Portal:Emission Factors - Revision history

Alex-CAAwiki: Updated quotes section to add block quote structure

2025-06-25T09:25:29Z

Updated quotes section to add block quote structure

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:25, 25 June 2025
Line 228:		Line 228:

	== Emission Factors Advice ==		== Emission Factors Advice ==

	=== Quotes from emission factor database users ===		=== Quotes from emission factor database users ===
	<~~br>~~		<blockquote>'''Josh Couchman, Carbon Consultant'''
	"In general, we aim to use emission factors with the highest geographic relevance. For the UK, US, Canada, Australia and France, this means using the respective government EF data. Elsewhere, we use IEA for electricity and occasionally fuels. For other activities, where we do not have geographically specific EFs, our default tends to be Defra, although for US clients we may apply EPA to their international activities, as well. Quite commonly, we will adapt our EF selection to individual client requirements.<br>
	~~<br~~>		'''Which Environmentally Extended Input-Output (EEIO) Database Should You Use?'''
	For spend-based calculations, we use the EPA EEIO set for the US. Elsewhere, we are currently using WIOD but are in the process of selecting a replacement multi-regional EEIO set that is supported and maintained on an annual basis. This might be CEDA, SWC MRIO or Exiobase."<br>
	~~<br>~~		"When choosing a free EEIO database, two of the best options are EXIOBASE (3.8) and FIGARO. Both offer multi-regional input-output (MRIO) data for environmental footprinting, but there are a few things you may want to consider when deciding between them."
	'''~~- Philippe Pernstitch~~, Carbon Consultant'''~~<br>~~
	~~<br>~~		'''Data Recency & Updates'''
	~~<br>~~
	"Generally, I use EFDBs provided by the national government of my client. For most of my clients that are US based that means I use the EPA GHG Emission Factors Hub and the supporting Supply Chain GHG Factors. Similarly, for my Canadian clients I use the Government of Canada’s emissions factors from their data catalogue.<BR>		"- FIGARO provides data for 2022, with an update released in 2024, making it the most up-to-date option.<br>- EXIOBASE is based on 2019 data, last updated in 2021.<br>- Adjusting older data for inflation can approximate more recent years, but this does not account for structural industry changes, which may be significant in sectors undergoing rapid transformation (e.g., energy, transport, technology)."
	~~<br>~~
	"There are some gaps in these sources though. Specifically, when calculating emissions from bio-based fuels I rely on DEFRA’s [DESNZ] emissions factors for both Scope 1, and Biogenic emissions calculations. Also, there are some refrigerants that are not provided by the EPA GHG Hub, and in those circumstances, I resort to the list of High Global Warming Potential Refrigerants that is maintained by CARB, the California Air Resources Board. Finally, when calculating emissions from food and beverage purchases, I use the University of Michigan’s dataFIELD."<br>		'''Credibility & Citation'''
	~~<br>~~
	~~'''- Christopher McClurg, Carbon Consultant'''<br>~~		"- FIGARO is produced by Eurostat, ensuring high reliability and official backing.<br>- EXIOBASE is widely cited in both academia and industry, making it a recognized standard in research and corporate reporting."
	~~<br>~~
	~~<br>~~		'''Granularity & Disaggregation'''<br><br>"- EXIOBASE is more highly disaggregated, meaning it provides finer sectoral breakdowns. However, greater disaggregation does not necessarily mean greater accuracy - smaller categories can introduce extreme values due to methodological assumptions made during the disaggregation process.<br>- FIGARO is somewhat more aggregated, but this can reduce noise and make results more stable."
	~~<br>~~
	'''Which Environmentally Extended Input-Output (EEIO) Database Should You Use?'''~~<br>~~		'''Which One Should You Use?'''
	~~<br>~~
	"When choosing a free EEIO database, two of the best options are EXIOBASE (3.8) and FIGARO. Both offer multi-regional input-output (MRIO) data for environmental footprinting, but there are a few things you may want to consider when deciding between them"~~.<br>~~		"- If latest data accuracy is critical (e.g., recent policy impacts, pandemic/post-pandemic shifts), FIGARO is likely the better choice.
	~~<br>~~
	'''Data Recency & Updates'''~~<br>~~		- If official European data is a priority for consistency with Eurostat methodologies, FIGARO is a strong choice.
	~~<br>~~
	"- FIGARO provides data for 2022, with an update released in 2024, making it the most up-to-date option.<br>		- If you need greater sectoral detail and are comfortable with the potential for more extreme values, EXIOBASE may be preferable.
