Carbon Footprint 300 PP CB IPL 2010

IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 CARBON FOOTPRINT MEASUREMENT REALISE Project Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.4 5.5 6 6.1 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.3 6.4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Players The Arena The Project The Report PROJECT GOALS PROJECT SCOPE Activity Boundaries Stakeholder Boundaries Life-cycle Boundaries RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Central and Local Footprint Sources Annual and Tournament-Duration Activity Data Resource Input, Consumption, and Output Mapping IPL/IMG Activity Data Research State Association Activity Data Research Franchise Activity Data Research Spectator Activity Data Research Resource Optimization Potential Research Tournament Operation Air and Road Travel Research ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Resource / Activity Tagging Activity Data Extrapolation IPL/IMG Data Extrapolation State Association Activity Data Extrapolation Franchise Activity Data Extrapolation GHG Emission Factors New Emission Factors Research and Analysis 15 19 20 22 23 25 26 28 30 34 35 39 41 45 47 49 50 51 52 55 56 59 60 64 64 67 69 72 73
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.5 7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 7.3.4 7.4 7.4.1 7.4.2 7.5 7.6 7.6.1 7.6.2 7.6.3 7.6.4 7.7 8 9 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.3.1 Stadium Construction Research and Analysis Ground Maintenance Research and Analysis Fireworks and Pyrotechnics Research and Analysis Diesel Generator Consumption RESULTS IPL Resource/Activity Flow Mapping Resource Consumption Inventory Total Carbon Footprint Activity-Differentiated Carbon Footprint Stakeholder Contributions to Activity-Differentiated Carbon Footprint Stakeholder-Differentiated Carbon Footprint Activity Contributions to Stakeholder-Differentiated Carbon Footprint Match Venue Carbon Footprints Activity-Differentiated Venue Carbon Footprints Stakeholder-Differentiated Venue Carbon Footprints Day vs. Night Match Carbon Footprint Implications Best Practices Overall Venue Best Practice Benchmarks Stakeholder Best Practice Benchmarks Franchise Level Best Practices Other Best Practices Water Footprint CONTEXT OF TOTAL CARBON FOOTPRINT DISCUSSION Assumptions Data Gaps Uncertainties Activity-Data Uncertainty 73 75 76 77 78 79 85 87 91 92 99 102 111 114 117 149 151 152 152 157 158 117 160 166 167 175 176 176
TABLE OF CONTENTS
9.3.2 10 10.1 11 11.1 11.2 12 Emission Factor Uncertainty LIMITATIONS Water Footprint CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions Recommendations ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 177 179 180 181 182 186 189
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23 Resource/Activity Flow Map IPL/IMG Operations Resource/Activity Flow Map State Association Operations Resource/Activity Flow Map Franchise Operations Resource/Activity Flow Map Spectator Activity Stakeholder Interrelation Map DLF IPL 2010 Activity Contribution to Total Carbon Footprint Total Carbon Footprint Summary Stakeholder Groups Breakdown Stakeholder Groups Carbon Footprint Summary IPL/IMG Operations Stakeholder Groups Carbon Footprint State Association Operations Stakeholder Groups Carbon Footprint Summary Franchise Operations Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Construction Stakeholder Groups Carbon Footprint Summary Spectator Activity Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Price Range Comparison (All IPL Venue Cumulation) (%-specatators basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Price Range Comparison (All IPL Venue Cumulation) (kms travelled basis) Carbon Emissions Intensity of Transport Modes (India) Cross-Venue Total Carbon Footprint Comparisons per-Match Basis Cross-Venue Total Carbon Footprint Comparisons per-Spectator Basis Venue vs. Activity Average Stadiums Match Venue vs Stakeholder Average Stadium DLF IPL 2010 Match Venue vs. Stakeholder Contributions Cross-Venue Comparison - per-Match Basis Match Venue Stakeholders Carbon Emissions Intensity Comparison All-Venue Averages Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison Bvg. Contractor (Soft Drinks) Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison Concessions Catering 126 125 124 123 109 110 112 113 116 119 108 80 81 82 83 84 90 95 96 97 98 101 107
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30 Figure 31 Figure 32 Figure 33 Figure 34 Figure 35 Figure 36 Figure 37 Figure 38 Figure 39 Figure 40 Figure 41 Figure 42 Figure 43 Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison State Association Catering Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison VIP Catering Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison Ground Maintenance (per-Match Basis) Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison Ground Maintenance (per-Year Basis) Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison Housekeeping Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison Stadium Entertainment Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison Stadium Security Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison Stadium Utilities 132 133 134 130 131 129 127 128
Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison Stadium Spectators 135 Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Venue Comparison (Cumulative Tickets) (%-specatators basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Venue Comparison (Cumulative Tickets) (kms travelled basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Venue Comparison (Ticket Price Level 1) Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Venue Comparison (Ticket Price Level 1) (kms travelled basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Venue Comparison (Ticket Price Level 2) Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Venue Comparison (Ticket Price Level 2) (kms travelled basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Venue Comparison (Ticket Price Level 3) Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Venue Comparison (Ticket Price Level 3) kms travelled basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Venue Comparison (Ticket Price Level 4) Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Venue Comparison (Ticket Price Level 4) (kms travelled basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Venue Comparison (Ticket Price Level 5) 145 146 143 144 141 142 139 140 137 138 136
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 44 Figure 45 Figure 46 Figure 47 Figure 48 Figure 49 Figure 50 Figure 51 Figure 52 Figure 53 Figure 54 Figure 55 Figure 56 Figure 57 Figure 58 Figure 59 Figure 60 Figure 61 Figure 62 Figure 63 Figure 64 Figure 65 Figure 66 Figure 67 Figure 68 Figure 69 Figure 70 Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Venue Comparison (Ticket Price Level 5) (kms travelled basis) Stakeholder Contribution to Activity Carbon Footprint Cooking Fuel Stakeholder Contribution to Activity Carbon Footprint Generator& Motor Fuel Stakeholder Contribution to Activity Carbon Footprint Generator& Motor Fuel Activity vs. Stakeholder - Water Activity vs. Stakeholder - Domestic Air Travel Activity vs. Stakeholder - International Air Travel Activity vs. Stakeholder - Private Vehicular Travel Activity vs. Stakeholder - Logistics Activity vs. Stakeholder - Luxury Hotel Accommodation Activity vs. Stakeholder - Meat & Seafood Activity vs. Stakeholder - Dairy Activity vs. Stakeholder - Rice Activity vs. Stakeholder - Alcoholic Beverages Activity vs. Stakeholder - Bottled Water / Drinks Activity vs. Stakeholder - Solid Waste Activity vs. Stakeholder - Paper & Cardboard Activity vs. Stakeholder - Plastic Stakeholder vs. Activity IPL/IMG Head Office Stakeholder vs. Activity -IPL/IMG Hospitality & Travel Stakeholder vs. Activity IPL/IMG Sponsors Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - Concessions Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - VIP Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - Broadcasting Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Hospitality Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Entertainment Stakeholder vs. Activity Television Broadcasting - In-House 147 205 207 210 212 214 216 219 221 223 225 227 229 231 233 235 237 239 242 244 247 249 251 253 255 257 259
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 71 Figure 72 Figure 73 Figure 74 Figure 75 Figure 76 Figure 77 Figure 78 Figure 79 Figure 80 Figure 81 Figure 82 Figure 83 Figure 84 Figure 85 Figure 86 Figure 87 Figure 88 Figure 89 Figure 90 Figure 91 Figure 92 Figure 93 Figure 94 Figure 95 Figure 96 Figure 97 Figure 98 Stakeholder vs. Activity Television Broadcasting - Vendor Stakeholder vs. Activity Player Security Stakeholder vs. Activity Umpiring Stakeholder vs. Activity Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption Stakeholder vs. Activity Emergency Training Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Office Stakeholder vs. Activity - Stadium Advertising (LED) Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Security Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Utilities Stakeholder vs. Activity Ground Maintenance Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - State Assoc. Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Housekeeping Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Head Office Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Hospitality & Travel Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Merchandizing Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Sponsors Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Cheerleaders Stakeholder vs. Activity Beverage Contractor - Soft Drinks Stakeholder vs. Activity Beverage Contractor - Alcoholic Bev. Venue vs. Activity Ahmedabad Venue vs. Activity Bangalore Venue vs. Activity Chennai Venue vs. Activity Cuttack Venue vs. Activity Delhi Venue vs. Activity Dharamsala Venue vs. Activity Jaipur Venue vs. Activity Kolkata Venue vs. Activity Mohali 261 263 265 267 269 271 273 276 278 280 282 284 286 288 290 292 294 296 298 300 302 304 306 308 310 312 314 316
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 99 Figure 100 Figure 101 Figure 102 Figure 103 Figure 104 Figure 105 Figure 106 Figure 107 Figure 108 Figure 109 Figure 110 Figure 111 Figure 112 Figure 113 Figure 114 Figure 115 Figure 116 Figure 117 Figure 118 Figure 119 Figure 120 Figure 121 Figure 122 Figure 123 Figure 124 Figure 125 Venue vs. Activity Mumbai (Brabourne) Venue vs. Activity Navi Mumbai Venue vs. Activity Nagpur Spectator Travel Modal Split Ahmedabad (%-spectator basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Ahmedabad (kms basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Bangalore (%-spectator basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Bangalore (kms basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Chennai (%-spectator basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Chennai (kms basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Cuttack (%-spectator basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Cuttack (kms basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Delhi (%-spectator basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Delhi (kms basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Dharamsala (%-spectator basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Dharamsala (kms basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Jaipur (%-spectator basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Jaipur (kms basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Kolkata (%-spectator basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Kolkata (kms basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Mohali (%-spectator basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Mohali (kms basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Mumbai (Brabourne) (%-spectator basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Mumbai (Brabourne) (kms basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Navi Mumbai (%-spectator basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Navi Mumbai (kms basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Nagpur (%-spectator basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Nagpur (kms basis) 318 320 322 323 324 325 326 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 Table 29 Activity Boundary Summary Stakeholder Boundary Summary Emission Factor LCA Status Activity Central/Local Source Classification Stakeholder Central/Local Source Classification Stakeholder Activity Data Inventory Period DLF IPL 2010 Tournament Match Schedule Tournament Stadium Spectator Plan Tournament Team Travel Plan Resource / Activity Tagging Activity Data Extrapolation IPL/IMG Data Stadium Construction Carbon Footprint Research and Analysis Summary DLF IPL 2010 Resource Consumption Inventory DLF IPL 2010 Activity-Differentiated Total Carbon Footprint DLF IPL 2010 Stakeholder-Differentiated Total Carbon Footprint Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Construction (Annual Carbon Footprint) TV Spectator Carbon Footprint Analysis Television viewership IPLvs. Non-IPL period Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Spectators DLF IPL 2010 Venue Carbon Footprint Summary Venue vs. Activity Average Stadium Venue vs. Activity All Stadium Summary (Tournament Totals) Venue vs. Activity All Stadium Summary (per Match) Venue vs. Activity All Stadium Summary (per Unit Served) Day vs. Night Match Activity Data Analysis IPL and other Global Sporting events Comparison with UEFA EURO 2008 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Fuel - Cooking Fuel Activity vs. Stakeholder - Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel Activity vs. Stakeholder - Fuel - Fireworks & Other Fuel 32 34 38 42 43 45 47 54 57 61 71 74 85 88 93 100 104 105 106 111 115 120 121 122 150 165 204 206 208
LIST OF TABLES
Table 30 Table 31 Table 32 Table 33 Table 34 Table 35 Table 36 Table 37 Table 38 Table 39 Table 40 Table 41 Table 42 Table 43 Table 44 Table 45 Table 46 Table 47 Table 48 Table 49 Table 50 Table 51 Table 52 Table 53 Table 54 Table 55 Table 56 Table 57 Table 58 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Electricity Activity vs. Stakeholder - Water Activity vs. Stakeholder - Domestic Air Travel Activity vs. Stakeholder - International Air Travel Activity vs. Stakeholder - Public Road & Rail Travel Activity vs. Stakeholder - Private Vehicular Travel Activity vs. Stakeholder - Logistics Activity vs. Stakeholder - Luxury Hotel Accomodation Activity vs. Stakeholder - Meat & Seafood Activity vs. Stakeholder - Dairy Activity vs. Stakeholder - Rice Activity vs. Stakeholder - Alcoholic Beverages Activity vs. Stakeholder - Bottled Water / Drinks Activity vs. Stakeholder - Solid Waste Activity vs. Stakeholder - Paper & Cardboard Activity vs. Stakeholder - Plastic Activity vs. Stakeholder - Fertilizers & Pesticide Stakeholder vs. Activity IPL/IMG Head Office Stakeholder vs. Activity -IPL/IMG Hospitality & Travel Stakeholder vs. Activity IPL/IMG Merchandizing Stakeholder vs. Activity IPL/IMG Sponsors Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - Concessions Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - VIP Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - Broadcasting Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Hospitality Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Entertainment Stakeholder vs. Activity Television Broadcasting - In-House Stakeholder vs. Activity Television Broadcasting - Vendor Stakeholder vs. Activity Player Security 209 211 213 215 217 218 220 222 224 226 228 230 232 234 236 238 240 241 243 245 246 248 250 252 254 256 258 260 262
LIST OF TABLES
Table 59 Table 60 Table 61 Table 62 Table 63 Table 64 Table 65 Table 66 Table 67 Table 68 Table 69 Table 70 Table 71 Table 72 Table 73 Table 74 Table 75 Table 76 Table 77 Table 78 Table 79 Table 80 Table 81 Table 82 Table 83 Table 84 Table 85 Table 86 Table 87 Table 88 Stakeholder vs. Activity Umpiring Stakeholder vs. Activity Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption Stakeholder vs. Activity Emergency Training Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Office Stakeholder vs. Activity - Stadium Advertising (LED) Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Advertising (Flex Signage) Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Security Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Utilities Stakeholder vs. Activity Ground Maintenance Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - State Assoc. Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Housekeeping Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Head Office Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Hospitality & Travel Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Merchandizing Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Sponsors Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Cheerleaders Stakeholder vs. Activity Beverage Contractor - Soft Drinks Stakeholder vs. Activity Beverage Contractor - Alcoholic Bev. Venue vs. Activity Ahmedabad Venue vs. Activity Bangalore Venue vs. Activity Chennai Venue vs. Activity Cuttack Venue vs. Activity Delhi Venue vs. Activity Dharamsala Venue vs. Activity Jaipur Venue vs. Activity Kolkata Venue vs. Activity Mohali Venue vs. Activity Mumbai (Brabourne) Venue vs. Activity Navi Mumbai Venue vs. Activity Nagpur 264 266 268 270 272 274 275 277 279 281 283 285 287 289 291 293 295 297 299 301 303 305 307 309 311 313 315 317 319 321
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A GHG EMISSION FACTORS APPENDIX B DLF IPL 2010 PRE-EVENT CARBON FOOTPRINT ESTIMATE APPENDIX C ROYAL CHALLENGERS BANGALORE FRANCHISE ACTIVITY DATA PROVIDED BY: NEXTGEN PMS (BANGALORE, INDIA) APPENDIX D DLF IPL 2010 CARBON FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS - TABLES AND FIGURES APPENDIX E FIREWORKS & PYROTECHNICS AIR QUALITY AND HEALTH IMPACTS STUDIES APPENDIX F RCB-NEXTGEN PMS CARBON FOOTPRINT MITIGATION PROGRAMME FOR IPL 2010 APPENDIX G IPL GREENING PROGRAM UNEP RECOMMENDATIONS - PREPARED BY DR. HARTMUT STAHL APPENDIX H IPL GREENING PROGRAM - INDICATIVE ROADMAP 358 359 354 355 199 203 203 347 348 351 352 192 193 196 197 198
Executive Summary IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.
15
E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
1 . 0 E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt. Ltd was contracted by the IPL Management upon the recommendation of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to calculate their Annual Carbon Footprint (i.e. an inventory of the total Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHGs - that contribute to Climate Change, resulting from direct and indirect resource consumption through DLF IPL 2010s annual operations). The Total Carbon Footprint of DLF IPL 2010 was estimated to be 42,264 tons CO2e. DLF IPL 2010s Carbon Footprint can be thought of as requiring 169,055 trees to neutralise its impact on Climate Change over a period of 20 years. This equates to approximately 2,818 trees per match. The following activities comprise its Carbon Footprint, in order of decreasing magnitude: Travel and Logistics (18,073 tons CO2e 42.8%), Stadium Construction (9,932 tons CO2e - 23.5%), Luxury Hotel Accommodation (9,927 tons CO2e - 23.5%) , Food, Beverage, and Waste (1,201 tons CO2e - 2.8%) and Electricity (996 tons CO2e 2.4%). Relative Stakeholder contributions to the DLF IPL 2010 Carbon Footprint are: IPL/IMG Operations (9,861 tons CO2e - 23%), State Association Operations (12,861 tons CO2e - 30%), Franchise Operations (5,243 tons CO2e - 12%), Spectator Activities (14,300 tons CO2e - 35%). A majority of the Carbon Footprint of DLF IPL 2010 is the consequence of activities related to its contractors while only 23% of the footprint is a direct consequence of direct IPL/IMG managed operations. It is imperative that footprint mitigation strategies account for this aspect of footprint distribution. Spectators are the most significant Stakeholders in terms of contribution to Total Carbon Footprint. Private Vehicular Travel is the single largest contributing factor responsible for 6,517 tons CO2e
16
(45%) of Stadium Spectator Carbon Footprint. It is imperative to address this disproportionately heavy reliance on Private Transport consumed for Spectator Travel when addressing the overall IPL Carbon Footprint. TV viewership related Carbon Footprint for DLF IPL 2010 was 358,039 tons CO2e and far outweighed the contributions of any other stakeholder or activity considered within the IPL Carbon Footprint Boundary. This component of Carbon Footprint, and its root cause large quantity of consumption of electricity through TV sets, needs to be addressed with greater emphasis on its analysis and mitigation through innovative strategies and interventions in future editions of the IPL The impact of Stadium Construction, one of the primary activities contributing significantly to the IPL footprint, needs to be mitigated by intervening and exploiting opportunities to infuse Low-Carbon and Green Architecture and Construction practices as the cornerstone of future stadium construction activities at proposed stadiums that are intended for use by the IPL. Best practice examples for a majority of Stakeholder functions within the IPL have been identified, quantified, and the initial feasibility assessed. Best practice benchmark replication across the IPL must be pursued as a potent and actionable strategy for optimizing the Carbon Footprint of the IPL prior to any resource and capital-intensive Carbon Footprint Minimisation strategies. All interventions must be accompanied by effective communication to all internal and external stakeholders. They must also be in consonance with a well thought-out Greening Strategy, that aims not just at a Carbon Neutral IPL, but sets itself the loftier target of an IPL that is a net Carbon Sink (an indicative roadmap is presented in Appendix H). Best Practice Incentivisation through formal programs and its
17
incorporation into contractual negotiations processes with all vendors, contractors and other relevant Stakeholders is ascertained to be most feasible first step on the pathway to drastically reducing the Carbon Footprint of IPL in the forthcoming seasons. Central IPL support and nurturing of competitive franchise behavior through formal recognition of the Lowest Carbon Footprint or Greenest Franchise is one illustrative example that may be expanded to envelop all aspects of IPL operations in future editions. It is abundantly clear that noise levels at match venues needs to be curbed significantly during future editions of IPL to ensure that basic national environmental laws are not violated. During DLF IPL 2010, noise levels at matches were measured and found to violate national noise pollution norms by significant levels. The Carbon Footprint determined as part of this project phase does not account for the entire life-cycle of the resources consumed and their comprehensive impact on Climate Change and ecology. Accounting for resource acquisition, processing and disposal impacts could magnify the current extent manifold. A life-cycle analysis (LCA) of all primary resources consumed is essential to ascertain a more comprehensive Carbon Footprint that tends towards the true Climate Change impact of IPL. It is recommended that IPL 2011 be assessed on a LCA basis and that preparatory work for an LCA study be commissioned as part of the next phase of the project. It is recommended that IPL commission ECE to commence a comprehensive Carbon Footprint Minimization analysis as part of a Long-Term Greening Program (in fulfillment of its MOU with the UNEPs Sports and Environment Unit) to identify means and alternatives for optimising and minimising its resource intensiveness. Prior to minimising and offsetting the impact of future IPLs, it is recommended that IPL commit to neutralise the impact of, as minimum, the four knock-out phase matches of DLF IPL 2010 (estimated to be 3,148 tons). While multiple options for offsetting are available in the conventional Carbon Offset market, the alternatives that result in equitable distribution of benefits to the grassroot Stakeholder communities who are imperative to the projects implementation are preferred as a more potent agent of social and environmental transformation. In the context of the prior
18
Introduction IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
2.0 INTRODUCTION
19
I n t r o d u c t i o n IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
2 . 1 T H E P L A Y E R S
The Indian Premier League (IPL) is an annual, franchise-based Twenty20 Cricket tournament under the aegis of the Board of Control of Cricket in India (BCCI). First held in 2008, IPL features many of the World's best cricketers playing for eight city-based franchises, owned by some of the most well-recognised individuals/ brands in India. Since its inception, IPLs engaging game format, accompanied by its innovative marketing strategies, has captured the imagination of spectators and audiences not just in India and the other cricket-playing nations, but across the entire World. IPL today is looked upon and admired for the standards it has set in the Sporting and Entertainment arena. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) is the designated authority of the United Nations on environmental issues at the global and regional level. With a stated mission of aiming to provide leadership and encouraging partnership in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing, and enabling nations and people to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations, UNEPs activities cover a wide range of issues involving the environment and the diverse ecosystems comprising it. UNEP plays a key role in developing international environmental conventions, promoting environmental science, working on the development and implementation of policy with national governments and regional institution, and working with environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). UNEP has also been the forefront of guiding the growing consideration for environment in the world of sports, and has been advising Sporting events since the 1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer, Norway Eliminate Carbon Emissions Pvt. Ltd. (ECE) and the no2co2 Project were born from the conviction that the primary responsibility for reversing the effects of Climate Change rests not with the Government, the Industry and the Policymakers, but with us as
20
members of the societies we live in, the businesses we are part of and as individual consumers. ECEs intervention approach follows the elegantly simple steps of REALISE, MINIMISE and NEUTRALISE.
21
2 . 2 T H E A R E N A
The scientific community around the World has accepted the reality of Climate Change. That it IS happening and it IS the result of anthropogenic activities is no longer a matter of speculation. As the warming and the melting, and the positive feedback loop connecting them gathers momentum, the uncertainty is only about how much time we have left to slow down, and perhaps reverse, some of the effects of Climate Change. As the international community comprising the developed countries, the newly emerging economies and the under-developed countries are locked in a stalemate over how much to commit, individual governments and industries including those in our own country have started taking steps aimed at Carbon Footprint control and mitigation. The Sports arena worldwide is also moving towards according a high priority to Environmental considerations. The Olympic Movement, for instance, has incorporated the environment into its charter, alongside sport and culture. Starting with the Winter Olympics in 1994, major sporting events around the World all the subsequent Olympics, the just-concluded FIFA World Cup 2010 and the Commonwealth Games 2010 - have moved towards including environmental measures as part of their basic mandates.
22
2 . 3 T H E P R O J E C T
In January 2010, IPL announced its vision of green growth in partnership with UNEP. As part of this program, IPL will green its cricket league and bring environmental awareness to millions of cricket fans around the world in a first-of-its-kind initiative undertaken by any sporting body in India. UNEP will advise IPL in its commitment to green its sport events, spread environmental messaging to fans through its star players and green its merchandising. IPL Management embarked upon this unprecedented approach towards achieving total environmental accountability motivated by personal conviction about the reality of Climate Change and its direct relationship with resource consumption of economic enterprises. IPL also recognized its esteemed position as a best-practice leader in the Sports and Live Entertainment Business in India and clearly recognized the immense leveraging possibilities available to it to infuse climate change consciousness into its broad customer, contractor and vendor base. IPL could, therefore, engage with the global Climate Change solutions movement as a Climate Change solutions leader, inspiring a vast network of stakeholders to recognize their potential as individual Climate Change solvers. The first steps in IPLs Greening roadmap involved using the DLF IPL 2010 as a forum for disseminating messages regarding environmental consciousness, and the calculation of the Carbon Footprint of DLF IPL2010. UNEPs Outreach Unit Division of Communications and Public Information (DCPI) designed the environmental communication strategy for IPL2010, and also guided IPL in the selection of the agency to calculate the Carbon Footprint of DLF IPL 2010. Based on UNEPs recommendation, ECE was contracted by IPL to carry out the measurement of DLF IPL 2010 Carbon Footprint.
23
ECE, through the Realise and Minimise activities of the project, endeavors to demonstrate the fallacy of the commonly espoused perception that environmental responsibility and business profitability are conflicting considerations that require pursuit of disparate decision making pathways. Thus, drawing up the broad roadmap to continued delivery of excellent customer experience, identifying cost reduction avenues emerging from resource conservation practices, while minimising climate change impact was one of the key objectives of the project.
24
2 . 4 T H E R E P O R T
This report details the first phase i.e. Realise, of the three-phase project comprising of Carbon Footprint Calculation (Realise), Carbon Footprint Minimisation (Minimise) and Carbon Footprint Neutralisation (Neutralise). Pre-Tournament Carbon Footprint Estimation (presented in Appendix B) commenced in February 2010 subsequently followed by the final Carbon Footprint Activity data gathering research process commencing in March 2010. The timeperiod of analysis chosen was the entire annual IPL planning, execution and hosting cycle from May 2009 (End of IPL 2) to April 2010 (End of IPL 3). Given that one of the main objectives of this Report is to document the analytical and research procedures and methodologies, so that the document can stand up to scientific scrutiny, it is inevitable that parts of the Report are technical in nature. However, all efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of the Report are well within the scope of understanding of any informed, interested reader, and it can serve as a basis to stimulate discussion and encourage actions.
25
Project Goals IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
3.0 PROJECT GOALS
26
P r o j e c t G o a l s IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
3 . 0 P R O J E C T G O A L S
The goals of the Realise phase of the project were to determine, with the greatest possible degree of accuracy, the following for DLF IPL 2010: 1. Total Annual and Activity-Differentiated resource consumption 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. inventory. Total Annual Carbon Footprint Activity-Differentiated Annual Carbon Footprint Stakeholder-Differentiated Annual Carbon Footprint. Match Venue-Differentiated Annual Carbon Footprint. Carbon Emissions Intensity of Stakeholder Operations. Best Practice Identification amongst Stakeholder Operations. Contextualization of Total Carbon Footprint and Carbon Emissions Intensity of Stakeholder Operations.
The collective analysis of the above aspects of IPL operation would represent the GHG Emissions Baseline for IPL, against which future efforts would be benchmarked for assessing the magnitude and impact of measurable and verifiable Carbon Footprint mitigation measures. Since the above could only be achieved following a comprehensive dissection of the resource process flow delineating the resourcebased interactions of various stakeholders, a comprehensive Stakeholder Activity and Interaction Mapping was also identified and pursued as an added benefit for IPL. It is intended that the resulting process flow chart be utilized for the optimization of IPLs tournament planning operations by illustrating key intervention areas for adopting resource conservation measures. Finally, the aggregate and dissected Carbon Footprints were to be understood and explained in the context of easily understandable terms (i.e. commonly understood units of Climate Change impacts) to provide perspective that serves to inspire and define actions towards participative (i.e. involving all Stakeholders) mitigation of IPLs impact on Climate Change through footprint minimisation. Results of the above research and analysis were intended to serve as a diagnostic tool to lay down a rational, prioritized roadmap for Carbon Footprint and Resource consumption Minimisation without hindering
27
P r o j e c t S c o p e IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
4 . 0 P R O J E C T S C O P E
28
4 . 0 P R O J E C T S C O P E
Boundaries for the Carbon Footprint Calculation process were defined in consultation with UNEP and IPL/IMG Management. Defining boundaries involved two key-decision making areas: 1. Activities to be included (i.e. defining a comprehensive yet manageable set of resources whose consumption was to be inventoried), and, 2. Stakeholders to be considered (i.e. defining which sets of peoples/groups/functions are to be included within the footprint boundary). Since Carbon Footprint Reporting for businesses in India is not mandated by the Indian Government, nor by the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC), and IPLs initiative to address its Climate Change Impacts are purely voluntary, no set of pre-established guidelines were required to be followed for boundary definition. In the absence of explicit guidelines for GHG Emission Reporting for Indian Businesses, the globally accepted methodologies for National GHG Emissions Reporting (adopted by India as part of the Kyoto Protocol) laid down by the IPCC (InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change) as part of the 2006 Guidelines were used for guidance wherever appropriate. However, given the unique nature of this project and the niche operational activity of IPL, the overall methodology reflects a confluence of standard protocols and business-appropriate approaches which would provide an accurate estimate of its Climate Change Impact.
29
4 . 1 A C T I V I T Y B O U N D A R I E S
In order for Carbon Footprint calculation to be considered comprehensive it is essential to include all activities that impact it. However, it would render the entire exercise impossible to complete in a finite time frame if every activity were to be included within the scope of the Project. The twin goals of comprehensiveness and manageability are achieved be defining activities known as Key Source Categories and analyzing them comprehensively while paying lesser attention to those outside that framework. Key Source Categories categories are defined as those whose collective contribution account for 95% of the total footprint (when added incrementally in the order of decreasing contribution). It is evident that technically Key Source Categories can therefore only be determined following the completion of the Carbon Footprint calculation thereby defeating its utility as a guiding principle for defining activity boundary. However, irrespective of the anthropogenic or business activity being analyzed, certain categories of activities can safely be presumed as being Key Source Categories. Beyond these, others need to be identified based on rational considerations related to the specific nature of the business and following a detailed understanding of its operations. This process yielded the following activities as comprising the activity domain for IPLs Carbon Footprint calculation: 1 ) S c o p e 1 E m i s s i o n s : Contributing Directly to Carbon Footprint activities where direct control can be exercised over the magnitude of activity AND the emission coefficient through technological choices. 2 ) S c o p e 2 E m i s s i o n s : Contributing Indirectly to Carbon Footprint activities where direct control can be exercised over the magnitude of activity BUT NOT the emission coefficient through technological choices. 3 ) S c o p e 3 E m i s s i o n s : Contributing Indirectly to Carbon Footprint -
30
activities where direct control can NEITHER be exercised over the magnitude of activity NOR the emission coefficient through technological choices.
31
T a b l e 1 A c t i v i t y B o u n d a r y S u m m a r y
N o . 1 2 3 4 5 A c t i v i t y S u b T y p e C o o k i n g F u e l G e n e r a t o r F u e l P e t r o l F i r e w o r k s F u e l O i l ( A e r o s o l ) A c t i v i t y G r o u p F u e l F u e l F u e l F l a m m a b l e s F l a m m a b l e s T r a v e l T r a v e l L o g i s t i c s E l e c t r i c i t y W a t e r T r a v e l T r a v e l T r a v e l T r a v e l T r a v e l T r a v e l T r a v e l T r a v e l F & B F & B F & B F & B F & B W a s t e C o n s u m a b l e s C o n s u m a b l e s S c o p e T y p e S c o p e 1 S c o p e 1 S c o p e 1 S c o p e 1 S c o p e 1 S c o p e 1 S c o p e 1 S c o p e 1 S c o p e 2 S c o p e 2 S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3
6 V e h i c u l a r T r a v e l 2 W h e e l e r 7 V e h i c u l a r T r a v e l 4 W h e e l e r 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 5 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 V e h i c u l a r T r a v e l H M V E l e c t r i c i t y W a t e r I n t e r n a t i o n a l A i r T r a v e l D o m e s t i c A i r T r a v e l R a i l T r a v e l L o c a l B u s T r a v e l L o c a l T a x i T r a v e l A u t o r i c k s h a w T r a v e l M e a t S e a f o o d D a i r y A l c o h o l i c B e v e r a g e s B o t t l e d W a t e r / D r i n k s W a s t e G e n e r a t i o n P a p e r P l a s t i c
1 4 R a i l T r a v e l L o n g D i s t a n c e 1 6 B u s T r a v e l L o n g D i s t a n c e
32
T a b l e 1 A c t i v i t y B o u n d a r y S u m m a r y
N o . 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 A c t i v i t y S u b T y p e F e r t i l i z e r P e s t i c i d e s L u x u r y H o t e l C o n c r e t e S t e e l B r i c k P l y w o o d A c t i v i t y G r o u p C o n s u m a b l e s C o n s u m a b l e s A c c o m m o d a t i o n C o n s t r u c t i o n C o n s t r u c t i o n C o n s t r u c t i o n C o n s t r u c t i o n S c o p e T y p e S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3 S c o p e 3
33
4 . 2 S T A K E H O L D E R B O U N D A R I E S
Stakeholders are defined as those groups of persons, service providers, beneficiaries, customers etc. that directly or indirectly participate in Carbon Footprint creation activities of a organization. As in the case of activity boundaries, this list too is technically nearly infinite since the indirect contributors to an organizations footprint is an unbounded set of groups engaged in enterprise all across the globe. Since voluntary Carbon Footprint calculation and emission inventorying falls outside the domain of any internationally binding IPCC guidelines, Stakeholder Boundary is determined through consultation with the Client. While accountability for those entities directly part of its own operations is the cornerstone of the exercise, organizations are at liberty to select some operations that are outside their direct control but are logically connected to, or are natural extensions of their direct operations. The outcome of these discussions with UNEP and IPL/IMG Management is the Stakeholder Boundary presented in the table below
Table 2 Stakeholder Boundary Summary

