Carbon Emission Management - Report Example

Carbon emission management Name Professor Course Date Introduction Over the last few decades, there has been intense campaign to reduce the emission of green house gases (GHG) - CO2 included. Over time, these efforts are slowly paying as more and more businesses, organizations, and governments are taking steps to reduce their carbon footprints and consider their overall impacts on the environment (Muller, 2010). For many years, it has been known that investing in carbon-offset programs deliver a wide range of positive social economic benefits beyond carbon reduction. According to Arnowitz, Arent, Berger, (2007) studies, carbon-offset program deliver sustainably more benefits than expected bringing value that was previously hidden. Their study also revealed that every tone of CO2 offset not only fund GHG reductions, but also delivers about 664 dollars in additional social economic and environment benefits. The benefits of funding in carbon offsets to communities around the world are in terms of job creation, health benefits, household saving, and environmental conservation, investment in local economies, local infrastructure, and training, technology transfers, and positive impacts on water conservation. Furthermore, White (2011) revealed that carbon management could yield several benefits to business. Other than helping to meet its environmental targets, an offsetting program can also improve staff and community engagement, save time for business; stimulate efficient use in resource and increase market differentiations and organizational brand recognition. In addition, it is becoming increasingly important for individuals or business to show commitment to reduction of green house gas in order to win new tenders. Velthius (2005) asserts that as the organization takes note of the material benefits of carbon management strategies, consumers and customers are increasingly expecting them to demonstrate their commitments in tackling climate change and reduce the impact of global warming. For this reason organization are not just investing in any carbon offset program. They are keen on choosing an offsetting strategy that delivers several economic benefits. Although a carbon-offsetting program is one of the ways of reducing carbon emissions, some researchers are against it. Their argument being; that it is risky to relay on carbon offsetting to reduce emission because most cases it is being used to avoid fundamental changes in industrial practices and personal behaviors. According to Velthius (2005), if people continue to buy carbon offsets as a way of reducing their guilt of polluting environment, then the net result is going to be higher global emission not less. However, given the reality, that carbon offsetting is deeply engrained in most Carbon pricing mechanism worldwide, then not all programs are the same. For this reason, it is important that money be invested in offsetting programs that not only mitigate GHG emissions, but also achieve social economic, cultural benefits. A study on the driving factors that drive buyers of offsetting project revealed that co-benefits and relevant to business are the main factors. These drivers are particularly important to buyers who are keen to build their organization’s brands and differentiating themselves in the market. Significantly, the study also revealed that about 33% of carbon offsets buyers are willing to pay more per ton of CO2 offset, for projects with verified social-economic and environmental co-benefits. With social benefit being highly valued followed by economic and environmental benefits. Barjis (2008) states that choosing an offsetting program through an accredited ICROA member will ensure that that the investment delivers independently verified carbon reductions that will unlock the hidden value for the business, environment, and the communities around the world. Most importantly, organization must ask them how they can adapt their entire operations, if the net global carbon reduction is to be achieved. The regulation on carbon emission Recently, there have been numerous regulations geared towards mitigating the GHG emissions. Such policies and regulations play a key role in the effort to tackle climate change. On international level, the issue to tackle climate change has been translated into versions of transition towards low carbon economy in the next three decades (Barjis, 2008). In order to achieve these transitions, different governments have chosen different policy options. The two most common policy options that most government have taken are carbon taxes and emission trading programs which give the emitters the right to release the green house gas at a cost. Carbon tax is a fixed price levy on carbon content for use of fossil fuels. Relevant authorities determine the level the carbon contents. Obviously, the regulations have had a negative impact on balance sheet of most business. Moreover, different countries have taken different options to mitigate GHG emissions, the impact that such policies have brought on business are different depending on the country their geographical condition (Dehnert & Aalst, 2010). According to Lohmann (2009), most