	- EXIOBASE is based on 2019 data, last updated in 2021.<br>
	- Adjusting older data for inflation can approximate more recent years, but this does not account for structural industry changes, which may be significant in sectors undergoing rapid transformation (e.g., energy, transport, technology)."~~<br>~~		- If you’re looking for a widely accepted dataset for academic research or corporate reporting, EXIOBASE has stronger precedent, but this is mainly because FIGARO is newer.
	~~<br>~~
	'''Credibility & Citation'''~~<br>~~		- If you aren't familiar with EEIO database and calculating emission factors from them, EXIOBASE may be a better choice because pre-calculated emission factors available via Climatiq.
	~~<br>~~
	"- FIGARO is produced by Eurostat, ensuring high reliability and official backing.<br>		There is no clear winner - comparisons between the two have been inconclusive. The right choice depends on your specific use case and whether recency, granularity, or institutional backing is more important for your analysis."</blockquote><blockquote>'''Philippe Pernstitch, Carbon Consultant'''
	- EXIOBASE is widely cited in both academia and industry, making it a recognized standard in research and corporate reporting."~~<br>~~
	~~<br>~~		"In general, we aim to use emission factors with the highest geographic relevance. For the UK, US, Canada, Australia and France, this means using the respective government EF data. Elsewhere, we use IEA for electricity and occasionally fuels. For other activities, where we do not have geographically specific EFs, our default tends to be Defra, although for US clients we may apply EPA to their international activities, as well. Quite commonly, we will adapt our EF selection to individual client requirements.
	'''Granularity & Disaggregation'''<br>
	<br>		For spend-based calculations, we use the EPA EEIO set for the US. Elsewhere, we are currently using WIOD but are in the process of selecting a replacement multi-regional EEIO set that is supported and maintained on an annual basis. This might be CEDA, SWC MRIO or Exiobase."</blockquote><blockquote>'''Christopher McClurg, Carbon Consultant'''
	"- EXIOBASE is more highly disaggregated, meaning it provides finer sectoral breakdowns. However, greater disaggregation does not necessarily mean greater accuracy - smaller categories can introduce extreme values due to methodological assumptions made during the disaggregation process.<br>
	- FIGARO is somewhat more aggregated, but this can reduce noise and make results more stable."~~<br>~~		"Generally, I use EFDBs provided by the national government of my client. For most of my clients that are US based that means I use the EPA GHG Emission Factors Hub and the supporting Supply Chain GHG Factors. Similarly, for my Canadian clients I use the Government of Canada’s emissions factors from their data catalogue."
	~~<br>~~
	'''Which One Should You Use?'''~~<br>~~		"There are some gaps in these sources though. Specifically, when calculating emissions from bio-based fuels I rely on DEFRA’s [DESNZ] emissions factors for both Scope 1, and Biogenic emissions calculations. Also, there are some refrigerants that are not provided by the EPA GHG Hub, and in those circumstances, I resort to the list of High Global Warming Potential Refrigerants that is maintained by CARB, the California Air Resources Board. Finally, when calculating emissions from food and beverage purchases, I use the University of Michigan’s dataFIELD."</blockquote>
	~~<br>~~
	"- If latest data accuracy is critical (e.g., recent policy impacts, pandemic/post-pandemic shifts), FIGARO is likely the better choice.~~<br>~~
	- If official European data is a priority for consistency with Eurostat methodologies, FIGARO is a strong choice.~~<br>~~
	- If you need greater sectoral detail and are comfortable with the potential for more extreme values, EXIOBASE may be preferable.~~<br>~~
	- If you’re looking for a widely accepted dataset for academic research or corporate reporting, EXIOBASE has stronger precedent, but this is mainly because FIGARO is newer.~~<br>~~
	- If you aren't familiar with EEIO database and calculating emission factors from them, EXIOBASE may be a better choice because pre-calculated emission factors available via Climatiq.~~<br>~~
	~~<br>~~
	There is no clear winner - comparisons between the two have been inconclusive. The right choice depends on your specific use case and whether recency, granularity, or institutional backing is more important for your analysis."<br>
	<br>
	'''~~- Josh Couchman~~, Carbon Consultant'''<br>

