Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and

Land Management Practices

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

September 2009
Legal Note

This document contains information designed to be useful and helpful to governments, the public, and the regulated

community. This document does not impose legally binding requirements, nor does it confer legal rights, impose legal

obligations, or implement any statutory or regulatory provisions. This document does not restrict, expand or otherwise

change EPA's authority to address greenhouse gas emissions under existing statutes. This document does not change or

substitute for any statutory or regulatory provisions. This document presents technical information based on EPA’s current

understanding of the link between global climate change and materials and land use management programs. Finally, this is

a living document and may be revised periodically without public notice.  

The EPA welcomes public comments on this document at any time and will consider those comments  

in any future revisions of this document.
Table of Contents

Executive Summary............................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction............................................................................................................................................................1

Understanding U.S. GHG Emissions....................................................................................................................2

Looking Forward....................................................................................................................................................5

Section 1  Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 6

Section 2 Understanding U.S. GHG Emissions ................................................................................... 10

Sector‐Based View of U.S. GHG Emissions.......................................................................................................10

Systems‐Based View of U.S. GHG Emissions ...................................................................................................11

Materials Management .....................................................................................................................................12

Land Management..............................................................................................................................................13

Other.....................................................................................................................................................................16

Summary...............................................................................................................................................................18

Section 3 Potential GHG Reductions Through Materials and Land Management............................... 19

Reducing GHG Emissions through Materials Management Practices.........................................................19

Potential GHG Emissions Reductions from Materials Management...........................................................22

Reducing or Avoiding GHG Emissions through Land Management Practices............................................23

Potential GHG Emissions Reduced or Avoided from Land Management....................................................26

Section 4  Looking Forward................................................................................................................ 28

Appendix A  

Technical Support  for Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials

and Land Management Practices.......................................................................................A‐1
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Executive Summary

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has determined that “warming of the climate system

is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean

temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.”1 The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed that climate change is primarily the result of

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, its effects will worsen over time in the absence of regulatory action,

and the overall rate and magnitude of human‐induced climate change will likely increase, such that

risks to public health and welfare will likewise grow over time so that future generations will be

especially vulnerable; their vulnerability will include potentially catastrophic harms.2  

To respond to the risk associated with climate change, this document describes the link between

climate change and the materials and land management programs carried out by EPA’s Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), and its federal, regional, state, tribal, community, and other

public and private partners. The purpose of this document is two‐fold. First, in order to increase

understanding of the link between materials and land management and GHG emissions, this document

presents an estimate of the portion of U.S. GHG emissions associated with materials and land

management practices. Second, it presents a set of materials and land management scenarios—

referred to as total technical potential scenarios—as a first step to identifying areas of opportunity for

EPA and its partners to reduce GHG emissions through materials and land management.  

Introduction

OSWER and its partners implement environmental programs that are broadly categorized into three

areas: materials management through resource conservation and recovery; land management through

prevention of contaminant releases and cleanup and reuse of contaminated sites; and emergency

response and preparedness. These three program areas all have direct impacts on communities across

the United States. Materials management refers to how we manage material resources as they flow

through the economy, from extraction or harvest of materials and food (e.g., mining, forestry, and

agriculture), production and transport of goods, provision of services, reuse of materials, and, if

necessary, disposal. EPA promotes materials management approaches that serve human needs by

using and reusing resources productively and sustainably throughout their life cycles, minimizing both

the amount of materials involved and the associated environmental impacts. Land management refers

to how we manage and use land to provide open space and habitat, food, natural resources, and

places for people to live, work, and recreate. EPA promotes integrated land management strategies

that use land as productively and sustainably as possible by preventing and minimizing the occurrence

of contamination and cleaning up, reusing, and restoring contaminated land for beneficial reuse. EPA’s

emergency response and preparedness programs will have a key role in adapting to the environmental

changes spurred by climate change.

How we manage our materials and land—two of OSWER’s three core program areas—has a significant

impact on U.S. GHG emissions and sinks. Strategies for reducing emissions through materials and land

management also have substantial environmental and economic co‐benefits for communities.

 

1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). p. 30. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment‐

report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf 2 Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Proposed Rule. 74 Fed.

Reg. 18886‐18910. April 24, 2009.

1
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Additionally, unlike many GHG mitigation options, materials and land management are heavily

influenced by states and communities. Working with its partners, EPA can leverage its materials and

land management programs to achieve measurable GHG reductions while yielding multiple

environmental, human health, and economic benefits for communities and the nation. This document

promotes the recognition that materials and land management programs, while complementing other

EPA program goals, can also produce significant climate change mitigation benefits.  

Understanding U.S. GHG Emissions

The United States annually reports its GHG emissions in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas

Emissions and Sinks (“the Inventory”).3 This report quantifies the country’s primary anthropogenic

sources and sinks of GHG emissions based on comprehensive and detailed methodologies consistent

with international guidance that enables parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC) to compare the relative contribution of different emission sources and GHGs

to climate change. The information in the Inventory is often summarized by apportioning emissions to

economic sectors. This sector‐based view of data in the Inventory is important for framing a range of

GHG emissions mitigation strategies, including end‐of‐pipe strategies for reducing emissions and

technology substitutions within a sector.

To better understand and describe the connections between materials and land management and

climate change, this report presents a systems‐based view of U.S. GHG emissions, where each system

represents and comprises all the parts of the economy working to fulfill a particular need. For example,

the provision of food system includes all emissions from the electric power, transportation, industrial,

and agricultural sectors associated with growing, processing, transporting, and disposing of food. The

systems view is helpful for framing opportunities to reduce GHG emissions through prevention‐

oriented mitigation strategies that act across an entire system. The systems are selected to illustrate

the GHG emissions associated with materials and land management, as shown in Figure ES‐1. Appendix

A provides the methodology used for this analysis, including key assumptions and references for

source data.  

Combined, materials management is associated with an estimated 42% of total U.S. GHG emissions

and land management is associated with an estimated 16% of total U.S. GHG emissions. Based on a

preliminary estimate provided in this report, GHG emissions from greenfield development are

equivalent to approximately an additional 4% of total U.S. emissions.4 The land‐based carbon sink

reported in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks has been included in this figure

to help convey the effect land management has on U.S. emissions and sinks. The land‐based carbon

sink is equivalent to 13% of 2006 U.S. GHG emissions.5

  

Figure ES‐1 shows the relative magnitude of the emissions associated with materials and land

management. By allocating the emissions reported in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

 

3 U.S. EPA. 2008. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2006. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginv_archive.html.  This report relies on the Inventory data published in 2008; a more recent

version, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2007, was published in 2009 and can be found at

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. 4

 Emissions from greenfield development are not calculated in the U.S. Inventory, but this estimate may overlap with existing land sink value. 5 U.S. EPA. 2008. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2006. p. ES‐14. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginv_archive.html

2
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

and Sinks by system, the impact of decisions related to materials and land management on the

country’s total GHG emissions and sinks is evident.

Figure ES-1 

Systems-Based View of U.S. GHG Emissions (2006) 

This figure presents the U.S. GHG emissions data reported in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, allocated to 

systems, and by materials and land management, as described in Appendix A. Emissions from U.S. territories are not included in this figure.

Entire circle: Gross U.S. Emissions 

Inner portion of circle: Net U.S. Emissions 

* The Land Sink, represented by the outer ring, offset the equivalent of 13% of total U.S. anthropogenic emissions in 2006. It is graphically represented here

as a semi-transparent ring that erases a portion of emissions from all other slices shown in the pie chart. The entire pie chart represents total U.S. 

emissions in 2006; once the offset provided by the Land Sink is applied, the inner portion of the pie chart represents net U.S. emissions. 

** Greenfield development represents emissions from land clearing (equivalent to roughly 4% of U.S. emissions in 2006); this calculation is not included in 

the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, and is therefore depicted outside of the pie chart. It may include some overlap with the 

existing land sink value. 

Potential GHG Reductions through Materials and Land Management

Significant GHG emission reductions have been achieved to date in the United States by EPA, states,

local governments, and stakeholders through numerous materials and land management‐related

activities.6 Selected examples include:

• In 2006, U.S. municipal solid waste (MSW) recycling resulted in the avoidance of nearly 183

million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E) in GHG emissions.7

  

• In 2006, waste‐to‐energy recovery systems combusted MSW and resulted in the avoidance of 17

MMTCO2E in GHG emissions.8

• In 2005, EPA’s WasteWise partners reported source reduction and recycling activities that

resulted in the avoidance of 27 MMTCO2E in GHG emissions.9

 

6 The following tools were used to calculate the selected examples of GHG emissions reductions, in addition to the data sources referenced for each

example below: U.S. EPA. March 2009. Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator;  U.S. EPA. September 2008. WAste Reduction Model (WARM); and

Fogt, Robert. 2008. Online Conversion Tool for Energy.    7

    U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. November 2007. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United

States: Facts and Figures for 2006, p. 1‐8.   8

   Ibid. 9

   U.S. EPA. October 2006. WasteWise 2006 Annual Report. p. 1. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waste/partnerships/wastewise/pubs/report06.pdf

3
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

To help illustrate the potential for GHG reduction and avoidance opportunities from materials and land

management practices, this analysis includes several “total technical potential” scenarios. Box ES‐1

summarizes these scenarios and Appendix A describes the analytical methodology, assumptions, and

data sources used to calculate the potential impacts for these hypothetical changes in materials and

land management practices.

The term total technical potential refers to the estimated GHG emission reduction that could occur if

the scenarios presented are achieved, setting aside economic, institutional, or technological

limitations. Such scenarios, which are a common first step in climate policy analysis, allow for the

examination of the GHG reduction potential of various mitigation strategies contained in those

scenarios. These total technical potential scenarios are useful for scoping the order‐of‐magnitude

impact of an activity and identifying areas of promise for more detailed analysis and potential activity.

They also illustrate how changes in behavior can lead directly to significant reductions of GHG

emissions on a national scale.  

The total technical potential scenarios presented here represent early analysis based on existing and

available data. As more analysis is completed, total technical potential scenarios can be generated for a

greater number of materials and land management approaches.

Box ES-1: Summary of Total Technical Potential Scenarios 

Source Reduction Estimated GHG 

Emission Benefit* 

Reduce packaging use by: 50% 40—105 MMTCO2E/yr 

25% 20—50 MMTCO2E/yr 

Reduce use of non-packaging paper products by:10 50% 20—70 MMTCO2E/yr 

25% 10—35 MMTCO2E/yr 

Extend the life of personal computers by: 50% 25 MMTCO2E/yr 

25% 15 MMTCO2E/yr 

Reuse/Recycling 

Increase recycling of construction and demolition debris to: 100% 150 MMTCO2E/yr 

50% 75 MMTCO2E/yr 

25% 40 MMTCO2E/yr 

Increase national municipal solid waste (MSW) recycling and composting rate from 2006 rate (32.5%) to: 100% 300 MMTCO2E/yr 

50% 70—80 MMTCO2E/yr 

Increase composting of food scraps from 2006 rate (2%) to: 100% 20 MMTCO2E/yr 

50% 10 MMTCO2E/yr 

25% 5 MMTCO2E/yr 

Energy Recovery / Disposal 

Combust percentage of currently landfilled MSW: 100% 70—120 MMTCO2E/yr 

50% 35—60 MMTCO2E/yr 

25% 20—30 MMTCO2E/yr 

Combust MSW remaining if national recycling rate is increased to 50%: 65—110 MMTCO2E/yr 

Capture percentage of currently emitted methane at U.S. landfills for electricity generation: 100% 150 MMTCO2E/yr 

50% 70 MMTCO2E/yr 

25% 35 MMTCO2E/yr 

 

10   Non‐packaging paper products include magazines and third class mail, newspaper, office paper, phonebooks, and textbooks.

4
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

5

Box ES-1: Summary of Total Technical Potential Scenarios 

Land Revitalization Estimated GHG 

Emission Benefit* 

Shift 60% of expected new development to compact development patterns:11 79 MMTCO2E/yr 

Reuse percentage of qualifying EPA-tracked contaminated land for utility-scale solar:12 100% 2,200 MMTCO2E/yr 

50% 1,100 MMTCO2E/yr 

25% 540 MMTCO2E/yr 

Reuse percentage of qualifying EPA-tracked contaminated land for community and utility-scale 100% 40 MMTCO2E/yr 

wind:13 50% 20 MMTCO2E/yr 

25% 10 MMTCO2E/yr 

100% 0.4 MMTCO2E/yr 

50% 0.2 MMTCO2E/yr 

Reduce electricity use for the most energy-intensive treatment technologies at National Priorities List

sites by:

25% 0.1 MMTCO2E/yr 

Reforest percentage of qualifying former mine lands for carbon sequestration: 100% 4 MMTCO2E/yr 

50% 2 MMTCO2E/yr 

25% 1 MMTCO2E/yr 

* Most of the total technical potential scenarios presented in this table have been rounded to one significant figure. See following Appendix A for more 

detail on these estimates.

Looking Forward

There is a strong link between U.S. GHG emissions and the management of materials and land. EPA,

along with its partners, can help address the challenges of global climate change through materials and

land management programs. As we develop programs and policies with our partners, more detailed

studies that account for both the limitations and opportunities of economic, technical, and policy

aspects of the scenarios introduced in this paper will be needed.

 

11 Expected annual benefit through 2030. 12 The 100% scenario represents 141 times the projected increase in solar power between 2008 and 2030.  See Appendix for more detail. 13 The 100% scenario represents 75% of projected increase in wind power between 2008 and 2030. See Appendix for more detail.
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION   

Climate change is a serious global challenge. Atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations have

increased significantly from pre‐industrial levels as a result of human activities. Warming of the climate

system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean

temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. 14 Furthermore,

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed that climate change is primarily the

result of GHG emissions, its effects will worsen over time in the absence of regulatory action and the

overall rate and magnitude of human‐induced climate change will likely increase, such that risks to

public health and welfare will likewise grow over time so that future generations will be especially

vulnerable; their vulnerability will include potentially catastrophic harms.15

A growing body of literature discusses potential impacts of climate change and the means to adapt to

these changes. It is predicted that “even where regions on the whole may be able to successfully adapt

to a limited climate change, specific individuals and communities could still be displaced and harmed

by climate change.” 16 Of particular concern are those communities that have strong ties and

associations with specific areas and resources that are exposed and sensitive to climate change (e.g.,

through sea‐level rise, increased drought, extreme heat), derive a share of their income from climate

sensitive activities such as agriculture or fishing, and lack financial and other means to adapt.17 Arctic

communities, for example, are already adapting to climate change, but both internal and external

stressors challenge their adaptive capacity.18  

The U.S. federal government has implemented programs to slow the growth of GHG emissions,

strengthen science, technology and institutions, and enhance international cooperation. Since the

early 1990s, the federal government has promoted voluntary and incentive‐based programs to reduce

emissions and established programs to advance climate technology and science. These programs focus

on energy efficiency, renewable energy, methane and other non‐carbon dioxide gases, agricultural

practices, and implementation of technologies to achieve GHG reductions. In April 2009 the EPA

Administrator proposed to find that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be

anticipated to endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of Section 202(a) of the Clean

Air Act. The Administrator further proposed to find that the combined emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and

HFCs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric

concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change.19  EPA has

also proposed to require GHG emissions reporting by large emitters and announced plans to propose

 

14 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). pp. 30, 74, 189. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment‐

report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf 15 Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Proposed Rule. 74 Fed.