ID ID Group 1 Sub-Entity 1.01 Sub-Entity 1.02 Sub-Entity 1.03 Sub-Entity 1.04 Sub-Entity 1.05 Sub-Entity 1.06 Sub-Entity 1.07 Sub-Entity 1.08 Stakeholder Name Stakeholder Name IPL/IMG Head Office Hospitality & Travel Merchandizing Sponsors Catering - Concessions Catering - VIP Catering - Broadcasting Stadium Hospitality
34
Table 2 Stakeholder Boundary Summary

ID Sub-Entity 1.09 Sub-Entity 1.10 Sub-Entity 1.11 Sub-Entity 1.12 Sub-Entity 1.13 Sub-Entity 1.14 Sub-Entity 1.15 Sub-Entity 1.16 Sub-Entity 1.17 Sub-Entity 1.18 Group 2 Sub-Entity 2.01 Sub-Entity 2.02 Sub-Entity 2.03 Sub-Entity 2.04 Sub-Entity 2.05 Sub-Entity 2.06 Group 3 Sub-Entity 3.01 Sub-Entity 3.02 Sub-Entity 3.03 Sub-Entity 3.04 Sub-Entity 3.05 Sub-Entity 3.06 Sub-Entity 3.07 Group 4 Sub-Entity 4.01 Sub-Entity 4.02 Sub-Entity 4.03 Stakeholder Name Stadium Entertainment Television Broadcasting - In-House Television Broadcasting - Vendor Player Security Umpiring Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption Emergency Training Stadium Office Stadium Advertising (LED) Stadium Advertising (Flex Signage) State Associations Stadium Security Utilities Ground Maintenance Catering - State Assoc. Housekeeping Stadium Construction Franchises Franchise - Head Office Franchise - Hospitality & Travel Franchise - Merchandizing Franchise - Sponsors Cheerleaders Beverage Contractor - Soft Drinks Beverage Contractor - Alcoholic Bev. Spectators Stadium Spectators TV Spectators Internet
35
4 . 3 L I F E C Y C L E B O U N D A R I E S
Carbon Footprint is essentially the product of multiplying activity data with GHG Emissions Factors (EFs). Emission Factors are indicative of the quantity of GHGs emitted per unit of activity. As an illustration, an EF of 1 kgCO2e per kWh of electricity indicates that generation/consumption of 1 unit of electricity (i.e. 1 kWh) causes the emissions of 1 kg of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents. It must be emphasized that these are indicative since the true EF for any activity is technically unbounded; the reasoning for this is identical to the rationale provided in relation to the infinite nature of Activity and Stakeholder Impacts on Carbon Footprint. As an activitys EFs are investigated further back into its life-cycle to include, beyond primary influences, secondary and tertiary impacts, the mathematical magnitude of the EF increases, albeit to a gradually diminishing degree. Revisiting the example of electricity emission factors, the value of 1 kgCO2e/kWh would increase if analysis boundaries were expanded beyond the impacts of direct combustion of coal, diesel and other fossil fuels used for power generation to then include the energy expenditure to mine the fossil fuels. Its magnitude would further increase if the analysis boundary were radially extended to envelop the resource and energy consumption to create the capital goods (machinery, factories etc.) required to harness these natural resources. This expansion can be understood as penetrating deeper into the life-cycle of a product or service. Concisely stated, EF magnitudes are a dynamic function of the extent of life-cycle impacts selected for analysis in relation to the manufacturing process involved in creation of goods and services for human consumption. Any Carbon Footprint analysis, so greatly dependent on the mathematical magnitude of EFs chosen, is therefore, by induction, a function of EF life-cycle analysis (LCA); selecting only primary aspects of LCA (such as direct emissions of fossil fuels) yields lower values of EFs while a more extensive LCA magnifies the impacts of the same
36
activity and leads to a more conservative Carbon Footprint; a footprint that tends towards the true Carbon Footprint of an activity. The following table presents the extent of LCA incorporated into the Emission Factors selected for the IPL Carbon Footprint calculation.
37
T a b l e 3 E m i s s i o n F a c t o r L C A S t a t u s
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Activity Type Cooking Fuel Generator Fuel Petrol Fireworks Fuel Oil (Aerosol) Vehicular Travel - 2 Wheeler Vehicular Travel - 4 Wheeler Vehicular Travel - HMV Electricity Water International Air Travel Domestic Air Travel Rail Travel Local Rail Travel - Long Distance Bus Travel Local Bus Travel - Long Distance Taxi Travel Autorickshaw Travel Meat Seafood Dairy Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Waste Generation Paper Plastic Fertilizer Pesticides Luxury Hotel Concrete Steel Brick Plywood Emission Factor Status Direct Combustion Direct Combustion Direct Combustion Direct Combustion Direct Combustion Direct Combustion Direct Combustion Direct Combustion Direct Combustion Direct Combustion Direct Combustion Direct Combustion Direct Combustion, Electricity Direct Combustion, Electricity Direct Combustion Direct Combustion Direct Combustion Direct Combustion Partial LCA Partial LCA Partial LCA Partial LCA Partial LCA Partial LCA LCA LCA LCA LCA Direct Combustion, Electricity Partial LCA Partial LCA Partial LCA Partial LCA
38
R e s e a r c h M e t h o d o l o g y IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
5 . 0 R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y
39
5 . 0 R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y
The research methodology followed for the project centered on the idea of dissecting the organizations operations and disaggregating consumption of resources to understand the consumption patterns ground-up. While this approach was more time-consuming, as opposed to tracking all activities through a centralized approach, it helped construct a detailed footprint-map that would be invaluable as an analysis tool to identify stakeholder contributions to overall footprint. The research methodology can be largely defined through the following components:
40
5 . 1 C E N T R A L A N D L O C A L F O O T P R I N T S O U R C E S
The activities listed in Table 1, and by association, the stakeholder listed in Table 2 which undertook those activities, were divided amongst two sub-groups; Central and Local Footprint Activities and by extension Central and Local Footprint Stakeholders. The distinguishing factor used for this classification was the primary physical domain where these activities were conducted by respective stakeholders and extent of impact on actual match day operations. This classification was identified as crucial to truly differentiate activities that primarily affect a particular match-day operation (and hence eligible as a candidate for best-practice identification), versus those that impact the entire IPL planning and execution process and cannot be attributed to any single match venue. As illustration: while air travel by various executives of match-day contractors such as concessions caterers, stadium entertainment crew were added to the respective stakeholders total carbon footprint wherein it was allocated as a Central Footprint Source, it was excluded from the stakeholders venue-specific footprint (and hence not used as a differentiator for comparison with other stakeholders). The following rules prevailed in classification of Central and Local Footprint Source classification: 1) All air travel related activity across all stakeholders was attributed to Central Footprint for a stakeholder. 2) All luxury hotel accommodation related activity across all stakeholders was attributed to Central Footprint for a stakeholder. 3) All stadium construction related activity was attributed to Central Footprint for the stakeholder. 4) All IPL/IMG Head Office related consumption was attributed to Central Footprint. 5) All Franchise operations related consumption was attributed to Central Footprint.
41

T h e f o l l o w i n g t a b l e s p r e s e n t s t h e C e n t r a l a n d L o c a l F o o t p r i n t S o u r c e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f A c t i v i t i e s a n d S t a k e h o l d e r s e m p l o y e d f o r t h e p r o j e c t .
T a b l e 4 A c t i v i t y C e n t r a l / L o c a l S o u r c e C l a s s i f i c a t i o n
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Activity Type Activity TypeClassificationCooking Fuel Generator Fuel Petrol Fireworks Fuel Oil (Aerosol) Vehicular Travel - 2 Wheeler Vehicular Travel - 4 Wheeler Vehicular Travel - HMV Electricity Water International Air Travel Domestic Air Travel Rail Travel - Local Rail Travel - Long Distance Bus Travel - Local Bus Travel - Long Distance Taxi Travel Autorickshaw Travel Meat Seafood Dairy Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Waste Generation Paper Plastic Fertilizer Pesticides Luxury Hotel Concrete Steel Brick Plywood Activity Group Fuel Fuel Fuel Flammables Flammables Travel Travel Logistics Electricity Water Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B Waste Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Accommodation Construction Construction Construction Construction Classification Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Central Central Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Central Central Central Central Central
42
T a b l e 5 S t a k e h o l d e r C e n t r a l / L o c a l S o u r c e C l a s s i f i c a t i o n
ID Group 1 Sub-Entity 1.01 Sub-Entity 1.02 Sub-Entity 1.03 Sub-Entity 1.04 Sub-Entity 1.05 Sub-Entity 1.06 Sub-Entity 1.07 Sub-Entity 1.08 Sub-Entity 1.09 Sub-Entity 1.10 Sub-Entity 1.11 Sub-Entity 1.12 Sub-Entity 1.13 Sub-Entity 1.14 Sub-Entity 1.15 Sub-Entity 1.16 Sub-Entity 1.17 Sub-Entity 1.18 Group 2 Sub-Entity 2.01 Sub-Entity 2.02 Sub-Entity 2.03 Sub-Entity 2.04 Sub-Entity 2.05 Sub-Entity 2.06 Group 3 Sub-Entity 3.01 Sub-Entity 3.02 Sub-Entity 3.03 Sub-Entity 3.04 Sub-Entity 3.05 Sub-Entity 3.06 Sub-Entity 3.07 Group 4 Sub-Entity 4.01 Sub-Entity 4.02 Sub-Entity 4.03 Stakeholder Name IPL/IMG Head Office Hospitality & Travel Merchandizing Sponsors Catering - Concessions Catering - VIP Catering - Broadcasting Stadium Hospitality Stadium Entertainment Television Broadcasting - In-House Television Broadcasting - Vendor Player Security Umpiring Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption Emergency Training Stadium Office Stadium Advertising (LED) Stadium Advertising (Flex Signage) State Associations Stadium Security Utilities Ground Maintenance Catering - State Assoc. Housekeeping Stadium Construction Franchises Franchise - Head Office Franchise - Hospitality & Travel Franchise - Merchandizing Franchise - Sponsors Cheerleaders Beverage Contractor - Soft Drinks Beverage Contractor - Alcoholic Bev. Spectators Stadium Spectators TV Spectators Internet Local Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Central Central Central Central Central Local Local Local Central Local Local Local Central Central Central Central Local Local Local Classification
43
T a b l e 5 S t a k e h o l d e r C e n t r a l / L o c a l S o u r c e C l a s s i f i c a t i o n
ID Group 4 Sub-Entity 4.01 Sub-Entity 4.02 Sub-Entity 4.03 Stakeholder Name Spectators Stadium Spectators TV Spectators Internet Local Central Central Classification
44
5 . 2 A n n u a l a n d T o u r n a m e n t D u r a t i o n A c t i v i t y D a t a
Satisfying the completeness criteria for the Carbon Footprint Calculation process required inventorying of not just tournament duration resource consumption of stakeholders, but also of annual resource consumption for a subset of the stakeholders whose operations related to tournament planning span the entire duration in between successive editions of the tournament. The following table presents the stakeholders for which only tournament-duration activity data was inventoried and those for which an annual inventory was conducted.
Table 6 Stakeholder Activity Data Inventory Period

ID Group 1 Sub-Entity 1.01 Sub-Entity 1.02 Sub-Entity 1.03 Sub-Entity 1.04 Sub-Entity 1.05 Sub-Entity 1.06 Sub-Entity 1.07 Sub-Entity 1.08 Sub-Entity 1.09 Sub-Entity 1.10 Sub-Entity 1.11 Sub-Entity 1.12 Sub-Entity 1.13 Sub-Entity 1.14 Sub-Entity 1.15 Sub-Entity 1.16 Sub-Entity 1.17 Sub-Entity 1.18 Stakeholder Name IPL/IMG Head Office Hospitality & Travel Merchandizing Sponsors Catering - Concessions Catering - VIP Catering - Broadcasting Stadium Hospitality Stadium Entertainment Television Broadcasting - In-House Television Broadcasting - Vendor Player Security Umpiring Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption Emergency Training Stadium Office Stadium Advertising (LED) Stadium Advertising (Flex Signage) Annual Annual Annual Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Inventory Period
45
Table 6 Stakeholder Activity Data Inventory Period

ID Group 2 Sub-Entity 2.01 Sub-Entity 2.02 Sub-Entity 2.03 Sub-Entity 2.04 Sub-Entity 2.05 Sub-Entity 2.06 Group 3 Sub-Entity 3.01 Sub-Entity 3.02 Sub-Entity 3.03 Sub-Entity 3.04 Sub-Entity 3.05 Sub-Entity 3.06 Sub-Entity 3.07 Group 4 Sub-Entity 4.01 Sub-Entity 4.02 Sub-Entity 4.03 Stakeholder Name State Associations Stadium Security Utilities Ground Maintenance Catering - State Assoc. Housekeeping Stadium Construction Franchises Franchise - Head Office Franchise - Hospitality & Travel Franchise - Merchandizing Franchise - Sponsors Cheerleaders Beverage Contractor - Soft Drinks Beverage Contractor - Alcoholic Bev. Spectators Stadium Spectators TV Spectators Internet Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Annual Annual Annual Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Annual Tournament Duration Tournament Duration Lifetime Inventory Period
46
5 . 3 R E S O U R C E I N P U T , C O N S U M P T I O N , A N D O U T P U T M A P P I N G
Activity data for Local Stakeholders under all groups was researched by surveying one (1) match at each stadium employed during DLF IPL 2010. In the case of Brabourne Stadium (Mumbai), a Day and Night Match were studied distinctly (except for Spectator Activity) to assess the relative Carbon Footprint impact of the two match formats. The table below presents the tournament schedule that was used for identification of a representative match selected for on-field survey.
Table 7 DLF IPL 2010 Tournament Match Schedule

Game No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Date Fri, 12th March Sat, 13th March Sat, 13th March Sun, 14th March Sun, 14th March Mon, 15th March Tues, 16th March Tues, 16th March Wed, 17th March Thurs, 18th March Fri, 19th March Fri, 19th March Sat, 20th March Sat, 20th March Sun, 21st March Sun, 21st March Mon, 22nd March Tues, 23rd March Wed, 24th March Thurs, 25th March Venue Navi Mumbai Mumbai Mohali Kolkata Chennai Ahmadabad Bangalore Kolkata Delhi Bengaluru Delhi Cuttack Ahmadabad Mumbai Cuttack Chennai Mumbai Bengaluru Mohali Mumbai Team 1 Deccan Chargers Mumbai Indians Kings XI Punjab Kolkata Knight Riders Chennai Super Kings Rajasthan Royals Royal Challengers Bangalore Kolkata Knight Riders Delhi Daredevils Royal Challengers Bangalore Delhi Daredevils Deccan Chargers Rajasthan Royals Mumbai Indians Deccan Chargers Chennai Super Kings Mumbai Indians Royal Challengers Bangalore Kings XI Punjab Mumbai Indians Vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs Team 2 Kolkata Knight Riders Rajasthan Royals Delhi Daredevils Royal Challengers Bangalore Deccan Chargers Delhi Daredevils Kings XI Punjab Chennai Super Kings Mumbai Indians Rajasthan Royals Chennai Super Kings Kings XI Punjab Kolkata Knight Riders Royal Challengers Bangalore Delhi Daredevils Kings XI Punjab Kolkata Knight Riders Chennai Super Kings Rajasthan Royals Chennai Super Kings Day/Night Match N D N D N N D N N N D N D N D N N N N N
47
Table 7 (Contd.) DLF IPL 2010 Tournament Match Schedule

Game No. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Date Fri, 26th March Sat, 27th March Sat, 27th March Sun, 28th March Sun, 28th March Mon, 29th March Tues, 30th March Wed, 31st March Wed, 31st March Thurs, 1st April Fri, 2nd April Sat, 3rd April Sat, 3rd April Sun, 4th April Sun, 4th April Mon, 5th April Tues, 6th April Wed, 7th April Wed, 7th April Thurs, 8th April Fri, 9th April Sat, 10th April Sat, 10th April Sun, 11th April Sun, 11th April Mon, 12th April Tues, 13th April Tues, 13th April Wed, 14th April Thurs, 15th April Fri, 16th April Sat, 17th April Sat, 17th April Sun, 18th April Sun, 18th April Mon, 19th April Wed, 21st April Thurs, 22nd April Sat, 24th April Sun, 25th April Venue Ahmadabad Mohali Bengaluru Ahmadabad Navi Mumbai Delhi Mumbai Chennai Delhi Kolkata Mohali Chennai Mumbai Kolkata Delhi Nagpur Chennai Jaipur Kolkata Bengaluru Mohali Nagpur Bengaluru Delhi Jaipur Nagpur Mumbai Chennai Jaipur Chennai Dharamsala Bengaluru Kolkata Dharamsala Delhi Kolkata Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai Team 1 Rajasthan Royals Kings XI Punjab Royal Challengers Bangalore Rajasthan Royals Deccan Chargers Delhi Daredevils Mumbai Indians Chennai Super Kings Delhi Daredevils Kolkata Knight Riders Kings XI Punjab Chennai Super Kings Mumbai Indians Kolkata Knight Riders Delhi Daredevils Deccan Chargers Chennai Super Kings Rajasthan Royals Kolkata Knight Riders Royal Challengers Bangalore Kings XI Punjab Deccan Chargers Royal Challengers Bangalore Delhi Daredevils Rajasthan Royals Deccan Chargers Mumbai Indians Chennai Super Kings Rajasthan Royals Chennai Super Kings Kings XI Punjab Royal Challengers Bangalore Kolkata Knight Riders Kings XI Punjab Delhi Daredevils Kolkata Knight Riders SF1 SF2 3rd Place FINAL Vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs Team 2 Deccan Chargers Kolkata Knight Riders Delhi Daredevils Chennai Super Kings Mumbai Indians Kolkata Knight Riders Kings XI Punjab Royal Challengers Bangalore Rajasthan Royals Deccan Chargers Royal Challengers Bangalore Rajasthan Royals Deccan Chargers Kings XI Punjab Royal Challengers Bangalore Rajasthan Royals Mumbai Indians Kings XI Punjab Delhi Daredevils Deccan Chargers Mumbai Indians Chennai Super Kings Kolkata Knight Riders Kings XI Punjab Mumbai Indians Royal Challengers Bangalore Delhi Daredevils Kolkata Knight Riders Royal Challengers Bangalore Delhi Daredevils Deccan Chargers Mumbai Indians Rajasthan Royals Chennai Super Kings Deccan Chargers Mumbai Indians Day/Night Match N D N D N N N D N N N D N D N N N D N N N D N D N N D N N N N D N D N N N N N N
48
5 . 3 . 1 I P L / I M G A C T I V I T Y D A T A R E S E A R C H
Activity data research for IPL/IMG Central Stakeholders was primarily related to Air Travel and Luxury Hotel Accommodation. This data was provided in raw form by Peter Griffiths of IMG Management and was extracted from pre-event planning documents and records. Data for other activities related to Annual IPL and IMG Offices was procured through annual resource consumption records maintained by IPL/IMG and obtained in electronic form through email correspondence with IMG Management. Activity data research for IPL/IMG Local Stakeholders was obtained by means on on-site observation, measurement (for paper and plastic consumables) and interviews with appropriate operational personnel and executives. All data was collected by means of information recorded in questionnaires developed prior to and refined following pilot stadium walk-arounds conducted during the March 13, 2010 IPL Match held at Mohali in conjunction with UNEP Programme Officer Dr. Hartmut Stahl. Questionnaires used were designed to capture relevant activity data divided amongst detailed activity types and subtypes from the appropriate stakeholders involved in match operations. Data not available through on-site investigation was procured postfacto and obtained in electronic form through email correspondence with relevant Management personnel representing Stakeholders. Special attention was paid to all waste streams, waste management practices and packaging/ancillary resources consumed in addition to the apparent primary stakeholder activity. In certain instances related to catering services, resource consumption off-site in preparation for match-day operations was also researched and included in the inventory. All unit items inventoried (counted in terms of pieces) were converted to appropriate weights and volumes based on samples collected during match-day operations and weighed off-site. Wherever appropriate, relevant material densities were investigated through technical literature research or telephonic vendor interviews.
49
5 . 3 . 2 S T A T E A S S O C I A T I O N A C T I V I T Y D A T A R E S E A R C H
All data related to State Association Operations was primarily Local data with the exception of Stadium Construction Activity Data. The procedure followed for this Local data was identical to the process used for IPL/IMG Local data sources. Stadium Construction Activity Data was pursued for the following stadiums: Eden Gardens (Kolkata), M.A. Chidambaram Stadium (Chennai), VCA Stadium (Nagpur), PCA Cricket Stadium (Mohali), and DY Patil Stadium (Navi Mumbai). These stadiums were selected for construction activity research due to recent construction and/or renovation dates for these stadiums ass opposed to the relatively old age of other stadiums, for which construction data was either unlikely to be available or be irrelevant owing to disparity between modern and vintage construction techniques and materials. Data was obtained directly in electronic form from Architects/Contractors engaged in the construction/renovation projects. Specific Construction activity related questionnaires for this research were employed for obtaining this information. Cricket Operations Research for all IPL stadiums (related to ascertaining the average number of ODI, Test and Domestic Matches) was conducted using Statsguru Research Filter Tool available at the www.cricinfo.com website. Information obtained from this process was used to determine the appropriate allocation percentage of year-round ground maintenance related resource consumption to IPL matches held at the venue as well as the appropriate per-IPL match allocation for Stadium Construction related footprint (based on a average stadium lifespan of 30 years).
50
5 . 3 . 3 F R A N C H I S E A C T I V I T Y D A T A R E S E A R C H
Procedures and methods employed for IPL/IMG Central and Local Stakeholders were also applied in all relevant cases for Franchise Activity Data research. Besides Air Travel and Luxury Hotel Accommodation data for tournament-duration activity of Central Franchise Stakeholders obtained from IMG Management team based on pre-event planning documents and records, franchise specific data was sought for yearround operation of Franchises directly through Franchise Management teams. The goal was to expand the key-source category inventory beyond tournament-duration operations to include yearround activities which were expected to be of comparable or greater magnitude and hence critical in nature. Additionally, pan-tournament merchandizing data was researched through Merchandizing contractors.
51
5 . 3 . 4 S P E C T A T O R A C T I V I T Y D A T A R E S E A R C H
A significant part of the emissions generated during the tournament was anticipated to be caused directly through the travel to the stadia, the consumption at the stadia, and the accommodation at Luxury Hotels at match-venues, of the stadium spectators. To ensure an exhaustive GHG Emissions Inventory of the IPL, it was imperative to analyze the footprint of the spectators that physically attended the various matches. Methodology A detailed, quantitative audience research was conducted to measure the emission whose various elements are as under: a ) S a m p l e S i z e : A sample size of between 0.75% and 1% of the overall expected attendance was covered to ensure a statistically valid base b ) S a m p l i n g M e t h o d : The sampling was a combination of two methods: ? S t r a t i f i e d S a m p l i n g : The total population was divided between various strata to evaluate the variation between the key segments. The fundamental basis for stratification was the ticket price bands as the behaviour of the sub-groups within each band was expected to remain homogeneous. C l u s t e r S a m p l i n g : A part of the total population was divided into various clusters and samples were taken from within these defined clusters to ensure that the overall stratified sampling is consistent and there were no major variations within the strata selected, especially since the tournament was held at multiple venues. Within both the techniques, the respondents were chosen at random to ensure no bias while conducting the research c ) Q u e s t i o n n a i r e a n d A d m i n i s t r a t i o n : The questionnaire was of the close-ended, multiple choice type and administered by surveyors who
52
were specifically trained to record the various elements of information required for the overall study. Each questionnaire was less than 12 questions and required approximately 3 minutes to record. Spectator totals for matches and other information related to spectator activity were also vital research elements for ascertaining the per unit served Carbon Footprints for various Local Stakeholders. This information was part of the process of establishing the Carbon Emissions Intensity of various operations to gage and compare their resource efficiencies. The table below presents the Tournament Spectator projections made prior to commencement of tournament that was used as a planning tool for the Spectator and Stadium Activity Research effort.
53
54
Table 8 DLF IPL 2010 Tournament Stadium Spectator Plan