WikiSysop: /* Quotes from emission factor database users */

2025-05-29T16:05:29Z

Quotes from emission factor database users

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:05, 29 May 2025
Line 237:		Line 237:
	<br>		<br>
	<br>		<br>
	"Generally, I use EFDBs provided by the national government of my client. For most of my clients, that are US based, that means I use the EPA GHG Emission Factors Hub and the supporting Supply Chain GHG Factors. Similarly, for my Canadian clients I use the Government of Canada’s emissions factors from their data catalogue.<br>		"Generally, I use EFDBs provided by the national government of my client. For most of my clients that are US based that means I use the EPA GHG Emission Factors Hub and the supporting Supply Chain GHG Factors. Similarly, for my Canadian clients I use the Government of Canada’s emissions factors from their data catalogue.<BR>
	<br>		<br>
	There are some gaps in these sources though. Specifically, when calculating emissions from bio-based fuels I rely on DEFRA’s emissions factors for both Scope 1 and Biogenic emissions calculations. Also, there are some refrigerants that are not provided by the EPA GHG Hub, and in those circumstances, I resort to the list of High Global Warming Potential Refrigerants that is maintained by CARB, the California Air Resources Board.~~<br>~~		"There are some gaps in these sources though. Specifically, when calculating emissions from bio-based fuels I rely on DEFRA’s [DESNZ] emissions factors for both Scope 1, and Biogenic emissions calculations. Also, there are some refrigerants that are not provided by the EPA GHG Hub, and in those circumstances, I resort to the list of High Global Warming Potential Refrigerants that is maintained by CARB, the California Air Resources Board. Finally, when calculating emissions from food and beverage purchases, I use the University of Michigan’s dataFIELD."<br>
	~~<br>~~
	Finally, there are two databases that I use often which I realize now aren’t on our list (which I’d be happy to send summaries for). My clients often receive mass and material-based data for their food purchases. When calculating emissions from food purchases I use the University of Michigan’s dataFIELD. My clients also often receive mass and material-based data for purchase categories like Signage, or Construction materials. To calculate emissions from these purchases I used the EPA’s WARM Model and their Source Reduction data."<br>
	<br>		<br>
	'''- Christopher McClurg, Carbon Consultant'''<br>		'''- Christopher McClurg, Carbon Consultant'''<br>

WikiSysop: /* Emission Factors Database Summary */

2025-05-29T09:23:07Z

Emission Factors Database Summary

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:23, 29 May 2025
Line 172:		Line 172:
	\|Lifecycle inventories and Environmental Production Declarations for a large number of different plastics.		\|Lifecycle inventories and Environmental Production Declarations for a large number of different plastics.
	\|-		\|-
	\|[[~~Greet model~~\|eGRID]]		\|[[Emission Factors:EGRID\|eGRID]]
	\|Activity-based		\|Activity-based
	\|USA		\|USA
Line 190:		Line 190:
	\|A policy tool implemented by the EU for carbon-intensive goods imported into the EU.		\|A policy tool implemented by the EU for carbon-intensive goods imported into the EU.
	\|-		\|-
	\|Electricity Info		\|[[Emission Factors:Electricity Info\|Electricity Info]]
	\|Activity-based		\|Activity-based
	\|UK		\|UK
Line 196:		Line 196:
	\|A selection of datasets on UK electricity fuel mix and carbon intensity.		\|A selection of datasets on UK electricity fuel mix and carbon intensity.
	\|-		\|-
	\|Carbon Database Initiative (CaDI)		\|[[Emission Factors:Carbon Database Initiative (CaDI)\|Carbon Database Initiative (CaDI)]]
	\|Activity & spend-based		\|Activity & spend-based
	\|Global		\|Global
Line 214:		Line 214:
	\|An environmentally extended multi-regional input‐output (EE MRIO) database providing spend-based emission factors covering a wide range of products and countries.		\|An environmentally extended multi-regional input‐output (EE MRIO) database providing spend-based emission factors covering a wide range of products and countries.
	\|-		\|-
	\|WIOD (or EEIO)		\|[[Emission Factors:WIOD\|WIOD (or EEIO)]]
	\|Spend-based		\|Spend-based
	\|Global		\|Global