Reg. 18886‐18910. April 24, 2009. 16 Easterling, William, Hurd, Brian, and Smith, Joel. 2004. Coping with Global Climate Change: The Role of Adaptation in the United States. Pew Center

on Global Climate Change. 17 Ibid. 18   Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for Policymakers in Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. p. 15.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 19 Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Proposed Rule. 74 Fed.

Reg. 18886‐18910. April 24, 2009.

6
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

GHG emissions standards for all new cars and light‐duty trucks (model years 2012‐2016) sold in the

United States.20

Through its materials management and land cleanup programs, EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and

Emergency Response (OSWER) is an important partner in addressing climate change and reducing U.S.

GHG emissions and has a community‐level perspective on the response to climate change.  

OSWER and its regional, state, tribal, community, and other public and private partners implement

environmental programs that are authorized by a number of federal statutes with a range of objectives

to support communities and protect human health and the environment. These programs can be

broadly categorized into three areas:  

• Materials management, through resource conservation and recovery, waste prevention, and

safe waste disposal;

• Land management through activities that prevent pollutant releases, and encourage cleanup

and reuse of contaminated and potentially contaminated sites; and

• Emergency response to, and preparedness for, contaminant releases and other threats to

public health.  

How we manage our materials and land—two of OSWER’s three core areas—has a significant impact

on U.S. GHG emissions and sinks.21 People produce GHG emissions through a wide array of activities

and across multiple locations, including the goods and services we consume, the homes in which we

live, the buildings where we work, the transportation of ourselves and our goods from place to place,

and the materials we discard. Meanwhile, energy consumption, materials use, municipal waste

generation, and land development rates have all outpaced population growth over the last several

decades in the United States, contributing to the impact of these activities.22, , , 23 24 25 There are

significant opportunities to reduce or avoid GHG emissions by improving our nation’s materials and

land management practices; these approaches complement and support end‐of‐pipe controls, sector‐

based and other mitigation strategies.  

Materials management refers to how we manage material resources as they flow through the

economy, from extraction or harvest of materials and food (e.g., mining, forestry, and agriculture),

production and transport of goods, provision of services, reuse of materials, and, if necessary, disposal.

EPA promotes materials management approaches that serve human needs sustainably by minimizing

the amount of materials involved and their associated environmental impacts.26  

 

20 See e.g., Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Proposed Rule.

74 Fed. Reg. 18886‐18910 (April 24, 2009).  Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking to Establish Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards and CAFE Standards,

74 Fed. Reg. 24007 (May 22, 2009). 21 Emergency response and preparedness will be a central part of the response to climate change, but is not the focus of this document. 22 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Energy Consumption, Expenditures, and  Emissions Indicators, 1949‐2007.

Table 1.5 Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0105.html 23 University of Michigan, Center for Sustainable Studies. 2002. U.S. Materials Use Factsheet. Available at: http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS05‐

18.pdf 24 U.S. EPA. 2006. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. p. ES‐1. Available at:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/SWMGHGreport.html   25 Kolankiewicz and Beck. 2001. Weighing Sprawl Factors in Large U.S. Cities: Analysis of U.S. Bureau of the Census

Data on the 100 Largest Urbanized Areas of the United States. Available at: http://www.sprawlcity.org/studyUSA 26 U.S. EPA. 2003. Beyond RCRA: Waste and Materials Management in the Year 2020.  Available at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/vision.pdf.  

“Sustainable Materials Management:  The Road Ahead” builds on this report and is scheduled to be published in Fall 2009  

7
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Using materials management approaches to help reduce or avoid GHG emissions is consistent with

EPA’s vision and many of the strategies to increase the efficient and sustainable use of resources and

reduce waste generation are described in Beyond RCRA: Waste and Materials Management in the Year

2020. Some of the strategies include reducing the amount of materials used to make products or

perform services and influencing product design, use, and reuse capabilities to minimize raw material

inputs, extend product life spans, and maximize the ease and frequency of subsequent product

disassembly, recycling, and/or transformation for further productive use.27 In addition to increasing

material efficiency and reducing waste, materials management activities have the potential to

significantly reduce GHG emissions, as described in the following sections.

Land management is a term used to describe separate or integrated strategies that influence how we

manage and use land to provide open space and habitat, food, natural resources, and places for people

to live, work, and recreate. For example, land management includes the practices of developing land

and managing land for agricultural and forestry purposes. The way we manage our land directly

influences GHG emissions related to agriculture, the built environment (e.g., residential and

commercial emissions), electricity use, and transportation.  

The concept of land management links directly to EPA’s vision of preventing land contamination, in

part, by encouraging smart growth,28 improving chemical and waste management to prevent

contamination, restoring contaminated and potentially contaminated land for reuse by society, and

encouraging the sustainable reuse of property. Some land management approaches can also yield GHG

emission reductions or can protect the carbon sink provided by U.S. land, which is further described in

Section 2.  

By taking advantage of opportunities presented by materials and land management, EPA and its

partners can contribute to a reduction or avoidance of GHG emissions as well as improvement to

public health and the environment.  

Leveraging OSWER programs to achieve measurable climate change benefits in no way replaces or

supersedes other OSWER program goals. Rather, this document promotes the recognition that

materials and land management programs have significant climate benefits while yielding positive

environmental, economic, and societal co‐benefits in communities across the country.

In the case of materials management, the majority of GHG reduction benefits from recycling or waste

prevention come from the energy savings from avoided resource extraction and materials

processing.29 This energy savings carries co‐benefits of improvements in local air quality. Similarly, the

conservation of raw material reduces environmental degradation and water pollution from mining,

logging, and oil extraction.  

 

Materials management options often also have economic benefits for communities. For example,

recycling a ton of material creates many more jobs than sending the same material to a landfill

27 Ibid.   28 For more information on the definition of smart growth, including the ten basic principles of smart growth, and smart growth approaches, refer to:

http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth. 29 U.S. EPA. 2006. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life‐Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. Available at:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/SWMGHGreport.html

8
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

because of the labor required to collect, sort, and process the recyclables.30 Recycling, reuse,

deconstruction, and remanufacturing shift the value added in the economy from highly mechanized,

environmentally harmful extraction industries, to labor‐intensive, local industries.31,32  

Land management options to reduce emissions also have many co‐benefits. A number of studies have

shown substantial beneficial effects of brownfields redevelopment for local communities, including job

creation, increased property values, tax revenues for local governments, preservation of greenspace,

and social benefits.33,34 Other research has shown that brownfields redevelopment, as a component of

urban redevelopment, reduces local vehicle miles traveled and is associated with lower building energy

use,35 both of which lead to improvements in urban air quality in addition to GHG reductions.  

The co‐benefits to communities of materials and land management strategies make them attractive as

GHG reduction options. Unlike many GHG mitigation options, they are also largely under state and

local influence. States and communities can use these tools to reduce their carbon footprints and meet

state or local GHG reduction targets.  

The purpose of this document, Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials

and Land Management Practices, is to increase the understanding of how materials and land

management practices relate to GHG emissions and show a new way of thinking about materials and

land management as part of the solution to the climate change. This document presents EPA’s

research to date. As we develop programs and policies with our partners, more detailed studies that

account for economic, technical, and institutional limitations and opportunities will be needed. In

addition, we will share information on the mitigation impacts of current materials and land

management programs on GHG emissions and ultimately develop more specific approaches to

implement materials and land management activities that could achieve GHG emission reductions.

The remainder of this document is organized into the following sections. Section 2 presents annual

GHG emissions in the United States using two approaches. The sector‐based approach allocates

emissions to economic or end‐use sectors including the electric power industry, transportation,

industry, agriculture, commercial, and residential sectors. The systems‐based approach relies on the

same data, but apportions emissions to materials management, land management, and other systems

to demonstrate the potential impact materials and land management have on total U.S. emissions.

Section 3 presents research into the potential GHG reductions that could be achieved through a

number of materials and land management approaches. Section 4 summarizes the report and

describes the direction that future research may take. Finally, the document appendix (Technical

Support for Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land

Management Practices) presents the data sources and methodology used to develop this report.

 

30 ETAAC. Recommendation of the Economic and Technology Advancement and Advisory Committee (ETAAC). California Air Resources Board. February,

2008. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/etaac/ETAACFinalReport2‐11‐08.pdf 31 Northeast Recycling Council. “Recycling Economic Information Study Update: Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania.”

February, 2009.   32 Institute for Local Self Reliance. “Waste to Wealth.” Accessed July, 2009. Available: http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/recyclingmeansbusiness.html     33 Wernstedt, Kris. 2004. “Overview of Existing Studies on Community Impacts of Land Reuse.” National Center for Environmental Economics Working

Paper #04‐06. U.S. EPA. 34 Paull, Evans. 2008. “The Environmental and Economic Impacts of Brownfields Redevelopment.” Northeast‐Midwest Institute. Available at:

http://www.nemw.org/images/stories/documents/EnvironEconImpactsBFRedev.pdf 35 Paull, Evans. 2008; updated June 11, 2009. “Energy Benefits of Urban Infill, Brownfields, and Sustainable Urban Development: A Working Paper.”

Available at: http://www.nemw.org/images/stories/documents/energy_benefits_infill_brfds_final_12‐08.pdf

9
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

SECTION 2   

UNDERSTANDING U.S. GHG EMISSIONS

The United States annually reports its GHG emissions in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas

Emissions and Sinks.

36 The Inventory comprehensively quantifies our country’s primary anthropogenic

sources and sinks of GHG emissions using methodologies developed by the International Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC), in accordance with United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) national inventory reporting guidelines, and allows a comparison of the relative contribution

of different emission sources and gases to climate change. In 2006, the United States had total

emissions of 7,054 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E) from a wide range of

sources.  

SECTOR‐BASED VIEW OF U.S. GHG EMISSIONS

In addition to a detailed accounting of emissions by source category, the information in the Inventory

is also summarized by economic sector. In 2006, 34% of emissions were allocated to the Electric Power

Industry, 28% to Transportation, 19% to Industry, 8% to Agriculture, 6% to Commercial, and 5% to

Residential (see Figure 1).37  

Figure 1 

Sector-Based View of U.S. GHG Emissions (2006) 

This figure reflects data from the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006 (U.S. EPA, 2008), Table 2-12. This 

figure excludes emissions from U.S. territories, which are not allocated to economic sectors. 

 

36 U.S. EPA. 2008. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2006. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginv_archive.html.  This report relies on the Inventory data published in 2008; a more recent

version, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2007, was published in 2009 and can be found at

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. 37 Emissions from U.S. territories are categorized as a separate sector, totaling 1% of total U.S. emissions; because these emissions are not allocated to

economic sectors, they are not described here. U.S. EPA. 2008. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2006. Executive

Summary, Table ES‐7: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Allocated to Economic Sectors (Tg CO2 Eq.) Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginv_archive.html

10
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

A sector‐based view of emissions, because it describes where emissions are released, can be helpful for

framing end‐of‐pipe strategies, such as carbon capture and sequestration at power plants or biofuel

substitution in vehicles. It is also helpful for framing technology substitutions that affect a particular

sector, such as hybrid‐electric vehicle engines or solar electricity generation.  

A sector‐based view of emissions, however, does not show the role that materials and land

management play in GHG emissions. The emissions associated with the goods we create and consume,

for example, are embedded in portions of the Industry (e.g., mining and manufacturing), Electric Power

Industry (e.g., electricity use), Commercial (e.g. disposal of wastes), and Transportation (e.g., freight)

sectors. The emissions related to how and where we develop land are associated with the

Transportation (e.g., vehicle miles traveled), Residential (e.g., subdivision development), Commercial

(e.g., building construction), and Electric Power Industry (e.g., electricity use) slices of the pie chart in

Figure 1.  

SYSTEMS‐BASED VIEW OF U.S. GHG EMISSIONS

To better understand and describe the connections between materials and land management and

climate change, Figure 2 shows U.S. GHG emissions using a systems‐based perspective. This

perspective groups major GHG emission sources by system, where each system represents and

comprises multiple parts of the economy that work together to fulfill a particular need. For example,

the Provision of Food system includes emissions from the Electric Power Industry, Transportation,

Industry, and Agriculture sectors associated with growing, processing, transporting, and disposing of food.  

Figure 2 

Systems-Based View of U.S. GHG Emissions (2006) 

This figure reflects the same GHG emissions data shown in Figure 1, using a systems-based approach, as described in Appendix A.

Emissions from U.S. Territories are not included in this figure. 

Figure 2 shows the same 2006 GHG emissions that are shown in Figure 1, but allocates the emissions

into systems that have been selected to help illustrate the GHG emissions associated with materials

and land management: Provision of Food, Provision of Goods, Infrastructure, Local Passenger

11
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Transport, Other Passenger Transport, Building Heating, Ventilation, Air‐Conditioning (HVAC) and

Lighting, and Use of Appliances and Devices.38 This is helpful for framing opportunities to reduce GHG

emissions through prevention‐oriented mitigation strategies that act across an entire system,

complementing the sector‐based allocation shown in Figure 1.  

Both the sector‐based and systems‐based views provide critically important insights for successful

climate mitigation strategies.  

Materials Management

Two of the slices in the systems‐based pie chart represent emissions related to materials management,

as shown in Figure 3: Provision of Goods and Provision of Food.39 The materials management section

of the pie chart represents U.S. emissions related to the extraction or harvest of materials (e.g., mining

forestry, and agriculture), the production and transport of goods and food, the provision of services,

and ultimately the disposal of goods and food (see Box 1). Every step in this material flow results in

environmental impacts, including GHG emissions.  

,

 

Figure 3 

Systems-Based View of U.S. GHG Emissions (2006): 

Highlighting Materials Management 

This figure reflects the GHG emissions data shown in Figure 1, using a systems-based approach, as described in Appendix A. 

Emissions from U.S. Territories are not included in this figure. 

The Provision of Goods slice of the pie chart represents the emissions associated with the goods and

services we create, transport, and dispose of on a daily basis. It is composed of a portion of emissions

from all economic sectors in Figure 1, except Agriculture. Its components include most of the direct

emissions from the industrial sector (with some exceptions, such as food and fuel processing40),

38 See Appendix A for a detailed description of the methodology used to develop the pie charts presented in Figures 2‐4.      39 See Appendix A for a detailed description the emissions associated with Provision of Goods and Provision of Food. 40 Some industrial sector emissions are allocated to other slices, most notably food processing emissions (allocated to Provision of Food) and most

emissions from extraction and processing of fossil fuels. Emissions from petroleum and natural gas extraction and refining, natural gas distribution,

12
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

The extraction of natural resources; the 

production, transport, and disposal of goods, 

and the provision of services account for an 

estimated 29% of 2006 U.S. anthropogenic 

GHG emissions. In addition, the production, 

transport, and disposal of food account for 13% 

of 2006 U.S. anthropogenic GHG emissions. 

Combined, materials management is 

associated with an estimated 42% of 2006 

U.S. anthropogenic GHG emissions. 

 

emissions from industrial sector electricity use (with the same

exceptions), transport of non‐food goods (freight), landfill

methane, substitution of ozone‐depleting substances,

industrial wastewater treatment, and residential soil fertilizer.