companies would like to see regulation harmonized globally with global carbon price and along stable compliance periods that wound ensure pay back on their investment. This will ensure the level of competitive playing field, and give organizations predictability. This paper evaluates the carbon management options taken by three governments- Germany, France, and US. In particular, the paper will brief on carbon emission policy in Germany, France, and United State. Then we will look at implementation and contemporary issue, and environmental accounting and auditing techniques in those thee country. The guiding policy France and Germany being members of European Union (EU), it is important to note their carbon emission policy is influence by two international treaties. That is, EU directives on emission and the Kyoto protocol. Therefore, it is important to highlight these two treaties in order to understand Germany and France carbon emission policy. Kyoto protocol: It is an element in the international treaty- The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The climate- change protection issue and Kyoto protocol of December 1997 posed great impacts on the European Union energy policy. All the European states signed the Kyoto protocol, and have so far ratified it. Under these protocol, European countries under took to reduce emission of green house gas by 8% by 2012. A recent study revealed that countries such as France and Germany have achieved their commitments. European Union directive on emission: At Europe, level there has been a number of initiatives to reduce GHG emissions. Most of the EU directives affect energy generation. They include: 1. Directive on promotion of on generation of electricity production from renewable source 2. Directive to restructure the community frame work for energy taxation of energy products and electricity 3. Direction the establishing a scheme for green house gas emission allowance trading within the community It is important to note that, the main target of EU climate policy is fulfillment of its Kyoto protocol commitments. As mentioned above, one of the initiative under EU directive is to change power generation portfolio with option under consideration being nuclear, coal, natural gas and renewable. Member of EU states have a wide different starting position in term of resource availability and energy policy stipulation. For instance France, backs nuclear energy while Germany lignite, offers a competitive foundation for power generation (Auramaki & Lyytinen, 2009). Directive 2001/77/EC aim to promote electricity produced from renewable energy to 22%. In Germany, energy from renew arable source is promoted through system guarantee supply price which are well above market price. This has made Germany a world leader in wind energy supply. In addition, industrial and energy trading partner not only expect energy supply to be secure and environmentally friendly but also favorably priced. These and several other EU directives are directly transported to the member states. Beside the transportation of these directives to national law, the EU state took additional measure to limit the emission of the green house gas. Germany carbon emission policy Coal account for 32% of energy supply in Europe. Over 50% of Europe’s, energy is imported. In Europe, especially Germany, Coal is a key part of primary supply of energy beside it offers some degrees of independencies, being the only significant energy source (Flores, 2008). Around 80% of all GHG emission in Germany is due to energy generation. Restructuring of energy supplies in Germany is the key to achieving environment protection. Based on scientific studies, Germany developed a comprehensive energy policy, which covers a triangle of energy policy: energy economics, energy security, and climate protection. Germany authorities dedicated to ensure that its energy supplies are primarily from renewable source. This commitment calls for restructuring of the country energy supplies presenting economic and technological challenges. The main field of actions to achieve this is; renewable energy should be the cornerstone of future energy supplies, efficient use of energy, increasing energy efficient in building, energy supply in European context and international concept of energy supply and the mobility factor. For instance, in order to reduce emission in transport sector and develop electro mobility, the government of Germany set a goal to put one million electric cars on the road. Doing this would help to cut the CO2 emission by 12% in 2020. Moreover, all new building must use renewable energy and financial rewards exist for feeding electricity from combined heat and power (Dehnert & Aalst 2010). The objective of such action was to make Germany energy supply to be the most efficient and environmentally sound worldwide while remaining affordable for households and business. The Germany energy conservation is generally market-oriented. Under the framework, conditions that were created the authorities are supposed to support market-economy process. That is financial incentives, informational assurance, and legal measures such as eco tax on energy consumption. Furthermore, the government