Theoretical Capacity 0-500 500-1000 1000-2000 2000-5000 500 2 2 2 1 2 1,040 500 0 0 8,530 9,127 3,613 5,392 105,947 37,334 1,420 1,463 1,665 0 17,200 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 17 800 3,622 3,450 0 1,820 480 3,874 1,670 1,668 3,900 0 5000 + 2 7 5 1 5 1 2 5 4 5 2 4 43 4 9 7 2 7 2 3 7 5 7 3 4 60 1,800 7,900 10,277 4,750 19,393 0 320 0 17,694 5,950 8,842 10,254 38,159 14,500 5,124 14,801 5,439 3,627 13,486 34,843 139,332 6,204 8,400 13,516 48,000 38,269 30,000 39,613 36,370 40,464 21,560 21,127 44,695 29,929 15,863 39,525 50,953 408,368 161,528 0 15,634 0 14,540 12,200 15,023 4,200 17,197 26,500 15,669 9,000 38,000 45,000 35,000 49,000 23,200 22,000 48,000 30,800 25,000 44,900 55,000 463,900 31,565 Actual Capacity Price Level 1 Price Level 2 Price Level 3 Price Level 4 Price Level 5 Day Matches Night Matches Total Matches Attendance Attendance Total (Day Match) (Night Match) Spectators (Assumed) 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% (Assumed) 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 163,200 300,200 274,500 59,500 298,900 39,440 57,200 292,800 135,520 152,500 116,740 198,000 2,088,500
No.
Stadium Name
City
Sardar Patel Gujrat Stadium
Ahmedabad
M Chinnaswamy Stadium
Bangalore
M.A. Chidambaram Stad.
Chennai
Barabati Stadium
Cuttack
Feroz Shah Kotla Grounds
Delhi
HPCA Cricket Stadium
Dharamsala
Sawai Mansingh Stadium
Jaipur
Eden Gardens Stadium
Kolkata
PCA Cricket Stadium
Mohali
10
Brabourne Stadium
Mumbai
11
VCA Stadium
Nagpur
12
DY Patil Stadium
Navi Mumbai
Totals
Note: Values in RED are calculated based on avg. stadium characteristics
5 . 4 R E S O U R C E O P T I M I Z A T I O N P O T E N T I A L R E S E A R C H
A key component of the Local Stakeholder Activity research phase was the identification of avenues for significant reductions in resource consumption through efficiency enhancements while avoiding any visible impact on the overall service delivery to customers/spectators. All technical and operational personnel helming Stakeholder functions were engaged in brainstorming discussions to identify non-capital expenditure intensive options to measurably reduce resource consumption and enhance the Carbon Emissions efficiency of their respective activities. Such expert input was recorded in detail and will be analyzed further for incorporation into the Carbon Footprint Minimisation analysis phase of the project.
55
5 . 5 T O U R N A M E N T O P E R A T I O N A I R A N D R O A D T R A V E L R E S E A R C H
Average air-travel and road-travel distances for various stakeholders were determined based on distance research conducted on the Franchise Team Travel plan presented in the table below. Note: the following abbreviations used in the table below Teams RR (Rajasthan Royals), KXIP (Kings XI Punjab), CSK (Chennai Super Kings), DD (Delhi Daredevils), MI (Mumbai Indians), KKR (Kolkata Knight Riders), RCB (Royal Challengers Bangalore), DC (Deccan Chargers). Venues Mu (Mumbai), Ah (Ahmedabad), Ba (Bangalore), Mo (Mohali), De (Delhi), Ch (Chennai), Na (Nagpur), Ja (Jaipur), Ko (Kolkata), Cu (Cuttack), Dh (Dharamsala), Nm (Navi Mumbai)
56

Table 9 DLF IPL 2010 Tournament Team Travel Plan
Day Venue Venue Nm Mu Mo Ch Ah Ba Ko De De Ba Cu De Mu Ch Ch Cu Mu Ba Mo Mu Ah Mo Ah Ah De Mu De Ch De Ko Mo Ch Ko Ch De Mu Ko De Mo Mu Mu Ch Ko Ba Nm De Mo Ba Nm Mo Mu Ah Mu Ba Ah De Ah Mu Cu Cu Ba Ko Ah Ba Ko Ko Mu Ch Mo Venue FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN Venue Venue Venue Venue Venue Nm RR KXIP CSK DD MI KKR RCB DC
No.
Date
12-Mar
13-Mar
14-Mar
15-Mar
16-Mar
17-Mar
18-Mar
19-Mar
20-Mar
10
21-Mar
11
22-Mar
12
23-Mar
13
24-Mar
14
25-Mar
15
26-Mar
16
27-Mar
17
28-Mar
18
29-Mar
19
30-Mar
20
31-Mar
21
1-Apr
22
2-Apr
23
3-Apr
24
4-Apr
57
58

Table 9 (Contd.) DLF IPL 2010 Tournament Team Travel Plan
Day MON Na Ch Ja Ba Mo Mo Na Ja De Ja Na Ch Ja Ch Dh Ko Dh Dh De Ko Ko Ba Ko Ba De Ch Dh Mu Mu Ch Ja Na De Ba Ba Na Ja Ko Ko Ba Ch TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN Na RR KXIP CSK DD MI KKR RCB DC
No.
Date
25
5-Apr
26
6-Apr
27
7-Apr
28
8-Apr
29
9-Apr
30
10-Apr
31
11-Apr
32
12-Apr
33
13-Apr
34
14-Apr
35
15-Apr
36
16-Apr
37
17-Apr
38
18-Apr
39
19-Apr
40
20-Apr
41
21-Apr
Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd. Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.
42
22-Apr
43
23-Apr
44
24-Apr
45
25-Apr
A n a l y s i s M e t h o d o l o g y IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
6 . 0 A N A L Y S I S M E T H O D O L O G Y
59
6 . 1 R E S O U R C E / A C T I V I T Y T A G G I N G
The activities included within the footprint boundary were further differentiated into multiple activity sub-types. Each resource/activity inventoried during research was tagged and collated under footprinthead groups. The table below presents the list of Activity Groups, Types and Sub-Types used for data classification. The governing principle for the elaborate data classification was to provide intrinsic intra-stakeholder and cross-stakeholder analytic capability across any specific Activity Group and aggregated footprint analysis across Stakeholders to compare relative Stakeholder impacts. Data collation done in such a manner allowed for quantities (i.e. liters, kgs, pieces of items, kilometers of air travel etc.) of the same resources or activities to be aggregated across Stakeholders. This would prove to be of utility as an overall planning and organizational tool for tournament operations redesign and other administrative interventions, if desired, beyond the purposes of Carbon Footprint analysis.
60
Table 10 Resource / Activity Tagging

Activity Group Electricity consumption Electricity Water Consumption Water Water Water Fuel Consumption (Non-Travel) Fuel Fuel Fuel Fuel Fuel Fuel Fuel Flammables Flammables Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Domestic Air Travel Domestic Air Travel Domestic Air Travel International Air Travel International Air Travel International Air Travel Intercity Travel - Public Intercity Travel - Public City Travel - Public City Travel - Public City Travel - Public City Travel - Private City Travel - Private City Travel - Private City Travel - Private City Travel - Private Intercity Travel - Private City Travel - Private Intercity Travel - Private City Travel - Private Intercity Travel - Private City Travel - Private Intercity Travel - Private Dom. Air - Short Dom. Air - Medium Dom. Air - Long Int. Air - Short Int. Air - Medium Int. Air - Long Long Dist. Rail Long Dist. Bus Local Rail Local Non AC Bus Local AC Bus Autorickshaw Non AC Taxi AC Taxi 2 Wheeler - 4ST Petrol Petrol 4-Door Car - City Petrol 4-Door Car - Highway Diesel 4-Door Car - City Diesel 4-Door Car - Highway CNG 4-Door Car - City CNG 4-Door Car - Highway LPG 4-Door Car - City LPG 4-Door Car - Highway Cooking Fuel Cooking Fuel Cooking Fuel Cooking Fuel Cooking Fuel Generator Fuel Petrol Fireworks Spirit LPG - Commercial PNG Wood Electricity Charcoal Diesel Petrol Fireworks Spirit Water Water Water Water - Municipal Water - Tanker Water - Well Electricity Electricity Activity Type Activity Sub-Type
61
Table 10 (Contd.) Resource / Activity Tagging

Activity Group Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel
Travel Travel Travel Food, Beverage, Waste Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Meat Meat Meat Meat Meat Seafood Dairy Dairy Dairy Dairy Dairy Rice Alcoholic Beverages Alcoholic Beverages Alcoholic Beverages Alcoholic Beverages Alcoholic Beverages Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Bottled Water / Drinks Bottled Water / Drinks Bottled Water / Drinks Bottled Water / Drinks Bottled Water / Drinks Bottled Water / Drinks Bottled Water / Drinks Bottled Water / Drinks Bottled Water / Drinks Bottled Water / Drinks Bottled Water / Drinks Avg. Meat Mutton Pork Chicken Beef Fish Milk - Avg. Cheese Paneer Butter Fresh Cream Rice Beer - Domestic Beer - International Wine - Domestic Wine - International Spirits - Domestic Spirits - International Water - 20 Liter Jars Water - 250 ml PET Bottles Water - 500 ml PET Bottles Water - 1 Liter PET Bottles Water - 1.5 Liter PET Bottles Water - 2.0 Liter PET Bottles Avg. Bottled Water - PET Bottle Soft Drink - 250 ml Can Soft Drink - 330 ml Can Soft Drink - 350 ml PET Bottle Soft Drink - 500 ml PET Bottle Soft Drink - 200 ml Glass Bottle
Activity Type City Travel - Private Intercity Travel - Private City Travel - Private Intercity Travel - Private City Travel - Logistics City Travel - Logistics City Travel - Logistics
Intercity Travel - Logistics Intercity Travel - Logistics Intercity Travel - Logistics
Activity Sub-Type Bio-Diesel 4-Door Car - City Bio-Diesel 4-Door Car - Highway Electric 4-Door Car - City Electric 4-Door Car - Highway Diesel Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) - City - Ambeint Diesel Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) - City - Frozen Diesel Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) - City Refrig.
Diesel Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) - Highway - Ambient Diesel Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) - Highway - Frozen Diesel Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) - Highway Refrig.
62
Table 10 (Contd.) Resource / Activity Tagging

Activity Group
Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Food & Beverage Waste Waste Paper, Plastic & Consumables Paper, Plastic & Cons. Paper, Plastic & Cons. Paper, Plastic & Cons. Paper, Plastic & Cons. Paper, Plastic & Cons. Paper, Plastic & Cons. Paper, Plastic & Cons. Paper, Plastic & Cons. Paper, Plastic & Cons. Paper Paper Paper Paper Paper Paper Paper Packaging Packaging Paper Cups Paper Napkins Paper Plates Paper Signs Paper Bags Printer/Copier Paper Other Paper Cardboard Box Cardboard Carton
Activity Type
Bottled Water / Drinks Bottled Water / Drinks Bottled Water / Drinks Bottled Water / Drinks Bottled Water / Drinks Waste Production Waste Production
Activity Sub-Type
Soft Drink - 330 ml Glass Bottle Soft Drink - 500 ml Glass Bottle Soft Drink - 18 Liter Canister Avg. Soft Drink Fruit Juice - 1 L Tetrapak MSW - Landfilled MSW - Recycled
Paper, Plastic & Cons. Paper, Plastic & Cons. Paper, Plastic & Cons. Paper, Plastic & Cons. Paper, Plastic & Cons. Paper, Plastic & Cons. Paper, Plastic & Cons. Paper, Plastic & Cons. Paper, Plastic & Cons. Paper, Plastic & Cons. Other Hotel Accommodation Stadium Construction Stadium Construction Stadium Construction Stadium Construction Stadium Construction Stadium Construction Stadium Construction Stadium Construction
Packaging Agri Products Agri Products Agri Products Agri Products Plastic Plastic Plastic Plastic Plastic Luxury Hotel Construction Materials Construction Materials Construction Materials Construction Materials Construction Materials Construction Resources Construction Resources Construction Resources
Other Cardboard Inorganic Fertilizer - NPK Inorganic Fertilizer - Urea Organic Fertilizer Inorganic Pesticide Plastic Cups Plastic Lids, Spoons, Straws Plastic Cheering Signs Flex Signage Other Plastic 5-Star Hotel - Full Service Concrete Steel Brick Plywood Solid Blocks Diesel Water HMV Transport
Data collation done in such a manner allowed for quantities (i.e. liters, kgs, pieces of items, kilometers of air travel etc.) of the same resources or activities to be aggregated across Stakeholders. This would prove to be of utility as an overall planning and organizational tool for tournament operations redesign and other administrative interventions, if desired, beyond the purposes of Carbon Footprint analysis.
63
6 . 2 A C T I V I T Y D A T A E X T R A P O L A T I O N 6 . 2 . 1 I P L / I M G D A T A E X T R A P O L A T I O N
Head Office Electricity Consumption Total combined IPL and IMG office electricity consumption due to IPL was extrapolated from annual IPL office electricity consumption (caused by activity of year-round full-time IPL Office employees, augmented by larger team size during March and April 2010 - leading to equivalent full-time employee strength of 20.8). IMG office team contributing to IPL - known to consist of 8 employees (excluding Tournament Operations Office personnel at venues) working from October 2009 to February 2010 led to equivalent full-time employee strength of 3.3. Annual Pre-Tournament Air Travel and Luxury Hotel Accommodation Estimated based on an assumed value of 750 domestic round-trip flights/year as part of tournament planning exercise (no verifiable data available) coupled with one-overnight luxury hotel stay per round-trip flight. Concessions Catering a) Cooking fuel and Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) transportation data for the cities indicated in Table 11(represented by X-fuel and X-HMV) extrapolated from all-stadium average data on a per-capita-served basis (i.e. stadium spectator attendance) for cooking fuel, and on a per-match basis for transport data. b) All catering activity data for the cities indicated in Table 11 (represented by X) extrapolated from all-stadium average data on a per-capita-served basis (i.e. stadium spectator attendance) for F&B and consumables and on a per-match basis for transportation data. VIP Catering a) Cooking fuel data for the cities indicated in Table 11 (represented by X-fuel) from all-stadium average data on a per-capita-served basis
64
(i.e. VIP Guest attendance). b) HMV Transport data for the cities indicated in Table 11(represented by X-HMV) from all-stadium average data on a per-match basis. c) All catering activity data for the cities indicated in Table 11 (represented by X) from all-stadium average data on a per-capitaserved basis (i.e. stadium spectator attendance). d) Meat consumption data for following stadiums modified by incorporating a multiplier of 2 and 4 for mutton and chicken, respectively, to account for conversion of boneless meat to raw meat (the basis for Meat GHG EFs): Cuttack, Delhi, Dharamsala, Mohali. Mumbai (Brabourne) Broadcast Catering All catering activity data for all venues cities extrapolated from Chennai Broadcast catering operations activity data on a per-capita-served basis. Stadium Entertainment HMV transport and Diesel Generator (DG) consumption data for the cities indicated in Table 11 (represented by X-HMV and X-DG) extrapolated from all-stadium average data on a per-match basis. Television Broadcasting In-House L o g i s t i c s All per-match equipment logistics transportation normalized based on total tournament transport data obtained centrally and allocated uniformly to each match. D i e s e l G e n e r a t o r C o n s u m p t i o n DG consumption data for the cities indicated in Table 11 (represented by X-DG) extrapolated from all-stadium average data on a per-match
65
basis. Stadium Office Tournament office beverage, paper and transportation activity data, averaged on a per-match basis, from Delhi, Mumbai (Brabourne) and Nagpur extrapolated linearly to the cities indicated in Table 11 (represented by X). Stadium Advertising (LED) All LED transportation and diesel consumption data allocated uniformly across all matches from central data obtained from the contractor.
66
6 . 2 . 2 S T A T E A S S O C I A T I O N A C T I V I T Y D A T A E X T R A P O L A T I O N
Stadium Security Transportation activity data, averaged on a per-spectator served basis, from Chennai, Mumbai (Brabourne), Nagpur and Navi Mumbai extrapolated linearly to the cities indicated in Table 11 (represented by X). Utilities Utility data, related to the specific activities indicated, extrapolated to the cities indicated in Table 11 (represented by X) from all-stadium average data on a per-match basis. Ground Maintenance Ground maintenance activity data, related to the specific activities indicated, extrapolated to the cities indicated Table 11 (represented by X, X-HMV and X-fuel) from all-stadium average data on a annual quantity used basis (subsequently apportioned to each match at venue based on annual percentage allocation formula discussed in Section 5.3.2). State Association Catering a) Cooking fuel and HMV transportation data for the cities indicated in Table 11(represented by X-HMV and X-fuel) extrapolated from allstadium average data on a per-capita-served basis for cooking fuel, and on a per-match basis for transport data. b) All catering activity data for the cities indicated in Table 11 (represented by X) extrapolated from all-stadium average data on a per-capita-served basis (i.e. stadium spectator attendance) for F&B and consumables and on a per-match basis for transportation data. c) Meat consumption data for Mohali modified by incorporating a multiplier of 2 and 4 for mutton and chicken, respectively, to account for conversion of boneless meat to raw meat (the basis for Meat GHG
67
EFs). Housekeeping Waste generation data for Dharamsala extrapolated from all-stadium average data on a per-capita-served basis (i.e., stadium spectator attendance). Stadium Construction Stadium Construction activity data extrapolated to the cities indicated in Table 11(represented by X) from all-stadium average data on a perstadium constructed basis (subsequently apportioned to each match at a venue, based on annual percentage allocation formula discussed in Section 5.3.2).
68
6 . 2 . 3 F R A N C H I S E A C T I V I T Y D A T A E X T R A P O L A T I O N
Head Office Electricity Consumption Tournament-duration electricity consumption for Franchise Administration Office, measured and recorded by Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) appointed consultants NextGen (http://www.nextgenpms.com/) as presented in Appendix C, was extrapolated linearly to each franchise. Vehicular Travel Activity HMV Transport Diesel consumption and distance traveled activity data related to tournament-duration bus travel, measured and recorded by Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) appointed consultants NextGen (presented in Appendix C), extrapolated to away-matches (data obtained from RCB through NextGen was assumed to be related to home matches for RCB) and then extrapolated linearly to each franchise. V e h i c u l a r T r a v e l Activity data related to tournament-duration vehicular travel, measured and recorded by Rajasthan Royals personnel extrapolated linearly to each franchise. Beverage Consumption Activity C e n t r a l C o n s u m p t i o n Pre-tournament and tournament-duration team practice sessions beverage consumption activity along with per-franchise tournamentduration IMG broadcast crew beverage consumption activity data obtained from Kings XI Punjab personnel extrapolated linearly to each franchise. L o c a l ( M a t c h V e n u e ) C o n s u m p t i o n Soft Drink/Bottled Water Beverage Contractor activity data, for the
69
specific activities indicated, for the cities indicated in Table 11( represented by X and X-HMV) extrapolated from all-stadium average data on a per-capita-served basis (i.e. stadium spectator attendance) basis. Alcoholic Beverage Contractor activity data from Navi Mumbai was extrapolated to the cities indicated in Table 11 (represented by X) on a per-capita-served basis (i.e. VIP Guest attandance).
70
Table 11 Activity Data Extrapolation IPL/IMG Data

Blore X X-fuel X X X X X X X X-Water X-HMV X X X X X-Ele.,Water X X-HMV X-Fuel X X X X X X X X X X-Water X X X X X-HMV X X X X X X X X X X X X X-HMV X X X X-HMV X X X X X X-fuel, HMV X X X X-Water X-Ele. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X-HMV X X-fuel, HMV X X Chennai Cuttack Delhi Dsala Jaipur Kolkata Mohali Mumbai Navi-M Nagpur
Stakeholder
Abad
Catering - Concessions X X
X-fuel, HMV
X-fuel, HMV X-fuel, HMV X-fuel X X X-DG X X X X X X
Catering - VIP
Catering - Broadcasting
Stadium Entertainment
Television Broadcasting - In-House
Stadium Office
Stadium Advertising (LED)
Stadium Security
Utilities X
X-Ele.,DG
Ground Maintenance
Catering - State Assoc.
X-fuel, HMV
Housekeeping
Stadium Construction
Beverage Cont. - Soft Drinks X
X-HMV
Beverage Cont. Alc. Bev.
1)X: Indicates all data extrapolated from overall IPL metrics for given stakeholder. 2)X-HMV: Logistics data extrapolated from overall IPL metrics for given stakeholder.
3)X-fuel: Cooking fuel data extrapolated from overall IPL metrics for given stakeholder. 4)X-Ele.: Electricity data extrapolated from overall IPL metrics for given stakeholder.
5)X-DG.: Diesel Generator data extrapolated from overall IPL metrics for given stakeholder. 6)X-Water.: Water consumption data extrapolated from overall IPL metrics for given stakeholder.
71
6 . 3 G H G E M I S S I O N F A C T O R S
Activity data collated according to the framework described earlier, was multiplied by the appropriate Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Factors specifically developed for India. These coefficients are presented in Appendix A. The product of the resource quantities and the GHG Emission Factors yielded the Carbon Footprint for the particular activity.
72
6 . 4 N E W E M I S S I O N F A C T O R S R E S E A R C H A N D A N A L Y S I S 6 . 4 . 1 S T A D I U M C O N S T R U C T I O N R E S E A R C H A N D A N A L Y S I S
Construction materials used for Stadium Construction were researched to ascertain their quantities and appropriate GHG EFs. The materials included in the research activity were: Concrete, Steel, Brick, Plywood, Solid Blocks, Diesel, Water, HMV Transport. Construction quantity data was obtained through detailed questionnaires administered to Architects and Contractors of the Stadiums indicated in the table below. The GHG EFs were researched through technical literature related to Indias National GHG EF Inventories (Emissions Inventory of India by Amit Garg & P. R. Shukla) and construction industry resources related to GHG EFs for construction materials (CO2 calculator developed by the McD Berl Consulting Company). Physical properties and compositional data related to construction materials were researched through literature review and discussions with Architects and GHG Inventory expert Dr. Amit Garg (IIM-A).
73
74
Table 12 Stadium Construction Carbon Footprint Research and Analysis Summary

PCA GHG EF
(kg CO2e/unit)
Stadium Name Qty.

(Tons CO2e) (Tons CO2e)
Chidambaram Stadium CF Qty. 81,117,889 4,648,324 1,015,904 388,461 2,318,993 255,226 0 6,500,892 61,020 5% 13 75 1,420 29,817 5% 13,065,000 814 1,948 315 51,894 223 462,000 8,785 4,742,000 16,224 89,082,606 17,817 8,962 102 42 0 814 0 26 75 1,392 29,230 Qty.
(Tons CO2e)
DY Patil CF
Average Qty. 88,835,338 4,130,108 8,892,635 220,177 2,318,993 255,226 CF

(Tons CO2e)
Construction Data 0.2 1.89 0.22 0.81 0.84 3.19 1.56 0.002 1.23 5% 32,953 1,569 75 20 0 814 0 0 25,200,000 5,544 3,000,000 5,670 96,305,520 19,261
CF
Concrete (kg)
17,767 7,806 1,956 119 649 814 0 9,782,946 61,020 5% 20 75 1,460 30,667
Steel (kg)
Brick(kg)
Plywood (kg)
Solid Blocks (kg)
Diesel (kg)
Electricity (kWh)
Water (liters)
HMV Transport (v-kms)
Other Materials (%)
Lifetime CF (tons Co2e)
6 . 4 . 2 G R O U N D M A I N T E N A N C E R E S E A R C H A N D A N A L Y S I S
Annual maintenance of cricket grounds was researched in terms of its Carbon Footprint implications for the DLF IPL 2010 footprint. GHG EFs for industrial manufacture of NPK-based fertilizers, Urea and Pesticide were researched through LCA resources (Gemis 45) and technical literature review (Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Fertilizer Production, by Gunnar Kongshaug, Hydro Agri (Yara), presented at IFA Technical Conference, Marrakesh, Morocco 1998 and Emissions Inventory of India by Amit Garg & P. R. Shukla). Subsequent analysis related to impact of fertilizer application on fugitive GHG emissions was also researched. Implications of Organic Fertilizer production and application on ground maintenance Carbon Footprint was not studied as part of this project. The resulting GHG EFs (inclusive of manufacturing and application related emissions) for ground maintenance resources are presented in Appendix A. Annually consumed quantities of fertilizers and pesticides, along with annual consumption of petrol, diesel and water for ground maintenance, were researched through interviews and data collection activities in collaboration with groundsmen and pitch curators at the IPL stadium venues. Annual HMV (Heavy Motor Vehicle) transport for periodic soil replacement as well as logistics related to fertilizer transportation was also accounted for as part of the research and analysis.
75
6 . 4 . 3 F I R E W O R K S A N D P Y R O T E C H N I C S R E S E A R C H A N D A N A L Y S I S
The impact of fireworks and pyrotechnics displays was studied from two perspectives: 1) implications for Carbon Footprint of the IPL, and 2) Impact on local air quality and related health impacts on local populations. GHG EF research of fireworks (gunpowder based displays) was conducted through technical literature review and analysis of other event Carbon Footprint reports that focused on the GHG emissions from pyrotechnic displays. The resulting GHG EF for fireworks displays is presented in Appendix A. Fireworks activity data was obtained from Stadium Entertainment contractors that indicated the following fireworks display programme per-game: - 600 gunpowder-shots (30 gm each) per game - 16 gunpowder-shots (30 gm each) per wicket and six-runs. Impacts of Fireworks on Local Air Quality and Health A series of scientific studies on the impacts of fireworks emissions on air pollution levels in the aftermath of fireworks displays were studied in addition to medical studies related to the impact of this activity of respiratory health of exposed populations, as part of he research and analysis phase of this project. A summary of the conclusions of these studies is presented in Appendix E along with relevant citations. The studies indicate a significant correlation between deteriorating air quality levels and acute respiratory health related impacts on exposed populations.
76
6 . 5 D I E S E L G E N E R A T O R C O N S U M P T I O N
In view of the wide variations in Diesel Generator consumption (lph) activity data reported by operations personnel for similar ratedcapacity (kva) DGs performing identical functions at different venues (possibly leading to erroneous best practice differentiation), a normalization process was incorporated in the analysis using standard DG technical specification data available from the Cummins Power Manufacturers website (http://www.cumminspower.com/ en/technical/documents). For instances where DG consumption quoted per kva was significantly higher than it would be for a 50% load, DG consumption was normalized to a lph value based on 50% DG load. If the fieldpersonnel provided value was lower than the estimated 50% load value from specification charts, then the lower value was retained for analysis. It must be noted that the above load-based normalization of DG consumption was modified when applied to DG operations for floodlighting. These operations were assumed to be based on 75% DG load (i.e. high load assumed compared to other DGs) as it was learnt that these were constant loads as opposed to the relatively variable other utility loads required for other Stakeholder operations such as Broadcast Generators etc.
77
R e s u l t s IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
7 . 0 R E S U L T S
78
7 . 1 I P L R E S O U R C E / A C T I V I T Y F L O W M A P P I N G
A key output, and an intended goal, of this Projects research and analysis exercise was the development of a comprehensive stakeholder resource consumption activity and interaction mapping. The resource flow maps for each of the four (4) primary stakeholder groups are presented in Figures 1 through 4. Inter-relations between the various stakeholder groups is presented collectively in Figure 5
79
Figure 1 Resource/Activity Flow Map IPL/IMG Operations
Plastic
Luxury Hotel Accommodation Luxury Hotel Accommodation
Domastic Air Travel

ffice
International Air Travel

c Pl In-h asting o ay er use se cu rit y
Flex ing advertis g isin and rch Me ium ly i ad St pital s Ho
Head o
bro
Dairy
Em e tra rgen ini c ng y TV bro ad Ven castin g der

Sponcers
Catering concesions
Cat erin
TV
Um
pir
ing
/ ping n i Do Ant rruptio i co t n a
Domastic Air Travel
Meat & Seafood
Hospitality & Travel
Cooking fuel
ing g ter stin a a C dc oa Br
P - VI
LE
En
D ad
office Sta diu ter m tain me nt

tis ing
Stadium
ve r
Fuel - Generator & Motor
Logistics
Logistics
Legend: Maximum of 3 primary activities for each Stakeholder depicted in Resource Flow Map.
80
Figure 2 Resource/Activity Flow Map State Association Operations
Private Vehicular Travel
Logistisc
Plastic
Fertilizer
Solid Waste Ground Maintenance Stadium Security Concrete Stadium Utilities
Water
Fuel-Motor & Generator
Housekeeping
Steel
Catering State Associations
Electricity
Stadium Construction Brick
Rice Meat & Seafood
Cooking Fual
81
Figure 3 Resource/Activity Flow Map - Franchise Operations
Electricity
Logistics
Private Vehicular Travel
Bottled water/drinks Beverage contractorsoft drinks
Head Office
Domastic Air travel
Cheerleaders Merchandising Paper & Cardboard Beverage contractor Hospitality & Travel Sponsors
Luxury Acco.
Plastic International Air Travel
Alcoholic Beverage
82
Figure 4 Resource/Activity Flow Map - Spectator Activity
Domastic Air Travel Private Vehicular Travel International Air Travel
Stadium sepectators
TV sepectators
Internet sepectators
Electricity Electricity
83
Figure 5 Stakeholder Interrelation Map
State Association Operations
IPL/IMG Operations
Flex advertising
Head office
TV brodcasting In-house
Merchandising Stadium Hospitalily
Stadium Security
Ground Maintenance
Player security
Emergency training
Umpiring
TV broadcasting Vender
Anti Doping/ anti corruption
Stadium Utilities
Sponcers
Hospitality & Travel
House-keeping
Catering concesions
Stadium office
Catering - VIP CateringBroadcasting
LED advertising
Stadium Construction
Catering State Associations
Stadium sepectators Beverage contractorsoft drinks
Head Office
Cheerleaders
Merchandising
Sponcers
TV sepectators
Internet sepectators
Beverage contractor Hospitality & Travel
Spectators
Franchisee Operations
84
7 . 2 R E S O U R C E C O N S U M P T I O N I N V E N T O R Y
The following table presents the extrapolated aggregated resource consumption inventory for DLF IPL 2010.
Table 13 DLF IPL 2010 Resource Consumption Inventory