In total, the Provision of Goods is estimated to account for

2,040 MMTCO2E, or 29%, of 2006 U.S. GHG emissions.41  

Box 1: Impact of Materials Management 

on U.S. GHG Emissions

The Provision of Food slice of the pie chart represents

emissions associated with food production, processing,

transport, and disposal, and is composed of a portion of

emissions from all economic sectors except Residential. It

includes direct emissions from agricultural sources, agricultural  

sector electricity use, transport of food‐related products (freight), wastewater treatment (except for

emissions from pulp and paper manufacturing and ethanol production), the consumption of fuel and

electricity in food and beverage processing, leaks of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) from refrigeration

equipment, and composting. Carbon sequestration on agricultural lands is captured in the land sink

discussed below. Provision of Food is estimated to account for 895 MMTCO2E, or 13%, of 2006 U.S.

GHG emissions.42  

Note that the U.S. GHG emissions presented in Figures 1 through 5 represent emissions that are

released domestically. Emissions associated with goods and services that are produced in other

countries (i.e., emissions associated with extraction of raw materials, processing, and production of

goods and services outside the United States) but consumed in the United States are not captured in

the U.S. Inventory, and therefore are not reflected here. Correspondingly, the emissions associated

with goods and services produced in the United States that are exported for consumption in other

countries are included. Many materials management strategies reduce emissions from production of

goods outside the United States, but those potential reductions are not reflected in this document. If

U.S. emissions were calculated using a total life cycle perspective, based on goods and services

consumed rather than produced in the United States, the emissions associated with materials

management would be greater than is shown due to the large quantity of goods that are imported.43

Land Management

The systems‐based view also helps convey the effect land management has on U.S. GHG emissions. The

land management portion of the pie chart shown in Figure 4 represents the emissions and sinks

associated with land management activities in the United States, including emissions and sinks

associated with the preservation of greenfields and changes to land use and land management, including

land development, reuse, and restoration.  

and coal mining were allocated according to their end use in terms of transportation or electricity use. A large share of petroleum refining emissions

is allocated to Local Passenger Transport, for example.    41 See Appendix A for an itemized breakdown of emissions associated with the Provision of Goods. 42 See Appendix A for an itemized breakdown of emissions associated with the Provision of Food. 43 Weber, Christopher L. and H. Scott Matthews. 2007. Emissions Embodied in U.S. International Trade. Environmental. Science and Technology. Vol. 41,

No. 14. July 15, 2007. pp. 4875‐4881.

13
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Entire circle: Gross U.S. Emissions 

Inner portion of circle: Net U.S. Emissions 

Figure 4 

Systems-Based View of U.S. GHG Emissions (2006): 

Highlighting Land Management 

This figure shows the same systems-based GHG emissions allocations as Figures 2 and 3, plus a depiction of the carbon sink provided 

by U.S. land and emissions from greenfield development, as described in Appendix A. 

* The Land Sink, represented by the outer ring, offset the equivalent of 13% of total U.S. anthropogenic emissions in 2006. It is graphically represented 

here as a semi-transparent ring that erases a portion of emissions from all other slices shown in the pie chart. The entire pie chart represents total 

U.S. emissions in 2006; once the offset provided by the Land Sink is applied, the inner portion of the pie chart represents net U.S. emissions. 

** Greenfield development represents emissions from land clearing (equivalent to roughly 4% of U.S. emissions in 2006); this calculation is not included 

in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, and is therefore depicted outside of the pie chart. It may include some overlap with the

existing land sink value. 

Land management emissions and sinks are depicted as four elements in the systems‐based pie chart.

The emissions sink provided by soil and growing vegetation in the United States is depicted as the

outer ring of the pie chart (Land Sink). Also, there are two slices in the pie chart associated with land

management: Infrastructure, which consists of life cycle GHG emissions from constructing and

maintaining roads and water infrastructure, and Local Passenger Transport. Finally, an estimate of the

emissions associated with Greenfield Development is depicted as a floating pie slice. Further

description of these pie chart elements follows.

The Land Sink, shown as the outer ring in Figure 4, represents the amount of total U.S. emissions that

are offset by the amount of carbon that is absorbed by soil and vegetation in the United States. The

United States is among the top four countries in the world in terms of land mass. This land mass

enables the storage and active absorption of carbon44 in the soil, vegetation, and ground litter cover

and is referred to as the Land Sink or land‐based carbon sink in this document.  

The amount of carbon dioxide equivalent that is stored by the land‐based carbon sink is reported in the

annual Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks as a negative number because it offsets

 

44 Carbon sequestration is the process by which ambient CO2 is absorbed and stored by vegetation, or other means, and removed from the

atmosphere. For additional information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/

14
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

total U.S. emissions. The carbon sink is a net number. The magnitude given for the sink is net of two

small sources of positive emissions from land and is dominated by the negative emissions from

growing forests and net increases in forest area. We have included it in the systems‐based analysis

because it shows the scale of the land‐based carbon sink compared with total GHG emissions and the

importance of land management in carbon mitigation strategies. It is represented graphically in Figure

4 as a semi‐transparent ring that erases, or takes away, emissions from all other slices shown in the pie

chart. Therefore, the inner portion of the pie chart in Figure 4 represents net 2006 U.S. anthropogenic

emissions (6,108 MMTCO2E), while the entire pie chart represents gross 2006 U.S. emissions (6,992

MMTCO2E).45 The land‐based carbon sink stores 884 MMTCO2E, the equivalent of 13% of 2006 U.S.

anthropogenic GHG emissions (see “Land Sink” in Figure 4 and Box 2).46  

U.S. land provides a land-based carbon sink 

that absorbed approximately 884 MMTCO2E in 

2006, offsetting the equivalent of 13% of 2006 

U.S. anthropogenic GHG emissions. 

The emissions associated with infrastructure 

and local passenger transport accounts for 16% 

of 2006 U.S. anthropogenic GHG emissions. An 

additional 4% may be related to greenfield 

development. 

Combined, land management is associated 

with an estimated 16% to 20%, of 2006 U.S. 

anthropogenic emissions, and an emission 

offset equivalent to 13% of 2006 U.S. 

anthropogenic emissions. 

Box 2: Impact of Land Management on 

U.S. GHG Emissions

Infrastructure is the next element of Figure 4 associated with

land management. This slice of the pie chart represents the

emissions associated with the construction and maintenance

of infrastructure, including highways, streets, bridges,

tunnels, water, sewers, and pipelines. Infrastructure is part of

the land management system because infrastructure

construction and maintenance are intrinsically linked with

land management. Developing greenfields requires

infrastructure to connect newly developed land with existing

development. Emissions from constructing new infrastructure

can be substantially avoided by land reuse.47 This slice

includes both direct emissions from construction equipment

and indirect emissions (e.g., from the production of concrete

and the manufacturing of construction equipment used to

produce infrastructure).48  Approximately 72 MMTCO2E, or

1% of total GHG emissions are associated with Infrastructure.

The next land management element of Figure 4 is Local Passenger Transport. The country’s land

development patterns strongly influence the number of vehicle miles traveled, and therefore, the GHG

emissions from Local Passenger Transport.49 This slice represents emissions associated with short‐

distance driving of personal vehicles, which increases as the area of developed land increases, as well

as bus travel and commuter rail. The Local Passenger Transport slice of the systems‐based pie chart is

primarily composed of emissions from fuel combustion by passenger cars and light trucks making short

trips (defined as less than 50 miles), as well as local bus and light rail emissions, and emissions from

 

45 U.S. EPA. 2008. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2006. p. ES‐14. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginv_archive.html. Total and net emissions values exclude emissions from U.S. territories of 62

MMTCO2E (1%), which could not be disaggregated. 46 Ibid, p. ES‐14.   47 U.S. EPA. October 1999. The Transportation and Environmental Impacts of Infill Versus Greenfield Development: A Comparative Case Study Analysis.

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/infill_greenfield.pdf; U.S. Department of Agriculture. June 2001. Development at the Urban

Fringe and Beyond: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural Land. Agricultural Economic Report No. 803. Available at:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer803/aer803.pdf; Paull, Evans. 2008; updated June 11, 2009. “Energy Benefits of Urban Infill, Brownfields,

and Sustainable Urban Development: A Working Paper.” Available at:

http://www.nemw.org/images/stories/documents/energy_benefits_infill_brfds_final_12‐08.pdf 48 See Appendix A for more detail on how the estimate of GHG emissions from infrastructure development to newly developed greenfield was derived. 49   Ewing, R., Bartholomew, K., Winkelman, S., Walters, J., and Chen, D. 2008. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate

Change. Urban Land Institute. Washington, D.C.

15
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

extracting and processing fuels used for local passenger transport. The slice represents 1,019

MMTCO2E, or 15% of 2006 U.S. emissions.50  

The final land management element of Figure 4 is the additional slice outside the pie chart

representing Greenfield Development. Each year, millions of acres of previously undeveloped or

agricultural land (“greenfields”) are developed,51 resulting in GHG emissions from the carbon sink

provided by U.S. land and vegetation. However, the GHG emissions associated with greenfield

development are not currently calculated in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks.

Because these emissions are related directly to land cleanup, revitalization and reuse, a rough estimate

was prepared for this report. This estimate accounts for forest, grassland, and agricultural land

converted for an urban use and may include some overlap with the existing land sink value.

These emissions are shown as an additional slice outside the pie chart in Figure 4 because it represents

an initial estimate that is not included in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks and,

as calculated, would be in addition to the emissions shown in the rest of the pie chart.52 The

methodology used to develop this estimate is described in Appendix A. The preliminary estimate

indicates emissions associated with the development of greenfields are on the order of 314 MMTCO2E,

or approximately 4%, of 2006 U.S. GHG emissions.53  

Other

There are three additional systems that we have grouped under “Other” (see Figure 5). This category

includes the Use of Appliances and Devices (8%), Building HVAC and Lighting (25%) and Other

Passenger Transport (9%). While it can be argued that each of these slices are influenced by materials

or land management, many of the associated mitigation approaches have been widely explored in

other studies and are not the focus of this report. These slices are briefly described below.

 

50 See Appendix A for a detailed description the emissions associated with Local Passenger Transport. 51 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. July 2007. National Resource Inventory 2003 NRI: Land Use. Available at:

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/2003/Landuse‐mrb.pdf 52 There is also a higher degree of uncertainty associated with this estimate because it uses a rough, first pass methodology in absence of detailed

supporting data.    53 This estimate was based on methodologies and recommendations made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the 2006 IPCC

Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks also relies on this IPCC guidance. See

Appendix A for a description of the methodology used to develop the estimate for greenfield development.

16
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Figure 5 

 Systems-Based View of U.S. GHG Emissions (2006): 

Highlighting Other Emissions 

This figure shows the same systems-based allocation as Figures 2 through 4, 

highlighting the slices not associated with materials management or land management. 

Use of Appliances and Devices includes emissions resulting from the electricity and fuel used by

washing clothes, cooking, refrigeration,54 and the use of office equipment, computers, and other

appliances, as well as the industrial emissions associated with extracting and processing the associated

fossil fuels. The life cycle associated with provision of goods includes emissions from the use of

products, so it can be argued that emissions associated with this slice could be included in the

Provision of Goods and/or Provision of Food slices under materials management. We present it as a

separate slice for two reasons. First, the systems are partly chosen to represent the domain of a

particular set of prevention‐oriented mitigation opportunities. The opportunities to reduce emissions

from the Use of Appliances and Devices—through improved energy efficiency or changes in consumer

usage patterns for example—are different from most materials management opportunities discussed

in this report, which reduce waste or promote materials efficiency. Second, energy efficiency

opportunities to reduce GHG emissions have been widely explored elsewhere and this report aims to

highlight the additional materials management opportunities that are less well‐known. However, it

should be noted that materials management, understood comprehensively, includes the use phase of

products. Approximately 581 MMTCO2E, or 8% of total GHG emissions are associated with the Use of

Appliances and Devices.

 

54 Except for industrial cooking and refrigeration, which is included in Provision of Food. Includes residential and commercial sources only.

17
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

The Building HVAC and Lighting slice includes the emissions resulting from heating, cooling,

ventilation, and lighting residential and commercial buildings, as well as industrial emissions associated

with extracting and processing the associated fossil fuels.55 Emissions from Building HVAC and Lighting

are partially influenced by the type of materials and construction used in buildings, and so it can be

argued that this slice should also be included under materials management. Alternately, since land use

planning influences the types of buildings constructed and hence the energy used by them, it can also

be argued that this slice could be included under land management.  

Similar to Use of Appliances and Devices, we present it separately for two reasons. First, the kinds of

prevention‐oriented opportunities to reduce these emissions—building design which takes better

advantage of natural light and climate control, or increased energy efficiency of buildings and lighting

for example—are largely different from the types of materials and land management opportunities

described in this report, which focus on waste prevention, materials efficiency, and land reuse. Second,

opportunities to reduce GHG emissions associated with building energy use have been widely explored

elsewhere and this report aims to highlight additional opportunities from materials and land

management. However, it should be noted that materials management and land management,

understood comprehensively, include the use phase of buildings. Approximately 1,719 MMTCO2E, or

25% of total GHG emissions are associated with this slice.

Other Transportation Emissions are largely composed of emissions from long‐distance passenger

travel (90% of the remaining “other” transportation emissions), including emissions from aircraft, inter‐

city rail, inter‐city buses, cars, and light trucks making long‐distance trips, and upstream industrial

sector fossil fuel combustion. Miscellaneous emissions, primarily from military aircraft and recreational

vehicles, comprised the other 10% of this category. In all, non‐local passenger transportation

accounted for 666 MMTCO2E, or 9% of US GHG emissions in 2006.56 Land management policies have

less of an effect on non‐local transportation, which is why these emissions are presented separately.

Prevention‐oriented policies to reduce inter‐city passenger transportation include activities which shift

travel to lower‐impact modes and promote more efficient loading or movement within modes.

Summary

The systems‐based pie chart shown in Figures 2 through 5 provides a sense of the relative magnitude

of emissions associated with materials and land management. By assessing U.S. GHG emissions from a

systems perspective, it is evident that management of materials and land has a significant impact on

the nation’s total GHG emissions and sinks. As shown in Figures 3 and 4 and highlighted in Boxes 1 and

2, materials and land management activities combine to influence 58‐62% of 2006 U.S. anthropogenic

GHG emissions, while also offsetting 13% of 2006 U.S. anthropogenic GHG emissions.  

Each slice of the systems‐based pie chart presents opportunities for prevention‐ and systems‐oriented

strategies to reduce GHG emissions. Such strategies for reducing GHG emissions through materials and

land management include materials efficiency, industrial ecology, green design, land revitalization,

sustainable consumption, smart growth, pollution prevention, and design for environment.

 

55 Electricity use by commercial establishments such as supermarkets and restaurants is included in the Building HVAC and Lighting and Use of

Appliances and Devices slices of the pie chart (as opposed to Provision of Food). Energy used by industrial buildings is included in Provision of Goods

and Provision of Food. 56 Percent of total rounded down from 10% to 9%, so that percentages sum to 100% in the systems‐based pie charts.    

18
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

SECTION 3

POTENTIAL GHG REDUCTIONS THROUGH MATERIALS AND LAND MANAGEMENT

Materials and land management directly and indirectly impact 58‐62% of total U.S. GHG emissions,

and, therefore, provide many opportunities to reduce GHG emissions. This section presents some

examples of materials and land management approaches that could result in significant emission

reductions.  

