Final Report - KAIROS Canada

Final Report

1

Sustainability Solutions Groupwww.sustainabilitysolutions.cainfo@sustainabilitysolutions.ca

West1281 Denman St., Victoria BC, V8T 1L7Phone: 250 213 9029

Central3516 Avenue du ParcMontreal, QCH2X 2H7Phone: 514 5044011

East11 Alex Cox RdTatamagouche, NSB0K1V0Phone: 250 2139029

Summary

The total estimate of greenhouse gas emissions produced at-

tributable to KAIROS is 324 tonnes per year. Figure 1 illustrates

the breakdown of these emissions according to end use. Travel

by KAIROS staff accounts for 231 tonnes, 59 tonnes are produced

due to heating, commuting accounts for 24 tonnes and 9.7 tonnes

result from the electrical load. Waste production produces less

then one tonne.

What does 324 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions mean? Is this

total a lot or a little? An indicator that is useful to place these emis-

sions in the global political context is to break the emissions down

per full time employee. The organization therefore emits 12.6

tonnes per full time employee. Figure 2 places this total in context

by highlighting per capita emissions from a range of jurisdictions.

This is not meant as a straight comparison, as the per capita emis-

sions for the examples given include all sources of greenhouse gas

emissions within the respective jurisdictions (ie. shared infrastruc-

ture, industry, etc.), whereas KAIROS’ emissions include only direct

work-related emissions. It does, however, provide a sense of the scale

of KAIROS’ greenhouse gas emissions impact comparatively. Table

1 uses an EPA calculator to equate this volume of emissions with, for

example, the number of gallons of gasoline that would need to be

burnt to equal 324 tonnes of greenhouse gas. emissions.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions of KAIROS

0

50

100

150

200

250

Co

mm

uti

ng

Was

te

Trav

el

Elec

tric

ity

Hea

tin

g

Figure 1: Kairos GHG Emissions by Source (tonnes CO2e)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Ind

ia

Ind

on

esia

Wo

rld

UK

Kai

ros

FTE

On

tari

o

Can

ada

0.00.20.40.60.81.0

0.00.20.40.60.81.0

Figure 2: Context (per capita tonnes CO2e)

Number Item

8304 Tree seedlings grown for 10 years

1.7 Number of railcars of coal

36,761 Gallons of gasoline

59.3 Number of passenger vehicles (one years worth of driving)

Table 1: KAIROS’ greenhouse gas emissions is equivalent to (EPA, 2007):

2

Sustainability Solutions Groupwww.sustainabilitysolutions.ca

The majority of emissions are due to plane travel. SSG recommends the distinction of plane

travel critical to the work of KAIROS, which we call critical emissions and non-essential or non-

critical emissions. Non-critical emissions includes emissions that could be reduced without

restricting the operations of the organisations, for example, substituting bus or train travel

for short haul flights. In addition to travel emissions, major improvements can be made in the

areas of heating, and electricity consumption. Finally, improvements to information manage-

ment and data collection pertaining activities that produce GHG emission will need to be

developed to accurately track performance and improvements.

Greenhouse gases, global warming potentials and carbon

dioxide equivalents (CO2e) (IPCC,, 2001)

An over accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere form a

layer that traps the sun’s heat, causing the planet to warm. This is referred

to as the greenhouse effect. There are many different greenhouse gases,

all impacting the ‘greenhouse effect’ with varying intensities.

Global warming potentials (GWPs) are used to compare the abilities of

different greenhouse gases to trap heat in the atmosphere. GWPs are

based on the radiative efficiency (heat-absorbing ability) of each gas

relative to that of carbon dioxide (CO2), as well as the decay rate of

each gas (the rate at which the gases die off and stop absorbing heat)

relative to that of CO2. The GWP provides a method for converting

emissions of various gases into a common measure, denominated in

carbon or carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Greenhouse gas emissions

tend to be listed as CO2e.

3


1. Background

SSG was commissioned by KAIROS to analyse greenhouse gas emissions resulting from its operations. This

process was conducted with KAIROS staff support, in particular by Dorothy McDougall.