No. 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.2 3.2.1 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 Footprint Head Total Stadium Spectators Served Scope 1 (Direct Emissions) Fuel Cooking Fuel Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel Other Fireworks & Other Fuel
Scope 2 (Indirect Emissions Electricity & Water)
Qty. 2,088,500
Meas. Unit persons
66,728 261,044 1,315
kgs kgs kgs
Electricity Water Scope 3 (Indirect Emissions Other) Travel & Logistics Domestic Air Travel International Air Travel Public Road & Rail Travel Private Vehicular Travel3 Logistics Accommodation Luxury Hotel Accommodation Food, Beverage, Waste Meat & Seafood Dairy Rice Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Solid Waste
640,629 264,017,346
kWh liters
45,369,785 30,038,351 23,708,832 42,724,082 430,800
pass-kms1 pass-kms1 pass-kms1 v-kms2 v-kms2
60,400
overnight stays
65,186 51,128 38,124 47,941 778,987 611,340
kgs kgs kgs kgs kgs kgs
85
Table 13(Contd.) DLF IPL 2010 Resource Consumption Inventory

No. 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3
Key: 1 - pass-kms: Passenger kilometers (accounts for shared vehicle occupancy) 2 - v-kms: Vehicle kilometers (accounts for distance driven by vehicle only) 3 includes autorickshaw, taxi and private 4-wheeler travel
Footprint Head Paper, Plastic, Consumables Paper & Cardboard Plastic Fertilizers & Pesticide
Qty. 84,648 56,600 101,915
Meas. Unit kgs kgs kgs
86
7 . 3 T O T A L C A R B O N F O O T P R I N T
The Total Carbon Footprint of DLF IPL 2010, for the activities presented in Table 1 and stakeholders (with their respective inventory durations) presented in Table 6, is estimated to be 42,264 tons of CO2e.
87
7 . 3 . 1 A C T I V I T Y D I F F E R E N T I A T E D C A R B O N F O O T P R I N T
The following table presents the contributions to Total Carbon Footprint differentiated across all activity groups. The percent contributions are depicted in Figure 6. The results make it clear that the primary activities contributing to the DLF IPL 2010 Carbon Footprint are Travel and Logistics (18,073 tons CO2e 42.8%), Stadium Construction (9,932 tons CO2e 23.5%), Luxury Hotel Accommodation (9,927 tons CO2e 23.5%) , Food, Beverage, and Waste (1,201 tons CO2e 2.8%) and Electricity (996 tons CO2e 2.4%). These activities would be considered to be the Key Source Category activities for DLF IPL 2010 as defined earlier in the report.
Table 14 DLF IPL 2010 Activity-Differentiated Total Carbon Footprint

No. 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 Footprint Head Scope 1 (Direct Emissions) Fuel Cooking Fuel Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel Other Fireworks & Other Fuel Sub-Total
Scope 2 (Indirect Emissions Electricity & Water)
Carbon Footprint (tons CO2e) 191 833 1.0 1,025
% Contribution
0.5% 2.0% 0.002% 2%
Electricity Water Sub-Total Scope 3 (Indirect Emissions Other) Travel & Logistics Domestic Air Travel International Air Travel Public Road & Rail Travel Private Vehicular Travel Logistics Sub-Total
996 528 1,524
2.4% 1.2% 4%
6,461 3,949 418 6,630 615 18,073
15.3% 9.3% 1.0% 15.7% 1.5% 43%
88
Table 14(Contd.) DLF IPL 2010 Activity-Differentiated Total Carbon Footprint

No. 3.2 3.2.1 Footprint Head Accommodation Luxury Hotel Accommodation Sub-Total 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 Food, Beverage, Waste Meat & Seafood Dairy Rice Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Solid Waste Sub-Total 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 Paper, Plastic, Consumables Paper & Cardboard Plastic Fertilizers & Pesticide Sub-Total 3.5 Total Stadium Construction (tons CO2e) 220 143 218 581 9,932 42,264 0.5% 0.3% 0.5% 1% 24% 100% 405 243 35 27 208 282 1,201 1.0% 0.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 0.7% 3% 9,927 9,927 23.5% 23% Carbon Footprint (tons CO2e) % Contribution
89
F i g u r e 6 D L F I P L 2 0 1 0 A c t i v i t y C o n t r i b u t i o n t o T o t a l C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t
T o t a l E v e n t C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t 4 2 , 2 6 4 T o n s C O 2 e
90
7 . 3 . 2 S T A K E H O L D E R C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O A C T I V I T Y D I F F E R E N T I A T E D C A R B O N F O O T P R I N T
Tables 27 through 46 (presented in Appendix D) present the stakeholder contributions to the Carbon Footprints of all activities included within the footprint boundary of the IPL. Percentage contributions are depicted in the Figures 45 though 61 (presented in Appendix D subsequent to each table) and indicate the relative importance of the various sources of resource consumption demands. Mitigating the Carbon Footprint of a particular activity would essentially involve a participative process that intersects with the key stakeholders that create a majority of the footprint (i.e. the largest contributors indicated in the pie-charts) of a given activity.
91
7 . 3 . 3 S T A K E H O L D E R D I F F E R E N T I A T E D C A R B O N F O O T P R I N T
The following table presents the contributions to Total Carbon Footprint differentiated across all Stakeholder groups. The percent contributions are depicted in Figures 7 through 10. The results indicate that relative Stakeholder contributions to the DLF IPL 2010 Carbon Footprint are: IPL/IMG Operations (9,861 tons CO2e 23%), State Association Operations (12,861 tons CO2e 30%), Franchise Operations (5,243 tons CO2e 12%), Spectator Activities (14,300 tons CO2e 35%). Amongst each of the Stakeholder Groups, the following are the primary contributors (totaling 95% of the stakeholders footprint): 1 ) I P L / I M G O p e r a t i o n s : Television Broadcasting (In-House) 24% Sponsors 23% Head Office 19% Hospitality and Travel 8% Concessions Catering 5% VIP Catering 4% Stadium Offices 4% Television Broadcasting Vendor 3% Player Security 3% Umpiring 2% 2 ) S t a t e A s s o c i a t i o n O p e r a t i o n s : Stadium Construction 77% Utilities 9% Ground Maintenance 6% Stadium Security 4% 3 ) F r a n c h i s e O p e r a t i o n s : Hospitality and Travel 74% Franchise Sponsors 8%
92
Cheerleaders 6% Beverage Contractor Soft Drinks 5% Franchise Head Office 3% The results emphasize the fact that a majority of the Carbon Footprint of DLF IPL 2010 is the consequence of activities related to its contractors while only 23% of the footprint is a direct consequence of direct IPL/IMG managed operations. It is imperative that footprint mitigation strategies account for this aspect of footprint distribution.
Table 15 DLF IPL 2010 Stakeholder-Differentiated Total Carbon Footprint

Stakeholder IPL/IMG Operations 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 Head Office Hospitality & Travel Merchandizing Sponsors Catering Concessions Catering VIP Catering Broadcasting Stadium Hospitality Stadium Entertainment Television Broadcasting In-House Television Broadcasting Vendor Player Security Umpiring Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption Emergency Training Stadium Office Stadium Advertising (LED) Stadium Advertising (Flex Signage) Carbon Footprint (tons CO2e) 9,861 1,861 775 31 2,308 444 354 52 26 165 2,460 341 308 206 21 26 382 67 37 % Contribution 23.3% 4.4% 1.8% 0.1% 5.5% 1.1% 0.8% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 5.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.9% 0.2% 0.1%
93
Table 15 (Contd.) DLF IPL 2010 Stakeholder-Differentiated Total Carbon Footprint

Stakeholder State Assoc. Operations 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 Franchise Operations 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 Spectators 4.01 4.02 4.03 Total Stadium Spectators TV Spectators Internet Head Office Hospitality & Travel Merchandizing Sponsors Cheerleaders Beverage Contractor Soft Drinks Beverage Contractor Alcoholic Bev. Stadium Security Utilities Ground Maintenance Catering State Assoc. Housekeeping Stadium Construction Carbon Footprint (tons CO2e) 12,861 471 1,164 792 230 272 9,932 5,243 141 3,909 106 435 332 293 28 14,300 14,300 Not Included here Not Included here 42,264 (tons CO2e) % Contribution 30.4% 1.1% 2.8% 1.9% 0.5% 0.6% 23.5% 12.4% 141 3,909 106 435 332 293 28 33.8% 33.8%
94
F i g u r e 7 T o t a l C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t S u m m a r y ? S t a k e h o l d e r G r o u p s B r e a k d o w n
IPL/IMG Operations 23.3% Spectators 33.8%
State Association Operations Franchise Operations 12.4% 30.4%
Total Event Carbon Footprint 42,264 tons CO2e
95
F i g u r e 8 S t a k e h o l d e r G r o u p s C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t S u m m a r y ? I P L / I M G O p e r a t i o n s
T o t a l S t a k e h o l d e r C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t 9 , 8 6 1 t o n s C O 2 e
96
F i g u r e 9 S t a k e h o l d e r G r o u p s C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t ? S t a t e A s s o c i a t i o n O p e r a t i o n s
T o t a l S t a k e h o l d e r C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t 1 2 , 8 6 1 t o n s C o 2 e
97
F i g u r e 1 0 S t a k e h o l d e r G r o u p s C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t S u m m a r y ? F r a n c h i s e O p e r a t i o n s
T o t a l S t a k e h o l d e r C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t 5 , 2 4 3 t o n s C O 2 e
98
7 . 3 . 4 A C T I V I T Y C O N T R I B U T I O N S T O S T A K E H O L D E R D I F F E R E N T I A T E D C A R B O N F O O T P R I N T
Tables 47 through 76 (presented in Appendix D) present the activity contributions to the Carbon Footprints of all Stakeholders included within the footprint boundary of the IPL. Percentage contributions are depicted in the Figures 62 through 89 (presented in Appendix D subsequent to each table) and indicate the relative importance of the various sources of resource consumption demands. Mitigating the Carbon Footprint of a particular Stakeholder would essentially involve optimisation, resource minimisation, and technological intervention processes that address the activities that create a majority of the footprint (i.e. the largest contributors indicated in the pie-charts) of a given Stakeholder. Activity Contributions to Stadium Construction Carbon Footprint As indicated in the overall Carbon Footprint summary presented earlier, Stadium Construction is a significant Stakeholder in terms of contribution to Total Carbon Footprint of DLF IPL 2010. The Carbon Footprint analysis of Stadium Construction Activity, conducted in accordance with the methodology, presented in Section 5.3.2 earlier in the report, is presented in the table below. The analysis presented represents an Annualized Carbon Footprint calculated by apportioning a uniform percentage of Lifetime Carbon Footprint to each year based on an assumed stadium lifespan of 30 years.
99
Table 16 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Construction (Annual Carbon Footprint)

ActivityCarbon Footprint Concrete Steel Brick Plywood Solid Blocks Diesel Electricity Water HMV Transport (v-kms) Other Total Carbon Footprint 5,754 2,528 634 39 210 264 0 6 24 473 9,931.8 (tons CO2e)
100
F i g u r e 1 1 S t a k e h o l d e r v s . A c t i v i t y ? S t a d i u m C o n s t r u c t i o n
S t a k e h o l d e r C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t 9 , 9 3 2 t o n s C O 2 e
101
Activity Contributions to Spectator Carbon Footprint Spectators are the most significant Stakeholder in terms of contribution to Total Carbon Footprint. Spectators belonging to three (3) categories were intended to be studied as part of this project: Stadium Spectators, TV Spectators and Internet Spectators. The analysis of Stadium Spectator Activity was explicitly identified during the goal and scope definition phase of the project as an integral part of the Carbon Footprint analysis. The latter two categories of spectators were intended to be analyzed as indirect contributors to the IPL Carbon Footprint but their magnitudes were not to be included in the overall assessment. While available data for TV viewership enabled the analysis of TV Spectator Footprint, lack of corresponding data for Internet viewership hindered further analysis of that component. TV Spectator Carbon Footprint is presented here as an element of interest for future phases of the project. Stadium Spectators Carbon Footprint The results of the Stadium Spectator Activity analysis are presented in Table 18 and the percentage contributions are depicted in Figure 12. The results indicate that Private Vehicular Travel (inclusive of autorickshaw, taxi and private 2-wheeler and 4-wheeler travel) is the single largest contributing factor responsible for 6,517 tons CO2e (45%) of Stadium Spectator Carbon Footprint. Domestic and International Air Travel are the other significant contributors to Carbon Footprint responsible for 3,275 (23%) and 2,833 tons of CO2e (20%) of Spectator Carbon Footprint, respectively. Details of the transport mode variation amongst various ticket price groups (cumulated across all IPL stadiums) is presented in two forms: percent spectators traveled and distance traveled per mode per price category, in Figures 13 and 14, respectively. The mode of transport used by spectators along with the distance traveled per spectator has a direct impact on the Carbon Emissions
102
Intensity of this Stakeholder; modes emitting a lower magnitude of GHGs per km traveled as well as shorter per-spectator distance traveled result in a lower Carbon Footprint. Modes emitting lower GHGs per km traveled are considered to more Carbon Emissions Efficient modes; the relative magnitude of this efficiency for various modes is presented in Figure 15. TV Spectators Carbon Footprint TV spectators exert a Carbon Footprint owing to electricity consumption by television sets and related appurtenances. TV (Viewership data obtained from Maxus - official data provided by IPL) determined the unique viewership of DLF IPL 2010 to be 143 million viewers. However, this was not valid information for Carbon Footprint calculation purposes as it did not indicate average number of matches viewed per viewer. Average match viewership data obtained from industry reports (http://sify.com/finance/ipl-continues-to-clock-recordtv-viewership-news-news-kdyb45bggdc.html) estimated the average match viewership to be 8.34 million/match. This data was used to conduct the analysis presented in the following table.
103
Table 17 TV Spectator Carbon Footprint Analysis

Parameter Avg. no. of TV Sets/match Match duration TV Tech Specs Regular TV + Set-Top Box LCD TV + Set-Top Box Avg. TV Power Consumption Energy Consumption/match No. of matches Electricity GHG EF TV Spectator CF Value 8,340,000 4 Watts 80 150 0.115 3,836,400 60 1.56 358,039 Units TV sets/match hours % Share 50% 50% kW kWh/match matches kg CO2/kWh-generated tons Co2e
The analysis indicates that TV viewership related Carbon Footprint for DLF IPL 2010 was 358,039 tons CO2e and far outweighed the contributions of any other stakeholder or activity considered within the IPL Carbon Footprint Boundary. Data regarding increase in viewership during the IPL period (as against non-IPL period (Viewership data obtained from Maxus - official data provided by IPL)is presented in the following table. However , to express this incremental viewership data in terms of Carbon Footprint would require too many assumptions to be made and this exercise is not being undertaken now .
104
Table 18 Television viewership IPL vs. Non-IPL period

Pre-IPL period TG CS 4+ Yrs CS Females 4+ Yrs CS Males 4+ Yrs Universe 161,283 74,965 86,318 Any Channel Reach 145,338 67,869 77,469 % Reach 90 91 90 Universe 161,283 75,356 85,927 IPL period Any Channel Reach 146,749 68,391 78,358 % Reach 91 91 91 Difference Reach growth 000s 1,411 522 889 Reach growth % 1 0 1
105
R e s u l t s IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report Table 19 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Spectators
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.2 3.2.1 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5 Total Scope 1 (Direct Emissions) Fuel Cooking Fuel Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel Other Fireworks & Other Fuel Sub-Total Scope 2 (Indirect Emissions Electricity & Water) Electricity Water Sub-Total Scope 3 (Indirect Emissions Other) Travel & Logistics Domestic Air Travel International Air Travel Public Road & Rail Travel Private Vehicular Travel Logistics Sub-Total Accommodation Luxury Hotel Accommodation Sub-Total Food, Beverage, Waste Meat & Seafood Dairy Rice Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Solid Waste Sub-Total Paper, Plastic, Consumables Paper & Cardboard Plastic Fertilizers & Pesticide Sub-Total Stadium Construction 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 14,299.6(tons CO2e) 1257.2 1257.2 3,275 2,833 417.8 6,516.8 0.0 13,042.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Carbon Footprint 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
106
F i g u r e 1 2 S t a k e h o l d e r G r o u p s C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t S u m m a r y ? S p e c t a t o r A c t i v i t y
T o t a l S t a k e h o l d e r C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t 1 4 , 3 0 0 t o n s C O 2 e
107
F i g u r e 1 3 S p e c t a t o r T r a v e l M o d a l S p l i t ? C r o s s P r i c e R a n g e C o m p a r i s o n ( A l l I P L V e n u e C u m u l a t i o n ) ( % s p e c a t a t o r s b a s i s )
foot/cycle Public transport Private vehicle Train Air Travel 100 90 80 % - spectators 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Pl1 Pl2 Pl3 Pl4 Pl5
108
Figure 14 Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Price Range Comparison (All IPL Venue Cumulation) (kms Tavelled Basis)
foot/cycle Public transport Private vehicle Train Air Travel 200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 kms travelled 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Pl1 Pl2 Pl3 Pl4 Pl5
Note: Distances presented are one-way distances determined through spectator sampling. Distances doubled for Carbon Footprint calculation purposes
109
F i g u r e 1 5 C a r b o n E m i s s i o n s I n t e n s i t y o f T r a n s p o r t M o d e s ( I n d i a )
0.25
GHG EF (kgCO2e/km) 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0
aw n -A C AC n Tr av el lT ra i Tr ai ro Pe t sh non No ick he 2W el er l Ca r-
-N
ca
Au t
us
Ta x
lB
Note: Autorickshaw, 2-Wheeler, Taxi, and Car GHG EF indicated for single-occupancy conditions.
Lo
ca
110
Do
.A
Lo
or
i-
ir
7 . 4 M A T C H V E N U E C A R B O N F O O T P R I N T S
The Carbon Footprint of matches held at the twelve venues, assessed in terms of Total Venue Carbon Footprint (a function of number of matches held at each venue), per-match Carbon Footprint and perstadium spectator Carbon Footprint is presented in the table below. The weighted-average Average Match Carbon Footprint for IPL 2010 was determined to be 190 tons CO2e. The venue-wise differentiation in terms of per-match and per-stadium spectator is depicted in Figures 16 and 17, respectively.
Table 20 DLF IPL 2010 Venue Carbon Footprint Summary

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Venue Ahmadabad Bangalore Chennai Cuttack Delhi Dharamsala Jaipur Kolkata Mohali Mumbai Navi Mumbai Nagpur Carbon Footprint (tons CO2e) 691 1,179 1,330 557 1,450 398 392 1,262 1,304 856 1,090 890 11,398 Per Match Carbon Per Spectator Carbon Footprint (tons CO2e) Footprint (KG CO2e) 173 131 190 278 207 199 131 180 261 122 273 297 (tons CO2e) 4.6 4.3 5.2 8.0 5.5 8.1 5.9 4.1 9.2 7.2 5.6 7.6
111
F i g u r e 1 6 C r o s s V e n u e T o t a l C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t C o m p a r i s o n s p e r M a t c h B a s i s
3 5 0 . 0 3 0 0 . 0 t o n s C O e / m a t c h 2 2 5 0 . 0 2 0 0 . 0 1 7 3 1 5 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0
r r i e i a a k i i i l l r t u d u a c h a a a l a a o a p n p a l b b i s e h k t b l n g a t a o m D m a a m J e o g u u u a d h n M K N r C e a C M M a B i m h v h D a A N
2 7 8
2 6 1
2 9 7 2 7 3
1 9 0
2 0 7 1 9 9
1 8 0
1 3 1
1 3 1
1 2 2
T o t a l V e n u e C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t 1 1 , 3 9 8 T o n s C O 2 e
112
F i g u r e 1 7 C r o s s V e n u e T o t a l C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t C o m p a r i s o n s ? p e r S t a d i u m S p e c t a t o r B a s i s
1 0 . 0 9 . 2 9 . 0 8 . 0 k g C O 2 e / s t a d i u m s p e c t a t o r 7 . 0 6 . 0 5 . 2 5 . 0 4 . 6 4 . 0 3 . 0 2 . 0 1 . 0 0
r r i e i a a k i i i l l r t u d u a c h a a a l a a o a p n p a l b b i s e h k t b l n g a t a o m D m a a m J e o g u u u a d h n M K N r C e a C M M a B i m h v h D a A N
8 . 0
8 . 1 7 . 2 7 . 6
5 . 5
5 . 9
5 . 6
4 . 3
4 . 1
t o t a l v e n u e C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t 1 1 , 3 9 8 t o n s C O 2 e
113
7 . 4 . 1 A C T I V I T Y D I F F E R E N T I A T E D V E N U E C A R B O N F O O T P R I N T S
The following table presents the contributions to Average per-Match Venue Carbon Footprint differentiated across all activity groups. The percent contributions are depicted in Figure 18. The results make it clear that the primary activities contributing to an Average Match Carbon Footprint are Private Vehicular Travel (110.1 tons CO2e 58.2%), Generator and Motor Fuel (14.5 tons CO2e 7.6%), Electricity (12.0 tons CO2e 6.3%) , Logistics (9.1 tons CO2e 4.8%), Public Road & Rail Travel (7.2 tons CO2e 3.8%), Meat & Seafood (7.1 tons CO2e 3.8%), Water (7.0 tons CO2e 3.7%), Solid Waste (4.8 tons CO2e 2.5%), Dairy (3.4 tons CO2e 1.8%) and Fertilizers & Pesticides (3.4 tons CO2e 1.8%). These activities would be considered to be the Key Source Category activities for a DLF IPL 2010 Match. The activity-differentiated Carbon Footprint results for all venues of DLF IPL 2010 are presented in Tables 77 through 88 and Figures 90 through 101 included in Appendix D.
114
Table 21 - Venue vs. Activity Average Stadium