WikiSysop: /* Emission Factors Advice */

2025-05-29T09:21:05Z

Emission Factors Advice

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:21, 29 May 2025
Line 244:		Line 244:
	<br>		<br>
	'''- Christopher McClurg, Carbon Consultant'''<br>		'''- Christopher McClurg, Carbon Consultant'''<br>
			<br>
			<br>
	<br>		<br>
	'''Which Environmentally Extended Input-Output (EEIO) Database Should You Use?'''<br>		'''Which Environmentally Extended Input-Output (EEIO) Database Should You Use?'''<br>

WikiSysop: /* Emission Factors Advice */

2025-05-29T09:20:30Z

Emission Factors Advice

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:20, 29 May 2025
Line 228:		Line 228:

	== Emission Factors Advice ==		== Emission Factors Advice ==
	~~<br>~~
	=== Quotes from emission factor database users ===		=== Quotes from emission factor database users ===
	<br>		<br>

WikiSysop: /* Emission Factors Advice */

2025-05-29T09:18:41Z

Emission Factors Advice

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:18, 29 May 2025
Line 228:		Line 228:

	== Emission Factors Advice ==		== Emission Factors Advice ==
			<br>
			=== Quotes from emission factor database users ===
			<br>
			"In general, we aim to use emission factors with the highest geographic relevance. For the UK, US, Canada, Australia and France, this means using the respective government EF data. Elsewhere, we use IEA for electricity and occasionally fuels. For other activities, where we do not have geographically specific EFs, our default tends to be Defra, although for US clients we may apply EPA to their international activities, as well. Quite commonly, we will adapt our EF selection to individual client requirements.<br>
			<br>
			For spend-based calculations, we use the EPA EEIO set for the US. Elsewhere, we are currently using WIOD but are in the process of selecting a replacement multi-regional EEIO set that is supported and maintained on an annual basis. This might be CEDA, SWC MRIO or Exiobase."<br>
			<br>
			'''- Philippe Pernstitch, Carbon Consultant'''<br>
			<br>
			<br>
			"Generally, I use EFDBs provided by the national government of my client. For most of my clients, that are US based, that means I use the EPA GHG Emission Factors Hub and the supporting Supply Chain GHG Factors. Similarly, for my Canadian clients I use the Government of Canada’s emissions factors from their data catalogue.<br>
			<br>
			There are some gaps in these sources though. Specifically, when calculating emissions from bio-based fuels I rely on DEFRA’s emissions factors for both Scope 1 and Biogenic emissions calculations. Also, there are some refrigerants that are not provided by the EPA GHG Hub, and in those circumstances, I resort to the list of High Global Warming Potential Refrigerants that is maintained by CARB, the California Air Resources Board.<br>
			<br>
			Finally, there are two databases that I use often which I realize now aren’t on our list (which I’d be happy to send summaries for). My clients often receive mass and material-based data for their food purchases. When calculating emissions from food purchases I use the University of Michigan’s dataFIELD. My clients also often receive mass and material-based data for purchase categories like Signage, or Construction materials. To calculate emissions from these purchases I used the EPA’s WARM Model and their Source Reduction data."<br>
			<br>
			'''- Christopher McClurg, Carbon Consultant'''<br>
	<br>		<br>
	'''Which Environmentally Extended Input-Output (EEIO) Database Should You Use?'''<br>		'''Which Environmentally Extended Input-Output (EEIO) Database Should You Use?'''<br>
	<br>		<br>
	When choosing a free EEIO database, two of the best options are EXIOBASE (3.8) and FIGARO. Both offer multi-regional input-output (MRIO) data for environmental footprinting, but there are a few things you may want to consider when deciding between them.<br>		"When choosing a free EEIO database, two of the best options are EXIOBASE (3.8) and FIGARO. Both offer multi-regional input-output (MRIO) data for environmental footprinting, but there are a few things you may want to consider when deciding between them".<br>
	<br>		<br>
	'''Data Recency & Updates'''<br>		'''Data Recency & Updates'''<br>
	<br>		<br>
	- FIGARO provides data for 2022, with an update released in 2024, making it the most up-to-date option.<br>		"- FIGARO provides data for 2022, with an update released in 2024, making it the most up-to-date option.<br>
	- EXIOBASE is based on 2019 data, last updated in 2021.<br>		- EXIOBASE is based on 2019 data, last updated in 2021.<br>
	- Adjusting older data for inflation can approximate more recent years, but this does not account for structural industry changes, which may be significant in sectors undergoing rapid transformation (e.g., energy, transport, technology).<br>		- Adjusting older data for inflation can approximate more recent years, but this does not account for structural industry changes, which may be significant in sectors undergoing rapid transformation (e.g., energy, transport, technology)."<br>
	<br>		<br>
	'''Credibility & Citation'''<br>		'''Credibility & Citation'''<br>
	<br>		<br>
	- FIGARO is produced by Eurostat, ensuring high reliability and official backing.<br>		"- FIGARO is produced by Eurostat, ensuring high reliability and official backing.<br>