2. Methodology

2.1 A Precautionary Approach

Due to various data limitations (detailed below in section 2.4) a range of assumption were made to cal-

culate an estimated total of greenhouse gas emissions attributable to KAIROS. Since it is not possible to

calculate the actual totals in many cases, we ensured that the estimates for electricity and gas consump-

tion tend to the higher side by selecting the upper range of reasonable values for the assumptions. For this

reason, SSG believes that if it were possible to track every single kilogram of carbon dioxide released due to

the activities of KAIROS, the total would very likely be less then the total presented here. This precautionary

approach has the advantage of avoiding the leakage that results when organisations or companies under-

claim their emissions.

2. 2 Scope

Greenhouse gas emissions were considered from travel, heating, electricity usage, commuting and waste

production for the year 2007. The waste data was collected in November of 2007 and extrapolated for

twelve months. Only staff from the Toronto KAIROS office were considered in the evaluation.

2. 3 Techniques

Data collection strategies used included an online survey for staff (18 respondents), electricity consumption

of equipment to establish a baseline, repeated electricity audits of equipment use, a waste audit, interviews

with key staff and consultants and review of background documentation. Emissions factors used to convert

energy consumption to greenhouse gas production were derived by the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-

mate Change (Eggelston et al, 2006).

4


2.4 Assumptions

The following assumptions were used. For more detail, please see the results section.

• An estimation of electricity demand attributable to KAIROS was necessary because electricity bills

apply to the entire church. Data from an end use survey was used to generate this estimate.

• Assumptions regarding the heating requirements of the office space were necessary because gas for

heating is neither metered nor paid for, and is therefore impossible to track accurately.

• Because invoice records don’t clearly delineate travel, online survey data was used to identify travel

by employees. The average travel behaviour of the 18 individuals (equal to 15 FTE, or 58 %) that

responded to the survey was assumed to be representative of the organization of a whole.

• Similarly, the commuting patterns of employees were calculated based on the results of the online

survey (58% sample size).

• A waste audit was undertaken for the period of one week and was assumed to be representative of

one year.

• Travel by volunteers, including board members, was not included.

5


3. Results

3. 1 Heating

Total greenhouse gas emissions stemming from heating are 59 tonnes. The

office is an annex to a church in Toronto, built as a Sunday school in 1931

(Figure 3). The walls are uninsulated stone and a portion of the windows have

been replaced with double-paned units five years ago. Steam from a gas

boiler in a neighbouring building heats the church; heat levels are controlled

by a manual valve. The only data available comes from an energy consult-

ant report on heating performed in 2006 by MCE Consultants Ltd. The report

considered the church as a whole including the office space, including the

unusual heating characteristics of church hall (Figure 4), so

it was not considered a reasonable approximation to the

more standard requirements of the office space.

The approach used was to identify the average energy

consumption of commercial/institutional buildings con-

structed in the same period that the church was built in

Ontario, and to assume this demand for the KAIROS office.

This is a reasonable approach given that the office space

is essentially an office building consistent with those built

during the era that has been added to the church. Natural

Resources Canada (2003) estimates that buildings con-

structed between 1920 and 1959 had an energy demand

of between 1.58 and 1.68 Gig joules per square metre of

space (GJ/m2). A provincial analysis in the same docu-

ments indicates that buildings in Ontario are at the high

end of the average. The analysis therefore assumed an en-

ergy demand of 1.7 GJ/m2 with resulting greenhouse gas

emissions of 59.9 tonnes per annum. This was calculated

based on office space of 548.8 square metres.

Figure 3: Kairos Office Space

Figure 4: Church space distorts heating bills

Definition:

A gigajoule (GJ)

is a metric term

used for measur-

ing energy use. For

example, accord-

ing to Natural

Resources Canada,

1GJ is equivalent

to the amount of

energy available

from 277.8 kWh of

electricity, 26.3 m3

of natural gas, or

25.9 litres of heat-

ing oil.

