|
Carbon footprint of Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Salaya Campus, Thailand in the year 2010- 2012 |
|---|---|
| รหัสดีโอไอ | |
| Creator | Sayam Aroonsrimorakota |
| Title | Carbon footprint of Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Salaya Campus, Thailand in the year 2010- 2012 |
| Publisher | Nakhon Pathom Rajabhat University |
| Publication Year | 2561 |
| Journal Title | Journal of Thai Interdisciplinary Research |
| Journal Vol. | 13 |
| Journal No. | 6 |
| Page no. | 1 |
| Keyword | carbon footprint, greenhouse gases, Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University |
| URL Website | http://rdi.npru.ac.th |
| Website title | วารสารวิจัยสหวิทยาการไทย |
| ISSN | 2465-3837 |
| Abstract | Greenhouse gas emissions, a significant amount of which come from corporate organizations, is widely seen as themain cause of global warming. Global warming is widely thought of as being one of the main factors threatening thesurvival of humanity at present [1]. In order to attempt to reduce green house gas emissions they must first bemeasured. This study focuses on the estimating m of greenhouse gas production from the Faculty of Environment andResource Studies, Mahidol University. This is also known as the Carbon Footprint. Greenhouse gas emissions arisingfrom the activities of the faculty were estimated using data such as electricity and water supply consumption,wastewater and garbage production and the amount of fuels used. These data were then, multiplied by internationallyrecognized emission factors in order to give a result in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). The results showedthat the GHGs emissions from the Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012were 1091.85, 1485.79 and1210.80 ton CO2e, respectively. This means that the average GHG emission per head of thestudent and staff population was 1.479, 2.156 and 1.903 tonCO2e, respectively. Sources that emit the most greenhousegases in order of ranking were found to be the use of electric energy, followed by the use of chemicals and theproduction of solid waste. It was therefore concluded that power consumption and the amount of solid waste generatedin the faculty should be reduced with the use of current energy-saving technologies. Campaigns to reduce the powerconsumption of the students and staff population should be carried out in addition to encouraging waste separationfor recycling. |