REDUCING GHG EMISSIONS THROUGH MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Materials management is a term that describes how materials are managed as they flow through the

economy—from resource extraction to product design and manufacture, transport, use, reuse,

recycling, and end of life (see Figure 6). Taking a systems view of the impacts materials have

throughout their life cycle allows for analysis to answer questions such as: Where in the materials life

cycle does the greatest amount of GHG emissions occur? And where in the materials life cycle is the

greatest opportunity to reduce GHG emissions?57  

Figure 6 

Flow of Materials 

Materials management seeks the most productive use of resources and focuses broadly on impacts

and policies relating to all of the stages of material flow. By considering the impacts throughout the

entire life cycle, materials management works to reduce environmental impacts, both (1) directly at

each stage and (2) indirectly at multiple stages by reducing the amounts of materials used, and thus

reducing system‐wide environmental impacts, including GHG emissions. Through materials

management approaches, the same level of service can be provided while substantially reducing GHG

emissions.

 

57 Life cycle assessment, a technique for evaluating all environmental impacts associated with a product throughout its life cycle, can be helpful

framework in this type of systems analysis.

19
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

The waste management hierarchy is a framework that is

helpful for understanding how materials management

approaches can be used to influence materials as they flow

through the material life cycle (see Box 3).58  

Source reduction describes the practice of minimizing the

use of raw material inputs and substituting reusable and

more sustainable inputs to reduce environmental impacts

and reduce waste. This may involve modifying material

extraction and harvesting practices or improving product

design and manufacturing practices, all of which can also

significantly reduce GHG emissions.  

Improving the durability, adaptability, and potential for

products and their components to be reused can extend

product life spans, requiring less material input and

reducing waste and GHG emissions. For example,

maximizing the ease and frequency of product disassembly,

recycling, and/or transformation for further productive use can also yield significant benefits.  

Source reduction prevents the generation of waste 

and pollution. In the materials management 

framework, it is the reduction of the amount of 

materials entering the supply stream. 

Reuse is the reuse of a product by its original user 

or someone else. 

Recycling is a series of activities that includes 

collecting recyclable materials that would otherwise 

be considered waste, sorting and processing into 

raw materials such as fibers, and manufacturing raw 

materials into new products. 

Energy recovery is the process of obtaining energy 

from waste through a variety of processes (e.g., 

combustion). 

Disposal is the placement of waste on land or 

underground, including proper disposition of a 

discarded or discharged material. 

Box 3: Waste Management Hierarchy 

In the product use stage, consumers can choose products and services that minimize GHG emissions

and environmental impacts, and use those products and services in ways that minimize GHG emissions.

After using products, consumers can reuse, recycle, or dispose of them. Reusing and repurposing

products can decrease GHG emissions by avoiding the need to create new products. In addition, using

recycled materials to create new products can reduce life cycle GHG emissions. When neither reuse

nor recycling is possible and products are disposed, proper disposal practices can mitigate GHG

emissions and environmental impacts and recovery of the energy contained in materials can reduce

GHG emissions by offsetting fossil fuel combustion.59  

Throughout the material flow, using improved distribution practices to reduce transportation

requirements, and promoting the reuse and recycling of products and their components through

closed‐loop or other approaches can further reduce waste and GHG emissions.  

Significant GHG emission reductions have already been achieved in the United States by EPA, states,

local governments, and stakeholders through numerous materials management‐related activities (see

Box 4).60   

 

58 For additional information on the Waste Management Hierarchy, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non‐hw/muncpl/facts.htm. 59 U.S. EPA. 2006. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. Exhibit ES‐4 (Net GHG Emissions

from Source Reduction and MSW Management Options (MTCE/Ton)), and p. 13. Available at:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/SWMGHGreport.html 60   The GHG emissions estimates in Box 4 rely on the following data. (1) Hazardous and Non‐hazardous Waste Minimization: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response. November 2007. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures

for 2006, p. 1.  (2) Waste to Energy: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. November 2007. Municipal Solid Waste Generation,

Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2006, p. 8.  (3) EPA’s Resource Conservation Challenge: Partnership Programs,

Municipal Solid Waste, WasteWise: U.S. EPA. October 2006.  WasteWise 2006 Annual Report. p. 1. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/waste/partnerships/wastewise/pubs/report06.pdf. (4) EPA’s Resource Conservation Challenge: Partnership Programs, Green

Initiatives‐Electronics, Plug‐in to eCycling: The information is based on partner reported amounts of e‐waste recycled in 2007.  (5) EPA’s Resource

Conservation Challenge: Partnership Programs, Industrial Materials Recycling, Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2): American Coal Ash

Association. 2001. ACAA 2001 Coal Combustion Products Survey; Industrial Materials Recycling: American Coal Ash Association. 2006. ACAA 2006

20
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Box 4: Ongoing Contributions and Collaborations to Reduce GHG Emissions through Materials Management 

Green Initiatives-Electronics: Plug-in to eCycling 

In 2007, Plug-in to eCycling partners recycled or reused over 47 million pounds of electronics from consumers, resulting in 

approximately 0.13 MMTCO2E in GHG emissions avoided. 

Industrial Materials Recycling: Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2) 

Between 2001 and 2006, C2P2 helped increase the recycling of coal combustion ash from 32% to 43%, resulting in 13 MMTCO2E in 

GHG emissions avoided. 

Hazardous and Non-hazardous Waste Minimization 

The nation’s recycling rate has increased from 29% in 2000 to 32.5% in 2006. This increase is based in part on the efforts of local, 

state, and federal waste reduction programs. In 2006, U.S. municipal solid waste recycling resulted in the GHG emissions avoidance 

of nearly 183 MMTCO2E. 

Waste to Energy 

In 2006, waste-to-energy recovery systems combusted 31.4 million tons of MSW, thereby avoiding GHG emissions of 17.1 

MMTCO2E. 

EPA’s Resource Conservation Challenge: Partnership Programs 

Municipal Solid Waste: WasteWise 

In 2005, EPA’s WasteWise partners reported source reduction and recycling activities that resulted in an avoidance of 27 MMTCO2E 

in GHG emissions. 

To further illustrate some of the potential opportunities that materials management approaches

provide for reducing GHG emissions, this analysis presents several total technical potential scenarios.

Total technical potential scenarios are defined and described in Box 5.

Box 5: Total Technical Potential

These scenarios can be considered a first-step analysis for identifying areas of opportunity for EPA and its partners. As we consider 

developing programs and policies, more detailed studies that account for economic and practical limitations and opportunities will be 

needed. The scenarios suggest how to direct these future efforts to pursue options with the largest impact. Appendix A provides

additional details about the data sources, assumptions, and methodologies used to conduct these analyses. 

Such scenarios are a common first step in climate policy analysis and allow for the examination of the GHG reduction potential of 

various mitigation strategies. These total technical potential scenarios are useful for scoping the order-of-magnitude impact of an 

activity and for identifying areas of promise for more detailed analysis. These scenarios suppose a change from current U.S. businessas-usual practices and provide an estimate of the potential climate-related benefits from those changes (e.g., reduction in GHG

emissions measured in MMTCO2E). Some scenarios represent the GHG emission reduction that could be achieved in addition to 

existing materials management practices (e.g., reducing packaging by 50%), while others represent the GHG emission reduction that 

could be achieved from existing materials management practices that are enhanced (e.g., recycle 100% of construction and demolition 

debris). It should be noted that these reduction rates do not represent EPA goals or targets. 

The scenarios selected for this document represent a range of potential reductions (e.g., 0.2 to 2,200 MMTCO2E). The majority of 

hypothetical reductions are on the same order of magnitude as individual options identified in climate change mitigation analyses 

conducted by others (e.g., see McKinsey and Company, “Reducing U.S. GHG Emissions: How Much and at What Cost?” (2007)). For 

at least one of these scenarios, landfill methane capture, economic analysis has also been performed which found significant lowercost mitigation potential (e.g. U.S. EPA, “Global Mitigation of Non-CO 2 Greenhouse Gases.” Report 430-R-06-0050.). For 

consistency, only the technical potential is shown here. 

The term total technical potential refers to the estimated GHG emission reductions that would occur if the scenarios 

presented were achieved, setting aside economic, institutional, or technological limitations. 

 Coal Combustion Products Survey.  These data sources, along with the following tools, were used to calculate the GHG emissions estimates in Box 4:

U.S. EPA. March 2009. Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.  U.S. EPA. August 2008. WAste Reduction Model (WARM). Fogt, Robert. 2008. Online

Conversion Tool for Energy. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Center for Clean Products. Electronics Environmental Benefits Calculator. Version

1.1.

21
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Potential GHG Emissions Reductions from Materials Management

Because materials management is estimated to influence 42% of total 2006 U.S. GHG emissions,

improved materials management practices throughout the material flow can have a significant impact

on U.S. GHG emissions. The following total technical potential scenarios provide illustrative examples

of how materials management activities could yield significant GHG emission reductions.  

These materials management total technical potential scenarios include life cycle GHG emissions.

These scenarios represent the estimated emission reductions that would occur if the scenarios

presented were achieved, setting aside economic or practical limitations. They do not represent EPA

goals or targets. Major data sources for the technical potential calculations include the EPA reports

Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks61 and

Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2006 Facts and Figures,

62 as well as EPA’s WAste Reduction

Model (WARM) and a variety of other reports. For further explanation of how the following estimates

were developed, refer to Appendix A.

The total technical potential scenarios provided here are not representative of all possible approaches

to reduce GHG emissions through materials management. Many of these scenarios focus on the waste

stream because the data are limited on materials management strategies that focus on other points in

the materials flow. As further research is completed, additional total technical potential scenarios will

be developed to understand the GHG emission reductions that could be achieved throughout the

materials flow. Potential reductions from some activities are summarized in Box 6.

Box 6: Summary of Total Technical Potential Scenarios 

Source Reduction Estimated GHG 

Emission Benefit* 

Reduce packaging use by:63 50% 40—105 MMTCO2E/yr 

25% 20—50 MMTCO2E/yr 

Reduce use of non-packaging paper products by:64 50% 20—70 MMTCO2E/yr 

25% 10—35 MMTCO2E/yr 

Extend the life of personal computers by: 50% 25 MMTCO2E/yr 

25% 15 MMTCO2E/yr 

Reuse/Recycling 

Increase recycling of construction and demolition debris to: 100% 150 MMTCO2E/yr 

50% 75 MMTCO2E/yr 

25% 40 MMTCO2E/yr 

Increase national MSW recycling and composting rate from 2006 rate (32.5%) to: 100% 300 MMTCO2E/yr 

50% 70—80 MMTCO2E/yr 

Increase composting of food scraps from 2006 rate (2%) to: 100% 20 MMTCO2E/yr 

50% 10 MMTCO2E/yr 

25% 5 MMTCO2E/yr 

 

61 U.S. EPA. 2006. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. Available at:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/SWMGHGreport.html 62 U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste. 2007. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2006 Facts and Figures. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm 63 This total technical potential scenario assumes a similar level of product protection is possible with reduced packaging. 64 Non‐packaging paper products include magazines and third class mail, newspaper, office paper, phonebooks, and textbooks.

22
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Box 6: Summary of Total Technical Potential Scenarios 

Energy Recovery / Disposal Estimated GHG 

Emission Benefit 

Combust percentage of currently landfilled MSW:65, 66 100% 70—120 MMTCO2E/yr 

50% 35—60 MMTCO2E/yr 

25% 20—30 MMTCO2E/yr 

Combust MSW remaining if national recycling rate is increased to 50%: 65—110 MMTCO2E/yr 

Capture percentage of currently emitted methane at U.S. landfills for electricity generation: 100% 150 MMTCO2E/yr 

50% 70 MMTCO2E/yr 

25% 35 MMTCO2E/yr 

* Most of the total technical potential scenarios presented in this table have been rounded to one significant figure. See Appendix A for more detail on 

these estimates.

REDUCING OR AVOIDING GHG EMISSIONS THROUGH LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Land management describes how we manage and use land to provide open space and habitat, food,

natural resources, and places for people to live, work, and recreate. EPA promotes integrated land

management strategies that use land as productively and sustainably as possible by promoting smart

growth, preventing and minimizing the occurrence of contamination and by cleaning up, reusing, and

restoring contaminated land for beneficial reuse by communities.67  

As described in Box 7, land management has three key components: land protection, sustainable land

use, and land revitalization. Similar to the materials management approaches that can be used in the

material flow, land management approaches can be used to reduce GHG emissions by improving

practices within or across each of these components. Land protection practices limit how much land is

contaminated each year. When land is contaminated, it should be

cleaned up to levels protective of human health and the

environment.  

Land Protection: prevent land from 

becoming contaminated. 

Sustainable Land Use: use of land in 

such a way that preserves its value for 

future uses. Preserving pristine land 

resources minimizes greenspace 

development. 

Land Revitalization: cleanup, ecological 

restoration, and sustainable reuse of 

contaminated land while avoiding the 

development of greenfields. 

Box 7: Land Management 

Approaches 

Sustainable land use practices include those that promote the

sustainable use and development of land (including managing land

for agricultural and forestry purposes), and minimizing greenfield

development. Between 1982 and 2003, the U.S. population

increased by 25%.68 During the same period, the amount of

developed land increased by 48%—almost double population

growth.69 As the amount of greenfields (or previously undeveloped

land) that is developed increases, our population becomes more

dispersed and people drive longer distances between home, work,

and recreational locations. During this same period of time, U.S.

 

65 Based on the WARM Model, combustion with energy recovery has lower GHG emissions than landfilling on average, but actual emissions vary based

on local conditions (e.g., the rate of methane recovery varies at individual landfills). 66 The Council of the European Union recently designated energy‐efficient waste incineration a recovery operation. The provision was adopted to

“promote resource efficiency, thus reducing the consumption of fossil fuels” (PE‐CONS 3646/08, October 2, 2008).    67   For more information on smart growth and revitalizing contaminated land, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth and

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/cleanup/index.html. 68 U.S. Census. Available at: http://www.census.gov/ 69 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. July 2007. National Resource Inventory 2003 NRI: Land Use. p. 5. Available

at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/2003/Landuse‐mrb.pdf

23
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

vehicle miles traveled increased by 42%, which again is higher than the rate of population growth and

due largely to the increase in developed land.70 Despite improvements made in vehicle fuel efficiency

since the 1970s, GHG emissions from the transportation sector have increased in recent years, in part

due to the increase in total vehicle‐miles traveled.71

Smart growth approaches—such as reuse of property; infill, compact, and mixed‐use development;

and the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated property—reduce development pressure on

greenfields. Compact, mixed‐use development makes it easier for residents to walk, bike, take transit,

or drive shorter distances, which helps reduce vehicle‐miles traveled and hence the GHG emissions

associated with local travel. In addition, more sustainable land use and development at the local and

state levels that prioritizes energy efficiency, reduced energy consumption, and reduced material

consumption in building and infrastructure construction can further reduce GHG emissions.

Land revitalization practices promote the cleanup and reuse of contaminated land. By considering the

impact of land management throughout its life cycle, the United States can realize significant

reductions in GHG emissions. Decisions at the local, state, or federal level related to the cleanup,

restoration and/or reuse of contaminated land (i.e., land revitalization) can also reduce GHG emissions.