6


3. 2 Electricity

Total greenhouse gas emissions stemming from electricity are 9.7 tonnes. Calculating

the electricity load for the office space faced a similar challenge. Three years of data

on a monthly basis was available for the building as a whole, and so it was necessary

to calculate the portion attributable to KAIROS. This was calculated using a usage

survey. Using a handheld meter, KAIROS staff member Dorothy McDougall created

an inventory of the electric appliances and their energy demand. She undertook

seven audits at three different times of day to identify which pieces of equipment

were consuming electricity. This data was run through a simple statistical analysis to

generate average electricity consumption patterns for two distinct periods including

during the work day and outside of the work day. This analysis estimated that the

office electricity demand was 3654 kWh per month. Monthly bills for the church in

December for the last three years were over 10,000 kWh, resulting in a largely unex-

plainable 6500 kWh demand. Usually such an extensive demand would be attribut-

able to space heating, however, in this case, the explanation doesn’t fit, as the heating

for the building is gas with the exception of some space heaters. There are seven 1400

Watt electric heaters, but because of over-heating in the building in the winter (to

the extent that windows are opened in some spaces due

to poor heat distribution), it is not reasonable to assume

the heaters are always on. If the160 flourescent strips were

left on twenty-four hours per day, the maximum possible

consumption is 2500 kWh per month. The survey, however,

indicated that during the work day on average one third of

the lights were on and janitorial staff shuts off all the lights

at night. This electricity load remains unknown and further

investigation is required to identify this load.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Mis

cella

neo

us

Inca

nd

esce

nt

Flo

ure

scen

ts

Hea

ters

Co

mp

ute

rs

Figure 5: End Use Electricity Demand (kWh)

7


3.3 Commuting

Total greenhouse gas emissions stemming from commuting are 0.576 tonnes. Eight-

een people representing fifteen full time equivalents responded to the online survey.

They reported their trips on a percentage basis over the course of the week by mode

including bus, subway, car (single occupant), car

pooling, biking and roller blading, and walking and

running. Respondents all indicated weekly commuting

distances. These distances were weighted by the per-

centages and a total distance for the 15 FTE was calcu-

lated by mode. This was then scaled up to 25.75 fulltime

equivalent (FTE) so as to represent the entire KAIROS

organisation and the distances were run through SSG’s

GHG calculator. This FTE does not include volunteers or

board members, but only staff members.

3.4 Travel

Total greenhouse gas emissions stemming from

travel are 190 tonnes. KAIROS employees also reported

on distances and mode for work-related travel. This was

compiled and greenhouse gas emissions were calculated.

Bus, train and vehicle emissions were calculated using

SSG’s travel calculator while airplane emissions were cal-

culated using Atmosfair’s model. The results were scaled

up to represent 25.75 FTE. By far, most of the emissions

were generated from plane flights (Figure 7), particularly

to international generations.

0

5

10

15

20

Sub

wayBu

s

Car

shar

e

Car

Figure 6: Commuting Emissions (kg CO2e)

0

30000

60000

90000

120000

150000

Car

s

Bu

ses

Trai

ns

Plan

es

Figure 7: Travel Emissions (kg CO2e)

8


3.5 Waste

Total greenhouse gas emissions stemming from waste are 0.139 tonnes. KAIROS staff member Dorothy

McDougall completed a waste audit. While there was a high percentages of recyclables and composta-

bles in the waste stream, the contribution to total greenhouse gas emissions was marginal.

Waste Stream kg

Pure waste 39

Recyclables 26

Compostables 39

Hazardous 0

Table 1: Annual Waste (kg)

Figure 8: Waste Audit

9


4. Analysis

In order to present a picture of the activities that contribute to KAIROS’ greenhouse gas emissions, we

compiled a set of indicators, which might be titled ‘a day in the life’. The indicators represent averages for

the organisation as a whole. By reducing these averages, KAIROS will reduce its greenhouse gas emis-

sions. The organisation can set targets

based on these averages.

