), the wastewater process (17.01%), followed by electricity consumption (14.03%), and the e-mails that are sent (6.51%). It is suggested some proposals and strategies for mitigating and reducing emissions. Colombian HEIs exhibit the lowest ton of CO2 eq. per person compared to the other HEIs. Several reasons explain this behavior across the document such as geographic location (climate and topography), cultural factors (consumption patterns and types of transportation), population size, typology (public or private), gross domestic product (GDP) of each country, and methodology implemented. Results cannot be extrapolated to the Colombian case for the differences in the local conditions; therefore, it is not possible to get solid conclusions on the CF behavior in the Colombian HEIs. In this research, we provide for the first time a carbon footprint calculation where the sociological, political, and geographic conditions not extrapolated representing a valuable contribution to the HEI’s of the country. This research can be a benchmark in the carbon footprint calculation and a methodological contribution to HEIs in the country.

A Comprehensive Carbon Footprint Assessment Using Integration of GHG Protocol and LCA: A Case Study of an Engineering Institute in India

“…The CF is conventionally presented in terms of 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 2 equivalent mass, which serves as a metric for the total quantity of carbon dioxide emissions directly and indirectly attributed to an undertaking or accumulated over the life cycles of a product. Some of the reported studies of academic institutions or universities regarding carbon footprints are summarized in Table 1 [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] along with the computation methods being adopted.…”

Universidades líderes en sostenibilidad: un análisis de las iniciativas de huella de carbono en Latinoamérica

“…En la figura 2 se observan los principales cambios en las metodologías de cálculo de HC; así, la ISO 14064:2018 describe 6 categorías de medición, entre las emisiones directas (combustibles) e indirectas (electricidad, transporte, uso de productos y análisis de ciclo de vida de productos). La ISO 14064:2018 posee un nuevo enfoque de medición, referido a la categoría 5, que amplía el estudio de cuna a tumba para los bienes utilizados por la organización, por lo que se sigue un enfoque de análisis de ACV de proveedores por insumo o proceso realizado, debido a que estas emisiones resultan de las actividades de terceros asociadas con los insumos utilizados por la organización (Cano et al, 2022).…”

Scientometric Trends and Knowledge Gaps of Zero-Emission Campuses

“…These, on the other hand, indicate universities' ability to achieve operational carbon neutrality by reducing scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2030 [49] and scope 3 emissions by 2050, hence becoming zero emission campuses. Cano et al [57] calculated the carbon footprint of emissions corresponding to scopes 1, 2, and 3 of urban Columbian universities. The authors identified the transportation process as the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions (58.51%), followed by the wastewater process (17.01%), electricity consumption (14.03%), and e-mails sent (6.51%).…”