1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 Scope 1 (Direct Emissions) Fuel Cooking Fuel Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel Other Fireworks & Other Fuel Sub-Total Scope 2 (Indirect Emissions Electricity & Water) Electricity Water Sub-Total Scope 3 (Indirect Emissions Other) Travel & Logistics Public Road & Rail Travel Private Vehicular Travel Logistics Sub-Total Food, Beverage, Waste Meat & Seafood Dairy Rice Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Solid Waste Sub-Total Paper, Plastic, Consumables Paper & Cardboard Plastic Fertilizers & Pesticide Sub-Total Total Per Match 13.5 7.2 19.0 39.7 1,071.5 (tons CO2e) 189.96 (tons CO2e) 39.8 19.4 2.3 2.9 17.3 26.9 108.6 40.9 623.9 51.1 715.9 67.8 39.7 107.5
Carbon Footprint
18.0 81.6 0.10 99.7
115
F i g u r e 1 8 M a t c h V e n u e v s . A c t i v i t y ? A v e r a g e S t a d i u m
V e n u e C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t ( p e r M a t c h ) 1 9 0 t o n s C O 2 e
116
7 . 4 . 2 S T A K E H O L D E R D I F F E R E N T I A T E D V E N U E C A R B O N F O O T P R I N T S
The percentage contributions to Average per-Match Venue Carbon Footprint differentiated across all Stakeholder groups is presented in Figure 19. The results indicate that the primary Stakeholder contributors (totaling 95% of the footprint) are Stadium Spectators (116 tons CO2e 61 %), Utilities (19 tons CO2e 10.2%), Ground Maintenance (13 tons CO2e 6.9%), Stadium Security (8 tons CO2e 4.1%), Catering Concessions (7 tons CO2e 3.7%), Catering VIP (5 tons CO2e 2.9%), Beverage Contractor Soft Drinks (5 tons CO2e 2.6%), Housekeeping (5 tons 2.4%), Catering State Association (4 tons 2.0%). The Total Venue Carbon Footprint, per-Match Carbon Footprint and per-Spectator Carbon Footprint differentiated across all Stakeholder groups for DLF IPL 2010 are presented in Tables 22 through 24. The relative contributions of various stakeholders across all venues on a per-match basis is presented in Figure 20. The resulting analysis emphasizes the wide variation in per-match Carbon Footprint of the various IPL venues. It is evident that per-match Carbon Footprints range from 122 tons CO2e/match for Mumbai (Brabourne) to 297 tons CO23/match for Nagpur. The relative per-capita served Carbon Footprints (i.e. Carbon Emissions Intensity) of the various match-venue Stakeholder operations (averaged across all stadiums) is presented in Figure 21. The results indicate that Carbon Emissions Intensity for various Stakeholder operations range from 0.13 kg CO2e/unit served for Housekeeping operations to 3.93 kgCO2e/stadium spectator for Stadium Spectator travel. Variations amongst Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity across DLF IPL 2010 venues for all match venue Stakeholders are presented as Cross-Venue Comparison Bar Charts in Figures 22 through 32. Stadium Spectator activity, being the most significant Stakeholder
117
contributor to DLF IPL 2010 Carbon Footprint, is dissected further through Cross-Venue Comparison charts that examine relative contributions of transport modes in terms of %-spectators traveled and distance traveled (kms) specific to the five (5) primary price-levels prevalent in all stadiums as well as a cumulative analysis inclusive of all price categories. These results are presented in Figures 33 through 44. The stadium specific analyses for spectator travel patters depicting modal splits across price categories is presented in Figures 101 through 125 in Appendix D.
118
F i g u r e 1 9 M a t c h V e n u e v s S t a k e h o l d e r ? A v e r a g e S t a d i u m
V e n u e C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t ( p e r M a t c h ) 1 9 0 t o n s C O 2 e
119
120
Table 22 - Match Venue vs. Activity All Stadium Summary (Tournament Totals)
CF CF Blore 6 15 8 56 18 35 29 10 9 3 10 6 65 681 17 212 1179 1330 76 38 557 19 4 1,061 342 828 9 219 1450 52 17 68 5 4 5 8 2 7 2 4 10 172 5 29 395 3 3 3 3 7 2 16 2 10 9 36 6 7 3 3 3 4 15 177 8 27 392 31 78 94 104 45 29 12 55 14 3 4 9 1 18 13 58 21 69 88 7 3 8 7 75 701 9 156 1262 5 22 33 13 70 38 7 2 6 2 3 6 4 42 24 62 34 12 5 3 7 5 36 918 8 100 1304 9 12 66 9 9 41 14 3 1 3 2 1 2 2 Chennai Cuttack Delhi Dsala Jaipur Mohali Kolkata Mumbai 4 41 6 45 16 46 87 16 7 3 50 5 34 408 19 69 856 CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Navi-M 1 42 3 34 0 18 73 33 4 3 27 5 30 717 8 93 1090 CF Nagpur 1 18 3 40 40 10 75 9 3 3 3 4 34 571 5 71 890 CF Avg. 3 27 5 36 19 32 62 26 7 3 13 5 47 655 12 119 1071
(tons CO2e) (tons CO2e) (tons CO2e) (tons CO2e) (tons CO2e) (tons CO2e) (tons CO2e) (tons CO2e) (tons CO2e) (tons CO2e) (tons CO2e) (tons CO2e) (tons CO2e)
Stakeholder 2 16 3 21 28 24 69 36 4 3 5 4 36 358 8 75 691
Abad
Bvg. Contractor Alc. Bev.
Bvg. Contractor Soft Drinks
Catering Broadcasting
Catering Concessions
Catering State Assoc.
Catering VIP
Ground Maintenance
Housekeeping
Stadium Advertising (Flex)
Stadium Office
Stadium Security
Stadium Spectators
TV Broadcasting In-House
Utilities
Total
Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt. Ltd.
Table 23 - Match Venue vs. Activity All Stadium Summary (per Match)
CF CF Blore 1 0 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 0 1 1 7 152 3 11 190 278 19 2 171 118 1 31 207 8 10 2 1 1 1 1 2 5 86 2 15 197 2 0 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 59 3 9 131 5 5 3 2 39 13 52 15 6 8 7 1 3 10 13 1 0 1 1 11 100 1 22 180 5 0 9 4 8 11 5 6 23 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 5 12 7 2 1 1 1 1 7 184 2 20 261 6 9 4 3 8 2 2 1 6 2 4 3 1 1 0 1 1 7 76 2 24 131 0 0 1 0 0 0 Chennai Cuttack Delhi Dsala Jaipur Mohali Kolkata Mumbai 1 6 1 6 2 7 12 2 1 0 7 1 5 58 3 10 122 CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF
CF Navi-M 0 11 1 8 0 5 18 8 1 1 7 1 8 179 2 23 273
CF Nagpur 0 6 1 13 13 3 25 3 1 1 1 1 11 190 2 24 297
CF Avg. 0 5 1 7 4 5 13 5 1 1 2 1 8 116 2 19 190
Stakeholder 0 4 1 5 7 6 17 9 1 1 1 1 9 89 2 19 173
Abad
Catering VIP
Ground Maintenance
Housekeeping
Stadium Advertising (Flex)
Stadium Office
Stadium Security
Stadium Spectators
TV Broadcasting In-House
Utilities
Total
121
122
Table 24 - Venue vs. Activity All Stadium Summary (per Unit Served)
CF CF Blore 0.3 0.1 3.4 0.2 1.0 1.9 3.2 0.04 1.2 0.2 2.9 23.5 10.9 18.9 31.3 4.4 5.5 3.4 4.7 14.7 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.2 0.04 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.10 1.0 0.2 3.2 9.1 4.4 39.1 13.5 51.9 15.2 3.0 3.9 5.2 5.1 0.6 1.1 2.2 0.3 1.9 2.2 2.1 3.0 9.9 0.28 1.2 0.2 2.6 22.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.4 1.3 0.1 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 0.04 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.3 3.4 0.3 7.0 11.3 6.8 0.08 1.4 0.3 7.0 20.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 Chennai Cuttack Delhi Dsala Jaipur Mohali Kolkata Mohali 0.3 0.3 3.4 0.3 7.0 11.3 6.8 0.08 1.4 0.3 7.0 20.0 CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Navi-M 0.1 0.2 3.4 0.2 0.0 1.8 18.2 0.17 6.7 0.2 3.9 23.2 CF Nagpur 0.3 0.2 3.4 0.4 3.7 3.2 25.0 0.07 1.2 0.3 5.6 23.6 CF Avg. 0.3 0.2 3.4 0.3 2.0 3.9 13.1 0.13 2.2 0.2 3.9 19.4
Stakeholder 0.3 0.1 3.4 0.2 2.3 3.9 17.2 0.2 1.2 0.2 2.7 18.6
Abad
Catering VIP
Ground Maintenance
Housekeeping
Stadium Security
Stadium Spectators
Utilities
Key: Shaded rows represent Stakeholders compared on a per-match basis. Other rows present per-unit served basis comparisons.
F i g u r e 2 0 M a t c h V e n u e v s . S t a k e h o l d e r C o n t r i b u t i o n s C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n ( A v e r a g e p e r M a t c h )
3 0 0
2 5 0 t o n s C O e / m a t c h 2
2 0 0
1 5 0
1 0 0
5 0
i e k r d l a c o a n a t b n a t a e g u d h n C e a C B m h A
r r i a a i i i l l t u u h a a a l a a p p b b i s e h k l g a o m u D ma mJ o u a MM K r M N a i h v D a N
Utilities Television Broadcasting - In-House Stadium Spectators Stadium Security Stadium Office Stadium Entertainment Stadium Avertising (Flex Signage) Stadium Advertising (LED)
Housekeeping Ground Maintenance Catering - VIP Catering - State Assoc. Catering - Concessions Catering - Broadcasting Beverage Contractor - Soft Drinks Beverage Contractor - Alcoholic Bev.
123
F i g u r e 2 1 P e r C a p i t a S t a k e h o l d e r s C a r b o n E m i s s i o n s I n t e n s i t y C o m p a r i s o n ( A l l V e n u e A v e r a g e s )
5 . 0 0 4 . 5 0 4 . 0 0 k g C O 2 e / u n i t s e r v e d 3 . 5 0 3 . 0 0 2 . 5 0 2 . 0 0 1 . 5 0 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 0 0 . 3 2 0 . 1 6 0 1 . 9 5 3 . 4 0 3 . 8 9 3 . 9 3
0 . 2 8
0 . 2 4 0 . 1 3
r s y g P r r t g n I g g o g s i n c V t i o o r n n n n i t t o ii i i c p u t r r r o a c s a e c s t e e r e s a s t t e t tc e c g a a rv n s A t a k a e n S s i e n e e C o r p C e e d C k C c t o s a m S B n n t a i u C t u o r a o i c g e o r i m S e l c D d C H B u g o t a i a f t r a h d ro v o e S a e t S c e l v S e A B B
124
F i g u r e 2 2 S t a k e h o l d e r C a r b o n E m i s s i o n s I n t e n s i t y C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n ? B e v e r a g e s C o n t r a c t o r ( S o f t D r i n k s )
0 . 3 5 0 . 3 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 2 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 5 0
i e i a k l r d a c h a l o a n a l s e t b n a t D a m e g u a d h n r C e a C a B m h h D A r u p i a J a t a k l o K i l a h o M
0 . 3 5
k g C O 2 e / s t a d i u m s p e c t a t o r
0 . 2 9 0 . 2 5 0 . 2 2 0 . 1 8 0 . 1 8 0 . 1 6 0 . 1 3
0 . 0 5 0 . 0 4
0 . 0 5
i i a a b b m m u u M M i v a N
r u p g a N
S t a k e h o l d e r C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t 2 9 3 t o n s C O 2 e
125
Figure 23 Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison Catering - Concessions
1 . 2 7 k g C O 2 e / s t a d i u m s p e c t a t o r
0 . 4 6 0 . 3 5 0 . 2 4 0 . 1 6 0 . 0 2
e r d o a l b a a g d n e a m B h A i k a c n a t n t e u h C C i a l h a l s e D m a r a h D r a t u a p i k l a o J K
0 . 3 5
0 . 3 2 0 . 1 4
0 . 3 9
0 . 1 3
0 . 0 2
r i i i l u a a a p b b h g o m u m a u M M N M i v a N
126
F i g u r e 2 4 S t a k e h o l d e r C a r b o n E m i s s i o n s I n t e n s i t y C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n ? C a t e r i n g S t a t e A s s o c i a t i o n
7 . 0 k g C O 2 e / G u e s t s e r v e d
3 . 7
2 . 3
2 . 2 . 1 1 . 01
1 . 9
2 . 2
2 . 1
1 . 0 9
0 . 3
e r d o a l b a a g d n e a m B h A i k a c n a t n t e u h C C i a l h a l s e D m a r a h D r a t u a p i k l a o J K r i i i l u a a a p b b h g o m u m a u M M M N i v a N
127
F i g u r e 2 5 S t a k e h o l d e r C a r b o n E m i s s i o n s I n t e n s i t y C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n ? C a t e r i n g V I P
1 1 . 3 k g C O 2 e / G u e s t s e r v e d
5 . 25 . 1 3 . 9 3 . 9 3 . 0 1 . 9 0 . 6
e r d o a l b a a g d n e a m B h A i k a c n a t n t e u h C C i a l h a l s e D m a r a h D r a t u a p i k l a o J K r i i i l u a a a p b b h g o m u m a u M M M N i v a N
4 . 1 3 . 0 3 . 2 1 . 8
128
F i g u r e 2 6 S t a k e h o l d e r C a r b o n E m i s s i o n s I n t e n s i t y C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n ? G r o u n d M a i n t e n a n c e ( p e r M a t c h B a s i s )
k g C O 2 e / m a t c h & % A l l o c a t i o n
tons CO2e/match % Allocation
e r d o a l b a a g d n e a m B h A
i k a c n a t n t e u h C C
i a l h a l s e D m a r a h D
r r a i i i l t u u a a a a p p b b i h k l g a o m u m o a J u M M M K N i v a N
Note: Per-Match Allocation of Annual Footprint Represented. Influenced by ratio of annual IPL spectators at venue vs. total cricket spectators at venue attending other ODI, Test and Domestic Matches
S t a k e h o l d e r C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t 7 9 2 . 5 t o n s C O 2 e
129
F i g u r e 2 7 S t a k e h o l d e r C a r b o n E m i s s i o n s I n t e n s i t y C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n ? G r o u n d M a i n t e n a n c e ( p e r Y e a r B a s i s )
1 1 9 1 1 5 1 1 5 k g C O 2 e / y e a r 9 5 9 8
1 2 2 1 1 0
7 4 6 0 4 2 3 4 4 8
r i a a i i i l l t u h a a a l a a p b b i s e h k l a o m u D m m J o u a M K r M i M a h v D a N
r u p g a N
A n n u a l C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t ( n o n I P L S p e c i f i c ) 1 , 0 3 5 t o n s C O 2 e
130
F i g u r e 2 8 S t a k e h o l d e r C a r b o n E m i s s i o n s I n t e n s i t y C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n ? H o u s e k e e p i n g
0 . 2 8 k g C O 2 e / s t a d i u m s p e c t a t o r 0 . 2 4
1 . 8 0 . 1 4 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 0 0 . 1 4
0 . 0 8
0 . 0 7
0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4
r u p i a J
a i l t a a h k l o o M K
r i i u a a p b b g m u m a u N M i M v a N
131
F i g u r e 2 9 S t a k e h o l d e r C a r b o n E m i s s i o n s I n t e n s i t y C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n ? S t a d i u m E n t e r t a i n m e n t
7 . 1 6 . 7 k g C O 2 e / m a t c h
1 . 21 . 2 1 . 21 . 2
1 . 0
1 . 21 . 01 . 2
1 . 4
1 . 2
r u p i a J
132
F i g u r e 3 0 S t a k e h o l d e r C a r b o n E m i s s i o n s I n t e n s i t y C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n ? S t a d i u m S e c u r i t y
0 . 2 9 k g C O 2 e / s t a d i u m s p e c t a t o r 0 . 2 4 0 . 2 4 0 . 2 6 0 . 2 4 0 . 2 5 0 . 2 4 0 . 2 3
0 . 2 9
0 . 2 0
0 . 2 1 0 . 1 5
e r d o a l b a a g d n a a m B h A
r u p i a J
133
F i g u r e 3 1 S t a k e h o l d e r C a r b o n E m i s s i o n s I n t e n s i t y C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n ? S t a d i u m U t i l i t i e s
134
F i g u r e 3 2 S t a k e h o l d e r C a r b o n E m i s s i o n s I n t e n s i t y C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n ? S t a d i u m S p e c t a t o r s
7.0
3.9
2.6
N o t e : O n l y n o n a i r t r a v e l a c t i v i t y c o m p a r e d h e r e . A i r t r a v e l a n d l u x u r y h o t e l a c c o m m o d a t i o n e x c l u d e d f o r t h i s c o m p a r i s o n .
135
F i g u r e 3 3 S p e c t a t o r T r a v e l M o d a l S p l i t C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n C u m u l a t i v e T i c k e t s ( % s p e c a t a t o r s b a s i s )
foot/cycle Public transport Private vehicle Train Air Travel 100 90 80 70 %-Spectators 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
b da ad Ba a ng lo re De lh i Dh am ar sa la i Ja pu r l Ko ka ta M oh al i M um ba i vi Na M um ba i
Ah
136
F i g u r e 3 4 S p e c t a t o r T r a v e l M o d a l S p l i t C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n C u m u l a t i v e T i c k e t s ( k m t r a v e l e d b a s i s )
foot/cycle Public transport Private vehicle Train Air Travel 600,000
500,000
400,000 kms travelled
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
a ed ba d B g an al or e De lh i Dh am ar sa la i Ja pu r l Ko ka ta M oh al i M um ba i vi Na M um ba i
Ah
137
F i g u r e 3 5 S p e c t a t o r T r a v e l M o d a l S p l i t C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n T i c k e t P r i c e L e v e l 1 ( % s p e c t a t o r s b a s i s )
foot/cycle Public transport Private vehicle Train Air Travel 100 90 80 70 %-Spectators 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
ed ab ad B g an al or e De lh i Dh am ar sa la i Ja pu r l Ko ka ta M oh al i M um ba i vi Na M um ba i
Ah
138
F i g u r e 3 6 S p e c t a t o r T r a v e l M o d a l S p l i t C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n T i c k e t P r i c e L e v e l 1 ( k m T r a v e l e d b a s i s )
foot/cycle Public transport Private vehicle Train Air Travel 350,000
300,000
250,000 Kms travelled
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Ah
139
Figure 37 Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Venue Comparison Ticket Price Level 2 (%-spectators basis)
foot/cycle Public transport Private vehicle Train Air Travel 100 90 80 70 % Spectators 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Ah
140
F i g u r e 3 8 S p e c t a t o r T r a v e l M o d a l S p l i t C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n T i c k e t P r i c e L e v e l 2 ( k m t r a v e l e d b a s i s )
foot/cycle Public transport Private vehicle Train Air Travel
300,000
250,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Ah
141
F i g u r e 3 9 S p e c t a t o r T r a v e l M o d a l S p l i t C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n T i c k e t P r i c e L e v e l 3 ( % s p e c t a t o r s b a s i s )
foot/cycle Public transport Private vehicle Train Air Travel 100 90 80 70 % - Spectators 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
a ed ba d Ba a ng lo re De lh i Dh am ar sa la i Ja pu r l Ko ka ta M oh al i M um ba i vi Na M um ba i
Ah
142
F i g u r e 4 0 S p e c t a t o r T r a v e l M o d a l S p l i t C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n T i c k e t P r i c e L e v e l 3 ( k m T r a v e l e d b a s i s )
120,000
100,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Ah
143
F i g u r e 4 1 S p e c t a t o r T r a v e l M o d a l S p l i t ? C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n T i c k e t P r i c e L e v e l 4 ( % s p e c t a t o r s b a s i s )
foot/cycle Public transport Private vehicle Train Air Travel 100 90 80 70 % spectators 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
m Ah
b da
ad Ba
a ng
lo
re
De
lh
i a Dh m ra sh
al
i Ja
pu
r l Ko
ka
ta M
oh
al
i M um
ba
i vi Na M um
ba
144
F i g u r e 4 2 S p e c t a t o r T r a v e l M o d a l S p l i t C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n T i c k e t P r i c e L e v e l 4 ( k m t r a v e l e d b a s i s )
160,000 140,000 kms travelled 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20.000 0
m Ah
b da
ad Ba n
l ga
or
De
lh
i a Dh m ra sh
al
i Ja
pu
r l Ko
ka
ta M
oh
al
i M um
ba
i vi Na M um
ba
145
F i g u r e 4 3 S p e c t a t o r T r a v e l M o d a l S p l i t ? C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n T i c k e t P r i c e L e v e l 5 ( % s p e c t a t o r s b a s i s )
foot/cycle Public transport Private vehicle Train Air Travel 100 90 80 70 % spectators 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
m Ah
b da
ad Ba n
l ga
or
De
lh
i m ra a h sh
al
i Ja
pu
lka Ko
ta M
oh
al
i M um
ba
i vi Na M um
ba
146
F i g u r e 4 4 S p e c t a t o r T r a v e l M o d a l S p l i t ? C r o s s V e n u e C o m p a r i s o n T i c k e t P r i c e L e v e l 5 ( k m t r a v e l e d b a s i s )
foot/cycle Public transport Private vehicle Train Air Travel 160,000 140,000 kms travelled 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20.000 0
m Ah
b da
ad Ba
a ng
lo
re
De
lh
i a Dh m ra sh
al
i Ja
pu
r l Ko
ka
ta M
oh
al
i M um
ba
i vi Na M um
ba
147
148
7 . 5 D A Y V S . N I G H T M A T C H C A R B O N F O O T P R I N T I M P L I C A T I O N S
The impact of Day vs. Night matches on match-day operational Carbon Footprint was analyzed partially for Mumbai (Brabourne). Budget constraints prevented an extensive comparative study of spectator travel pattern for day vs. night matches at Brabourne and also precluded any such comparative analysis of any activity data at other venues. The Carbon Footprint implications were studied in terms of the impact on match-day electricity and DG consumption as well as impacts on Concessions Catering and Stadium Housekeeping activities. It was determined that other activities would not be noticeably different for day vs. night matches held at the venue. A summary of the Carbon Footprint implications, in the context of the limitations presented above, of a typical Day (held between 4 pm and 7 pm) vs. Night Match (held between 8 pm and 11 pm) at Mumbai (Brabourne) for DLF IPL 2010 is presented below. It is anticipated that a Day Match held entirely during daylight hours would approximately double the Activity Reduction due to reduced DG consumption for floodlight operation (these lights are still required for a 4-hour timespan for a current scenario Day match). Based on the current analysis, the Carbon Footprint reductions are estimated to be approximately 2.2 tons CO2e/match. As noted, Spectator travel pattern modification was not studied and is anticipated to notably impact the conclusions of Day vs. Night Match Carbon Footprint Analysis.
149
Table 25 - Day vs. Night Match Activity Data Analysis