In undertaking the analysis, it was imme-

diately clear that plane flights will be the

problematic aspect of KAIROS’ greenhouse

gas emissions, as they facilitate key aspects

of KAIROS’ work. The approach adopted

therefore recommends separating

emissions into two categories: critical and

non-critical. Non-critical emissions are those

which can and should be reduced or elimi-

nated without compromising the ability of

KAIROS to do its work. Critical emissions,

on the other hand, are deemed neces-

sary for the work of KAIROS, for example

participating in a World Social Forum or

other events that are far enough away to war-

rant a plane trip. While it is not impossible to

reduce these emissions, it may involve more

profound consideration regarding KAIROS’

mission and activities. Clearly delineating

these categories is important so that guilt does

not accompany staff, for example, while flying

to a meeting on climate change negotiations or driving to Peel, ON to make a presentation on interna-

tional trade. It also ensures that efforts to reduce emissions are not impeding the ability of KAIROS to ful-

Computers on 11.4

Monitors on 19.1

Incandescent lights on 7

Fllouescents on 24

Ghost loads 17 not including computers

Commute by car (single passenger) 4

Commute by car (car pool) 1

Bus 3

Subway 12

Bike/rollerblade 4

Walk 1

Table 3: Average electrical load per hour (24 hour day)

Table 4: Mode of commute by number of staff, averaged)

Plane 604

Train 18

Bus 0.09

Car 11

Table 5: Travel-related GHG averaged per day for Kairos (kgCO2e assuming a 365 day year)

GJ per day 2.56

Table 6: Average Heating Eneryg per day (365 days)

10


fill its mission (unless there is a willingness to explore changing the vision). Given this challenge, and that

offsetting comes with a host of moral, social and political challenges, we believe that KAIROS should not

strive to be a carbon neutral organisation. Many definitions of carbon neutrality abound, and there is no

consensus how to achieve carbon neutrality so we believe that focusing on the elimination, rather then

the offsetting, of emissions is a carbon mitigation strategy this is transparent and has integrity. For those

emissions which cannot be eliminated, we would like to suggest that KAIROS consider a self-imposed

carbon tax per tonne of GHGs emitted each year and that these funds be directed to activities that have

a positive impact on GHG reductions, either internally or externally to KAIROS. The dark blue slice of the

pie in Figure 9, called critical emissions (flights more than 500 kilometres) will require careful considera-

tion by KAIROS as the organisation strives to reduce emissions. Reductions from short flights (less than

500 km) can occur through shifting the mode of transportation from plane to train or bus rides. Reduc-

tions form long flights considered to be ‘critical emissions’ can occur through limitation of long distance

travel and exploration of other means to maintain communications with partners over long distances.

Every other source of greenhouse gas emissions can be significantly reduced and this is highlighted in

particular by the ‘day in the life’ tables on page 7. For example, if one steps into the office at 2am or 2pm,

they will find an average of 11 computers on and nine monitors on- it is these aspects that can easily

change. Another factor is the heating system- it is a high priority to reduce the natural gas consumption

of the office building. While heating an uninsulated building with natural gas is a poor energy conserva-

tion strategy in general, doing so without thermal controls that can be operated by the occupants (who

are thus forced to open windows to compensate for overheating) is an extremely poor energy conserva-

tion strategy.

In the area of commuting, KAIROS employees

are more successful and strongly favour the

metro.

CommutingWasteNon-Critical TravelCritical TravelElectricityHeating

Commuting

Waste

Non-Critical Travel

Critical Travel

Electricity

Heating

Figure 9: Critical vs. Non-Critical Emissions (t CO2e)

11


5. Conclusion

The imperative for organisations, of whatever type in whatever sector, to address climate change in a

profound and meaningful way today, as it will surely be mandatory tomorrow. There are many forms,

however, that this engagement can take, both internally - known as getting the house in order - and

externally, as an activist.

KAIROS has taken the initial step of taking stock, answering the question “how many greenhouse gas

emissions result from one year’s operations by KAIROS.?” The colloray question is then what is to be

done about it?

One approach to addressing greenhouse gas emissions is summed up by the words reduce, produce,

offset. The first step is to reduce production of greenhouse gas emissions wherever possible. The sec-

ond step is to produce energy using clean generation strategies. The third step is to offset remaining

emissions. (Offsetting can take many forms which can be discussed later on, but we do not recommend

participating in the carbon offsets market.)