OSWER’s role in land management is focused on preventing land from becoming contaminated and on

the cleanup and reuse of land that has been contaminated. Through these programs, EPA currently

tracks more than 488,000 contaminated or potentially contaminated sites covering almost 15 million

acres across the country.72 Many of these sites require some type of cleanup involving EPA and/or its

federal, state, tribal, and local partners before the property can be reused. To date, EPA has helped

make more than 917,000 acres of previously contaminated land ready for reuse.73 However, it should

be noted that EPA does not determine the new use of EPA‐tracked sites; reuse decisions for

contaminated land, including EPA‐tracked contaminated land, are made by individual property owners

and in accordance with local and state, tribal, and federal land use regulations and any requirements of

the applicable cleanup program.

EPA and other organizations involved with cleaning up contaminated land may find opportunities to

employ cleanup techniques that provide an equivalent level of environmental and human health

protection while emitting lower amounts of GHGs through: 1) optimizing remedies and treatment

systems both for new and existing remedies; 2) using alternative energy derived from cleaner and

renewable energy sources; and 3) accounting for the technical needs of potential reuse options and

incorporating them throughout the cleanup processes to facilitate sustainable reuse of the property

and preservation of greenfields.74  

Sequestering carbon on these sites is another potential benefit from some cleanup and reuse

activities—particularly on former mine lands. At some sites, organic soil amendments can be used to

remediate the site, boosting the amount of carbon sequestered in the soil and enhancing vegetation

 

70 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. April 2008. Primer on Transportation and Climate Change. pp. 27‐28. Available

at: http://downloads.transportation.org/ClimateChange.pdf 71 Ibid. 72 U.S. EPA. March 17, 2009. OSWER Cross‐Program Revitalization Measures, Table 1. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/LANDREVITALIZATION/docs/cprm_report_031709.pdf 73 Ibid. 74 Remedy selection is not based on GHG emissions, although GHG emissions may be one of many factors assessed at sites using green remediation

practices.

24
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

growth.75 This remediation approach also provides a use for some organic soil amendments such as

biosolids which may otherwise be a waste product.  

Land cleanup activities may also provide recycling opportunities to further bolster EPA’s approaches to

materials and land management. For example, reusing and recycling construction and demolition

debris from buildings on contaminated land is another effective materials and land management

practice; this practice not only reuses both materials and land, but also prevents other land from being

used for the disposal of construction and demolition debris.  

After cleanup is complete, sustainably reusing land protects the land‐based carbon sink, by providing

sites that can be reused for development, instead of developing greenfields. Reusing these restored

properties can also reduce GHG emissions associated with the infrastructure expansion needed to

connect newly developed greenfields to already developed areas. Policies that promote land reuse in

place of new land development and denser mixed‐use development—key aspects of smart growth—

will avoid the majority of infrastructure and bio‐carbon emissions. Sites can also be ecologically

restored to increase the amount of undeveloped land and expand the land‐based carbon sink.  

In addition, several EPA programs focus on sustainable cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated

land, including environmentally responsible landscaping, energy efficient structures, green buildings,

and green remediation,76 which can all further reduce GHG emissions. Many contaminated properties

also have renewable energy development potential and are located near existing utility

infrastructure.77 And of course, preventing contamination in the first place avoids the need for cleanup

activities or greenfield development. See Box 8 for examples of land management approaches that

help reduce GHG emissions.78

Carbon Sequestration: EPA is studying the potential carbon sequestration that occurs when soil amendments are used to remediate sites. 

Land Revitalization: To date, EPA has helped make more than 917,000 acres of previously contaminated lands ready for anticipated 

use, reducing pressure on greenfields and helping preserve the land-based carbon sink. EPA is promoting the development of 

renewable energy resources as one particularly promising land revitalization strategy with multiple environmental benefits. 

Smart Growth: Smart growth has been shown to reduce household vehicle miles traveled by 20-40% compared with conventional 

development practices. For example, residents of Atlantic Station, a noted smart growth development, drive an average of 13.9 miles 

per day, compared to a regional average of 33.7 miles per day. 

Green Remediation: Green remediation practices are being employed at contaminated sites, which can reduce GHG emissions. For 

example, some remediation projects use solar energy to operate ground water pump and treat systems; others are reducing 

construction engine idling time, and using alternative fuels to reduce GHG emissions. 

Box 8: Ongoing Contributions and Collaborations to Reduce GHG Emissions – Land Management 

 

75 U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. December 2007. The Use of Soil Amendments for Remediation, Revitalization, and Reuse.

EPA 542‐R‐07‐013. Available at: http://www.clu‐in.org/download/remed/epa‐542‐r‐07‐013.pdf 76 Remediation activities protect human health and the environment; green remediation seeks to reduce that environmental footprint of the cleanup

activities themselves, for example by using cleaner diesel that reduce local air emissions, using electricity generated from renewable sources that

create fewer life cycle GHGs, and conserving water and material resources. Available at: http://www.clu‐in.org/greenremediation/. 77 For further description of opportunities for siting renewable energy on EPA tracked contaminated land, refer to:

http://www.epa.gov/renewableenergyland/index.htm 78   Land Revitalization Example: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. March  17, 2009. OSWER Cross‐Program Revitalization

Measures, Table 1. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/landrevitalization/docs/cprm_report_031709.pdf.  Smart Growth Example: Jacoby

Development, Inc. February 15, 2008. Atlantic Station: 2008 Project XL Report, Vehicle Miles Traveled for Residents and Employees. Available at:

http://www.atlanticstation.com/concept_green_projectXL08.php#Anchor‐ENVIRONMENTAL‐37516

25
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

These land management processes exemplify cross‐media synergies that will help EPA and its partners

continue to achieve greater emissions reductions. In short, there are many opportunities for reducing

GHG emissions by considering how and where we use land.

Potential GHG Emissions Reduced or Avoided from Land Management

There are many ways that EPA’s land management practices can be leveraged to achieve GHG emission

benefits. The following total technical potential scenarios show potential for substantial emission

reductions or avoidance. As noted in Box 5, these total technical potential scenarios do not represent

EPA goals or targets. Instead, these hypothetical examples are provided to show the magnitude of GHG

emissions reductions that are possible through enhanced land management practices.79 These

estimates represent direct GHG emission benefits, and do not include life cycle emissions in all cases.  

Because land management is estimated to affect 16‐20% of total U.S. emissions as well asthe land‐based

carbon sink that offsetsthe equivalent of 13% of 2006 U.S. anthropogenic emissions, there exists a

significant opportunity to identify additional land management approachesto reduce GHG emissions.

Although not presented as a complete technical potential scenario, the greenfield development slice can

roughly be considered the potential reduction from shifting all greenfield development to land reuse and

compact development. The following are examples of land management approachesthat could be

employed to achieve reductionsin GHG emissions. Again, the total technical potentialscenarios provided

here are not representative of all of the possible approachesthat could be used to reduce GHG emissions

through land management. Asfurther research is completed, additional total technical potentialscenarios

will be developed to illustrate the GHG emission reductionsthat could be achieved through land

management. Potential reductionsfrom some activities are summarized in Box 9.

Box 9: Summary of Total Technical Potential Scenarios 

Land Revitalization 80 Estimated GHG 

Emission Benefit 

Shift 60% of expected new development to compact development patterns:81 79 MMTCO2E/yr 

Reuse percentage of qualifying EPA-tracked contaminated land for utility-scale solar:82 100% 2,200 MMTCO2E/yr 

50% 1,100 MMTCO2E/yr 

25% 540 MMTCO2E/yr 

Reuse percentage of qualifying EPA-tracked contaminated land for community and utility-scale 100% 40 MMTCO2E/yr 

wind:83 50% 20 MMTCO2E/yr 

25% 10 MMTCO2E/yr 

100% 0.4 MMTCO2E/yr 

50% 0.2 MMTCO2E/yr 

Reduce electricity use for the most energy-intensive treatment technologies at National Priorities List

sites by:

25% 0.1 MMTCO2E/yr 

 

79 See Appendix A for a detailed description of the methodology used to develop the materials management GHG emission reduction estimates.   80 EPA does not determine the reuse of EPA‐tracked sites. Reuse decisions for contaminated land, including EPA‐tracked contaminated land, are made

by individual property owners and in accordance with local and state land use regulations and any applicable cleanup program requirements. 81 Estimate from Ewing, R., Bartholomew, K., Winkelman, S., Walters, J., and Chen, D. 2008. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and

Climate Change. Urban Land Institute. Washington, D.C.  Reflects only transportation related emissions from changes in land use patterns. Expected

annual benefit through 2030. 82   The 100% scenario represents 141 times the projected deployment of concentrating solar power in 2030. See Appendix for more detail. U.S.

Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009.  Annual Energy Outlook. Table 16. Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html.   83   The 100% scenario could support 75% of the projected deployment of wind power in 2030.  See Appendix for more detail. U.S. Department of

Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009.  Annual Energy Outlook. Table 16. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html.

26
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Box 9: Summary of Total Technical Potential Scenarios 

Land Revitalization 80 Estimated GHG 

Emission Benefit 

Reforest percentage of qualifying former mine lands for carbon sequestration:84 100% 4 MMTCO2E/yr 

50% 2 MMTCO2E/yr 

25% 1 MMTCO2E/yr 

* Most of the total technical potential scenarios presented in this table have been rounded to one significant figure. See Appendix A for more detail on 

these estimates.

These examples show the potential opportunity for EPA to reduce or avoid U.S. GHG emissions through

encouraging improved cleanup, land restoration, and potential reuses at its tracked sites. EPA’s land

management activities could be replicated by other federal, state, and tribal agencies for even greater

GHG emission reductions and avoidance.

 

84   Early research has shown that if biosolids or other soil amendments were used to enrich the soil with carbon, greater sequestration could occur.

27
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

28

SECTION 4

LOOKING FORWARD

EPA, along with its federal, regional, state, tribal, local, and other public and private partners, can help

address the challenges of global climate change through materials and land management programs. As

summarized by this document, there is a strong link between GHG emissions and the management of

materials and land.  

This document presents a systems‐based framework through which to view U.S. GHG emissions. This

approach complements the sector‐based framework that focuses on the physical emissions source and

demonstrates additional areas of GHG reductions that can be pursued. This systems‐based approach

demonstrates that up to 42% of U.S. emissions are linked to the way we manage and use materials,

and that another 16‐20% of U.S. emissions are linked to land management, along with the 13% of

emissions that are offset by the carbon sink provided by U.S. land and vegetation. This analysis

suggests that there are significant opportunities to reduce U.S. GHG emissions through modified

materials and land management approaches.  

To help illustrate some of the potential for GHG reduction and avoidance opportunities from materials

and land management practices, this document also estimates the total technical potential of a variety

of materials and land management approaches to reduce GHG emissions. The purpose of this

document—to advance the understanding of the link between climate change and materials and land

management—is an important step in achieving reductions in U.S. GHG emissions, and provides a

platform from which to conduct further analysis and activities that complement current and future

approaches to GHG emissions reductions.

Finally, this document is designed to be a model methodology that municipalities and states can

replicate to identify their own options for shifting toward systems thinking and ways that materials and

land management can impact GHG emissions. Future analysis by EPA may include the following:

• Conducting research and analysis to provide a greater number of and more detailed examples

of materials and land management approaches that could be used to reduce GHG emissions.

This could include providing options for localities, tribes, states, and others to maximize GHG

emission reductions or select options that provide the best fit.

• Conducting research and analysis to provide information on the cost of implementing

materials and land management approaches to reduce GHG emissions, to allow localities,

tribes, states, and others to make better decisions regarding their return on investment and

identify approaches that minimize cost.  

• Providing analysis of climate change related policies being developed at the local, tribal, state,

and federal levels and linking materials and land management approaches with the policy

objectives.
Appendix  
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

APPENDIX A

TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THROUGH MATERIALS AND LAND

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

This appendix provides a description of the methodologies used to develop the systems‐based pie

chart of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions showing materials and land management (Figures ES‐1

and 2 through 5 in Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land

Management Practices), as well as the methodologies supporting the total technical potential

scenarios and the GHG emission reductions that could be achieved through materials and land

management activities.  

SECTION A‐1

METHODOLOGY FOR CREATING THE SYSTEMS PIE CHARTS (FIGURES ES‐1 AND 2 THROUGH 4)

As described in Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land

Management Practices (the “main text”), Figure 1 was derived from the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse

Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2006 (“the Inventory”).85 The Inventory comprehensively quantifies the

country’s primary anthropogenic sources and sinks of GHG emissions based on a common and

consistent methodology that enables parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC) to compare the relative contribution of different emission sources and GHGs to

climate change. In addition to reporting emissions by the standard categories set by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) methodology, the Inventory presents emissions

allocated to the economic sectors where they are emitted.86 This is the basis of Figure 1, with 34% of

emissions coming from Electric Power Industry sources, 28% from Transportation sources, 19% from

Industrial sources, 8% from Agriculture sources, 6% from Commercial sources, and 5% from Residential

sources.87  

A collection of sources working together to fulfill a common need is termed a “system.” To better

understand and describe the connections between materials and land management and climate

change, this paper presents a “systems‐based” perspective. Rather than categorizing emissions

according to the sector where they are emitted, emissions are categorized according to the need

driving those emissions. There are many possible categorizations of GHG emissions by system, but the

systems here are chosen to examine the role of materials management and land management. Figures

2 through 5 show the same 2006 GHG emissions as Figure 1, but reallocate the emissions by system,

demonstrating how much of the U.S. GHG emissions are associated with materials and land

management practices.

The systems perspective allows consideration of mitigation options that are not as evident in the

sector‐based view. By considering the practices that contribute to the emissions, not the physical

emissions source, we can see where changes in practices upstream have the most potential to reduce

 

85 U.S. EPA. 2008. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2006. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginv_archive.html.  This report relies on the Inventory data published in 2008; a more recent

version, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2007, was published in 2009 and can be found at

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html 86   Ibid. Table 2‐12. 87 Emissions from U.S. territories are categorized as a separate sector, totaling 1% of total U.S. emissions; because these emissions are not allocated to

economic sectors, they are not included here.

A‐ 1
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

A‐ 2

emissions downstream. The guiding principle behind the selection of systems presented in Figures 2

through 5 is that the emissions in each slice can be reduced by a collection of pollution prevention

activities, including green design, industrial ecology, design for environment, sustainable consumption,

materials management, and sustainable land management, which all seek to meet the needs

addressed by current activities, but with lower resource demand and lower negative impact on the

environment and human well‐being. Each slice is the domain of a broad set of emissions reduction

policies, and, in general, different policies address different slices. Figures 2 through 5 are designed to

illustrate the importance of pollution prevention‐oriented emissions reductions and of materials and

land management in particular.

A summary of the sector‐ and systems‐based allocation of 2006 U.S. GHG emissions is provided in

Table 1, and measured in million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E).

Table 1: U.S. GHG Emissions 2006, Sector-based Allocation and Systems-based Allocation 

Sector-based Allocation Emissions 

MMTCO2E 

% of 

Total** Systems-based Allocation Emissions MMTCO2E 

% of 

Total** 

Electric Power Industry 2,378 34% Provision of Goods 2,040 29% 

Transportation 1,970 28% Provision of Food 895 13% 

Industry** 1,372 19% Local Passenger Transport 1,019 15% 

Agriculture 534 8% Infrastructure 72 1% 

Commercial 395 6% Building HVAC and Lighting 1,719 25% 

Residential 345 5% Use of Appliances and Devices 581 8% 

Non-Local Passenger Transport** 666 9% 

Total (excluding U.S. Territories)* 6,992 100% Total (excluding U.S. Territories)* 6,992 100% 

Land-based carbon sink -884 -13% Land-based carbon sink -884 -13% 

Net (excluding U.S. Territories) 6,108 87% Net (excluding U.S. Territories) 6,108 87% 

Greenfield Development ≈314 ≈4% 

* Total excludes emissions from U.S. Territories of 62 MMTCO2E (1%), which could not be disaggregated.