Activity Floodlights Paper Cardboard Waste Generation Cheese/Paneer Plastic Activity Reduction 432.0 9.6 71.2 875 67.5 7.7 Units liters diesel/match kgs/match kgs/match kgs/match kgs/match kgs/match EF 2.66 2.58 2.62 0.57 4.48 2.53 Units kg CO2e/pass/km kgCO2e/kg paper kgCO2e/kg cardboard kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg Total CF Mitigation (kg CO2e) 1,147 25 187 502 302 19 2,183
Note: Spectator travel pattern modification not studied and is anticipated to notably impact the conclusions of Day vs. Night Match Carbon Footprint Analysis.
150
7 . 6 B E S T P R A C T I C E S 7 . 6 . 1 O V E R A L L V E N U E B E S T P R A C T I C E B E N C H M A R K S
Per-Match Basis On a per-match basis, Mumbai (Brabourne) exhibited the lowest Carbon Footprint (122 tons CO2e/match) compared to other venues. This was 35% lower than the average Carbon Footprint of 190 tons CO2e/match for a typical DLF IPL 2010 match. The highest per-match Carbon Footprint was exhibited by Nagpur (297 tons CO2e/match). Mumbai thus represented a 58% lower per-match Carbon Footprint relative to Nagpur. It must be noted that per-match Carbon Footprints are directly influenced by the spectator capacity of a stadium. This is a consequence of the disproportionately high percentage of a matchs Carbon Footprint resulting from Spectator Travel to the stadium thus, larger stadiums attracting larger match spectators results in a higher Carbon Footprint. The larger stadium capacity also has a proportional influence on the scale of other consumption activities on match day, which elevates the Carbon Footprint of a given match held at the venue. Per-Spectator Basis Analyzing venue performance on a per-spectator basis (an indicator of the efficiency of a venue - a better indicator of the Carbon Emissions Intensity) revealed that Kolkata resulted in the lowest per-spectator Carbon Footprint (4.1 kg CO2e/spectator served). This was 31% lower than the overall DLF IPL 2010 per-spectator served Carbon Footprint of 5.9 kg CO2e/spectator served. The highest per-spectator Carbon Footprint was exhibited by Mohali (9.2 kg CO2e/spectator served). Kolkata thus represented a 56% lower per-spectator Carbon Footprint relative to Mohali.
151
7 . 6 . 2 S T A K E H O L D E R B E S T P R A C T I C E B E N C H M A R K S
The most accurate measure of Carbon Emissions Intensity, i.e. efficiency, of Stakeholder Operations was assessed to be the per-unit served Carbon Footprint across venues for a given Stakeholder operation. Each of the relevant Stakeholder Operations Best Practices across all venues are benchmarked below. Beverage Contractor Soft Drinks Analyzing Soft Drink and Bottled Water Service performance on a perspectator basis revealed that Chennai resulted in the lowest perspectator Carbon Footprint (0.04 kg CO2e/spectator served). This was 78% lower than the average DLF IPL2010 Carbon Footprint of 0.16 kg CO2e/spectator served. The highest per-spectator Carbon Footprint was exhibited by Mumbai (Brabourne) at 0.35 kg CO2e/spectator served). Chennai thus represented a 90% lower per-spectator Carbon Footprint relative to Mumbai (Brabourne) in terms of Soft Drink and Bottled Water Service. Catering Concessions Analyzing Concessions Catering Service performance on a perspectator basis revealed that Chennai resulted in the lowest perspectator Carbon Footprint (0.02 kg CO2e/spectator served). This was 92% lower than the average DLF IPL 2010 Carbon Footprint of 0.28 kg CO2e/spectator served. The highest per-spectator Carbon Footprint was exhibited by Jaipur at 1.27 kg CO2e/spectator served. Chennai thus represented a 98% lower per-spectator Carbon Footprint relative to Jaipur in terms of Concessions Catering Service. Catering State Associations Analyzing State Association Catering Service performance on a perguest basis revealed that Delhi resulted in the lowest per-guest Carbon Footprint (0.3 kg CO2e/guest served). This was 82% lower than the average DLF IPL 2010 Carbon Footprint of 1.95 kg CO2e/guest served. The highest per-spectator Carbon Footprint was
152
exhibited by Mohali at 7.0 kg CO2e/guest served. Delhi thus represented a 95% lower per-spectator Carbon Footprint relative to Mohali in terms of State Association Catering Service. Catering VIP Analyzing VIP Catering Service performance on a per-guest basis revealed that Jaipur resulted in the lowest per-guest Carbon Footprint (0.6 kg CO2e/guest served). This was 84% lower than the average DLF IPL 2010 Carbon Footprint of 3.9 kg CO2e/guest served. The highest per-spectator Carbon Footprint was exhibited by Mohali at 11.3 kg CO2e/guest served. Jaipur thus represented a 94% lower perspectator Carbon Footprint relative to Mohali in terms of Concessions Catering Service. Ground Maintenance Per-Match Basis Analyzing Ground Maintenance Service performance on a per-match basis revealed that Bangalore resulted in the lowest per-match Carbon Footprint (3.2 tons CO2e/match). This was 76% lower than the average DLF IPL 2010 Carbon Footprint of 13.2 tons CO2e/match. The highest per-match Carbon Footprint was exhibited by Dharamsala at 53.8 tons CO2e/match. Bangalore thus represented a 94% lower per-spectator Carbon Footprint relative to Dharamsala in terms of Ground Maintenance on a per-match basis. It must be noted that comparing Ground Maintenance on a per-match basis penalizes stadiums with a low annual non-IPL Match to overallmatch ratios (i.e. with minimal use for other sporting activities beyond the IPL season). Thus venues with infrequent domestic and other international matches must apportion a greater percentage of the Annual Ground Maintenance Carbon Footprint to IPL. Thus, it is imperative that the year-round use of such stadiums for other socially inclusive and participative sporting events be encouraged so as to
153
harness the full-potential of these high Carbon Footprint consuming public assets. Per-Year Basis Analyzing Ground Maintenance Service performance on a per-year basis revealed that Bangalore resulted in the lowest per-year Carbon Footprint (34 tons CO2e/year). The highest per-year Carbon Footprint was exhibited by Nagpur at 122 tons CO2e/year. Bangalore thus represented a 72% lower per-spectator Carbon Footprint relative to Nagpur in terms of Ground Maintenance on a per-year basis. Stadium Housekeeping Analyzing Stadium Housekeeping Service performance on a perspectator basis revealed that Bangalore and Chennai resulted in the lowest per-spectator Carbon Footprint (0.04 kg CO2e/spectator served). This was 72% lower than the average DLF IPL 2010 Carbon Footprint of 0.13 kg CO2e/spectator served. The highest per-spectator Carbon Footprint was exhibited by Kolkata at 0.28 kg CO2e/spectator served. Chennai and Bangalore thus represented a 86% lower perspectator Carbon Footprint relative to Kolkata in terms of Stadium Housekeeping Service. It must be noted that per-spectator Carbon Footprints of Housekeeping service are directly influenced by scale of the Soft Drink/Bottled Water Beverage Service, the scale of Concessions Catering activity at a stadium, as well as the proportion of segregated waste recycled at the stadium as opposed to mixed-waste landfilling. Thus stadiums with modest scales of Soft Drink/Bottled Water Beverage Service and Concessions Catering (resulting in lower quantity of paper and plastic waste) and those with recycling systems in place result in lower per-spectator served Carbon Footprint. Stadium Entertainment Analyzing Stadium Entertainment performance on a per-match basis revealed that while most venues resulted in predominantly similar per-
154
match Carbon Footprints in the range of 1.0 to 1.2 tons CO2e/match. This prevailed for all stadiums except Mumbai (Brabourne) and Navi Mumbai. These stadiums, hosting the off-match-day Concerts/RockShows resulted in higher per-match Carbon Footprints of 7.1 and 6.7 tons CO2e/match, respectively. Stadium Security Analyzing Stadium Security performance on a per-spectator basis revealed that Navi Mumbai resulted in the lowest per-spectator Carbon Footprint (0.15 kg CO2e/spectator served). This was 35% lower than the average DLF IPL 2010 Carbon Footprint of 0.24 kg CO2e/spectator served. The highest per-spectator Carbon Footprint was exhibited by Mumbai (Brabourne) and Nagpur at 0.29 kg CO2e/spectator served. Navi Mumbai thus represented a 46% lower per-spectator Carbon Footprint relative to Mumbai (Brabourne) and Nagpur in terms of Stadium Security. Stadium Utilities Analyzing Stadium Utilities Service performance on a per-match basis revealed that Jaipur resulted in the lowest per-match Carbon Footprint (9.1 tons CO2e/match). This was 53% lower than the average DLF IPL 2010 Carbon Footprint of 19.4 tons CO2e/match. The highest permatch Carbon Footprint was exhibited by Delhi at 31.3 tons CO2e/match. Jaipur thus represented a 71% lower per-spectator Carbon Footprint relative to Delhi in terms of Stadium Utilities on a permatch basis. It must be noted that per-match Carbon Footprints are partially influenced by the spectator capacity of a stadium. This is a consequence of the marginally proportional scaling-up of some of the electricity and DG consumption activities on match day, which elevates the Carbon Footprint of a given match held at the venue. Stadium Spectator (Travel Activities) Analyzing Stadium Spectator Travel Footprint on a per-spectator basis revealed that Kolkata resulted in the lowest per-spectator Carbon
155
Footprint (2.6 kg CO2e/spectator served). This was 35% lower than the average DLF IPL 2010 Carbon Footprint of 3.9 kg CO2e/spectator served. The highest per-spectator Carbon Footprint was exhibited by Mohali at 7.0 kg CO2e/spectator served. Kolkata thus represented a 63% lower per-spectator Carbon Footprint relative to Mohali in terms of Stadium Spectator travel activities.
156
7 . 6 . 3 F R A N C H I S E L E V E L B E S T P R A C T I C E S
The RCB Franchise in conjunction with Environmental Consultants NextGen implemented a broad resource conservation and Carbon Footprint mitigation plan at the Bangalore stadium. Activity Data related to the measures implemented and an analysis of the quantified Carbon Footprint impact is presented in Appendix F. It was ascertained that the measures reduced the Carbon Footprint of the RCB Franchise and State Association Operation by approximately 99.3 tons CO2e.
157
7 . 6 . 4 O T H E R B E S T P R A C T I C E S
Stadium Hospitality 1) Carving Dreams executives staying at 3-star Hotels Stadium Entertainment 1) At following Stadiums Chennai, Kolkata, Delhi and in Jaipur (after 1st match) No fireworks displays. 2) At following Stadiums CCI No Loudspeaker and fireworks norm after 10 pm. 2) At following Stadiums - CCI - "No Loudspeaker" and fireworks norm after 10 pm. State Association Utilities 1) At Brabourne Stadium, Mumbai: Dev-Musco Lights with highefficiency reflectors requiring less DG consumption/lumens on pitch. 2) Identification of potential DG consumption efficiency improvements in the range of 60% by Chief Operations Manager Mr. Nirmal D. Shah through DG genset re-consolidation and optimum-loading protocols. State Association Ground Maintenance 1) At Brabourne Stadium, Mumbai: All-year Club-house food waste composting used for ground maintenance State Association Housekeeping At Chinnaswamy Stadium, Bangalore: 7 tons segregated recyclable waste collected per match (out of a total waste generation of 8.5 tons) and sent for recycling. At Feroz Shah Kotla, Delhi: 5.3 tons segregated recyclable waste collected per match (out of a total waste generation of 13.6 tons) and sent for recycling. At Sawai Man Singh Stadium, Jaipur: 7.6 tons segregated recyclable waste collected per match (out of a total waste generation of 11
158
tons) and sent for recycling. Franchise Operations Beverage Contractor Soft Drinks At DY Patil Stadium, Navi Mumbai: Coke operations incorporate incentives for truck driver to recycle packaging cartons post-match to earn extra revenue. Ensures approx. 90% recycling. At Chinnaswamy Stadium, Bangalore: Only Fountain-Pepsi served, thereby reducing PET bottle use and disposal, Carton Packaging use and disposal, and reduced transportation. However, very high per-capita paper cup use renders this activity only partially beneficial
159
7 . 7 W A T E R F O O T P R I N T
The Total Water Footprint of DLF IPL 2010, for the activities presented in Table 1 and stakeholders (with their respective inventory durations) presented in Table 6, is estimated to be 264,017,346 (i.e. 0.26 Billion) liters water.
160
C o n t e x t o f T o t a l C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
8 . 0 C O N T E X T O F T O T A L C A R B O N F O O T P R I N T
161
8 . 0 C O N T E X T O F T O T A L C A R B O N F O O T P R I N T
DLF IPL 2010s Carbon Footprint estimate of 42,264 tons CO2e/year was created by IPLs business activities to serve stadium spectator base of approximately 2,088,500 (i.e. 2.1 million) persons. Based on this, the per-customer Carbon Footprint is estimated to be approximately 20 kg Co2e.
IPL and the Carbon Dioxide sequestration ability of trees To give context to Carbon Footprint (Carbon Dioxide being a colourless, odourless gas that cannot be visually estimated directly), it is often correlated to the Carbon sequestration capacity of trees. However, the quantity of Carbon Dioxide absorbed by a tree is a direct function of the growth stage (young, mature or old tree), the specific species of the tree, the quantity of foliage (leaves), size of tree etc., and hence it is incorrect to think of the Carbon Dioxide absorption capacity of a tree as being a simple, static number that applies in all instances. However, for indicative purposes (to present some perspective on the relative Climate Change impacts of activities) it becomes necessary to arrive at some general consensus about the number of trees that would be required to offset the Greenhouse Gas emissions from human activities. Research presented by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) as part of its Billion Tree Campaign states that an average tree absorbs 12 kgs of CO2 per year. Assuming an average lifespan of 20 years for a tree (accounting for tree-planting mortality rates etc.), this equates to 240 kgs or approximately 0.25 tons of CO2e as the Carbon Dioxide absorption capacity of a tree over its lifetime. Thus, a Carbon Footprint of 1 ton of CO2e can be thought of as requiring the planting of ,and caring over 20 years for, approximately 4 trees to neutralise its impact. neutralising Carbon Footprint. Based on the above approximations, the Total Carbon Footprint of DLF IPL 2010 can be thought of as requiring 169,055 trees (planted and It must be emphasized that this shouldnt be misconstrued as an endorsement of tree planting for
162
cared for at least over a period of 20 years) to neutralise its impact on Climate Change. This equates to approximately 2,818 trees per match.
163
IPL and the average Indian family The average Annual Carbon Footprint of an Indian Citizen (based on 2004-2005 National GHG Inventory data) is estimated to be 1.6 tons of CO2e/year. A family of 4 in India thus emits approximately 6.4 tons of CO2e/year. DLF IPL 2010s Carbon Footprint thus equates to the annual Carbon Footprint of 6,604 average Indian families. IPL and other Global Sporting events While comparisons with other comparable entertainment options for spectators as well as comparisons with National-scale sporting events in India or other nations would be valid bases for contextualizing IPLs Carbon Footprint, such baseline data in unavailable as of yet. While international sporting event Carbon Footprint information is available such as the Beijing Olympics, 2008 - these do not serve as comparable events owing to the disproportionately high magnitude of international air travel that would distort the comparative Carbon Footprint analysis. Also, the very nature of these tournaments their objectives, organization and physical environment - are such that comparison with IPL will not be appropriate. After assessing the international Sporting events for which Carbon Footprint data is available, only UEFA EURO 2008 Football Tournament organized over 8 venues in Austria and Switzerland was selected for comparison with DLF IPL 2010. Data for comparison was extracted from the UEFA EURO 2008 Sustainability Report and the results are presented in Table 26 below. It must be emphasized that this analysis is based on UEFA EURO 2008 Carbon Footprint data available in the public domain. Without a detailed study of this tournament's detailed Carbon Footprint calculation methodology, it is not possible to ascertain how the Stakeholder and Activity Boundaries for Carbon Footprint calculation were defined. Significant differences in methodology especially in defining the 'Project Scope' - would greatly diminish the relevance of this comparative analysis.
164
Table 26 - IPL and other Global Sporting events Comparison with UEFA EURO 2008
Parameter Total no. of matches Total no. of stadium spectators Average match duration Total Carbon Footprint (CF)*1 International Travel CF*2 Total CF (Comparable)*3 CF per stadium spectator (Comparable) CF per match (Comparable) Non-Travel CF per match Domestic Spectator Travel CF per spectator DLF IPL 2010 60 2.1 3 42,264 3,949 38,315 18.3 638.6 466 6.8 EURO 2008*4 31 1.1 2 202,500 176,900 25,600 23.3 825.8 245 16 Million hrs tons CO2e tons CO2e tons CO2e kg CO2e/spectator tons CO2e/match tons CO2e/match kg CO2e/spectator Units
Note: 1: Total Carbon Footprint (CF) for EURO 2008 excludes CF for 'Public Screenings' since this aspect was excluded from DLF IPL 2010 CF as well. 2: International Travel Carbon Footprint for EURO 2008 includes all travel from others nations to the borders of Austria and Switzerland through 3: International Travel CF excluded from both tournament analyses to make analysis comparable 4: All EURO 2008 CF Data from 'UEFA EURO 2008 Sustainability Report'
165
D i s c u s s i o n IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
9 . 0 D I S C U S S I O N
166
9 . 1 A S S U M P T I O N S
Hospitality and Travel Emission Factor switched from excluding-meal EF (as initially suggested by UNEP) to full-service EF since on-field observations indicated on 1 meal served at stadium. Assumed that remaining meals taken at Hotel and hence LPG consumption included. Scope 3 data for hotels not available and hence not reflected in Carbon Footprint calculations. Merchandizing All Polos and Tees assumed to weight 150 grams based on generic product sampling. All polyester flags assumed to weigh 20 grams. All flags and synthetic t-shirts assumed to be comprised of polyester for which a generic plastic GHG EF was used. Catering Concessions All Ice-Cream equated to Fresh Cream for GHG EF purposes this was not part of original Activity Boundary but included later due to on-field observations. BASE Kitchen Biodegradable Waste Generation was assumed to be 7% of food consumed per guest, which was assumed to be 250grams. All Styrofoam (thermocole) plates assumed to weight 5 gms and equated to plastic for GHG EF purposes. All ICE consumption ignored due to unavailability of GHG EFs. All paper plates assumed to be 9 inch size, 200 gsm specification (based on input from Jolly Paper Products: Mr. Anupam Jain, 2140, Dhobiwada, Kinari Bazar, Delhi 110 006, India, Email : aanya2@siffy.com, aanya2@sify.com, Telephone : +(91)-(11)-
167
23273491, Mobile : +(91)-9810271900/ 9310271900). Average quality paper plates is assumed to be 70 to 100 gsm, heavy-duty waste-paper stock based paper plates are 230 to 400 gsm. Thus, 200 gsm used as average. All Aluminum Boxes excluded from inventory- these was not part of original Activity Boundary but was detected as resource consumption during on-field surveys and shall be included in subsequent surveys. Brickets ignored for inventorying purposes as they are considered to be bio-mass based fuel with net- zero GHG emissions. All Plastic Serving boxes assumed to contain plastic equivalent of one average plastic grocery bag ~ 14 grams. All Diesel Generator (DG) consumption for food service plazas absorbed into overall Stadium Utility consumption to standardize calculations since some stadium provide electricity for food court as opposed to DG. All fuel & consumables extrapolation across stadiums based on average per-customer served basis. All transportation extrapolation across stadiums based on per-match average basis. All chicken weights (unless explicitly indicated by vendors) were taken to be boneless chicken and a multiplier of 4 was incorporated to calculate total raw chicken weight to be used for activity inventorying. Catering- VIP For GHG EF purposes all yogurt equated to milk, all paneer equated to cheese, all exotic dairy confectionaries such as Khoya etc. equated to fresh cream Refrigerated Truck ON time (hours) added to distance traveled to
168
calculate total footprint. BASE Kitchen Biodegradable Waste Generation was assumed to be 7% of food consumed per guest, which was assumed to be 700grams. GHG Emissions from buffet wax ignored due to unavailability of adequate product composition data required for estimating GHG EFs. All Tetrapak items GHG EF set to zero due to unavailability of Tetrapak EFs and their relatively smaller volumes relative to conventional bottled water products. All fuel & consumables extrapolation across stadiums based on average per-customer served basis. All transportation extrapolation across stadiums based on plain average basis. Catering Broadcasting BASE Kitchen Biodegradable Waste Generation was assumed to be 7% of food consumed per guest, which was assumed to be 700grams. All data extrapolated from Chennai Broadcast catering data not verified whether each stadium had exclusive broadcast crew catering due to unavailability of appropriate contact information. Extrapolation done to ensure conservative results. Stadium Entertainment DNA Oil (aerosol) cans used on cheering-stage assumed to contain substance similar to White Spirit whose density was assumed to be the average density of other commonly used fossil fuels. All 4-wheeler travel assumed to be City Travel by AC Car. Television Broadcasting IPL/IMG
169
All AC Mini-Bus travel equated to regular City-Refrigerated HMV travel (multiplier factor AC/non-AC Bus almost identical to Refrigerated/Ambient Truck ~ 1.3).
DG consumption related to pre-tournament equipment testing/trials at each venue based on Delhi and Mohali data average value of 570 liters apportioned amongst all matches held at venue. Added Blimp DG Consumption to all venues = 60 liters/match For instances where DG consumption per kva was significantly higher than it would be for a 50% load, even where field-quoted data was available, normalized to lph value based on 50% DG load. If lower value mentioned, then kept at lower value and not raised. This was done to account for wide variations in lph consumption values indicated by operations personnel for similar kva DGs performing identical functions at different venues possibly leading to erroneous best practice differentiation. In instances where lesser than 10 hrs/match day mentioned for operation, data normalized to 10 hrs for maintaining uniformity with other stadiums Stadium Office IPL/ IMG Bottled Water consumption data gotten directly from IMG office and added to overall Soft Drink vendor data for stadium. Non-Match Day Beverage Transport activity added to each stadium based on input from Kolkata stadium. Stadium Advertising LED Based on approximate usage data provided - 2 x DG @ 125 kva each for 10 hrs/match @ 16 lph = 320 liters diesel/match LED Truck fleet travel plan assumed to mirror IMG truck travel plan in the absence of LED specific travel data
170
Stadium Advertising (Flex Signage) TCM Flex weight assumed to be 440 g/m2 Utilities Night to Day Match utility (electricity/diesel) differentiation not accounted for in overall Carbon Footprint calculation. Differentiation studied only in the specific case of Day vs. Night match at Mumbai (Brabourne). Unless specific pre-tournament data available, default 10 hrs of pretournament prep-time added to each venue apportioned over all matches. This is based on 20 hrs per first match at Delhi i.e. a surplus of 10 (assuming per-match ON-time is approx. 10 hours). Diesel Generator consumption for floodlights, for instances where no direct data available, obtained by assuming 75% DG load high load assumed compared to other DGs since this is a constant load vs. other variable loads such as Broadcast DGs etc. Ground Maintenance Inorganic Pesticide (liquid) assumed to have specific gravity = 1. Monsoon season assumed to be = 3 months. It is assumed that there is no ground watering during monsoon in all stadiums except Jaipur (assumed no monsoon). Annual allocation to IPL based on assumed ODI match Attendance of 90% and Test Match Attendance of 33% (except for Chennai, Nagpur based on primary data, and Kolkata based on historical approximation) Catering State Association Base Kitchen Biodegradable Waste Generation was assumed to be 7% of food consumed per guest, which was assumed to be 700grams. All Milk Powder related consumption ignored due to unavailability of
171
adequate weight to volume of converted milk ratio. State Assoc. Catering data extrapolated to all stadiums where no info was available except for Navi Mumbai Stadium where no state association catering services were available. Housekeeping All waste assumed to be collected in 80 L bin liners (plastic bags). Where no total waste data available, multiplier of 2 used to convert recyclable waste weight to total stadium waste (i.e. biodegradable waste = recyclable waste). Avg. Garbage Truck load capacity taken to be 4 tons/truck (at 100% load factor) Recyclable waste estimated to be 50% density of mixed waste. Stadium Construction All construction consumption attributed to Fixed footprint for the stakeholder and not differentiated on per match basis. Including this in match footprint would have diminished differentiation between match venues, making Best Practice identification more difficult. 80 Domestic match days per annum assumed at each stadium venue @ 50 spectators/days (based on TNCA input) for allocation purposes. Annual allocation to IPL based on assumed ODI match Attendance of 90% and Test Match Attendance of 33% (except for Chennai, Nagpur based on primary data, and Kolkata based on historical approximation) Franchise Hospitality and Travel Private jet/helicopter transport to matches/organizational travel not included. Travel from Hotel to Stadium and Airport to Hotel was multiplied by
172
factor of 2 (based on RCB data) as data was assumed to be for home-match operations only. Factor of 2 used to address away matches for each Franchise Franchise Merchandizing All clothing/gear related merchandizing attributed to Fixed footprint for the stakeholder and not differentiated on per match basis as points-of-sale outside match venue expected to be significant. Including this in match footprint would have diminished differentiation between match venues, hampering Best Practice identification. All Franchises assumed to hand-out 15,000 units each of placards, 4-6 cheering signs and plastic sticks (based on input of Deccan Chargers Franchise Manager) Beverage Contractor Soft Drinks An absence of full stadium consumption data, VIP-section softdrinks supply scaled up using a factor of Stadium Attendance/VIP Catering Strength (based in VIP caterer data) along with a discount factor of 30% i.e. per-capita consumption of general spectator group is 30% of VIP per capita soft-drink consumption. All Player Practice Requirement and IMG Television Crew Broadcast Consumption added to Central Beverage (Soft Drink) Contractor Footprint. Bangalore Soft Drink activity data excluded from avg. calculations for extrapolation purposes due to absence of any bottled beverages only water cups based vending.
Beverage Contractor Alcoholic Beverage All 1-Liter Bottles assumed to be Wine. All 680-ml bottles assumed to be Spirits. All alcoholic beverages -
173
considered to be Domestically produced alcohol. HMV transport activity excluded due to unavailability of data. Alcoholic beverage consumer base assumed to be VIP Catering serviced spectator. Data extrapolation across stadiums done on this basis. Stadium Spectators Private travel footprint includes individual travel in public vehicles i.e. autos and taxis Average domestic flight distance taken to be 968 kms based on 85 minute flight using fleet aircraft of an average Indian Airline. Average international flight distance taken to be 7807.7 kms based on average international flight distance from South Africa, England, and Australia ( neutral from Team Travel Plan). All domestic flights assumed to be round-trip. International/Domestic Flight Ratio assumed to be equivalent to ratio of Annual International Foreign-Nationality (Inward) Passenger Traffic to Domestic Passenger Traffic = 0.24 (for 2008/2009) taken into account for 4 metros + Bangalore (not other venues). All international flights assumed to be one-way (based on allocation to other competing travel purposes. All public transport assumed to be Local Non-AC Bus. Luxury Hotel Accommodation approximated based on 50% of Air Travel-using spectators staying 1 night/match at Hotel. 50% assumed to account for fraction of flight-taking spectators using non-5 star accommodation.
174
9 . 2 D A T A G A P S
The existing resource consumption inventory and Total Carbon Footprint magnitude is influenced by a few clearly identified data-gaps (in the context of the finite Footprint calculation boundary). Their impact on Total Carbon Footprint and the resultant Activity and Stakeholder differentiations is expected to be significant. Primary amongst these data gaps are: 1. Lack of extensive data of Electricity, Cooking Fuel, Water and Diesel Generator Fuel Consumption at all ITC Hotels (the primary Hotel Chain associated with DLF IPL 2010). 2. Lack of IPL/IMG comprehensive annual Air Travel and Hotel Accommodation activity. 3. Lack of comprehensive annual Air Travel, Vehicular Travel, and Hotel Accommodation activity for all franchises. 4. Lack of comprehensive annual Electricity consumption for all franchise offices. 5. Lack of marketing and Advertising related Electricity, Paper and Plastic (flex) consumption for all franchises. 6. Absence of total tournament Alcohol supply data from United Breweries. 7. Absence of Stadium Construction information for Eden Gardens and VCA (Nagpur) Cricket Stadiums from Shapoorji Palanji and Associates. 8. DLF IPL 2010s Special Events catering and guest travel activity.
175
9 . 3 U n c e r t a i n t i e s 9 . 3 . 1 A C T I V I T Y D A T A U N C E R T A I N T Y
Most activity data was obtained through administering of questionnaires and in-person interviews of operations personnel. In certain instances activity data was estimated through extrapolation. Weights and volume measurement was used for conversion of certain quantities into relevant activity units. All activity data is anticipated to lend a finite degree of uncertainty to the overall Carbon Footprint estimate. The calculated uncertainty estimates are presented below 1) Spectator Attendance Data: Uncertainty estimate 10%. 2) Cooking Fuel Data: Uncertainty estimate 7%. 3) Generator and Motor Fuel Data: Uncertainty estimate 25% 4) Electricity Data: Uncertainty estimate 33% 5) Water Data: Uncertainty estimate 12% 6) Domestic Air Travel: Uncertainty estimate 10% 7) International Air Travel: Uncertainty estimate 10% 8) Public Road & Rail Travel: Uncertainty estimate 5% 9) Private Vehicular Travel: Uncertainty estimate 26% 10) Logistics: Uncertainty estimate 25% 11) Luxury Hotel Accommodation: Uncertainty estimate 10% 12) Food, Beverage and Waste: Uncertainty estimate 25% 13) Paper, Plastic and Consumables: Uncertainty estimate 25%
176
9 . 3 . 2 E M I S S I O N F A C T O R U N C E R T A I N T Y
The following EF-related assumptions are known to add uncertainty to the Carbon Footprint calculations: 1) All paper related items (except for cartons used for supply deliveries) were assumed to be composed of paper with an Emission Factor equivalent to that of the commonly used A4-size computer printer paper in most offices (technically referred to as Uncoated Freesheet). Ideally, unique EFs would be used for different paper products. However, unavailability of adequate research-based EFs prevented adoption of this approach. 2) All Plastic related items were assumed to composed of Generic Plastic with an Emission Factor equivalent to that of plastics\EPSAPME-97 in Gemis 45 LCA Emission Factor database. The factor was customized for Indian conditions by altering the Electricity related emissions component, but does not account for differences in the type of Plastics used in manufacturing different types of Plastic-based products used during DLF IPL 2010. For instance, the Plastic contained in bin-liners for waste collection is different from Plastic contained in flex. For the purposes of this study, however, the per-unit-weight emission factors for both plastics were assumed to be equivalent. 3) Electricity EFs are based on 2004-2005 Electricity Generation Statistics reported by Central Electrical Authority (CEA). Fuel mix specific to India were used for estimating state-specific Electricity Emission Factors. The EF thus calculated was 0.996 kgCO2/kWh. The national T&D Loss Factor was calculated as being 35.9% (including unaccounted consumption) for 2004-2005. The effective EF was thus equal to 0.996/(1-0.359) = 1.56 kgCO2/kWh. While this EF value is notably higher than values used conventionally for CDM project calculations, the methodology adopted herein is rational and possibly more appropriate. The total Footprint value is greatly dependent on the Electricity EF and hence any uncertainty in this
177
factor also greatly influences the overall uncertainty of final calculations. 4) The Transportation and Logistics related footprint for IPL affected is by uncertainties in the fuel efficiency values assumed for the Petrol and Diesel-based Motor Vehicular Transport. Calculations are also influenced by uncertainties related to exact transportation distances from other nations to India and distances between venues in India. Distance calculators were used assuming commonly-recognized cities as origin points for International Air Travel calculations. The cumulative impact of the above mentioned uncertainty elements has not been quantified. Quantification of the uncertainty and estimates of accuracy and precision of the analysis will be pursued in the future phases of the project.
178
Limitations IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
10.0 LIMITATIONS
179
L i m i t a t i o n s IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
1 0 . 1 W A T E R F O O T P R I N T
Water is a scarce resource and warrants study as a distinct entity beyond the Carbon Footprint implications involved in its processing and public supply distribution systems, and on-site pumping. However, while this does study does quantify the total annual quantity of water used and its associated Carbon Footprint, it does not provide an estimate of the other (and possibly more significant) ecological impacts associated with high quantities of water usage. Moreover, the study does not include the embedded Water Footprint implicit in the resources purchased and consumed. Including this quantity would possibly exponentially increase the Total Water Footprint of DLF IPL 2010. However, state-of-art prevents such an exhaustive assessment to be conducted at this point in time.
180
C o n c l u s i o n s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
1 1 . 0 C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
181
1 1 . 1 C O N C L U S I O N S
The Total Carbon Footprint of DLF IPL 2010, estimated to be 42,264 tons CO2e, is comprised of the following activity-related Footprints, in order of decreasing magnitude: Travel and Logistics (18,073 tons CO2e 42.8%), Stadium Construction (9,932 tons CO2e 23.5%), Luxury Hotel Accommodation (9,927 tons CO2e 23.5%) , Food, Beverage, and Waste (1,201 tons CO2e 2.8%) and Electricity (996 tons CO2e 2.4%). These activities would be considered to be the Key Source Category activities for IPL. The Carbon Footprint estimate of 42,264 tons CO2e/year, to serve a stadium spectator base of approximately 2,088,500 (i.e. 2.09 million) persons lead to a per-customer served Carbon Footprint of approximately 20 kg CO2e. The Footprint analysis leads to the following pertinent conclusions: 1) Relative Stakeholder contributions to the DLF IPL 2010 Carbon Footprint are: IPL/IMG Operations (9,861 tons CO2e 23%), State Association Operations (12,861 tons CO2e 30%), Franchise Operations (5,243 tons CO2e 12%), Spectator Activities (14,300 tons CO2e 35%). 2) A majority of the Carbon Footprint of DLF IPL 2010 is the consequence of activities related to its contractors, while only 23% of the footprint is a direct consequence of direct IPL/IMG managed operations. It is imperative that footprint mitigation strategies account for this aspect of footprint distribution. 3) Spectators are the most significant Stakeholder in terms of contribution to Total Carbon Footprint. 4) The results of the Stadium Spectator Travel Activity analysis indicate that Private Vehicular Travel (inclusive of autorickshaw, taxi and private 2-wheeler and 4-wheeler travel) is the single largest contributing factor responsible for 6,517 tons CO2e
182
(45%) of Stadium Spectator Carbon Footprint. Domestic and International Air Travel are the other significant contributors to Carbon Footprint responsible for 3,275 (23%) and 2,833 tons of CO2e (20%) of Spectator Carbon Footprint, respectively. 5) TV viewership related Carbon Footprint for DLF IPL 2010 was 358,039 tons CO2e and far outweighed the contributions of any other stakeholder or activity considered within the IPL Carbon Footprint Boundary. The incremental Carbon Footprint on account of TV viewership related to IPL(as against TV viewership in non-IPL period) was not calculated as part of this project. 6) The Average Match Carbon Footprint resulting purely from matchday activities ativities of DLF IPL 2010 was determined to be 190 tons Co2e. 7) A wide variation in per-match Carbon Footprint of the various IPL venues was unraveled by the analysis. Per-match Carbon Footprints ranged from 122 tons CO2e/match for Mumbai (Brabourne), to 297 tons CO2e/match for Nagpur. 8) On a per-match basis, Mumbai (Brabourne) exhibited the lowest Carbon Footprint (122 tons CO2e/match) compared to other venues. This was 35% lower than the average Carbon Footprint of 190 tons CO2e/match for a typical DLF IPL 2010 match. The highest per-match Carbon Footprint was exhibited by Nagpur (297 tons CO2e/match). Mumbai thus represented a 58% lower permatch Carbon Footprint relative to Nagpur. 9) On a per-spectator basis Kolkata resulted in the lowest perspectator Carbon Footprint (4.1 kg CO2e/spectator served). This was 31% lower than the average IPL 2010 per-spectator served Carbon Footprint of 5.9 kg CO2e/spectator served. The highest per-spectator Carbon Footprint was exhibited by Mohali (9.2 kg CO2e/spectator served). Kolkata thus represented a 56% lower per-spectator Carbon Footprint relative to Mohali.
183
10) The primary activities contributing to an Average Match Carbon Footprint are Private Vehicular Travel (110.1 tons CO2e 58.2%), Generator and Motor Fuel (14.5 tons CO2e 7.6%), Electricity (12.0 tons CO2e 6.3%) , Logistics (9.1 tons CO2e 4.8%), Public Road & Rail Travel (7.2 tons CO2e 3.8%), Meat & Seafood (7.1 tons CO2e 3.8%), Water (7.0 tons CO2e 3.7%), Solid Waste (4.8 tons CO2e 2.5%), Dairy (3.4 tons CO2e 1.8%) and Fertilizers & Pesticides (3.4 tons CO2e 1.8%). 11) The primary Stakeholder contributors to an Average IPL Match are Stadium Spectators (116 tons CO2e 61 %), Utilities (19 tons CO2e 10.2%), Ground Maintenance (13 tons CO2e 6.9%), Stadium Security (8 tons CO2e 4.1%), Catering Concessions (7 tons CO2e 3.7%), Catering VIP (5 tons CO2e 2.9%), Beverage Contractor Soft Drinks (5 tons CO2e 2.6%), Housekeeping (5 tons CO2e 2.4%), Catering State Association (4 tons CO2e 2.0%). 12) The average per-capita served Carbon Footprints (i.e. Carbon Emissions Intensity) of the various Stakeholders indicate that Carbon Emissions Intensity for various Stakeholder operations at a typical IPL match range from 0.13 kg CO2e/unit served for Housekeeping operations to 3.93 kgCO2e/stadium spectator for Stadium Spectator travel. 13) Analyzing Stadium Spectator Travel Footprint (the primary Stakeholder in terms of contribution to IPLs Carbon Footprint) on a per-spectator basis revealed that Kolkata resulted in the lowest per-spectator Carbon Footprint (2.6 kg CO2e/spectator served). This was 35% lower than the average IPL 2010 per-spectator served Carbon Footprint of 3.9 kg CO2e/spectator served. The highest per-spectator Carbon Footprint was exhibited by Mohali at 7.0 kg CO2e/spectator served. Kolkata thus represented a 63% lower per-spectator Carbon Footprint relative to Mohali in terms of Stadium Spectator Travel activities. 14) Ground Maintenance analysis across all match venues indicated
184
that owing to most stadiums having a low annual non-IPL Match to overall-match ratio (i.e. with minimal use for other sporting activities beyond the IPL season), the proportion of annual Ground Maintenance Carbon Footprint allocated to IPL is undesirably high. Thus, it is imperative that the year-round use of such stadiums for other socially inclusive and participative sporting events be encouraged so as to harness the full potential of these high Carbon Footprint consuming public assets. 15) Waste generation quantities at stadiums are directly influenced by the scale of the Soft Drink/Bottled Water Beverage Service, the scale of Concessions Catering activity at a stadium, as well as the proportion of segregated waste recycled at the stadium relative to mixed-waste landfilling. Thus stadiums with modest scales of Soft Drink/Bottled Water Beverage Service and Concessions Catering (resulting in lower quantity of paper and plastic waste), and those with established and well-implemented recycling systems, resulted in lower per-spectator served Waste Management related Carbon Footprint. 16) Noise pollution levels were measured during matches to ascertain if national Noise Pollution norms were violated for prolonged periods, thereby resulting in an adverse health impact. The measurements made using a decibel-meter indicated that noise levels during periods of 'stadium music' playing at the venues ranged between 96 to 102 dB. The Ambient Air Quality Standards, with respect to Noise pollution norms, mandated by the NOISE Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rule 2000 specify a maximum permissible noise level of 55 dB, 65 dB, and 75 dB, for residential, commercial and industrial areas, respectively, during day-time (between 6 am and 10 pm). It is abundantly clear that noise levels at match venues needs to be curbed significantly during future editions of IPL to ensure that basic national environmental laws are not violated.
185
1 1 . 2 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
The Total Carbon Footprint estimate of DLF IPL 2010 (42,264 tons CO2e) is primarily reflective of the use-phase Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the various resource consumption activities of IPL. This estimate does not account for the entire life-cycle of the resources consumed and their comprehensive impact on Climate Change and ecology. Accounting for resource acquisition, processing and disposal impacts could magnify the current extent manifold. A life-cycle analysis (LCA) of all primary resources consumed is essential to ascertain a more comprehensive Carbon Footprint that tends towards the true Climate Change impact of IPL. It is recommended that IPL 2011 be assessed on a LCA basis and that preparatory work for an LCA study be commissioned as part of the next phase of the project. Based on the above conclusions related to potential for Carbon Footprint mitigation, it is recommended that IPL commission ECE to commence a comprehensive Carbon Footprint Minimisation analysis as part of a Long-Term Greening Program (in fulfillment of its MOU with the UNEPs Sports and Environment Unit) to identify means and alternatives for minimising and optimising its resource intensiveness, minimising and optimising its Carbon Emissions Intensity in order to continue delivering a high-quality sporting experience to cricket followers across the world while addressing its impact on Climate Change in a transparent, accountable and proactive manner. An overarching outcome of the research and analysis conducted for the DLF IPL 2010 Carbon Footprint Measurement project was the impact of Spectator Private Vehicular Travel on its Carbon Footprint. It is imperative to address this disproportionately heavy reliance on Private Transport consumed for Spectator Travel when addressing the overall IPL Carbon Footprint. The impact of Stadium Construction, one of the primary activities contributing significantly to the IPL footprint, needs to be mitigated by influencing and encouraging the State Authorities to explore opportunities to infuse Low-Carbon and Green Architecture and
186
Construction practices as the cornerstone of future stadium construction activities at proposed stadiums that are intended for use by the IPL. TV Spectator Carbon Footprint of approximately 358,000 tons of CO2e, and its root cause large quantity of consumption of electricity through TV sets, needs to be addressed with greater emphasis on its analysis and mitigation through innovative strategies and interventions in future editions of the IPL Best practice examples for a majority of Stakeholder functions within the IPL have been identified, quantified, and the initial feasibility assessed. These best practice benchmarks are spread across all IPL venues and stakeholder operations. If consolidated and replicated across parallel and similar functions, these present a potent and actionable strategy for optimising the Carbon Footprint of the IPL prior to any resource and capital intensive Carbon Footprint Minimisation strategies related to renewable energy sources, innovative alternative materials, complex R&D based solutions etc. that have a protracted pay-back period and high risk to reward ratio. In view of the high percentage of Carbon Footprint of DLF IPL 2010 resulting from the Carbon Footprint accumulation through association with multiple Franchises, State Associations and internal contractors, Best Practice Incentivisation through formal programs and incorporation into contractual negotiations processes with all vendors, contractors and other relevant Stakeholders is ascertained to be the most feasible first step on the pathway to drastically reducing the Carbon Footprint of IPL in the forthcoming seasons. Central IPL support and nurturing of competitive franchise behavior through formal recognition of the Lowest Carbon Footprint or Greenest Franchise is one illustrative example that may be expanded to envelop all aspects of IPL operations in future editions. All stages and phases of the Greening Program, must be accompanied by extensive communication and training - for both internal and external stakeholders. Its many partners, vendors and
187
1 1 . 2 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
associates are the face of IPL for its millions of TV and stadium spectators. For the Greening Program to exert the full potential of its influencing power, it is essential that as far as is possible, all these Stakeholder groups are seen to work in congruence. During DLF IPL 2010 noise levels at matches were measured to gravely violate national noise pollution norms. These levels at match venues need to be curbed significantly during future editions of IPL to ensure that basic national environmental laws are not violated. An extensive uncertainty analysis must be commissioned to accurately ascertain the uncertainty of the Carbon Footprint estimate, so as to establish a measurable and verifiable baseline emissions scenario for DLF IPL 2010 that would serve as the benchmark against which Carbon Footprint of the future editions of the IPL shall be compared. As a first step towards Neutralisation, it is recommended that IPL commit to neutralise the impact of, as minimum, the four knock-out phase matches of DLF IPL 2010 (estimated to be 3,148 tons of CO2e). It is recommended the pro-poor Certified-Emissions-Reductions (CERs) projects registered with the Fair Climate Network be invested in for offsetting these emissions. Finally, it is recommended that IPL define a long-term Greening roadmap, with clearly defined targets, expectations and outlays. An indicative roadmap is attached as Appendix H that can be the basis of discussion between IPL and ECE to define IPLs near and long-term targets. Continuing with the vision that the IPL Management has shown in commissioning the Realise phase of the Project, the final goal should be not just a Carbon Neutral IPL, but a Carbon Positive IPL.
188
A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
1 2 . 0 A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
189
Acknowledgements IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
12.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The ECE Consulting team would especially like to thank the following individuals/ organisations for the support extended outside the scope of their mandated functions UNEP - For providing guidance and encouragement at all stages of the Project. Specifically, Mr. Achim Steiner - Executive Director, UNEP Mr. Satinder Bindra - Director, DCPI Mr. Theodore Oben - Head of the Children & Youth/Sports and the Environment Unit at DCPI Dr. Hartmut Stahl - Programme Officer in UNEP? s Sports and Environment Unit at DCPI
NNV Architects, Chennai - for data related to stadium construction Officials at of DY Patil Stadium, Navi Mumbai - for data related to stadium construction Officials at Punjab Cricket Association, Mohali - for data related to stadium construction Ms. Prakriti Shukla - for gathering and analyzing the data related to stadium construction at DY Patil Stadium, Navi Mumbai Mr. Nirmal Shah - Chief Operations Manager at Brabourne Stadium, Mumbai for sharing his ideas about optimization of diesel consumption and floodlighting at stadia Royal Challengers Bangalore/ NextGen PMS - for providing franchisee data related to RCB Ms. Anjana Sharma, Red Partners - for introducing ECE to UNEP and IPL Prof Amit Garg, IIM Ahmadabad - for guidance provided during the course of the Project and for suggesting the Neutralisation Roadmap
190
A P P E N D I C E S
191
DLF IPL 2010 Carbon Footprint Measurement