	- EXIOBASE is widely cited in both academia and industry, making it a recognized standard in research and corporate reporting.<br>		- EXIOBASE is widely cited in both academia and industry, making it a recognized standard in research and corporate reporting."<br>
	<br>		<br>
	'''Granularity & Disaggregation'''<br>		'''Granularity & Disaggregation'''<br>
	<br>		<br>
	- EXIOBASE is more highly disaggregated, meaning it provides finer sectoral breakdowns. However, greater disaggregation does not necessarily mean greater accuracy - smaller categories can introduce extreme values due to methodological assumptions made during the disaggregation process.<br>		"- EXIOBASE is more highly disaggregated, meaning it provides finer sectoral breakdowns. However, greater disaggregation does not necessarily mean greater accuracy - smaller categories can introduce extreme values due to methodological assumptions made during the disaggregation process.<br>
	- FIGARO is somewhat more aggregated, but this can reduce noise and make results more stable.<br>		- FIGARO is somewhat more aggregated, but this can reduce noise and make results more stable."<br>
	<br>		<br>
	'''Which One Should You Use?'''<br>		'''Which One Should You Use?'''<br>
	<br>		<br>
	- If latest data accuracy is critical (e.g., recent policy impacts, pandemic/post-pandemic shifts), FIGARO is likely the better choice.<br>		"- If latest data accuracy is critical (e.g., recent policy impacts, pandemic/post-pandemic shifts), FIGARO is likely the better choice.<br>
	- If official European data is a priority for consistency with Eurostat methodologies, FIGARO is a strong choice.<br>		- If official European data is a priority for consistency with Eurostat methodologies, FIGARO is a strong choice.<br>
	- If you need greater sectoral detail and are comfortable with the potential for more extreme values, EXIOBASE may be preferable.<br>		- If you need greater sectoral detail and are comfortable with the potential for more extreme values, EXIOBASE may be preferable.<br>
Line 257:		Line 274:
	- If you aren't familiar with EEIO database and calculating emission factors from them, EXIOBASE may be a better choice because pre-calculated emission factors available via Climatiq.<br>		- If you aren't familiar with EEIO database and calculating emission factors from them, EXIOBASE may be a better choice because pre-calculated emission factors available via Climatiq.<br>
	<br>		<br>
	There is no clear winner - comparisons between the two have been inconclusive. The right choice depends on your specific use case and whether recency, granularity, or institutional backing is more important for your analysis.~~<br>~~		There is no clear winner - comparisons between the two have been inconclusive. The right choice depends on your specific use case and whether recency, granularity, or institutional backing is more important for your analysis."<br>
	~~<br>~~
	~~'''- Josh Couchman'''<br>~~
	~~<br>~~
	~~<br>~~
	In general, we aim to use emission factors with the highest geographic relevance. For the UK, US, Canada, Australia and France, this means using the respective government EF data. Elsewhere, we use IEA for electricity and occasionally fuels. For other activities, where we do not have geographically specific EFs, our default tends to be Defra, although for US clients we may apply EPA to their international activities, as well. Quite commonly, we will adapt our EF selection to individual client requirements.<br>
	~~<br>~~
	For spend-based calculations, we use the EPA EEIO set for the US. Elsewhere, we are currently using WIOD but are in the process of selecting a replacement multi-regional EEIO set that is supported and maintained on an annual basis. This might be CEDA, SWC MRIO or Exiobase.<br>
	~~<br>~~
	~~'''- Philippe Pernstitch'''<br>~~
	~~<br>~~
	~~<br>~~
	Generally, I use EFDBs provided by the national government of my client. For most of my clients, that are US based, that means I use the EPA GHG Emission Factors Hub and the supporting Supply Chain GHG Factors. Similarly, for my Canadian clients I use the Government of Canada’s emissions factors from their data catalogue.<br>
	~~<br>~~
	There are some gaps in these sources though. Specifically, when calculating emissions from bio-based fuels I rely on DEFRA’s emissions factors for both Scope 1 and Biogenic emissions calculations. Also, there are some refrigerants that are not provided by the EPA GHG Hub, and in those circumstances, I resort to the list of High Global Warming Potential Refrigerants that is maintained by CARB, the California Air Resources Board.<br>
	~~<br>~~
	Finally, there are two databases that I use often which I realize now aren’t on our list (which I’d be happy to send summaries for). My clients often receive mass and material-based data for their food purchases. When calculating emissions from food purchases I use the University of Michigan’s dataFIELD. My clients also often receive mass and material-based data for purchase categories like Signage, or Construction materials. To calculate emissions from these purchases I used the EPA’s WARM Model and their Source Reduction data.<br>
	<br>		<br>
	'''- ~~Christopher McClurg~~'''		'''- Josh Couchman, Carbon Consultant'''<br>