depends on self-commitment of the industries where necessary. Subsequently, Germany energy policy involves promotion for use of energy from renewable source, innovation, rehabilitation, physical improvement, investment support, and environmental information dissemination. So far, progress has been made in developing renewable energies. About eight nuclear power plants have been shut down and a significant share of renewable power supply has been achieved. By 2011, Germany had already met its 21% Kyoto emission reduction. However, despite Germany’s commitment to cutting GHG emission in 2014, a report shows that Germany had fallen behind in its ambition to reduce the GHG emissions. In fact, Germany was burning more coal than at any point since 1990. In addition, Germany companies were complaining that the energy laws are hurting their ability to remain competitive. The Germany predicament is an indication that even modern economies are facing challenges in implementing the policies and regulation for mitigating the GHG emissions. Environmental audit in Germany: In Germany, environmental auditing is considered as a consultancy service provided by qualified experts. The federation of Germany engineers standardizes energy audits procedures. It is applied as an element in various energy improvement programs. Larger German companies implement Energy auditing as a standalone on their own. Government provides support for audit of SME, by financing up to 40% of an externally provided audit. However, most of the environmental audits are perfumed by eco-audit systems that are based on the EU- ordinance on eco-audit. France carbon emission policy Since the first oil crises of 1973, French authorities endeavored to increase their energy independency through harnessing the indigenous source, diversification of energy source, and improvement of energy efficiency through energy management policy. These policies include regulations, financial incentives, and setting up of specialized energy and environment protection agency (ADAME) (Lohmann 2009). Since 90s France government have prioritize climate change policies. France implements climate changes policy at three levels, that is: 1. At a national level- through low carbon energy, mix by various sectors that has enable the courtly to uphold its EU and Kyoto protocol commitments on climate change. 2. Commitment at regional level- the government is keen to observe all direction of EU climate change targets 3. International level-France has been active in mobilizing funds for developing countries to tackle climate change and ensure access to sustainable energy for all Because of its efforts, a number of achievements can be noted. For instance, between 1990 and 1997, the country GHG emission covered by Kyoto protocol reduced by 7%. To further attain its goals, the French authorities committed to integrate sustainable development into all their policies, in September 2013. The five-action plans were to promote: 1. Circularity economy that help develop recycling 2. Job and ecological transition 3. Marine diversity 4. Water policy 5. Environment and sustainable development education Energy is a central challenge to attainment of sustainable development. France is committed to ensuring developing nation have access to sustainable energy. France action plan in this area is structured around four objectives. They include prioritizing on renewable energy and energy efficiencies, improving energy access to rural and peril-urban areas, improving energy policy and stakeholder capacity and securing and strengthening energy system. These objectives are the one, which guide the French development assistance objective. France has employed a number of approaches to meet goal set by EU. For instance, the government of France employed fee bate program to reduce CO2emissions from transportation sector. Under this program, all buyers of low emission cars could get refund ranging from $400 to $5000 while those purchasing gas-guzzlers cars got a tax raging from $400-2500. Since the commencement of European Union emission trading system, there have been no firm rules on how to account on emission allowance. This uncertain satiation has allowed a range of accounting model to flourish. When accounting for emission allowance, accounting companies are free to choose their preferred methods for emission allowance. The accounting treatment of allowance as assets and liabilities varies significantly between companies. This flexibility has advantage and disadvantage. Its advantage is that companies can choose the method that suits their business. On the other hand, the disadvantage is that comparison between companies is not possible and that company may need to spend more time in adopting a new accounting method in order to satisfy another regulator from another country. Energy audit in France: France launched energy audit program called decision making support scheme (DMSS) in 1990. This environment audit program determines complete management procedures, monitoring procedure and a chatter of auditors. DMSS target transport, industries, and building sector excluding individual house for which self-auditing tool are readily available through the