R E A L I S E P r o j e c t R e p o r t
A P P E N D I X A
GHG Emission Factors
192
A P P E N D I X A IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
GHG Emission Factors : no2co2 Version: July 2010

Activity Group Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B Activity Type Electric 4-Door Car - City - Non AC Electric 4-Door Car - Highway - AC Electric 4-Door Car - Highway - Non AC Int. Air - Long - Economy - COEFF A Int. Air - Long - Economy - COEFF B Int. Air - Long - Economy - COEFF C Int. Air - Long - First/Buss. - COEFF A Int. Air - Long - First/Buss. - COEFF B Int. Air - Long - First/Buss. - COEFF C Int. Air - Medium - Economy - COEFF A Int. Air - Medium - Economy - COEFF B Int. Air - Medium - Economy - COEFF C Int. Air - Medium - First/Buss. - COEFF A Int. Air - Medium - First/Buss. - COEFF B Int. Air - Medium - First/Buss. - COEFF C Int. Air - Short - Economy - COEFF A Int. Air - Short - Economy - COEFF B Int. Air - Short - Economy - COEFF C Int. Air - Short - First/Buss. - COEFF A Int. Air - Short - First/Buss. - COEFF B Int. Air - Short - First/Buss. - COEFF C Local AC Bus Local Non AC Bus Local Rail Long Dist. AC Bus Long Dist. Non AC Bus Long Dist. Rail LPG 4-Door Car - City - AC LPG 4-Door Car - City - Non AC LPG 4-Door Car - Highway - AC LPG 4-Door Car - Highway - Non AC Non AC Taxi Petrol 4-Door Car - City - AC Petrol 4-Door Car - City - Non AC Petrol 4-Door Car - Highway - AC Petrol 4-Door Car - Highway - Non AC Artichokes (canned) Avg. Bottled Water - PET Bottle Avg. Meat Avg. Soft Drink Beef Beer - Domestic Beer - International Butter Cheese Chicken Fish Fresh Cream Milk - Avg. Milk - Cow MSW - Composted MSW - Landfilled 8.48 4.48 3.76 7.60 0.89 0.96 8.61 kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/v-km 9.66 kg CO2e/kg 0.75 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17 kg CO2e/kg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg 0.10 0.14 0.84 0.27 0.41 0.55 0.45 0.07 0.14 0.68 kg CO2e/bottle kg CO2e/bottle kg CO2e/liter kg CO2e/bottle kg CO2e/liter kg CO2e/liter 0.83 0.84 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.29 0.23 0.23 0.17 kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/liter kg CO2e/liter kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg 0.53 0.33 kg CO2e/liter kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/liter Weight EF 3.76 7.60 0.89 Units kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 kg CO2e/liter kg CO2e/liter kg CO2e/liter kg CO2e/liter Qty. EF 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Units kg CO2e/liter kg CO2e/liter kg CO2e/liter kg CO2e/liter Distance EF 0.00 0.04 109.09 0.00 0.11 310.61 0.00 0.04 109.09 0.00 0.11 310.61 0.00 0.04 109.09 0.00 0.11 310.61 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 Units kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km
193
A P P E N D I X A IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report GHG Emission Factors : no2co2 Version: July 2010
Activity Group F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B F&B Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Consumables Activity Type MSW - Recycled Mutton Pork Rice Soft Drink - 350 ml PET Bottle Soft Drink - 500 ml PET Bottle Spirits Water - 1 Liter PET Bottles Water - 1.5 Liter PET Bottles Water - 2.0 Liter PET Bottles Water - 20 Liter Jars Water - 250 ml PET Bottles Water - 500 ml PET Bottles Wine Coated Freesheet (High-End Magazine Paper)-COEFF B Coated Freesheet (High-End Magazine Paper)-COEFF C Coated Groundwood (Standard Magazine)-COEFF B Coated Groundwood (Standard Magazine)-COEFF C Corrugated (Avg.)-COEFF B Corrugated (Avg.)-COEFF C Corrugated (Bleached)-COEFF B Corrugated (Bleached)-COEFF C Corrugated (Semi-bleached)-COEFF B Corrugated (Semi-bleached)-COEFF C Corrugated (Unbleached)-COEFF B Corrugated (Unbleached)-COEFF C Inorganic Fertilizer - NPK Inorganic Fertilizer - Urea Inorganic Pesticide Organic Fertilizer Paperboard (Avg.)-COEFF B Paperboard (Avg.)-COEFF C Paperboard (Coated Recycled Board)-COEFF B Paperboard (Coated Recycled Board)-COEFF C Paperboard (Coated Unbleached Kraft)-COEFF B Paperboard (Coated Unbleached Kraft)-COEFF C Paperboard (Solid Bleached Sulfate)-COEFF B Paperboard (Solid Bleached Sulfate)-COEFF C Paperboard (Uncoated Bleached Kraft) -COEFF B Paperboard (Uncoated Bleached Kraft) -COEFF C Paperboard (Uncoated Unbleached Kraft)-COEFF B Paperboard (Uncoated Unbleached Kraft)-COEFF C Plastic Supercalendered (Newspaper Inserts)-COEFF B Supercalendered (Newspaper Inserts)-COEFF C Uncoated Freesheet (Copy Paper)-COEFF B Uncoated Freesheet (Copy Paper)-COEFF C Uncoated Groundwood (Newsprint)-COEFF B Uncoated Groundwood (Newsprint)-COEFF C Hotel Accommodation Hotel Accommodation 5-Star Hotel - Excluding Meals -0.99 2.49 -1.38 2.87 -1.32 2.63 -1.32 2.77 -1.33 2.58 -1.31 2.55 8.67 6.40 12.03 0.00 0.06 2.62 0.00 1.44 1.51 3.11 -1.54 3.24 -1.09 2.76 1.42 2.56 2.53 -1.53 3.31 -0.95 2.58 -1.61 3.16 kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg 0.35 154.85 164.35 kg CO2e/newspaper KgCO2e/person overnight stay KgCO2e/person overnight stay 0.01 kg CO2e/sheet 0.75 kg CO2e/magazine 0.41 0.55 0.45 0.07 0.14 0.68 kg CO2e/bottle kg CO2e/bottle kg CO2e/bottle kg CO2e/bottle kg CO2e/bottle kg CO2e/liter 0.00 0.19 0.29 0.23 0.23 0.17 Weight EF 0.00 0.57 0.00 12.69 5.53 0.92 Units kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg Qty. EF Units Distance EF Units kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km
5-Star Hotel - Full Service
194
A P P E N D I X A IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
GHG Emission Factors : no2co2 Version: July 2010

Activity Group Fuel Fuel Electricity Fuel Fuel Fuel Fuel Fuel Fuel Water Water Water Fuel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Activity Type Charcoal Diesel Electricity Fireworks LPG - Commercial LPG - Domestic Petrol PNG Spirit Water - Municipal Water - Tanker Water - Well Wood 2 Wheeler - 4 ST Petrol AC Taxi Autorickshaw Bio-Diesel 4-Door Car - City - AC Bio-Diesel 4-Door Car - City - Non AC Bio-Diesel 4-Door Car - Highway - AC Bio-Diesel 4-Door Car - Highway - Non AC CNG 4-Door Car - City - AC CNG 4-Door Car - City - Non AC CNG 4-Door Car - Highway - AC CNG 4-Door Car - Highway - Non AC Diesel 4-Door Car - City - AC Diesel 4-Door Car - City - Non AC Diesel 4-Door Car - Highway - AC Diesel 4-Door Car - Highway - Non AC Diesel Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) - City - Ambient Diesel Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) - City - Frozen Diesel Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) - City - Refrigerated Diesel Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) - Highway - Ambient Diesel Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) - Highway - Frozen Diesel Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) - Highway - Refrigerated Dom. Air - Long - Economy - COEFF A Dom. Air - Long - Economy - COEFF B Dom. Air - Long - Economy - COEFF C Dom. Air - Long - First/Buss. - COEFF A Dom. Air - Long - First/Buss. - COEFF B Dom. Air - Long - First/Buss. - COEFF C Dom. Air - Medium - Economy - COEFF A Dom. Air - Medium - Economy - COEFF B Dom. Air - Medium - Economy - COEFF C Dom. Air - Medium - First/Buss. - COEFF A Dom. Air - Medium - First/Buss. - COEFF B Dom. Air - Medium - First/Buss. - COEFF C Dom. Air - Short - Economy - COEFF A Dom. Air - Short - Economy - COEFF B Dom. Air - Short - Economy - COEFF C Dom. Air - Short - First/Buss. - COEFF A Dom. Air - Short - First/Buss. - COEFF B Dom. Air - Short - First/Buss. - COEFF C Electric 4-Door Car - City - AC kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg 0.21 78.55 kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg 0.07 27.97 0.21 78.55 kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg 0.07 27.97 0.21 78.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.48 2.48 2.48 2.48 3.19 3.19 3.19 3.19 3.19 3.19 3.19 3.19 3.19 3.19 1.89 3.17 kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.48 2.48 2.48 2.48 3.19 3.19 3.19 3.19 3.19 3.19 3.19 3.19 3.19 3.19 1.89 3.17 kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg 0.07 27.97 0.04 0.25 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.27 0.21 0.21 0.16 1.23 1.69 1.60 0.94 1.30 1.23 kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/v-km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km kg CO2e/pass/km 2.96 kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg 2.96 kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg 0.18 3.13 3.13 3.17 kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg 0.18 3.13 3.13 3.17 kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg Weight EF 1.89 3.19 Units kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg Qty. EF 1.89 3.19 Units kg CO2e/kg kg CO2e/kg Distance EF Units
195

REALISE Project Report
A P P E N D I X B
D L F I P L 2 0 1 0 P r e E v e n t C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t E s t i m a t i o n
196
A P P E N D I X B IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
A P P E N D I X B
D L F I P L 2 0 I 0 P r e E v e n t C a r b o n F o o t p r i n t S u m m a r y S t a k e h o l d e r w i s e
Carbon Footprint (tons C02e)
%o f Total Carbon Footprint
I D
F u n c t i o n a l E n t i t y N a m e I P L l I M G H e a d O f f i c e & T r a v e l H o s p i t a l i t y M e r c h a n d i z i n a S p o n s o r s C o n c e s s i o n C o n t r a c t o r S t a d i u m C a t e r i n a S t a d i u m H o s p i t a l i t y S t a d i u m E n t e r t a i n m e n t T e l e v i s i o n B r o a d c a s t i n a I n H o u s e T e l e v i s i o n B r o a d c a s t i n g V e n d o r P l a y e r S e c u r i t y U m p i r i n g A n t i D o p i n g / A n t i C o r r u p t i o n E m e r g e n c y T r a i n i n g S t a d i u m O f f i c e S t a d i u m C o n s t r u c t i o n
F u n c t i o n a l E n t i t v 1 1 . 1 S u b E n t i t y S u b E n t i t y 1 . 2 S u b E n t i t y 1 . 3 1 4 S u b E n t i t y S u b E n t i t y 1 . 5 S u b E n t i t y 1 . 6 S u b E n t i t y 1 . 7 S u b E n t i t y 1 . 8 S u b E n t i t y 1 . 9 S u b E n t i t y 1 . 1 0 1 . 1 1 S u b E n t i t y S u b E n t i t y 1 . 1 2 S u b E n t i t y 1 . 1 3 S u b E n t i t y 1 . 1 4 S u b E n t i t y 1 . 1 5 S u b E n t i t y 1 . 1 6 S u b T o t a l F u n c t i o n a l E n t i t y 2 2 . 1 S u b E n t i t y S u b E n t i t y 2 . 2 S u b E n t i t y 2 . 3 S u b T o t a l F u n c t i o n a l E n t i t y 3 S u b E n t i t y 3 . 1 S u b E n t i t y 3 . 2 S u b E n t i t y 3 . 3 3 4 S u b E n t i t y S u b E n t i t y 3 . 5 S u b T o t a l F u n c t i o n a l E n t i t y 4 4 . 1 S u b E n t i t y S u b E n t i t y 4 . 2 S u b E n t i t y 4 . 3 S u b T o t a l T o t a l
2 1 , 2 5 1 S t a t e A s s o c . O p e r . S t a d i u m S e c u r i t y U t i l i t i e s G r o u n d M a i n t e n a n c e 1 , 2 5 2 F r a n c h i s e O p e r . H e a d O f f i c e & T r a v e l H o s p i t a l i t y M e r c h a n d i z i n g S p o n s o r s C h e e r l e a d e r s 9 , 2 4 0 S o e c t a t o r O p e r . S t a d i u m S p e c t a t o r s T V S p e c t a t o r s I n t e r n e t 5 , 6 6 9 3 7 , 4 1 1
5 6 8 %
3 . 3 %
2 4 7 %
1 5 2 % 1 0 0 %
197

A P P E N D I X C
R C B F r a n c h i s e A c t i v i t y D a t a ( P r o v i d e d b y N e x t G e n P M S , B a n g a l o r e )

198
A P P E N D I X C IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
A P P E N D I X C
H o t e l S t a y T o t a l n o . o f r o o m n i g h t s 1 3 4 4
E l e c t r i c i t y c o n s u m p t i o n a t t h e s t a d i u m T o t a l e l e c t r i c i t y c o n s u m e d ( i n u n i t s ) 7 7 3 8 8
D i e s e l c o n s u m p t i o n i n t h e s t a d i u m T o t a l d i e s e l c o n s u m e d ( i n l i t r e s ) 3 8 8 1 5
B u s T r a v e l f r o m a i r p o r t t o h o t e l a n d f r o m h o t e l t o a i r p o r t T o t a l D i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d ( i n k m s ) 1 1 2 0
B u s T r a v e l f r o m h o t e l t o s t a d i u m a n d f r o m s t a d i u m t o h o t e l T o t a l D i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d ( i n k m s ) 1 6 0 0
199
S e c t o r
l a s s N o p a x C
200
S e c t o r
l a s s N o p a x C
201
S e c t o r
l a s s N o p a x C
202

APPENDIX D
IPL 2010 Carbon Footprint Analysis - Tables and Figures
203
Appendix D IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
Table 27 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Fuel - Cooking Fuel
Stakeholder Primary Org. Oper. 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 4.01 4.02 4.03 Total Head Office Hospitality & Travel Merchandizing Sponsors Catering - Concessions Catering - VIP Catering - Broadcasting Stadium Hospitality Stadium Entertainment Television Broadcasting - In-House Television Broadcasting - Vendor Player Security Umpiring Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption Emergency Training Stadium Office Stadium Advertising (LED) Stadium Advertising (Flex Signage) State Assoc. Oper. Stadium Security Utilities Ground Maintenance Catering - State Assoc. Housekeeping Stadium Construction Franchise Oper. Franchise - Head Office Franchise - Hospitality & Travel Franchise - Merchandizing Franchise - Sponsors Cheerleaders Beverage Contractor - Soft Drinks Beverage Contractor - Alcoholic Bev. Spectator Oper. Stadium Spectators TV Spectators Internet (tons CO2e) Carbon Footprint (tons CO2e) 135 0 0 0 0 59 70 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 191 % Contribution 71% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.7% 36.5% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 29% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 29.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
204
APPENDIX D IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
Figure 45 Stakeholder Contribution to Activity Carbon Footprint Cooking Fuel
Activity Carbon Footprint 191 tons CO2e
205
Table 28 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel
206
Figure 46 Stakeholder Contribution to Activity Carbon Footprint Generator & Motor Fuel
207
Table 29 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Fuel - Fireworks & Other Fuel
Stakeholder Primary Org. Oper 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 4.01 4.02 4.03 Total Head Office Hospitality & Travel Merchandizing Sponsors Catering - Concessions Catering - VIP Catering - Broadcasting Stadium Hospitality Stadium Entertainment Television Broadcasting - in-house Television Broadcasting - Vendor Player Security Umpiring Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption Emergency Training Stadium Office Stadium Advertising (LED) Stadium Advertising (Flex Signage) State Assoc. Oper. Stadium Security Utilities Ground Maintenance Catering - State Assoc. Housekeeping Stadium Construction Franchise Oper. Franchise - Head Office Franchise - Hospitality & Travel Franchise - Merchandizing Franchise - Sponsors Cheerleaders Beverage Contractor - Soft Drinks Beverage Contractor - Alcoholic Bev. Spectator Oper. Stadium Spectators TV Spectators Internet (tons CO2e) Carbon Footprint (tons CO2e) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 % Contribution 100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
208
Table 30 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Electricity
Stakeholder Primary Org. Oper. 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 4.01 4.02 4.03 Total Head Office Hospitality & Travel Merchandizing Sponsors Catering - Concessions Catering - VIP Catering - Broadcasting Stadium Hospitality Stadium Entertainment Television Broadcasting - In-House Television Broadcasting - Vendor Player Security Umpiring Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption Emergency Training Stadium Office Stadium Advertising (LED) Stadium Advertising (Flex Signage) State Assoc. Oper. Stadium Security Utilities Ground Maintenance Catering - State Assoc. Housekeeping Stadium Construction Franchise Oper. Franchise - Head Office Franchise - Hospitality & Travel Franchise - Merchandizing Franchise - Sponsors Cheerleaders Beverage Contractor - Soft Drinks Beverage Contractor - Alcoholic Bev. Spectator Oper. Stadium Spectators TV Spectators Internet (tons Co2e) Carbon Footprint (tons CO2e) 345 308 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 618 0 618 0 0 0 0 34 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 996 % Contribution 35% 30.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 62% 0.0% 62.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
209
Figure 47 Stakeholder Contribution to Activity Carbon Footprint Electricity
210
Table 31 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Water
211
Figure 48 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Water
212
Table 32 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Domestic Air Travel
Stakeholder Primary Org. Oper. 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 4.01 4.02 4.03 Total Head Office Hospitality & Travel Merchandizing Sponsors Catering - Concessions Catering - VIP Catering - Broadcasting Stadium Hospitality Stadium Entertainment Television Broadcasting - In-House Television Broadcasting - Vendor Player Security Umpiring Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption Emergency Training Stadium Office Stadium Advertising (LED) Stadium Advertising (Flex Signage) State Assoc. Oper. Stadium Security Utilities Ground Maintenance Catering - State Assoc. Housekeeping Stadium Construction Franchise Oper. Franchise - Head Office Franchise - Hospitality & Travel Franchise - Merchandizing Franchise - Sponsors Cheerleaders Beverage Contractor - Soft Drinks Beverage Contractor - Alcoholic Bev. Spectator Oper. Stadium Spectators TV Spectators Internet (tons CO2e) Carbon Footprint (tons CO2e) 2,119 1,139 215 0 336 3 3 0 3 31 280 45 29 15 3 3 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,067 0 682 0 251 134 0 0 3,275 3,275 0 0 6,461 % Contribution 33% 17.6% 3.3% 0.0% 5.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.5% 4.3% 0.7% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17% 0.0% 10.6% 0.0% 3.9% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 51% 50.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
213
Figure 49 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Domestic Air Travel
Activity Carbon Footprint 6,461 tons CO2e
214
Table 33 Activity vs. Stakeholder - International Air Travel
Stakeholder Primary Org. Oper. 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 4.01 4.02 4.03 Total Head Office Hospitality & Travel Merchandizing Sponsors Catering - Concessions Catering - VIP Catering - Broadcasting Stadium Hospitality Stadium Entertainment Television Broadcasting - In-House Television Broadcasting - Vendor Player Security Umpiring Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption Emergency Training Stadium Office Stadium Advertising (LED) Stadium Advertising (Flex Signage) State Assoc. Oper. Stadium Security Utilities Ground Maintenance Catering - State Assoc. Housekeeping Stadium Construction Franchise Oper. Franchise - Head Office Franchise - Hospitality & Travel Franchise - Merchandizing Franchise - Sponsors Cheerleaders Beverage Contractor - Soft Drinks Beverage Contractor - Alcoholic Bev. Spectator Oper. Stadium Spectators TV Spectators Internet (tons CO2e) Carbon Footprint (tons CO2e) 794 60 402 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 212 0 42 40 3 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 322 0 322 0 0 0 0 0 2,833 2,833 0 0 3,949 % Contribution 20% 1.5% 10.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 0.0% 1.1% 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8% 0.0% 8.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 72% 71.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
215
Figure 50 Activity vs. Stakeholder - International Air Travel
216
Table 34 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Public Road & Rail Travel
Stakeholder Primary Org. Oper. 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 4.01 4.02 4.03 Total Head Office Hospitality & Travel Merchandizing Sponsors Catering - Concessions Catering - VIP Catering - Broadcasting Stadium Hospitality Stadium Entertainment Television Broadcasting - In-House Television Broadcasting - Vendor Player Security Umpiring Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption Emergency Training Stadium Office Stadium Advertising (LED) Stadium Advertising (Flex Signage) State Assoc. Oper. Stadium Security Utilities Ground Maintenance Catering - State Assoc. Housekeeping Stadium Construction Franchise Oper. Franchise - Head Office Franchise - Hospitality & Travel Franchise - Merchandizing Franchise - Sponsors Cheerleaders Beverage Contractor - Soft Drinks Beverage Contractor - Alcoholic Beverages Spectator Oper. Stadium Spectators TV Spectators Internet (tons CO2e) Carbon Footprint (tons CO2e) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 418 418 0 0 418 % Contribution 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
217
Table 35 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Private Vehicular Travel
Stakeholder Primary Org. Oper. 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 4.01 4.02 4.03 Total Head Office Hospitality & Travel Merchandizing Sponsors Catering - Concessions Catering - VIP Catering - Broadcasting Stadium Hospitality Stadium Entertainment Television Broadcasting - In-House Television Broadcasting - Vendor Player Security Umpiring Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption Emergency Training Stadium Office Stadium Advertising (LED) Stadium Advertising (Flex Signage) State Assoc. Oper. Stadium Security Utilities Ground Maintenance Catering - State Assoc. Housekeeping Stadium Construction Franchise Oper. Franchise - Head Office Franchise - Hospitality & Travel Franchise - Merchandizing Franchise - Sponsors Cheerleaders Beverage Contractor - Soft Drinks Beverage Contractor - Alcoholic Bev. Spectator Oper. Stadium Spectators TV Spectators Internet (tons CO2e) Carbon Footprint (tons CO2e) 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 97 97 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,517 6,517 0 0 6,630 % Contribution 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.01% 0.03% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.05% 0.0% 0.0% 1% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 98% 98.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
218
Figure 51 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Private Vehicular Travel
219
Table 36 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Logistics
220
Figure 52 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Logistics
221
Table 37 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Luxury Hotel Accomodation
Stakeholder Primary Org. Oper. 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 4.01 4.02 4.03 Total Head Office Hospitality & Travel Merchandizing Sponsors Catering - Concessions Catering - VIP Catering - Broadcasting Stadium Hospitality Stadium Entertainment Television Broadcasting - In-House Television Broadcasting - Vendor Player Security Umpiring Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption Emergency Training Stadium Office Stadium Advertising (LED) Stadium Advertising (Flex Signage) State Assoc. Oper. Stadium Security Utilities Ground Maintenance Catering - State Assoc. Housekeeping Stadium Construction Franchise Oper. Franchise - Head Office Franchise - Hospitality & Travel Franchise - Merchandizing Franchise - Sponsors Cheerleaders Beverage Contractor - Soft Drinks Beverage Contractor - Alcoholic Bev. Spectator Oper. Stadium Spectators TV Spectators Internet (tons CO2e) Carbon Footprint (tons CO2e) 5,396 353 158 0 1,972 22 22 0 22 0 1,849 296 237 151 15 22 276 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,274 0 2,893 0 184 197 0 0 1,257 1,257 0 0 9,927 % Contribution 54% 3.6% 1.6% 0.0% 19.9% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.00% 18.63% 3.0% 2.4% 1.5% 0.1% 0.2% 2.78% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33% 0.0% 29.1% 0.0% 1.9% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13% 12.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
222
Figure 53 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Luxury Hotel Accommodation
Head Office 3.6% Stadium Spectators 12.7% Cheerleaders 2.0%
Hospitality & Travel 1.6% Sponsors 19.9% Catering - Concessions 0.2% Catering - VIP 0.2% Stadium Hospitality 0.2% Television Broadcasting - InHouse 18.6%
Franchise - Sponsors 1.9%
Franchise - Hospitality & Travel 29.1% Stadium Office 2.8%
Television Broadcasting Vendor 3.0% Player Security 2.4% Umpiring 1.5% Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption 0.1%
Emergency Training 0.2%
223
Table 38 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Meat & Seafood
224
Figure 54 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Meat & Seafood
225
Table 39 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Dairy
Stakeholder Primary Org. Oper. 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 4.01 4.02 4.03 Total Head Office Hospitality & Travel Merchandizing Sponsors Catering - Concessions Catering - VIP Catering - Broadcasting Stadium Hospitality Stadium Entertainment Television Broadcasting - In-House Television Broadcasting - Vendor Player Security Umpiring Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption Emergency Training Stadium Office Stadium Advertising (LED) Stadium Advertising (Flex Signage) State Assoc. Oper. Stadium Security Utilities Ground Maintenance Catering - State Assoc. Housekeeping Stadium Construction Franchise Oper. Franchise - Head Office Franchise - Hospitality & Travel Franchise - Merchandizing Franchise - Sponsors Cheerleaders Beverage Contractor - Soft Drinks Beverage Contractor - Alcoholic Bev. Spectator Oper. Stadium Spectators TV Spectators Internet ( tons CO2e) Carbon Footprint (tons CO2e) 234 0 0 0 0 185 46 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 243 % Contribution 96% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.9% 19.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00% 0.0% 0.0% 4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
226
Figure 55 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Dairy
227
Table 40 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Rice
228
Figure 56 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Rice
229
Table 41 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Alcoholic Beverages
230
Figure 57 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Alcoholic Beverages
231
Table 42 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Bottled Water / Non-alcoholic Beverages
232
Figure 58 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Bottled Water / Non-alocoholic Beverages
Catering - VIP 0.2%
Stadium Office 3.0%
Franchise - Hospitality & Travel 5.8%
Beverage Contractor - Soft
233
Table 43 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Solid Waste
234
Figure 59 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Solid Waste
Activity Carbon Footprint 282 tons CO2ee
235
Table 44 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Paper & Cardboard
236
Figure 60 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Paper & Cardboard
237
Table 45 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Plastic
238
Figure 61 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Plastic
239
Table 46 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Fertilizers & Pesticides
240
Table 47 Stakeholder vs. Activity - IPL/IMG Head Office
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.2 3.2.1 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5 Total Scope 1 (Direct Emissions) Fuel Cooking Fuel Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel Other Fireworks & Other Fuel Sub-Total Scope 2 (Indirect Emissions Electricity & Water) Electricity Water Sub-Total Scope 3 (Indirect Emissions Other) Travel & Logistics Domestic Air Travel International Air Travel Public Road & Rail Travel Private Vehicular Travel Logistics Sub-Total Accommodation Luxury Hotel Accommodation Sub-Total Food, Beverage, Waste Meat & Seafood Dairy Rice Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Solid Waste Sub-Total Paper, Plastic, Consumables Paper & Cardboard Plastic Fertilizers & Pesticide Sub-Total Stadium Construction 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 1,860.9 (tons CO2e) 353.4 353.4 1,139 60 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,199.7 307.8 0.0 307.8
Carbon Footprint
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
241
Figure 62 Stakeholder vs. Activity IPL/IMG Head Office
Stakeholder Carbon Footprint 1,861 tons CO2e
242
Table 48 Stakeholder vs. Activity - IPL/IMG Hospitality & Travel
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.2 3.2.1 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5 Total Scope 1 (Direct Emissions) Fuel Cooking Fuel Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel Other Fireworks & Other Fuel Sub-Total Scope 2 (Indirect Emissions Electricity & Water) Electricity Water Sub-Total Scope 3 (Indirect Emissions Other) Travel & Logistics Domestic Air Travel International Air Travel Public Road & Rail Travel Private Vehicular Travel Logistics Sub-Total Accommodation Luxury Hotel Accommodation Sub-Total Food, Beverage, Waste Meat & Seafood Dairy Rice Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Solid Waste Sub-Total Paper, Plastic, Consumables Paper & Cardboard Plastic Fertilizers & Pesticide Sub-Total Stadium Construction 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 775.1 tons CO2e 157.8 157.8 215 402 0.0 0.0 0.0 617.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Carbon Footprint
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
243
Figure 63 Stakeholder vs. Activity - IPL/IMG Hospitality & Travel
Stakeholder Carbon Footprint 775 tons CO2e
244
Table 49 Stakeholder vs. Activity IPL/IMG Merchandizing
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.2 3.2.1 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5 Total Scope 1 (Direct Emissions) Fuel Cooking Fuel Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel Other Fireworks & Other Fuel Sub-Total Scope 2 (Indirect Emissions Electricity & Water) Electricity Water Sub-Total Scope 3 (Indirect Emissions Other) Travel & Logistics Domestic Air Travel International Air Travel Public Road & Rail Travel Private Vehicular Travel Logistics Sub-Total Accommodation Luxury Hotel Accommodation Sub-Total Food, Beverage, Waste Meat & Seafood Dairy Rice Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Solid Waste Sub-Total Paper, Plastic, Consumables Paper & Cardboard Plastic Fertilizers & Pesticide Sub-Total Stadium Construction 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 30.6 0.0 30.6 0 30.6 tons CO2e 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Carbon Footprint
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
245
Table 50 Stakeholder vs. Activity IPL/IMG Sponsors
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.2 3.2.1 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5 Total Scope 1 (Direct Emissions) Fuel Cooking Fuel Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel Other Fireworks & Other Fuel Sub-Total Scope 2 (Indirect Emissions Electricity & Water) Electricity Water Sub-Total Scope 3 (Indirect Emissions Other) Travel & Logistics Domestic Air Travel International Air Travel Public Road & Rail Travel Private Vehicular Travel Logistics Sub-Total Accommodation Luxury Hotel Accommodation Sub-Total Food, Beverage, Waste Meat & Seafood Dairy Rice Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Solid Waste Sub-Total Paper, Plastic, Consumables Paper & Cardboard Plastic Fertilizers & Pesticide Sub-Total Stadium Construction 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 2,308.0 (tons Co2e) 1972.2 1972.2 336 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 335.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Carbon Footprint
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
246
Figure 64 Stakeholder vs. Activity IPL/IMG Sponsors
247
Table 51 Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - Concessions
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.2 3.2.1 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5 Total Scope 1 (Direct Emissions) Fuel Cooking Fuel Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel Other Fireworks & Other Fuel Sub-Total Scope 2 (Indirect Emissions Electricity & Water) Electricity Water Sub-Total Scope 3 (Indirect Emissions Other) Travel & Logistics Domestic Air Travel International Air Travel Public Road & Rail Travel Private Vehicular Travel Logistics Sub-Total Accommodation Luxury Hotel Accommodation Sub-Total Food, Beverage, Waste Meat & Seafood Dairy Rice Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Solid Waste Sub-Total Paper, Plastic, Consumables Paper & Cardboard Plastic Fertilizers & Pesticide Sub-Total Stadium Construction 108.1 184.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 310.9 0 29.1 8.0 0.0 37.1 0 444.3 (tons CO2e) 22.2 22.2 3 0 0.0 0.0 11.9 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Carbon Footprint
58.8 0.0 0.00 58.8
248
Figure 65 Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - Concessions
249
Table 52 Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - VIP
Carbon Footprint
69.8 0.3 0.00 70.1
250
Figure 66 Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - VIP
251
Table 53 Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - Broadcasting
Carbon Footprint
6.5 0.0 0.00 6.5
252
Figure 67 Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - Broadcasting
253
Table 54 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Hospitality
Carbon Footprint
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
254
Figure 68 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Hospitality
255
Table 55 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Entertainment
Carbon Footprint
0.0 125.3 1.04 126.3
256
Figure 69 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Entertainment
257
Table 56 Stakeholder vs. Activity Television Broadcasting - In-House
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 Scope 1 (Direct Emissions) Fuel Cooking Fuel Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel Other Fireworks & Other Fuel Sub-Total Scope 2 (Indirect Emissions Electricity & Water) Electricity Water Sub-Total Scope 3 (Indirect Emissions Other) Travel & Logistics Domestic Air Travel International Air Travel Public Road & Rail Travel Private Vehicular Travel Logistics Sub-Total 3.2 3.2.1 Accommodation Luxury Hotel Accommodation Sub-Total 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 Food, Beverage, Waste Meat & Seafood Dairy Rice Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Solid Waste Sub-Total Paper, Plastic, Consumables Paper & Cardboard Plastic Fertilizers & Pesticide Sub-Total 3.5 Total Stadium Construction 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 2,459.6 (tons CO2e) 1848.9 1848.9 280 212 0.0 2.2 30.7 524.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Carbon Footprint
0.0 86.0 0.00 86.0
3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3
258
Figure 70 Stakeholder vs. Activity Television Broadcasting - In-House
259
Table 57 Stakeholder vs. Activity Television Broadcasting - Vendor
Carbon Footprint
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
260
Figure 71 Stakeholder vs. Activity Television Broadcasting - Vendor
261
Table 58 Stakeholder vs. Activity Player Security
Carbon Footprint
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
262
Figure 72 Stakeholder vs. Activity Player Security
263
Table 59 Stakeholder vs. Activity Umpiring
Carbon Footprint
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
264
Figure 73 Stakeholder vs. Activity Umpiring
265
Table 60 Stakeholder vs. Activity Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.2 3.2.1 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5 Total Scope 1 (Direct Emissions) Fuel Cooking Fuel Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel Other Fireworks & Other Fuel Sub-Total Scope 2 (Indirect Emissions Electricity & Water) Electricity Water Sub-Total Scope 3 (Indirect Emissions Other) Travel & Logistics Domestic Air Travel International Air Travel Public Road & Rail Travel Private Vehicular Travel Logistics Sub-Total Accommodation Luxury Hotel Accommodation Sub-Total Food, Beverage, Waste Meat & Seafood Dairy Rice Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Solid Waste Sub-Total Paper, Plastic, Consumables Paper & Cardboard Plastic Fertilizers & Pesticide Sub-Total Stadium Construction 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 21.0 (tons Co2e) 14.8 14.8 3 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Carbon Footprint
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
266
Figure 74 Stakeholder vs. Activity Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption
267
Table 61 Stakeholder vs. Activity Emergency Training
Carbon Footprint
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
268
Figure 75 Stakeholder vs. Activity Emergency Training
269
Table 62 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Office
Carbon Footprint
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
270
Figure 76 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Office
271
Table 63 Stakeholder vs. Activity - Stadium Advertising (LED)
Carbon Footprint
0.0 51.0 0.00 51.0
272
Figure 77 Stakeholder vs. Activity - Stadium Advertising (LED)
273
Table 64 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Advertising (Flex Signage)
Carbon Footprint
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
274
Table 65 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Security
Carbon Footprint
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
275
Figure 78 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Security
276
Table 66 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Utilities