** % of Total rounded down to balance out rounding of other percentages, so that percentages sum to 100%. 

Table 2 provides a more detailed crosswalk showing the relationship between the sector‐ and systems‐

based allocations. In Table 2, each row corresponds to a sector. Moving across a row, the table shows

the quantity of emissions allocated to each system from that sector. Moving down a column, or

system, the table shows the contribution of emissions from each sector to that system.
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Table 2: Detailed Crosswalk Between Sector-based and Systems-based Emissions (MMTCO2E) 

Materials Land Management Other Emissions 

Sector/System* Provision 

of Goods 

Provision 

of Food 

Local 

Passenger 

Transport 

Infrastructure 

Building 

HVAC and 

Lighting 

Use of 

Appliances 

and 

Devices 

Other 

Passenger 

Transport 

Sector 

Subtotal* 

Electric Power 

Industry 572 112 16 8 1,244 416 9 2,378 

Agriculture 533 0 534 

Industry 912 106 122 55 73 24 78 1,371 

Residential 14 235 96 345 

Commercial 150 31 2 167 44 395 

Transportation 392 112 882 6 578 1,969 

 System Subtotal** 2,040 895 1,019 72 1,719 581 666 6,992 

U.S. Territories 62 

Total 2006 U.S. Anthropogenic GHG Emissions*** 7,054 

Land-based Carbon Sink -884 

Net 2006 U.S. Anthropogenic GHG Emissions 6,170 

Development of Greenfields ≈314 

* Sector Subtotals may not match those presented in Table 1 due to rounding. 

** System Subtotals may not sum due to rounding. 

*** Total excludes emissions from U.S. Territories of 62 MMTCO2E (1%), which could not be disaggregated. 

From the systems allocation we can see that materials management influences a large share of GHG

emissions (42%). Land management influences a smaller share of emissions accounted for in the

Inventory (16%), but also the substantial land‐based carbon sink (equivalent to 13% of emissions).

Though not currently accounted for in the Inventory, land management and especially land cleanup

and revitalization practices, influence the bio‐carbon emissions from clearing land for development

(Greenfield Development). These emissions are estimated in this paper to be equivalent to

approximately 4% of U.S. emissions.

Note that emissions that occur in other countries to produce or transport goods and services that are

consumed in the U.S. are not captured in the U.S. Inventory. Therefore, Provision of Goods does not

include emissions associated with foreign production of goods consumed in the U.S. or with

international freight. Similarly, the Provision of Food does not include emissions from growing food

internationally to be consumed in the U.S. or the freight emissions to bring it here. Neither do these

systems subtract emissions from producing goods or food for export. However, many materials

management activities have the effect of reducing emissions outside the U.S. by reducing emissions

from the production of imported goods. If U.S. emissions were calculated based on consumption, from

a life cycle perspective, emissions associated with materials management would be greater than

reported here, due to net importation of GHG‐intense goods.88

 

88 Weber, Christopher L. and H. Scott Matthews. 2007. Emissions Embodied in U.S. International Trade. Environmental. Science and Technology. Vol. 41,

No. 14. July 15, 2007. pp. 4875‐4881.

A‐ 3
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

The remainder of Section A‐1 describes the reasoning behind the allocation of emissions to each

system, or slice of the pie charts in Figures 2 through 5, and the methodology used to estimate the

emissions.

PROVISION OF GOODS

Table 3: Emissions Related to Provision of Goods 

Emissions Source Sector Emissions 

(MMTCO2E) 

Industrial sector direct emissions* Industry 793.4 

Industrial sector electricity use* Electric Power Industry 563.0 

Freight* Transportation 391.6 

Landfill methane** Commercial 123.3 

Substitution of ozone-depleting substances Commercial, Residential 35.3 

Industrial wastewater treatment Commercial 4.3 

Residential soil fertilization Residential 1.5 

Upstream industrial sector fossil fuel combustion Industry 127.7 

Total Emissions from Provision of Goods 2,040 

* Except emissions related to food and beverage processing and infrastructure construction. 

** Except emissions related to infrastructure construction. 

GHG emissions associated with extraction, production, transportation, and disposal of materials and

non‐food goods were estimated at approximately 2,040 MMTCO2E in 2006, or 29% of total emissions.

This includes direct emissions from the industrial sector, emissions from electricity use by the industrial

sector, emissions from freight transport, landfill methane, the substitution of ozone‐depleting

substances, industrial wastewater treatment, residential fertilization and emissions from extraction

and processing of fossil fuels used to produce and transport goods. The total excludes some of these

emissions included in other slices.  

The emissions associated with the Provision of Goods can be reduced through policies that promote

improved materials management. While the emissions come from disparate sources, like mining

operations, manufacturing plants, and freight trucks, many materials management strategies address

all these sources together. For instance, a program that extends the life of a product will reduce

extraction of raw materials and emissions from manufacturing, transport, and disposal of the replaced

product.  

This slice represents the emissions from all stages of material flow except for product use. Use phases

for non‐industrial products are addressed in other slices, for example, the use phase of appliances are

included in Use of Appliances and Devices. The reasoning for separating the use phase impacts of

appliances, devices, and buildings into other slices is explained in Section 2 of the main text.  

Some products, notably food, are addressed entirely in other slices. The life cycle impacts of

constructing infrastructure are excluded from this slice because they are included in the Infrastructure

slice.  

A‐ 4
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

It is arguable that energy use by retail and commercial establishments that sell goods and services, as

well as emissions from personal transportation to obtain goods and services, could be included in the

Provision of Goods estimate; however, it seems likely that these emissions would be addressed by

more general policies related to building energy use and land use planning rather than policies that

address the provision of goods, so they were not included here.

Table 3 details the contribution of the various sources to the emissions total for the Provision of Goods.

Direct emissions from the industrial sector include fossil fuel combustion and emissions from industrial

processes. The total is taken from Table 2‐12 of the Inventory and then emissions associated with food

and beverage processing and with constructing infrastructure (see following sections) are subtracted.

Industrial sector electricity use is taken from Table 2‐14 of the Inventory. Industrial wastewater

treatment emissions include only emissions associated with pulp and paper manufacturing and ethanol

manufacturing, as calculated by methods presented in the Inventory (the remaining 87% of

wastewater treatment emissions are attributed to the food system). Emissions from landfills,

substitution of ozone‐depleting substances, and residential soil fertilization come from Table 2‐12 of

the Inventory.

Freight emissions are estimated by apportioning the transportation‐related emissions from Table 2‐15

of the Inventory using mode‐specific energy consumption data from the Transportation Energy Data

Book.89 The fraction of emissions in each mode associated with food products is then subtracted (see

next section). Included in the freight total are emissions from Class I freight railroads, water‐borne

freight vessels, pipelines, and medium‐ and heavy‐duty on‐road trucks. Rail freight emissions were

based on the proportion of rail energy consumption associated with Class I freight railroads (87%) with

the rest attributed to passenger transportation (see Local Passenger Transport and Other Passenger

Transport). Water‐borne commerce was estimated by using the proportion of energy consumption

associated with domestic water‐borne commerce (55%) with the balance attributed to recreational

boating (see Other Passenger Transport). Pipeline‐related emissions and on‐road medium‐ and heavy‐

duty trucks are counted in their entirety.

This calculation omits air freight emissions, since adequate data were not readily available to separate

freight and passenger emissions. Also, any freight‐related emissions from light trucks are not counted,

while some of the emissions due to heavy trucks may include on‐road trucks not used for freight. In

general, this estimate is intended to indicate relative magnitude rather than precise emissions.  

As mentioned above, industrial emissions from fossil fuel extraction and processing are subtracted

from the industrial emissions total and most are not included in Provision of Goods. Fuel extraction

and processing emissions are calculated using the EPA report Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions

from Key Industrial Sectors in the United States.90 The emissions are subtracted from the Inventory’s

“Industry” and Electric Power Industry” economic sectors, and allocated to their respective systems

based on the fuels or electricity used by those systems. Emissions associated with petroleum systems

and natural gas systems are taken from the Inventory. The emissions from industrial fossil fuel

combustion and industrial electricity use are based on proportions established by data from the Sector

 

89 Davis, S. and S. Diegel. 2008. Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 27. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Available at:

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml 90   U.S. EPA. Sector Strategies Program. 2008. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Key Industrial Sectors in the United States. (Working Draft).

Table 12‐1. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ispd/pdf/greenhouse‐report.pdf

A‐ 5
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Strategies report.91,92 These proportions represent the value of petroleum and natural gas emissions

from industrial fossil fuel combustion and industrial electricity use relative to total industrial sector

emissions. The resulting percentages are then applied to the Inventory data for these source

categories.

The emissions from petroleum extraction and refining are allocated according to the relative value of

each system’s transportation emissions to total transportation emissions. The majority of these

emissions are allocated to the Local Transportation and Other Transportation system slices. A fraction

of these emissions are also allocated to the Provision of Good and Provision of Food slices based on the

proportion of transportation emissions allocated to freight. An additional portion is allocated to

Provision of Goods according to the proportion of petroleum used as a chemical feedstock (e.g. for

plastics).

The emissions from natural gas extraction and distribution are apportioned in a similar fashion. The

majority of these upstream emissions are associated with building energy use; therefore, most of the

emissions are allocated to the Building HVAC and Lighting slice, as well as the Use of Appliances and

Devices slice. However, a fraction of these emissions are attributed to the Provision of Goods slice to

account for industrial use of natural gas.

PROVISION OF FOOD

Table 4: Emissions Related to Provision of Food 

Source Sector Emissions 

(MMTCO2E) 

Agriculture sector direct emissions* Agriculture 533.3 

Food processing sector energy use Electric Power and Industry 113.1 

Food-related freight Transportation 112.3 

Agriculture sector electricity use Electric Power 62.3 

Wastewater treatment** Commercial 27.7 

HFC emissions from refrigeration and refrigerated transport Industry 16.6 

Composting Commercial 3.3 

Upstream industrial sector fossil fuel combustion Industry 26.1 

Total Emissions from Provision of Food 895 

* Except emissions from infrastructure construction. 

** Except from pulp and paper manufacturing and ethanol production. 

GHG emissions associated with the production, processing, distribution, and disposal of food (i.e.,

Provision of Food) were approximately 895 MMTCO2E in 2006, or 13% of U.S. emissions. This includes

direct emissions from agricultural sources, food processing energy use, transportation of food‐related

products, agriculture sector electricity use, treatment of municipal and food processing wastewater,

 

91    Ibid. 92    The data in this report is taken from U.S. EPA. 2007. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2005. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginv_archive.html

A‐ 6
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

leaks of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) from refrigeration equipment, composting, and fossil fuel

extraction and processing.  

It is arguable that energy use by commercial establishments such as supermarkets and restaurants

could be included in this slice; however, it seems likely that these emissions would be addressed by

more general policies related to building energy use and land use rather than policies that address

agriculture and food‐processing emissions, so they were not included here.

Prevention‐oriented or materials management approaches to reduce emissions from the food system

include source reduction and effective management of food wastes and agricultural residues—for

example, composting, waste‐to‐energy, and activities that shift demand from higher‐impact foods or

production inputs to lower impact foods or inputs.

Table 4 shows a breakdown of emissions in the Provision of Food slice. Emissions from agricultural

sources and agricultural electricity use are taken from Table 2‐14 of the Inventory. These sources of

emissions include fossil fuel combustion, enteric fermentation, manure management, rice cultivation,

field burning of agricultural residues, and agricultural soil management. A small portion of emissions

(<0.1%) are subtracted and attributed to infrastructure construction (see Infrastructure section).

Composting emissions are also provided by the Inventory.

Energy‐related emissions from food processing were calculated using energy consumption reported in

the Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2002 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey93 for the

“Food” and “Beverages” industry groups. Energy consumption was multiplied by fuel‐specific carbon

contents and converted to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.94,95 For “other” fuels, the emissions factor

for “Petroleum – Miscellaneous Products” was applied. All fuels were summed to provide 2002

emissions. This value was then scaled up to 2006 using the ratio of the 2006 gross output value in the

food and beverage industry to the 2002 value, adjusted for inflation.96,97

HFC emissions related to the Provision of Food are estimated by taking a portion of total HFC emissions

from refrigeration and air conditioning. The total is provided by the Inventory and the distribution

among various end‐uses is given in the EPA report, Global Mitigation of Non‐CO2 Greenhouse Gases.98

Among these end uses, “refrigerated transport” (14% of total emissions) and “cold storage” (1.2%) are

attributed to the food system. The “industrial process” end use (4.6%) likely includes applications both

in food and non‐food sectors. Since further detail was not available, half of the emissions from

industrial processes are assumed to be related to food. In all, 17.5% of HFC emissions are from

refrigeration attributed to the Provision of Food.  

 

93 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2005. Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey, 2002, (MECS). Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs2002/data02/pdf/table3.2_02.pdf 94 U.S. EPA. 2008. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2006. Tables A‐29 and A‐30. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginv_archive.html 95 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency. 2007. Summary Statistics for the United States. Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html 96 Howells III, T.F., K.B. Barefoot, and B.M. Lindberg. 2006. “Annual Industry Accounts: Revised Estimates for 2003‐2005.” Survey of Current Business,

86:12. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Available at:

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2006/12december/1206_indyaccts.pdf 97 Kim. S. Vincent, D.A., Jacobson, A.M., and Lyndaker A.S. 2008. “Annual Industry Accounts: Revised Estimates for 2005‐2007.” Survey of Current

Business. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.   98 U.S. EPA. 2006. Global Mitigation of Non‐CO2 Greenhouse Gases. Available at:  

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/downloads/GlobalMitigationFullReport.pdf

A‐ 7
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Transportation of food‐related products was estimated using data from the 2002 Commodity Flow

Survey.99 This study provides freight totals by ton‐miles and freight mode for major commodity groups.

First, all food‐ and beverage‐related product groups were identified and ton‐mileages were summed by

mode for these product groups. For multi‐modal freight, the total is divided evenly between the mode

(e.g., ton‐mileage listed under “truck and rail” is divided evenly between the truck category and the rail

category). Using this method, it was estimated that food‐related products accounted for 23% of truck

freight, 19% of rail freight, and 35% of water‐borne freight on a ton‐mileage basis. Emissions were then

estimated by multiplying these percentages by the freight emissions associated with each mode, as

determined in the Provision of Goods section. Freight listed as “other/unknown” is assumed equivalent

to the truck category and freight listed as “other multiple modes” was evenly divided among all modes.

Emissions associated with air freight were omitted due to lack of data on total emissions from air

freight.  

Wastewater treatment‐related emissions are taken from the Inventory, subtracting emissions

associated with non‐food industrial products as discussed in the previous section. The remaining

emissions (87%) include emissions from municipal wastewater treatment and from the processing of

meat, poultry, fruit, vegetables and juices. The upstream industrial fossil fuel combustion emissions

were determined using the same methodology as stated in the previous section.

LOCAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT

Table 5: Emissions Related to Local Passenger Transport 

Source Sector Emissions 

(MMTCO2E) 

Local trips by cars, light trucks, and motorcycles* Transportation 865.8 

Urban rail emissions Transportation 5.4 

Local bus emissions Transportation 10.6 

Electricity use Electric Power 1.0

Upstream industrial sector fossil fuel combustion Industry 136.1

Total Emissions from Local Passenger Transport 1,019 

* Local is defined as trips shorter than 50 miles.

GHG emissions associated with Local Passenger Transport were approximately 1,019 MMTCO2E, or

15% of total anthropogenic emissions in 2006. This is dominated by fuel combustion by cars and light

trucks making short trips, but includes emissions from buses, light rail, electricity use, and fossil fuel

extraction and processing. Local Passenger Transport is presented separately from Other Passenger

Transport with the expectation that each is subject to a different set of prevention‐oriented mitigation

options. Local Passenger Transport emissions can be reduced through land management practices such

as infill development and effective urban planning, as well as through enhancing public transit. These

approaches complement sector‐wide mitigation strategies, such as biofuel substitution or improved

vehicle fuel economy because they reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled, reducing emissions

from vehicle manufacturing, road maintenance, and non‐GHG pollution as co‐benefits. These strategies

can work in concert with sector‐wide strategies to reduce overall transportation emissions.

 

99 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2004. Commodity Flow Survey, 2002.  Available at:

http://www.bts.gov/publications/commodity_flow_survey/

A‐ 8
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

A‐ 9

 

Total GHG emissions from each transportation mode are taken from Table 2‐15 of the Inventory.

Emissions from on‐road passenger vehicles, including passenger cars, light‐duty trucks, and

motorcycles, were split between local and long‐distance (“other”) according to the ratio of vehicle

miles traveled (VMT) for each type of trip. Based on the National Household Transportation Survey,100

roughly 30% of VMT in personal vehicles are on long‐distance trips (defined as trips greater than 50

miles) and the other 70% are for local trips. The most recent data available were for 2001, and that

ratio was assumed to hold constant for 2006.  

Emissions from buses were apportioned using the relative energy consumption of transit buses and

school buses (both considered to be local) compared with inter‐city buses (non‐local). The most recent

year that data for all three were available was 2000.101 Using this method, it was assumed that 85% of

bus emissions were local and 15% of bus emissions were long‐distance. Rail emissions were split in a

similar way, using data from Davis and Diegel.102 Commuter rail and transit accounted for 11% of rail‐

related energy consumption. Another 2% was used by Amtrak and assumed to be long‐distance. The

remaining rail emissions are allocated to freight (see Provision of Goods). The upstream industrial fossil

fuel combustion emissions were determined using the same methodology as stated in the Provision of

Goods section.

This method provides a rough estimate for the major categories of transportation emissions. It

neglects some of the different fuel needs and emissions patterns of different types of transportation.

For instance, rail transit is likely to use electricity due to air quality concerns in urban areas, while

freight rail is more likely to use diesel. Passenger cars, meanwhile, are likely to get better mileage on

long‐distance highway trips than in local travel with frequent stops and starts. These effects were not

accounted for.

100   U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2003. Highlights of the 2001 National Household Travel Survey. Available at:

http://www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/ 101 Davis, S. and S. Diegel. 2006. Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 25. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Available at:

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml 102 Davis, S. and S. Diegel. 2008. Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 27. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Available at:

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

OTHER PASSENGER TRANSPORT

Table 6: Emissions Related to Other Passenger Transport* 

Source Sector Emissions 

(MMTCO2E) 

Long-distance trips by cars, light trucks, and motorcycles* Transportation 371.1 

Commercial aircraft Transportation 143.6 

Other aircraft (including military)** Transportation 28.8 

Recreational boating Transportation 21.5 

Inter-city bus emissions Transportation 1.9 

Lubricants Transportation 9.9 

Inter-city passenger rail (Amtrak) Transportation 1.1 

Other transportation emissions Transportation 0.2 

Fossil fuel extraction and processing Industry 87.8

Total Emissions from Other Passenger Transport 666 

* Long-distance is defined as trips shorter than 50 miles. 

** Includes small non-passenger contributions from military freight, commercial air freight and lubricants (which 

could not be disaggregated). 

This section describes transportation emissions not included in the Provision of Goods, Provision of

Food or Local Passenger Transport slices. Long‐distance passenger travel accounted for 90% of these

remaining emissions, including emissions from aircraft, inter‐city rail, inter‐city buses, cars and light

trucks making long‐distance trips, and fossil fuel extraction and processing. Miscellaneous emissions,

primarily from military aircraft and recreational vehicles, comprised the other 10% of this category. In

all, non‐local passenger transportation accounted for 666 MMTCO2E, or 9% of U.S. GHG emissions in

2006.103 Land management policies have less of an effect on non‐local transportation, which is why

these emissions are presented separately. Prevention‐oriented policies to reduce inter‐city passenger

transportation include activities which shift travel to lower‐impact modes of travel and promote more

efficient loading or movement within modes.

As in the previous section, emissions in this section are calculated by taking the mode‐specific total

GHG emissions from Table 2‐15 of the Inventory and apportioning them using various transportation

end‐use data. Emissions from cars, light‐duty trucks, and motorcycles were split between local and

long‐distance according to the ratio of VMT for each type of trip. Based on the National Household

Transportation Survey,104 roughly 30% of VMT in personal vehicles are on long‐distance trips (defined

as trips greater than 50 miles) and so 30% of passenger vehicle emissions are included here. According

to the Transportation Energy Data Book,105 55% of energy used in boating is for water born‐commerce.

The remaining 45% is assumed to be associated with recreational boating and this fraction is applied to

the total emissions from boating and included here. The fraction of energy used by rail that is

apportioned to Amtrak (2%) is assumed to be long‐distance passenger travel and counted here.

Aircraft emissions, which include commercial aircraft, military aircraft, and general aviation, as well as

emissions from lubricants, are included in their entirety. This section also includes a small contribution

 

103   Percent of total rounded down from 10% to 9%, so that percentages sum to 100% in the systems‐based pie charts.     104   U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2003. Highlights of the 2001 National Household Travel Survey. Available at:

http://www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/ 105 Davis, S. and S. Diegel. 2008. Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 27. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Available at:

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml

A‐ 10
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

A‐ 11

of other transportation sources, such as recreational vehicles and some off‐road equipment. The

upstream industrial fossil fuel combustion emissions were determined using the same methodology as

stated in the Provision of Goods section.  

INFRASTRUCTURE

Table 7: Emissions Related to Infrastructure System 

Source Sector Emissions 

(MMTCO2E) 

Highway, street, bridge, and tunnel construction 

direct emissions 

Electric Power, Industry, Transportation, 

Agriculture, Commercial 32.6 

Highway, street, bridge and tunnel construction 

indirect, life cycle emissions 

Electric Power, Industry, Transportation, 

Agriculture, Commercial 24.3 

Water, sewer, and pipeline construction direct 

emissions 

Electric Power, Industry, Transportation, 

Agriculture, Commercial 6.7 

Water, sewer, and pipeline construction indirect, life 

cycle emissions 

Electric Power, Industry, Transportation, 

Agriculture, Commercial 8.9 

Total Emissions from Infrastructure System 72 

The construction of infrastructure (roads and water systems) generated roughly 72 MMTCO2E, or 1%

of U.S. GHG emissions in 2006. This includes both direct emissions from construction equipment an

indirect emissions from, for example, the production of concrete and the manufacturing of that

construction equipment. Land management directly affects how and where we develop land, and

therefore, how much infrastructure (e.g., highways, roads, sewers) is needed to link developed areas.

Prevention‐oriented approaches to reducing emissions from infrastructure consumption include the

cleanup, revitalization, and reuse of previously‐used land; and more compact development patterns.  

d

 

This analysis to estimate the GHG emissions associated with infrastructure construction and

maintenance is based on the Economic Input‐Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO‐LCA) Model developed

by the Carnegie Mellon Green Design Institute.106,107 The model consists of a web‐based database

analysis that produces an estimate of the impacts from producing a certain dollar amount of 500

commodities or services in the U.S. Impacts reported by the model for each sector include

conventional air pollutants, GHGs, energy, and toxic releases.108

The model captures all the various manufacturing, transportation, mining, and related requirements to

produce a product or service, and traces out the resulting economic transactions, resource

requirements, and environmental emissions. The life cycle assessment is based on an economic input‐

output model of the U.S. economy developed by the Department of Commerce combined with publicly

available data and linear algebraic calculation methods.109  

106 Hendrickson, C.T., L.B. Lave, and H.S. Matthews. 2005. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Goods and Services: An Input‐Output Approach.

Resources for the Future Press. 107 Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute. 2008. Economic Input‐Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO‐LCA) model. Available at:

http://www.eiolca.net/ 108 Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute. 2008. Economic Input‐Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO‐LCA) model. Available at:

http://www.eiolca.net/cgi‐bin/dft/use.pl 109 For a description of the limitations of using such models, refer to: http://www.eiolca.net/Method/Limitations.html
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

The model includes the entire supply chain of requirements. For example, the effects of producing a

$20,000 car would not only include the impact of the final assembly, but also the impact of mining

metals, making electronic parts, forming windows, and creating the other necessary components. Since

the impact model is linear, the effects of a $20,000 car purchase, for example, would be double that of

a $10,000 motor vehicle. Also, the data are only for production, so the impacts associated with end‐use

(for example, the impacts of gasoline use and maintenance for the $20,000 car) would need to be

evaluated separately with the EIO‐LCA model.  

The data in the EIO‐LCA Model are developed from a variety of public datasets and assembled for

various commodity sectors. For the most part, the data are self‐reported and subject to measurement

error and reporting requirements gaps. Table 8 presents selected EIO‐LCA data sources.

Table 8: EIO-LCA Model Data Sources 

Data Element Data Source, Calculation, and/or Information 

Input/Output (IO) Matrix 1997 model is based upon the Department of Commerce’s 491 sector industrial IO model of the 

U.S. economy. 

Economic Impacts Computed from the IO matrix and the user input change in final demand. Economic impacts are 

reported in 1997 dollars (millions). 

Electricity Use Includes manufacturing and mining sectors developed from the 1997 Census of Manufacturers. 

Service sector electricity use is estimated using the detailed IO work files and average electricity 

prices for these sectors. 

Energy Use Calculated by converting fuel use per sector and 31% of electricity use into terajoules (31% is the 

amount of electricity produced in 1997 from non-fossil fuel sources).110

Fertilizer Use Calculated from commodity purchases (contained in the IO work files) and average 1997 prices. 

GHG Emissions Data were estimated using heating values and emission factors, as well as sectoral fuel use data of 

the updated 1997 industry benchmark EIO-LCA model. The emission factors are taken from IPCC 

guidelines. Global warming potential (GWP) was estimated using the IPCC Third Assessment 

Report: Climate Change 2001.111 

The U.S. Department of Commerce 1997 Industry Benchmark EIO‐LCA Model is used to estimate

emissions resulting from construction of infrastructure including highway, street, bridge, and tunnel

construction, as well as water, sewer, and pipeline construction. The model is used to calculate pure

emission outputs based on the total industry outputs in millions of dollars. The total industrial output

used for highway, street, bridge, and tunnel construction is $43,401 million (in 1997 dollars).112 The

total output used for water, sewer, and pipeline construction is $17,207 million (in 1997 dollars).113

Tables 9 and 10 present the top 20 emission sources of the hundreds that were reported by the EIO‐

LCA Model for infrastructure. The totals of each table represent the total emissions for all sources,

including those not shown. All of these emissions have been allocated to the Infrastructure slice of the

pie chart.

In order to complete the crosswalk presented in Table 2, it was necessary to identify which economic

sectors the infrastructure emissions were originally associated with, so they could be subtracted out

 

110 Fuel, electricity, and energy estimates are normalized based on additional data from the U.S. Census Bureau, data from the Manufacturing Energy

Consumption Survey (MECS) Consumption of Energy, the U.S. Department of Energy Transportation Energy Data Book, and U.S. EPA data conversion

factors. For more information, refer to: http://www.eiolca.net/remakingenergy.pdf   111 Cicas, Gyorgyi, et al. 2006. The 1997 Benchmark Version of the Economic Input‐Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO_LCA) Model. Green Design Institute,

Carnegie Mellon University. Available at: http://www.eiolca.net/data/full‐document‐11‐1‐06.pdf 112 Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute. 2008 Economic Input‐Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO‐LCA) model. Available at:

http://www.eiolca.net/sectors1997.html 113 Ibid.

A‐12
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

and reallocated to the Infrastructure slice. To identify the sectors, the EIO‐LCA model’s hierarchy of

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes were reviewed and each emission source

was assigned to a sector based on Bureau of Economic Analysis guidance. For example, “Stone mining

and quarrying” was assigned to the “Industry” economic sector in the Inventory and “Waste

management and remediation services” was assigned to “Commercial.” Table 11 shows the final

proportion of infrastructure emissions that was extracted from each economic sector and reallocated

to the Infrastructure slice in the systems pie chart (Figures ES‐1 and 2 through 5).

Table 9: Emissions Related to Highway, Street, Bridge and Tunnel Construction 

(Top 20 sources; Industry output $43,401 million) 

Economic Sector Emission Source GWP Emissions (MTCO2E) 

Industry Highway, street, bridge, and tunnel construction 32,633,776 

Electricity Power generation and supply 5,999,036 

Transportation Truck transportation 2,868,386 

Industry Cement manufacturing 2,827,754 

Industry Oil and gas extraction 1,693,483 

Industry Petroleum refineries 1,556,906 

Commercial Waste management and remediation services 864,638 

Industry Iron and steel mills 617,476 

Transportation Pipeline transportation 616,609 

Industry Asphalt paving mixture and block manufacturing 353,671 

Transportation Air transportation 332,358 

Industry Stone mining and quarrying 316,474 

Industry Nitrogenous fertilizer manufacturing 302,009 

Industry Sand, gravel, clay, and refractory mining 300,800 

Industry Coal mining 256,260 

Industry Lime manufacturing 250,575 

Electricity State and local government electric utilities 248,212 

Industry Ready-mix concrete manufacturing 246,842 

Transportation Rail transportation 243,367 

Industry Asphalt shingle and coating materials manufacturing 236,910 

Total for all Sectors (including those not shown) 56,900,000 

* May not sum to total due to independent rounding.

Table 10: Emissions Related to Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction 

(Top 20 sources; Industry output $17,207 million) 

Sector Source GWP Emissions (MTCO2E) 

Industry Water, sewer, and pipeline construction 6,652,123 

Electricity Power generation and supply 2,138,640 

Industry Cement manufacturing 986,204 

Transportation Truck transportation 958,747 

Industry Iron and steel mills 952,098 

Industry Oil and gas extraction 361,473 

Commercial Waste management and remediation services 344,837 

Industry Petroleum refineries 314,915 

Transportation Air transportation 161,143 

Industry Coal mining 154,147 

Transportation Pipeline transportation 145,702 

Industry Lime manufacturing 121,490 

Industry Other concrete product manufacturing 105,855 

Industry Nitrogenous fertilizer manufacturing 94,104 

Electricity State and local government electric utilities 91,051 

A‐13
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Table 10: Emissions Related to Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction 

(Top 20 sources; Industry output $17,207 million) 

Sector Source GWP Emissions (MTCO2E) 

Industry Petroleum lubricating oil and grease manufacturing 84,448 

Electricity Wholesale trade 82,518 

Industry Industrial gas manufacturing 81,331 

Industry Primary aluminum production 81,173 

Transportation Rail transportation 77,328 

Total for all Sectors (including those not shown) 15,500,000 

* May not sum to total due to independent rounding.