internet. One important thing to note about, the French environment auditing is that auditor certification is available. However it is important to note that post audit follow up are not available. United States carbon emission policy United States did not participate in Kyoto protocol. However, the federal government has introduced a series of alternative measures to reduce green house gas. Energy generation is the largest source of green house gas emission. In 2014, US authority proposed the clean power plan, which will require the state to cut carbon pollution from power plant and decrease CO2 emission by 30% by 2030. The implementation of this plan will be overseen by environment protection agency (EPA). Under the clean power plan, EPA is responsible in establishing state emission reduction targets. Each state will be allowed flexibility in setting its target, which will be approved by EPA. It is expected that each state will be able to put together a cost effective mix of recourses including: 1. End use-energy efficiency- state should invest in end –use energy efficiency as a substitute for thermal power plant. 2. invest in renewable energy 3. Re-dispatch- whose aim is to give priority to cleaner energy such as wind, and natural gas in dispatching. Under this plan, EPA will develop estimate for contribution of each the plan building block, the above three actions plans will play the largest role. According to Dehnert, and Aalst, (2010), one of the shortcomings of the plan is that EPA did not set its target for state in a way that would maximize net social benefits. It was justified EPA to just increase the emission reduction targets for each states. Other state polices to reduce GHG emission that existed prior to the clean power plan includes: For instance in 2001, President Bush administration committed to pursue several strategies to address the issue of global climate change through a broad range of strategies. The government launched three important initiatives, that is: 1. climate change research initiative to accelerate science based policy development 2. National climate change technologies aimed at enhancing energy saving technology development. 3. Increase international cooperation to engage and support other nations in climate change research In 2002, US authorities announced global climate change initiative. The aim of the initiative was to reduce US green house gas intensity by 18% between 2002 and 1012. This was to be achieved primary through voluntary measures. To enhance accuracy, reliability, and verifiability the president directed improvement on voluntary reporting of green house gas programs. In addition, Bush created an inter agency, cabinet level committee whose main purpose was to develop policy recommendations and oversee the inter agency programs for climate change science and technology. In 2003, the government launched a voluntary public private partnership to peruse cost effective energy initiatives to reduce the projected growth in US green house gas emission known as climate vision. Several industrials sectors participated in the climate vision initiative In addition to voluntary initiatives, there have been several notable public- private NGO coalition activities. These include Chicago climate exchange, world wildlife funds, and climate savers programs (Lovell, 2010). Furthermore, the government has focused more resource focused on hydro-technology. The president’s hydrogen fuel initiative and the freedom CAR partnership launched in 2002 provides funding to develop hydrogen-powered fuel cell, hydrogen infrastructure, and advanced automobile technologies allowing for commercialization of fuel cell vehicle by 2020 (Lohmann, 2009). Most of these carbon management policies have set some carbon requirements in terms of carbon reduction regulations or carbon reporting rules. Therefore, in the coming years companies will be required to report their emission to regulators or face with carbon regulation as more and more state adopt the carbon regulations. It is anticipated that implementation of this will be faced with numerous complexity. One on the issue that has emerged from US carbon emission policy is that, US legislature is still divided on the carbon issue. In addition, EPZ has faced some resistance from the senate and congress. Many US senators are working to pass law blocking the EPA powers. This has delayed passing of most of the carbon regulation policy and thus its implementation (Liverman, 2009). Accounting for emission allowance: Accounting emission allowance followed in US are different to those followed in Europe. As we all know, the US, carbon market has emerged slower as compared to Europe. In deed to date, the federal energy regulation commission (FERC) is the only organization that has issued accounting allowance in US. There have been no accepted accounting standards for GHG emission within US Generally Accepted Accounting Principle (US GAAP). In addition, there is no distinction between accounting for different types of emission in US. So far, there have been several attempts to resolve the issue of accounting uncertainty by issuing guideline. Notably a joint IASB/FASB emission trading scheme project aims to