WikiSysop: /* Emission Factors Database Summary */

2025-05-29T09:05:00Z

Emission Factors Database Summary

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:05, 29 May 2025
Line 46:		Line 46:
	\| Argonne National Laboratory’s tool for transportation emissions and life cycle analysis.		\| Argonne National Laboratory’s tool for transportation emissions and life cycle analysis.
	\|-		\|-
	\|EPD Library		\|[[Emission Factors:EPD Library\|EPD Library]]
	\|Activity-based		\|Activity-based
	\|Global		\|Global
Line 52:		Line 52:
	\|Library of verified Environmental Product Declarations to support lifecycle emission reporting.		\|Library of verified Environmental Product Declarations to support lifecycle emission reporting.
	\|-		\|-
	\|Open CEDA		\|[[Emission Factors:Open CEDA\|Open CEDA]]
	\|Spend-based		\|Spend-based
	\|Global		\|Global

WikiSysop: /* Emission Factors Database Summary */

2025-05-29T08:56:00Z

Emission Factors Database Summary

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:56, 29 May 2025
Line 48:		Line 48:
	\|EPD Library		\|EPD Library
	\|Activity-based		\|Activity-based
	\|		\|Global
	\|Free		\|Free
	\|		\|Library of verified Environmental Product Declarations to support lifecycle emission reporting.
	\|-		\|-
	\|~~eGRID~~		\|Open CEDA
	\|~~Activity-based~~		\|Spend-based
	\|		\|Global
	~~\|Free~~
	\|
	\|-
	~~\|Carbon Database Initiative (CaDI)~~
	~~\|Activity and spend-based~~
	\|
	~~\|Free~~
	\|
	\|-
	~~\|Electricity Info~~
	~~\|Activity~~-based
	\|
	\|Free		\|Free
	\|		\|Comprehensive database of global emission factors for detailed international scope 3 reporting.
	\|-		\|-
	\|[[Base Empreinte]]		\|[[Base Empreinte]]
Line 208:		Line 196:
	\|A selection of datasets on UK electricity fuel mix and carbon intensity.		\|A selection of datasets on UK electricity fuel mix and carbon intensity.
	\|-		\|-
	\|Carbon Database Initiative		\|Carbon Database Initiative (CaDI)
	\|Activity & spend-based		\|Activity & spend-based
	\|Global		\|Global

WikiSysop: /* Emission Factors Database Summary */

2025-05-29T08:44:24Z

Emission Factors Database Summary

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:44, 29 May 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:

	== Emission Factors Database Summary ==		== Emission Factors Database Summary ==
	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable sortable"
	! Database Name		! Database Name
	! Database Type		! Database Type
Line 54:		Line 54:
	\|eGRID		\|eGRID
	\|Activity-based		\|Activity-based
	\|
	~~\|Free~~
	\|
	\|-
	~~\|WIOD~~
	~~\|Spend-based~~
	\|		\|
	\|Free		\|Free
Line 117:		Line 111:
	\|Free		\|Free
	\|CARB maintains a list of the Global Warming Potential for the most common refrigerants regulated under their Refrigerant Management Program		\|CARB maintains a list of the Global Warming Potential for the most common refrigerants regulated under their Refrigerant Management Program
	\|-
	~~\|[[WRAP]]~~
	~~\|Activity-based~~
	~~\|Global~~
	~~\|Free~~
	~~\|Provides a repository of secondary emission factors for food and drink that organisations can use for scope 3 reporting.~~
	\|-		\|-
	\|[[Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF) European Building Emission Factor Database]]		\|[[Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF) European Building Emission Factor Database]]
Line 135:		Line 123:
	\|Free		\|Free
	\|List of emission factors including Tank-to-Wheel, Well-to-Tank and biogenic emissions		\|List of emission factors including Tank-to-Wheel, Well-to-Tank and biogenic emissions
			\|-
			\|[[WRAP]]
			\|Activity-based
			\|Global
			\|Free
			\|Provides a repository of secondary emission factors for food and drink that organisations can use for scope 3 reporting.
	\|-		\|-
	\|[[Eora Global Supply Chain Database]]		\|[[Eora Global Supply Chain Database]]
Line 219:		Line 213:
	\|Free		\|Free
	\|Country electricity EFs outside UK, USA, Canada and Australia are calculated by Carbonfootprint.com		\|Country electricity EFs outside UK, USA, Canada and Australia are calculated by Carbonfootprint.com
	\|-
	~~\|WIOD (or EEIO)~~
	~~\|Spend-based~~
	~~\|Global~~
	~~\|Free~~
	~~\|Includes aligned Input Output Tables, Supply-Use Tables, Socio Economic Accounts and links to external Environment Accounts (energy + carbon dioxide).~~
	\|-		\|-
	\|[[EXIOBASE 3.8]]		\|[[EXIOBASE 3.8]]
Line 237:		Line 225:
	\|Paid		\|Paid
	\|An environmentally extended multi-regional input‐output (EE MRIO) database providing spend-based emission factors covering a wide range of products and countries.		\|An environmentally extended multi-regional input‐output (EE MRIO) database providing spend-based emission factors covering a wide range of products and countries.
			\|-
			\|WIOD (or EEIO)
			\|Spend-based
			\|Global
			\|Free
			\|Includes aligned Input Output Tables, Supply-Use Tables, Socio Economic Accounts and links to external Environment Accounts (energy + carbon dioxide).
	\|-		\|-
	\|[[EPA Supply Chain GHG Emission Factors by NAICS-6]]		\|[[EPA Supply Chain GHG Emission Factors by NAICS-6]]

WikiSysop: /* Emission Factors Database Summary */

2025-05-29T08:42:25Z

Emission Factors Database Summary

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:42, 29 May 2025
Line 15:		Line 15:
	! Free or Paid		! Free or Paid
	! Description		! Description
			\|-
			\|[[Agribalyse]]
			\|Activity-based
			\|France
			\|Free
			\|Managed by the French Environment Agency (ADEME), is a public database that provides detailed life cycle assessment data for agricultural and food products.
	\|-		\|-
	\| [[Ecoinvent]]		\| [[Ecoinvent]]
Line 69:		Line 75:
	\|Free		\|Free
	\|		\|
	\|-
	~~\|[[Agribalyse]]~~
	~~\|Activity-based~~
	~~\|France~~
	~~\|Free~~
	~~\|Managed by the French Environment Agency (ADEME), is a public database that provides detailed life cycle assessment data for agricultural and food products.~~
	\|-		\|-
	\|[[Base Empreinte]]		\|[[Base Empreinte]]