In this report, we have not developed a detailed set of recommendations; we propose that this be done

as part of a multi-stakeholder committee at KAIROS, after the information in this report is properly

disseminated. This participatory approach ensures a diverse range of ideas, organisational buy-in and

breaks through traditional consultant-client silo and solitudes.

Postscript: Recommendations were developed in a participatory session. They are included in Appen-

dix 1.

12


6. Bibliography

Atmosfair (2006). The atmosfair emissions calculator. Available at www.atmosfair.de.

Eggelston, S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., and Tanabe K. (2006). 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Avail-able at: www.ipcc.ch.

Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. Avail-able at: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html.

International Panel on Climate Change (2001). Third Assessment Report, 2001.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/wg1TARtechsum.pdf, last accessed December 02, 2006

Herzog, T., Pershing, J., Baumert, K. (2005). Navigating the numbers; Greenhouse gas data and international climate policy. World Resources Institute: Washington, DC.

Office of Energy Efficiency (2003). Commercial and institutional building energy use survey 2000. Natural Resources Canada. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/data_e/Cibeus2/energy_intensity.cfm?PrintView=N&Text=N

Category Recommendation Cost / Savings

KAIROS to set GHG reduction targets n/a KAIROS as an organization needs to have a conversation on how to achieve its mission in a way that is not carbon intensive and to develop organizational strategies to accomplish its goals.

n/a

Monthly travel tracking by all KAIROS staff, including GHG emissions n/a Pay a carbon tax on GHG emissions annually (money could be allocated to higher cost of train tickets, or manual meters, etc.)

TBA (~ $20/tonne)

Expand scope of assessment to include other KAIROS stakeholder activities n/a Expand scope to include procurement policies (priority purchasing for local goods/with low carbon footprints)

variable

Conduct annual or biannual GHG inventories n/a (if done internally)

Develop an internal energy policy n/aDevelop a permanent committee to coordinate GHG redcution activities n/a Develop a follow up plan for this recommendations n/a

General

Allocate financial resources in annual budget for GHG reductions activities variable

Develop clear guidelines to distinguish between critical and non critical travel in relationship to Kairos' mission

n/a

Train/bus/carpool policy for distances under 500 km variable (~ +/-15% )

Seek arrangement with Viarail for discounted train tickets Savings! Investigate possibility of a work-at-home arrangement Develop internal KAIROS commuting plan (car pool; biking; incentives) n/a

Transportation

Develop air travel guidelines for trips over 500 km. Program all computers to have sleep mode for monitor and hard disk after ten minutes Savings!

Replace all T12 strip lights with T8 bulbs (fluorescents) Bulbs ~$10 each

Replace all incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents ~$3 each Develop and implemment an awareness programme around electricity consumption for KAIROS staff (turn off computers at night; lights off when not in room; compostables in garbage)

n/a

Ensure air conditioner level setting does not go below below 24 - 25 degrees. Experiment with turning it off at night then back on in the mornings. Depending on the humidity and the heat, this will work to save energy without greatly compromising the comfortability of the indoor space.

Savings!

If KAIROS stays in current building: separate electricity bills and metering for KAIROS

Ensure new electricity consuming equipment purchases are 'Energy Star' certified ~+/- $10 Investigate the purchase of renewable electricity (monthly premium). Example: Bullfrog http://www.bullfrogpower.com/

~ 30% increase over

current electricbills

Electricity

Assess existing equipment to determine what needs to be replaced When choosing a new space mandate search committee to consider the issue of energy

consumption in their deliberations. If KAIROS stays in current building: Install ceiling fans for more even heat distribution ~ $300 per

Energy Star fan

If KAIROS stays in current building: If possible, install manual controls for heating (thermostats)

Heating If KAIROS stays in the current building: Hold a design charette with builing and heat professionals to develop a renovations plan. This plan could include explorations of: entering into an energy services contract (company pays for renewable energy retrofits, then KAIROS/building enters into a long term purchasing agreement with them. Example service providers: Mondial Energy, Johnson Controls

More research needs to be

done

Reduce amount of compost and recycling in waste stream n/a Waste

Conduct annual waste audits to n/a

Appendix 1: Recommendations

Date post:	26-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Final Report - KAIROS Canada

Documents