1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.2 3.2.1 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5 Total Scope 1 (Direct Emissions) Fuel Cooking Fuel Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel Other Fireworks & Other Fuel Sub-Total Scope 2 (Indirect Emissions Electricity & Water) Electricity Water Sub-Total Scope 3 (Indirect Emissions Other) Travel & Logistics Domestic Air Travel International Air Travel Public Road & Rail Travel Private Vehicular Travel Logistics Sub-Total Accommodation Luxury Hotel Accommodation Sub-Total Food, Beverage, Waste Meat & Seafood Dairy Rice Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Solid Waste Sub-Total Paper, Plastic, Consumables Paper & Cardboard Plastic Fertilizers & Pesticide Sub-Total Stadium Construction 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 1,164.1 (tons CO2e) 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 617.7 32.3 650.0
Carbon Footprint
0.0 514.1 0.00 514.1
277
Figure 79 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Utilities
278
Table 67 Stakeholder vs. Activity Ground Maintenance
Carbon Footprint
0.0 56.2 0.00 56.2
279
Figure 80 Stakeholder vs. Activity Ground Maintenance
Stakeholder Carbon Footprint 792.5 tons CO2e
280
Table 68 Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - State Association
Carbon Footprint
56.4 0.0 0.00 56.4
281
Figure 81 Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - State Association
282
Table 69 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Housekeeping
Carbon Footprint
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
283
Figure 82 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Housekeeping
284
Table 70 Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Head Office
Carbon Footprint
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
285
Figure 83 Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Head Office
286
Table 71 Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Hospitality & Travel
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.2 3.2.1 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5 Total Scope 1 (Direct Emissions) Fuel Cooking Fuel Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel Other Fireworks & Other Fuel Sub-Total Scope 2 (Indirect Emissions Electricity & Water) Electricity Water Sub-Total Scope 3 (Indirect Emissions Other) Travel & Logistics Domestic Air Travel International Air Travel Public Road & Rail Travel Private Vehicular Travel Logistics Sub-Total Accommodation Luxury Hotel Accommodation Sub-Total Food, Beverage, Waste Meat & Seafood Dairy Rice Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Solid Waste Sub-Total Paper, Plastic, Consumables Paper & Cardboard Plastic Fertilizers & Pesticide Sub-Total Stadium Construction 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 12.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 3,908.6 (tons CO2e) 2892.6 2892.6 682 322 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,003.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Carbon Footprint
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
287
Figure 84 Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Hospitality & Travel
288
Table 72 Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Merchandizing
Carbon Footprint
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
289
Figure 85 Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Merchandizing
290
Table 73 Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Sponsors
Carbon Footprint
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
291
Figure 86 Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Sponsors
292
Table 74 Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Cheerleaders
Carbon Footprint
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
293
Figure 87 Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Cheerleaders
294
Table 75 Stakeholder vs. Activity Beverage Contractor - Soft Drinks
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.2 3.2.1 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5 Total Scope 1 (Direct Emissions) Fuel Cooking Fuel Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel Other Fireworks & Other Fuel Sub-Total Scope 2 (Indirect Emissions Electricity & Water) Electricity Water Sub-Total Scope 3 (Indirect Emissions Other) Travel & Logistics Domestic Air Travel International Air Travel Public Road & Rail Travel Private Vehicular Travel Logistics Sub-Total Accommodation Luxury Hotel Accommodation Sub-Total Food, Beverage, Waste Meat & Seafood Dairy Rice Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Solid Waste Sub-Total Paper, Plastic, Consumables Paper & Cardboard Plastic Fertilizers & Pesticide Sub-Total Stadium Construction 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 189.2 0.0 189.2 0 94.1 0.0 0.0 94.1 0 292.9 (tons CO2e) 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 9.6 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
295
Figure 88 Stakeholder vs. Activity Beverage Contractor - Soft Drinks
296
Table 76 Stakeholder vs. Activity Beverage Contractor - Alcoholic Beverages
Carbon Footprint
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
297
Figure 89 Stakeholder vs. Activity Beverage Contractor - Alcoholic Beverages
298
Table 77 Match Venue vs. Activity Ahmadabad

1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 Total Per match Scope 1 (Direct Emissions) Fuel Cooking Fuel Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel Other Fireworks & Other Fuel Sub-Total Scope 2 (Indirect Emissions Electricity & Water) Electricity Water Sub-Total Scope 3 (Indirect Emissions Other) Travel & Logistics Public Road & Rail Travel Private Vehicular Travel Logistics Sub-Total Food, Beverage, Waste Meat & Seafood Dairy Rice Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Solid Waste Sub-Total Paper, Plastic, Consumables Paper & Cardboard Plastic Fertilizers & Pesticide Sub-Total 6.7 6.1 13.9 26.6 690.7 (tons CO2e) 172.69 (tons CO2e) 15.5 16.0 20.1 1.7 10.5 36.3 100.1 23.0 341.7 37.4 402.1 41.2 42.5 83.6
Carbon Footprint
17.7 60.6 0.08 78.3
299
Figure 90 Match Venue vs. Activity Ahmadabad
Venue Carbon Footprint (per Match) 173 tons CO2e
300
Table 78 Match Venue vs. Activity Bangalore

1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 Total Per match Scope 1 (Direct Emissions) Fuel Cooking Fuel Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel Other Fireworks & Other Fuel Sub-Total Scope 2 (Indirect Emissions Electricity & Water) Electricity Water Sub-Total Scope 3 (Indirect Emissions Other) Travel & Logistics Public Road & Rail Travel Private Vehicular Travel Logistics Sub-Total Food, Beverage, Waste Meat & Seafood Dairy Rice Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Solid Waste Sub-Total Paper, Plastic, Consumables Paper & Cardboard Plastic Fertilizers & Pesticide Sub-Total 24.6 6.3 19.5 50.4 1,178.6 (tons CO2e) 130.96 (tons CO2e) 51.4 26.3 0.0 5.0 0.9 11.2 94.9 32.6 661.0 68.3 761.9 123.2 9.5 132.7
Carbon Footprint
20.2 118.4 0.18 138.8
301
Figure 91 Match Venue vs. Activity - Bangalore
302
Table 79 Match Venue vs. Activity Chennai

1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 Total Per match Scope 1 (Direct Emissions) Fuel Cooking Fuel Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel Other Fireworks & Other Fuel Sub-Total Scope 2 (Indirect Emissions Electricity & Water) Electricity Water Sub-Total Scope 3 (Indirect Emissions Other) Travel & Logistics Public Road & Rail Travel Private Vehicular Travel Logistics Sub-Total Food, Beverage, Waste Meat & Seafood Dairy Rice Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Solid Waste Sub-Total Paper, Plastic, Consumables Paper & Cardboard Plastic Fertilizers & Pesticide Sub-Total 4.4 4.2 5.5 14.1 1,330.3 (tons CO2e) 190.04 (tons CO2e) 14.8 7.6 0.0 2.7 6.6 12.9 44.6 37.8 1,042.7 47.3 1,127.8 3.0 18.7 21.6
Carbon Footprint
11.4 110.6 0.10 122.1
303
Figure 92 Match Venue vs. Activity Chennai
304
APPENDIX D IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report Table 80 Match Venue vs. Activity Cuttack
Carbon Footprint
7.5 28.7 0.04 36.2
305
Figure 93 Venue vs. Activity Cuttack
306
Table 81 Match Venue vs. Activity Delhi

Carbon Footprint
18.2 70.3 0.10 88.7
307
Figure 94 Match Venue vs. Activity Delhi
308
Table 82 Match Venue vs. Activity Dharamsala

Carbon Footprint
9.8 22.3 0.04 32.2
309
Figure 95 Match Venue vs. Activity Dharamsala
310
Table 83 Match Venue vs. Activity Jaipur

Carbon Footprint
6.6 41.3 0.04 48.0
311
Figure 96 Match Venue vs. Activity Jaipur
312
Table 84 Match Venue vs. Activity Kolkata

Carbon Footprint
33.2 106.1 0.10 139.3
313
Figure 97 Match Venue vs. Activity Kolkata
314
Table 85 Match Venue vs. Activity Mohali

Carbon Footprint
27.6 18.2 0.10 45.8
315
Figure 98 Match Venue vs. Activity Mohali
316
APPENDIX D IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report Table 86 Match Venue vs. Activity Mumbai (Brabourne)
Carbon Footprint
17.2 106.2 0.14 123.5
317
Figure 99 Match Venue vs. Activity Mumbai (Brabourne)
318
Table 87 Match Venue vs. Activity Navi Mumbai

1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 Total Per match Scope 1 (Direct Emissions) Fuel Cooking Fuel Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel Other Fireworks & Other Fuel Sub-Total Scope 2 (Indirect Emissions Electricity & Water) Electricity Water Sub-Total Scope 3 (Indirect Emissions Other) Travel & Logistics Public Road & Rail Travel Private Vehicular Travel Logistics Sub-Total Food, Beverage, Waste Meat & Seafood Dairy Rice Alcoholic Beverages Bottled Water / Drinks Solid Waste Sub-Total Paper, Plastic, Consumables Paper & Cardboard Plastic Fertilizers & Pesticide Sub-Total 15.1 5.4 38.1 58.7 1,090.0 (tons CO2e) 272.50 (tons CO2e) 19.3 16.1 0.4 0.4 30.0 34.3 100.5 55.1 678.6 24.5 758.3 67.0 27.3 94.3 10.3 67.9 0.08 78.2
319
Figure 100 Match Venue vs. Activity Navi Mumbai
Venue Carbon Footprint (per Match) 272.5 tons CO2e
320
Table 88 Match Venue vs. Activity Nagpur

Carbon Footprint
11.8 82.4 0.06 94.2
321
Figure 101 Match Venue vs. Activity Nagpur
322
Figure 102 Spectator Travel Modal Split Ahmadabad (%-spectator basis)
foot/cycle Public transport Private vehicle Train Air Travel 100 90 80 70 % spectators 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Pl1 Pl2 Pl3 Pl4 Pl5 total
323
Figure 103 Spectator Travel Modal Split Ahmadabad (km basis)
foot/cycle Public transport Private vehicle Train Air Travel 400,000 350,000 kms travelled 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Pl1 Pl2 Pl3 Pl4 Pl5 total
324
Figure 104 Spectator Travel Modal Split Bangalore (%-spectator basis)
325
Figure 105 Spectator Travel Modal Split Bangalore (km basis)
326
Figure 106 Spectator Travel Modal Split Chennai (%-spectator basis)
90
80 70 60 % - spectators
50
40 30 20 10 0
fo
/c ot
yc
le 2 e wh
ele
au
to lic ub ns tra
po
rt
ca
r-a
c ca o r-n
n-
ac
in tra
-a
c tra in o -n
n-
ac p
e lan
-e
co pla ne
in us -b
es
327
Figure 107 Spectator Travel Modal Split Chennai (km basis)
450,000
400,000 350,000 300,000 kms travelled
250,000
200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0
o fo
y t/c
cle 2 w
e he
ler
au
to lic ub tra
p ns
or
r ca
-a
c ca r-
n no
-a
intra
ac tra in-
n no
-a
c pla
ne
ec
o ebu
e sin
ss
n pla
328
Figure 108 Spectator Travel Modal Split Cuttack (%-spectator basis)
90
80 70 60 % - spectators
50
40 30 20 10 0
fo
/c ot
yc
le 2 e wh
ele
au
to lic ub ns tra
po
rt
ca
r-a
c ca o r-n
n-
ac
in tra
-a
c tra in o -n
n-
ac p
e lan
-e
co pla ne
in us -b
es
329
Figure 109 Figure Spectator Travel Modal Split 109 Cuttack (km basis) Spectator Travel Modal Split Cuttack (km basis)
450,000
400,000 350,000 300,000 kms travelled
250,000
200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0
o fo
y t/c
cle 2 w
e he
ler
au
to lic ub tra
p ns
or
r ca
-a
c ca r-
n no
-a
intra
ac tra in-
n no
-a
c pla
ne
ec
o ebu
e sin
ss
n pla
330
Figure 110 Spectator Travel Modal Split Delhi (%-spectator basis)
331
Figure 111 Spectator Travel Modal Split Delhi (km basis)
332
Figure 112 Spectator Travel Modal Split Dharamsala (%-spectator basis)
100 90 80 70 % spectators 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Pl1 Pl2 Pl3 Pl4 Pl5 total
333
Figure 113 Spectator Travel Modal Split Dharamsala (km basis)
334
Figure 114 Spectator Travel Modal Split Jaipur (%-spectator basis)
335
Figure 115 Spectator Travel Modal Split Jaipur (km basis)
foot/cycle Public transport Private vehicle Train Air Travel 300,000 250,000 kms travelled 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Pl1 Pl2 Pl3 Pl4 Pl5 total
336
Figure 116 Spectator Travel Modal Split Kolkata (%-spectator basis)
100 90 80 70 % spectators 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Pl1 Pl2 Pl3 Pl4 Pl5 total
337
Figure 117 Spectator Travel Modal Split Kolkata (km basis)
500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 kms travelled 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Pl1 Pl2 Pl3 Pl4 Pl5 total
338
Figure 118 Spectator Travel Modal Split - Mohali (%-spectator basis)
339
Figure 119 Spectator Travel Modal Split Mohali (km basis)
foot/cycle Public transport Private vehicle Train Air Travel 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 kms travelled 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Pl1 Pl2 Pl3 Pl4 Pl5 total
340
Figure 120 Spectator Travel Modal Split Mumbai (Brabourne) (%-spectator basis)
341
Figure 121 Spectator Travel Modal Split Mumbai (Brabourne) (km basis)
foot/cycle Public transport Private vehicle Train Air Travel 140,000 120,000 100,000 kms travelled 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Pl1 Pl2 Pl3 Pl4 Pl5 total
342
Figure 122 Spectator Travel Modal Split Navi Mumbai (%-spectator basis)
100 90 80 70 kms travelled 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Pl1 Pl2 Pl3 Pl4 Pl5 total
343
Figure 123 Spectator Travel Modal Split Navi Mumbai (km basis)
600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Pl1 Pl2 Pl3 Pl4 Pl5 total
kms travelled
344
Figure 124 Spectator Travel Modal Split Nagpur (%-spectator basis)
70 60 50 % Spectators 40 30 20 10 0
o fo
y t/c
cle 2 w
e he
ler
au
to lic ub tra
p ns
or
r ca
-a
c ca r-
n no
-a
intra
ac tra in-
n no
-a
c pla
ne
ec
o e lan u -b
e sin
ss
345
Figure 125 Spectator Travel Modal Split Nagpur (km basis)
300,000
250,000
200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0
kms travelled
o fo
y t/c
cle 2 w
e he
ler
au
to lic ub tra
p ns
or
r ca
-a
c ca r-
n no
-a
intra
ac tra in-
n no
-a
c pla
ne
ec
o e lan u -b
e sin
ss
346

APPENDIX E
Fireworks & Pyrotechnics Air Quality and Health Impacts Studies
347
APPENDIX E IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
APPENDIX E Fireworks & Pyrotechnics Air Quality and Health Impacts Studies
Air Quality Studies 1. The effect of pyrotechnic displays on air quality was studied in Milan (Italy) in July 2006, during the night between 9th and 10th, when the Italian team was celebrated for the win of the 2006 FIFA World Cup. Results obtained by hourly elemental analysis showed that in the fine fraction many metals (i.e. Sr, Mg, K, Ba and Cu) increased significantly during the celebrations (e.g. Sr up to 120 times in 1 h) while no differences were observed in the coarse fraction concentrations. It is worth noting that, although fireworks cause short-lived air pollution events, fine particles are responsible for adverse health effects, and the bioreactivity of fine metal aerosols is of particular concern. The availability of a large number of chemically characterised samples allowed the PM10 and major chemical components apportionment during the pyrotechnic displays. Although our fireworks event had short duration, the PM10 concentration ascribed to the fireworks source was not negligible (up to 33.6 mg/m3). In addition, fireworks accounted for a large part of the metal concentrations (e.g. up to 70100% of the measured values for Mg, K, Cu, Sr and Ba) Source: The impact of fireworks on airborne particles Roberta Vecch et. al. Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 11211132 2. The effect of fireworks on air quality was assessed from the ambient concentrations of various air pollutants (SO2, NO2, PM10 and TSP) during Diwali festival in Hisar city (India), in November 1999. The extensive use of fireworks was found to be related to short-term variation in air quality. During the festival the concentration of SO2 was observed to be increased approximately 10-fold at few sites, whereas the concentrations of NO2, PM10 and TSP increased 2-3 times, compared to the data collected on a typical winter day in December 1999. The maximum NO2 concentration was observed a day after the festival. The diurnal pattern of the above pollutants showed a slight increase in the night. The levels of these pollutants observed during Diwali were found to be moderately high, which can be associated with serious health impacts. Source: Short-term variation in air quality associated with firework events: a case study. Ravindra K, Mor S, Kaushik CP, Journal of Environment Monitoring (England), Apr 2003, 5(2):260-4. Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Guru Jambheshwar University, Hisar-125001, India 3. Data from a PM 2.5 particulate matter monitoring network was used to quantify the effects of outdoor pyrotechnic displays on the regional air quality of western Washington State. Linear regression and principal component analysis demonstrated that the fine particulate matter generated by these displays was primarily composed of Sr, K, V, Ti, Ba, Cu, Pb, Mg, Al, S, Mn, Zn, and soot.The PM 2.5 aerosol monitoring network tracked the pyrotechnic smoke plume for a period of two days as it was advected by low-level winds. The geometric mass mean diameter
348
of the K particles was ~0.7 mm after transport of ~100 km. In the absence of rain, which is the primary sink for particles of this size, the particulate matter generated by the pyrotechnic displays could have an atmospheric residence time of more than one week. Implicatons: These factors indicate that pyrotechnic displays could lead to violations of the aforementioned NAAQS in populous regions of the United States where regional particulate mass concentrations are high during summer. Source: Effects of outdoor pyrotechnic displays on the regional air quality of western Washington State. Perry Kevin D. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 1999;49:146-55. Meteorology Department, San Jos State University, San Jos, California Health Studies 1. "One bad day a year is enough to give Oahu air quality a black eye. New Year's Eve results in a grade of 'D'" by the American Lung Association of Hawaii Sterling Yee, president of the American Lung Association of Hawaii (ALAH), said the high particulate pollution on New Year's Eve is more than just a black mark on Hawaii's reputation; it's also a danger to the tens of thousands of children and adults who suffer from lung-related disease. "More than 150,000 Hawaii residents are afflicted with one or more of these diseases pediatric and adult asthma, chronic bronchitis and emphysema," Yee said. "Each of them is potentially at risk from particulate pollution, and the American Lung Association of Hawaii therefore continues to seek restrictions on the excessive use of fireworks at New Year's." Yee said that the ALAH is engaged in attempts to curtail the annual New Year's fireworks pollution because of the threat it poses to public health. 1.5.2007 Source: American Lung Association of Hawaii (http://www.alahawaii.org/_library/documents/air%20quality /sota%202007%20relea e%20%20final.pdf) 2. A study by NGO Toxics Link has found significant quantity of poisonous heavy metals like lead and cadmium in the composition of firecrackers. The fumes contain oxides of sulphur, phosphorous, nitrogen and carbon, which are highly harmful, it says. "The oxides come into contact with moisture while passing from nostrils to the lungs and form acids, which cause immense damage to the body," says Ravi Agarwal, director, Toxics Link. No wonder, cases of asthma and bronchitis rise by 35 per cent during this season, says Dr Gupta. "Patients of asthma and
349
allergies increase their medicine intake during Diwali. Same is the case with bronchitis patients," he says. Health Impacts: An increase in air pollution by six to ten times on Diwali in terms of SPM, nitrogen oxides (Nox), sulphur dioxide (SO2), etc. An increase in noise pollution above 125 decibel (dB), which is above the tolerable limits, and can cause deafness. An increase in incidents of respiratory diseases such as acute bouts of asthma, bronchitis and heart attacks. Source: Factsheet Published by Toxics Link, 01/09/2000 (http://toxicslink.org/pub-view.php?pubnum=73)
350

APPENDIX F
RCB-NextGenPMS - Carbon Footprint Mitigation Program for DLF IPL 2010
351
APPENDIX F IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
APPENDIX F RCB-NextGenPMS - Carbon Footprint Mitigation Program for IPL 2010
352
APPENDIX F IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
RCB-NextGen DLF IPL 2010 Carbon Footprint Mitigation Program
353

APPENDIX G
IPL Greening Program - UNEP Recommendations for IPL 2011 Prepared by Dr. Hartmut Stahl
354
APPENDIX G IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
APPENDIX G
355
356
357
APPENDIX H
IPL Greening Program - Indicative Roadmap
358
APPENDIX H IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report
APPENDIX H
IPL Greening Program - Indicative Roadmap
Move towards Carbon Neutral IPL and beyond to IPL as Carbon Sink
359

Carbon Footprint 300 PP CB IPL 2010

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Carbon Footprint 300 PP CB IPL 2010

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 CARBON FOOTPRINT MEASUREMENT REALISE Project Report

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

I n t r o d u c t i o n IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

I n t r o d u c t i o n IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

I n t r o d u c t i o n IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

I n t r o d u c t i o n IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

I n t r o d u c t i o n IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

I n t r o d u c t i o n IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

3.0 PROJECT GOALS

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

P r o j e c t G o a l s IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

P r o j e c t S c o p e IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

P r o j e c t S c o p e IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

P r o j e c t S c o p e IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

P r o j e c t S c o p e IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

P r o j e c t S c o p e IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

P r o j e c t S c o p e IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

P r o j e c t S c o p e IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Table 2 Stakeholder Boundary Summary

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

P r o j e c t S c o p e IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Table 2 Stakeholder Boundary Summary

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

P r o j e c t S c o p e IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

P r o j e c t S c o p e IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

P r o j e c t S c o p e IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

R e s e a r c h M e t h o d o l o g y IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

R e s e a r c h M e t h o d o l o g y IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

R e s e a r c h M e t h o d o l o g y IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

R e s e a r c h M e t h o d o l o g y IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

R e s e a r c h M e t h o d o l o g y IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

R e s e a r c h M e t h o d o l o g y IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.

R e s e a r c h M e t h o d o l o g y IPL Greening Program DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report