resolve accounting uncertainty was expected to release a report by 2012. Although the project has made significant progress, it has not yet reached an agreement on key issues. Lovell (2010), states that the tension and contradictions on the carbon accounting is because of overlapping frames of physical, political, financial, market enabling and social environment modes of carbon accounting. These tensions are not good for carbon management. They undermine confidence in policies, climate science, market, and reporting, thereby discouraging action to mitigate climate change. However, it is important to note that, developing a deep understanding about the issue can contribute to finding practical solutions. Energy audit in united state: In US, industrial assessment center (IAC) provides a free stand-alone audit program to SME. Normally, SME, lack enough resource to afford a professional audit. The government-initiated programs are therefore convenient channels for them to seek expertise and financial support. Other than IAC, environment audit can also be provided by, public utility companies, united state energy office or private companies such as air sealing specialist, insulator contractors or energy service companies Comparison of the policies One main difference in between the carbon emission policy is that France and Germany are signatory of the united nation treaty, Kyoto protocol, us is not. It is important to note that the carbon market in US is not as developed as that one in Europe. For this reason there are fewer environment accounting methods in US than in Europe. One of the main similarities is the fact that energy production is the major source of the GHG emission in those three countries. This is the reason why promotion of production of renewable energy is key action in all the three countries. On environmental auditing, in US the service is available for free to all SME. In Germany and France the cost of providing of this service is shared between the government and the SME Conclusion Over the last few decades, there has been intense campaign to reduce the GHG emissions. These efforts are slowly paying as more and more business, organizations, and governments are taking steps to reduce their carbon footprints and consider their overall impacts on the environment. For instance by 2012, France and Germany already attained their Kyoto protocol commitment. In the three countries discussed energy generation account for more than 70% of the GHG emissions. For this reason, to cut the emission of CO2, the governments of these countries have to ensure that their energy is primary from renewable source such as natural gas or wind. Finally, as we have found, there are tension and contradictions on the carbon regulation, accounting and auditing among different. These tensions are not good for carbon management. They undermine confidence in policies, climate science, market, and reporting, thereby discouraging action to mitigate climate change. Therefore, it is important to harmonize these procedures by providing guidelines that should be followed globally. This will ease the implementation, regulation and monitoring of carbon emission reduction, which will in turn ensure that we receive all the social, economic, and environmental benefits (Velthius 2005) Reference List Arnowitz, J, Arent, M., Berger, N 2007, Carbon Trading: A Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatisation and Power. Elsevier, Inc, Sydney Auramaki, E.,.& Lyytinen, K. 2009 Barriers to energy efficiency in small industry clusters: multi-criteria-based prioritization using the analytic hierarchy process. Int. Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp 126-152. Barjis, J, 2008, Barriers to improvements in energy efficiency: Energy Policy. Journal of The Science of Computer Programming Vol. 6, No. 2, pp 153-172. Campbell, E, Johnson, J, Jin, V, Lehman, R, Osborne, S, Varvel, G, & Paustian, K 2014, 'Assessing the soil carbon, biomass production, and nitrous oxide emission impact of corn stover management for bioenergy feedstock production using DAYCENT', Bioenergy Research, AGRIS. Camporeale, C, De Nicola, A, & Villani, M 2015, 'Semantics-based services for a low carbon society: An application on emissions trading system data and scenarios management', arXiv. Daniels, TL 2010, 'Integrating Forest Carbon Sequestration Into a Cap-and-Trade Program to Reduce Net CO2 Emissions', Journal Of The American Planning Association, 76, 4, pp. 463-47. Dehnert, J., & Aalst, W, 2010, Producing Accounts: Finitism, Technology and Rule Following’ Int. Journal of Cooperative Information Systems Vol. 7, No. 2, pp 134-145. Dong, W, Hu, C, Chen, S, & Zhang, Y 2009, 'Tillage and residue management effects on soil carbon and CO₂ emission in a wheat-corn double-cropping system', Nutrient Cycling In Agroecosystems, AGRIS. 'Findings from National Ilan University Broaden Understanding of Oxides (A strategic decision-making model considering the social costs of carbon dioxide emissions for sustainable supply chain management)', 2014, Life Science Weekly, 2014. Flores, F,2008, Material Markets: How Economic Agents are Constructed, Int. Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, Vol. 4, No. 7, pp 13-47. Groen, T, Verkerk, P, Böttcher, H, Grassi, G, Cienciala, E, Black, K, Fortin, M, Koethke, M, Lethonen, A, Nabuurs, G, Petrova, L, & Blujdea, V 2013, 'What causes the differences between national estimates of carbon emissions from forest management and large-scale models?', Environmental Science & Policy, p. 222. Hartmann, F, Perego, P, & Young, A 2013, 'Carbon Accounting: Challenges for Research in Management Control and Performance Measurement', Abacus, 49, 4, pp. 539-563. Hashmi, M, & Al-Habib, M 2013, 'Sustainability and carbon management practices in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia', Journal Of Environmental Planning & Management, 56, 1, pp. 140-157. Jin, V, Baker, J, Johnson, J, Karlen, D, Lehman, R, Osborne, S, Sauer, T, Stott, D, Varvel, G, Venterea, R, Schmer, M, & Wienhold, B 2014, 'Soil Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Response to Corn Stover Removal and Tillage Management Across the US Corn Belt', Bioenergy Research, 2, p. 517. Kleindorfer, P, & Li, L 2011, 'Portfolio Risk Management and Carbon Emissions Valuation in Electric Power', Journal Of Regulatory Economics, 40, 3, pp. 219-236. Koh, S, Genovese, A, Acquaye, A, Barratt, P, Rana, N, Kuylenstierna, J, & Gibbs, D 2013, 'Decarbonising product supply chains: design and development of an integrated evidence-based decision support system – the supply chain environmental analysis tool (SCEnAT)', International Journal Of Production Research, 51, 7, pp. 2092-2109. Lippke, B, Gustafson, R, Venditti, R, Steele, P, Volk, T, Oneil, E, Johnson, L, Puettmann, M, & Skog, K 2012, 'Comparing Life-Cycle Carbon and Energy Impacts for Biofuel, Wood Product, and Forest Management Alternatives', Forest Products Journal, 62, 4, pp. 247-257. Liverman, D. 2009, Carbon Offsetting: Sustaining Consumption?, Environment and Planning , Vol. 4, No. 2, pp 113-147. Lohmann, L, 2009, Toward a Different Debate in Environmental Accounting: The Cases of Carbon and Cost-benefit, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 4, No. 7, pp 13-47. Lovell, H, 2010, Agencement in Housing Markets: The Case of the UK Construction Environment and Planning Vol. 41, No. 3, pp 475-489. Matsumura, E, Prakash, R, & Vera-Muñoz, S 2014, 'Firm-Value Effects of Carbon Emissions and Carbon Disclosures', Accounting Review, 89, 2, pp. 695-724. Muller, M, 2010, The Industrial Assessment Center (IAC) Software Tools for Assessments. Presentation at UniversityAlliance for Industrial Energy Efficiency. Beijing,China. 17–18, 2010. RATNATUNGA, J, & BALACHANDRAN, K 2009, 'Carbon Business Accounting: The Impact of Global Warming on the Cost and Management Accounting Profession', Journal Of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 24, 2, pp. 333-355. Ratnatunga, J, Jones, S, & Balachandran, K 2011, 'The Valuation and Reporting of Organizational Capability in Carbon Emissions Management', Accounting Horizons, 25, 1, pp. 127-147. ROUTA, J, KELLOMÄKI, S, KILPELÄINEN, A, PELTOLA, H, & STRANDMAN, H 2011, 'Effects of forest management on the carbon dioxide emissions of wood energy in integrated production of timber and energy biomass', GCB Bioenergy, 3, 6, pp. 483-497. Sainju, U, Stevens, W, Caesar-TonThat, T, & Jabro, J 2010, 'Land Use and Management Practices Impact on Plant Biomass Carbon and Soil Carbon Dioxide Emission', Soil Science Society Of America Journal, AGRIS. Smith, D, Hernandez-Ramirez, G, Armstrong, S, Bucholtz, D, & Stott, D 2011, 'Fertilizer and Tillage Management Impacts on Non-Carbon-Dioxide Greenhouse Gas Emissions', Soil Science Society Of America Journal, AGRIS. Smith, SJ 2014, 'Historical and future carbon emissions from croplands', Earth System Dynamics Discussions, 5, 1, pp. 1-27. Velthius, O, 2005, Accounting for Carbon Elsevier, Inc, Sydney White, C,2011, ‘Where Do Markets Come From?, American Journal of Sociology, 87: 517–47. Wimble, N 2014, 'How adopting strategic carbon management can lead to significant financial benefits', Financial Management, pp. 55-56. Woli, P, & Paz, J 2015, 'Crop Management Effects on the Energy and Carbon Balances of Maize Stover-Based Ethanol Production', Energies (19961073), 8, 1, pp. 278-303. Wu, P, & Low, S 2012, 'Lean Management and Low Carbon Emissions in Precast Concrete Factories in Singapore', Journal Of Architectural Engineering, 18, 2, pp. 176-186. Yunqiang, L 2014, 'Municipal Solid Waste(MSW) Management in Urbanization Process Based on Dynamical Model', International Journal Of U- & E-Service, Science & Technology, 7, 2, pp. 249-262 Zanchi, G, Pena, N, & Bird, N 2012, 'Is woody bioenergy carbon neutral? A comparative assessment of emissions from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fuel', GCB Bioenergy, 4, 6, pp. 761-772. Zhang, J, Li, Y, Chang, S, Jiang, P, Zhou, G, Liu, J, Wu, J, & Shen, Z 2014, 'Understory vegetation management affected greenhouse gas emissions and labile organic carbon pools in an intensively managed Chinese chestnut plantation', Plant And Soil, AGRIS. Zhu, W, Bi, J, Wang, X, Zhu, Z, & Pang, W 2014, 'The Evaluation System Design of GIS-Based Oil and Gas Resources Carbon Emission Database Management', IOP Conference Series: Earth & Environmental Science, 17, 1, p. 012032. Read More