Table 11: Percentage of Emissions from Highway, Street, Bridge and Tunnel Construction 

Extracted from Economic Sectors 

Economic Sector 

Proportion of Highway, 

Street, Bridge and Tunnel 

Construction Emissions 

Proportion of Water, 

Sewer, and Pipeline 

Construction Emissions 

Electricity 11% 14% 

Industry 78% 71% 

Transportation 8% 10% 

Agriculture <1% <1% 

Commercial 3% 4% 

Residential 0% 0% 

Total for all Sectors* 100% 100% 

* May not sum to total due to independent rounding.

LAND‐BASED CARBON SINK

Table 12: Emissions Offset by Land-based Carbon Sink 

Sink Source Emissions 

(MMTCO2E) 

Land-based Carbon Sink (carbon stock changes in land use, 

land-use change, and forestry) -884 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed by land and vegetation through the process of photosynthesis. The

net emissions are negative (sequestration) and substantial, offsetting approximately 884 MMTCO2E, or

approximately 13% of total emissions in 2006.114 The carbon sequestration and storage provided by

land can be preserved though sustainable land management practices, and can be enhanced by

restoration of land, such as reforestation of contaminated land.  

The emissions estimate for the land‐based carbon sink is given by the Inventory. Specifically, Chapter 7,

Land Use, Land‐Use Change, and Forestry, provides an assessment of the net GHG flux resulting from

the uses and changes in land types and forests in the U.S., including net emissions from forestland

remaining forestland, cropland remaining cropland, land converted to cropland, grassland remaining

grassland, land converted to grassland, settlements remaining settlements, landfill yard trimmings, and

 

114 U.S. EPA. 2008. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2006.  Chapter 7. Land Use, Land‐Use Change, and Forestry. Available

at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginv_archive.html

A‐14
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

food scraps. It should be noted that while mature ecosystems have a carbon flux of essentially zero,

much of the forest land in the U.S. is growing or re‐growing, which contributes to the net sink.

GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT

Table 13: Emissions Related to Greenfield Development System 

Emissions Source Emissions 

(MMTCO2E) 

Lost soil carbon 202 

Lost biomass carbon 81 

Lost dead organic matter carbon 31 

Total Emissions from Greenfield Development System 314 

Greenfield development (that is, conversion of natural land or farmland to a residential, commercial, or

industrial use) results in GHG emissions from the decay and release of organic carbon to the

atmosphere (“bio‐carbon emissions”). Bio‐carbon can be released from soil, plants, and dead organic

matter (DOM), such as leaf litter. Greenfield development may also cause net emissions by foregoing

future carbon absorption if the land developed is an active sink, such as a growing forest. This effect, of

foregone future absorption, is not accounted for here.

As with the land‐based carbon sink discussed in the previous section, policies that promote land

revitalization, land reuse, and denser development in place of new land development will reduce bio‐

carbon emissions from greenfield development. The estimate in this section is presented partly to

show the scale of potential emissions reductions available through land reuse.  

Although the Inventory includes a chapter on Land Use, Land‐Use Change, and Forestry (see previous

section), emissions from greenfield development are not currently included due to lack of accurate

data. We provide a rough estimate here since emissions from greenfield development are critically

linked to land revitalization and reuse and this link is relatively unexplored. These emissions fall mostly

or completely outside the official inventory, and so can not be integrated with the systems allocation in

a consistent way. The total is estimated at 314 MMTCO2E, or the equivalent of approximately 4% of

U.S. emissions. This estimate is highly uncertain compared with other emissions estimates in the

Inventory.  

The analyses used to calculate soil, biomass, and DOM carbon loss are based on the methodologies

and recommendations made by the IPCC in “IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas

Inventories.”115 The GHG inventory produced by U.S. EPA in 2008 used the 1996 IPCC guidelines as a

basis, but supplemented the results using the 2006 IPCC guidelines.116 The IPCC 2006 guidelines

identify three basic carbon pools that can be affected by new land development: carbon in soil, carbon

in biomass, and carbon in DOM.

To the extent possible, the analysis follows a Tier 1 approach as proposed by the IPCC 2006 guidelines.

A Tier 1 approach is designed to be the simplest to use (the more sophisticated Tier 2 and Tier 3

 

115 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006. Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Available at:

http://www.ipcc‐nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs1.html 116 U.S. EPA. 2008. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2006. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginv_archive.html

A‐15
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

approaches require more extensive and localized data than were available for this analysis). It makes

use of default parameter values that are provided in the guidance document. Although some country‐

specific activity data are needed, much of the remaining information is gathered from global sources

about emissions and stock change factors. Please note that there are specific instances where this

analysis deviates from a Tier 1 approach because the IPCC‐recommended country or region specific

information was not available. Those instances are noted.

The change in soil as a consequence of new land development is estimated by:  

( )

ON

ONon

SOIL T

ACsCs ΔC = − ⋅

• ∆CSOIL = Annual change in carbon stocks in soil, tonnes C yr‐1

• Cso = Soil carbon stock, under old land‐use category, tonnes C yr‐1

• Csn = Soil carbon stock, under new land‐use category, tonnes C yr‐1

• Aon = Area undergoing conversion from old to new land‐use category, ha

• Ton = Time period of transition, default is 1 year for carbon losses

Although this equation is similar to the equation used to estimate carbon losses in DOM (see below), it

is not in accordance with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The guidelines recommend a greater degree of

disaggregation of land‐use data by climate and soil type. The equation above represents a

simplification of the variability of carbon contents in soil that exists on regional and national scales. The

soil carbon stock for the old land use category (Cso) was based on information for different ecosystem

types presented in the 2000 IPCC report on Land Use, Land‐use Change, and Forestry.117 The soil

carbon stock for the new land use category of settlements (Csn) was based on a fraction of Cso. For

forestland and grassland, the fraction was 0.5 and for cropland, the fraction was 0.8. Guo and Gifford

(2002) observed that land use changes of forestland to cropland and pastureland to cropland resulted

in soil carbon decreases of 42% and 59%, respectively.118 The estimate for this project assumes that

the conversion of forestland or grassland to urban land is equivalent to a conversion to cropland (bo

remove existing vegetation and cause significant soil disturbance); therefore, Guo and Gifford’s work

supports this effort’s estimation of a 50% loss associated with this conversion. It is estimated that soils

under forests or grasslands will lose approximately 50% of the original organic carbon when the land is

converted to developed land. These losses are a consequence of both the removal of surface soils (to

provide suitable building foundation) and natural oxidation when the soil is graded following removal

of the vegetative cover. Losses from croplands are only expected to be 20% because these soils already

undergo periodic tillage and the majority of natural oxidation will already have occurred. A literature

review for this project did not identify other studies comparable to Guo and Gifford (2002) that

estimated soil carbon losses associated with converting cropland to urban land. Therefore, the 20% soil

carbon loss estimate for development of cropland into urban land is based on best professional

judgment.

th

 

117 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2000. Land Use, Land‐Use Change and Forestry. Available at:

http://www.grida.no/Climate/ipcc/land_use/index.htm 118   Guo, L.B. and Gifford, R.M. 2002. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Global Change Biology (8):4: 345–360.

A‐16
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

The change in biomass carbon stocks as a consequence of new land development is estimated using

the following equations:

ΔCB ΔC= G ΔC+ CONVERSION − ΔCL

∑ {( − ) }

i

on i BEFORE i

ΔCCONVERSION AFTER ΔABB= CF

• ∆CB = Annual change in carbon stocks in biomass on land converted to another land‐use category, tonnes C yr‐1

• ∆CG = Annual increase in carbon stocks in biomass due to growth on land converted to another land use category,

tonnes C yr‐1

• ∆CCONVERSION = Initial change in carbon stocks in biomass on land converted to another land‐use category, tonnes C

yr‐1

• ∆CL = Annual decrease in biomass carbon stocks due to losses from harvesting, fuel wood and disturbances on land

converted to another land use category, tonnes C yr‐1

   • BAFTER = Biomass stock on land type i immediately after conversion, tonnes dry matter ha‐ 

• BBEFORE = Biomass stock on land type i immediately before conversion, tonnes dry matter ha‐ 

• ∆AON = Area of land use i converted to another land‐use category, ha yr‐ 

• CF = Carbon fraction of dry matter (tonnes C) ∙ (tonnes dry matter)‐1; default is 0.5

Key assumptions based on the 2006 IPCC Guidelines are that for a Tier 1 approach, ∆CG = ∆CL, and the

net effect on ∆CB is zero when land is converted to settlements. Therefore it is not necessary to

develop estimates for these components. Also, BAFTER is assumed to be zero (development removes all

biomass from the converted land). Although BAFTER is likely a positive value in practice, it was beyond

the scope of this analysis to estimate a non‐zero value for B

R

AFTER.  

BBEFORE is based on default values provided in the 2006 IPCC guidelines. The estimates for ∆AON are

based on the results provided in the 2003 National Resource Inventory prepared by the Natural

Resources Conservation Service.119 This inventory provided estimates for amounts of rural land

converted into developed land (settlements) between 1997 and 2001. For the purposes of this initial

analysis, we used the average amount of annual conversion over the time period studied and assumed

the same rate of conversion for 2006: 2.2 million acres per year.120 The rural lands identified in the

resource inventory were classified into forest, crop, pasture, range, and other. For this analysis,

pasture and range land were combined into grassland. Other land is defined as farmsteads, farm

structures, windbreaks, barren land, and marshland. Insufficient information is available to evaluate

carbon stocks in biomass for this land classification. Consequently, it was not included in the analysis.  

The change in dead organic matter as a consequence of Land Converted to Settlements is estimated by:

( )

ON

ONon

DOM T

ACC ΔC = − ⋅

• ∆CDOM = Annual change in carbon stocks in dead wood or litter, tonnes C yr‐ 

• Co = Dead wood/litter stock, under old land‐use category, tonnes C yr‐ 

• Cn = Dead wood/litter stock, under new land‐use category, tonnes C yr‐ 

• Aon = Area undergoing conversion from old to new land‐use category, h

• Ton = Time period of transition, default is 1 year for carbon losses

 

119 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2003. 2003 National Resources Inventory. Available at:

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/ 120 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2003. 2003 National Resources Inventory. p. 1. “The rate of [forestland,

cropland, pastureland, rangeland, and other] development between 1997 and 2001 averaged 2.2 million acres per year.” Available at:

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI

A‐17
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Key assumptions based on the 2006 IPCC Guidelines are that for a Tier 1 approach, Cn for developed

land is zero. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines provide estimates for dead wood/litter (Co) for forest land only.

For other land classes, the estimates for Co is zero. The estimates for Aon are based on the same

information used for the biomass pool.

The carbon emissions attributable to greenfield development shown in Table 13 represent an estimate

of the aggregate from cropland, grassland, and forestland conversion. However, the magnitude of

impacts from greenfield development vary as a consequence of the degree of disturbance of the

above‐ and below‐ground carbon pools and the location of impact (e.g., original carbon content of the

soil and biomass, which varies by ecoregion). The current analysis estimates that land‐use conversion

results in aggregate losses of approximately 25%, 50%, and 70% of the estimated terrestrial carbon

pool of cropland, grassland, and forestland, respectively.  

BUILDING HVAC AND LIGHTING

Table 14: Emissions Related to Building HVAC and Lighting 

Source Sector Emissions 

(MMTCO2E) 

Residential HVAC and lighting combustion Residential 234.6 

Residential HVAC and lighting electricity use Electric Power 598.5 

Commercial HVAC and lighting combustion Commercial 166.9 

Commercial HVAC and lighting electricity use Electric Power 639.7 

Upstream industrial sector fossil fuel combustion Industry 78.9

Total Emissions from Building HVAC and Lighting 1,719

Approximately 1,719 MMTCO2E, or 25% of total GHG emissions are associated with Building HVAC and

Lighting. This includes the emissions resulting from heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting residential

and commercial buildings, and from extracting and processing fossil fuels used by those activities.

Prevention‐oriented policies to reduce Building HVAC and Lighting emissions include activities that

promote building design which takes better advantage of natural light and climate control, more

compact building design, and increased energy efficiency of buildings and lighting.

To calculate the emissions associated with Building HVAC and Lighting, the total emissions associated

with building energy use for both the residential and commercial economic sectors first had to be

calculated. The emissions from residential and commercial electricity use are taken from the

Inventory’s Table 2‐14. These emissions are added to the sectors’ direct emissions, which is the sum of

the emissions from stationary and fossil fuel combustions found in the Inventory’s Table 2‐12. These

are the total emissions associated with building energy use of the residential and commercial economic

sectors. These emissions are apportioned according to their sector’s relative use of energy for Building

HVAC and Lighting.

End‐use data from the EIA were used to establish the total energy use for Building HVAC and Lighting in

commercial and residential buildings.121 The raw data are converted to proportions in order to apply

 

121   U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency. 2008. Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/contents.html; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency. 2005. Residential Energy Consumption

Survey. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/contents.html

A‐18
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

the findings across year‐specific data.122 The EIA data reports the end‐use in British thermal units (Btu)

for several categories. The building energy use categories that are considered part of Building HVAC

and Lighting are: space heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. These categories are

commonly reported between the commercial and residential sectors, with the exception of lighting.

The remainder of the categories is captured in the Use of Appliances and Devices pie chart slice.

EIA’s 2005 data couples residential lighting energy use with the energy use of other household

appliances. The total energy use for lighting and other household appliances was 2.74 quadrillion

Btu.123 Residential lighting accounts for 8.8% of the total household electricity use.124 The proportion

of electricity used by a household for lighting, relative to total household electricity use, is applied to

the total energy used by the residential sector for lighting and other household appliances. The to

energy used by the residential sector for lighting is approximately 0.24 quadrillion Btu, which means

that approximately 2.5 quadrillion Btu are used for other household appliances.  

tal

 

In 2005, the total energy used by the residential sector was 10.55 quadrillion Btu; the total energy used

for HVAC and lighting was 7.53 quadrillion Btu.125 This puts the proportion of energy used by the

residential sector for Building HVAC and Lighting at about 71%. According to the EIA, the commercial

sector used a total of 6,523 trillion Btu in 2003.126 The amount of energy used for commercial Building

HVAC and Lighting was 5,158 Btu, or approximately 79% of the total energy used. These proportions

are applied to the building energy emissions totals for their respective sector. The resulting data are

summed showing that the energy used by the commercial and residential sectors for Building HVAC

and Lighting is associated with approximately 1,646 MMTCO2E, or 75% of the total emissions

associated with the sector’s building energy use. This proportion is applied to the total fossil fuel

extraction and processing emissions associated with building energy use. For example, the proportion

of total electricity power industry emissions applied to Building HVAC and Lighting is also applied to

methane emissions from coal mines (because the coal goes to produce electricity used by buildings).

Fossil fuel extraction and processing emissions are described above in the Provision of Goods section.  

122   This assumes that recent end‐use patterns have not changed drastically. 123   U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency. 2005. Residential Energy Consumption Survey. Table US12. Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2005/c&e/detailed_tables2005c&e.html 124   U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency. 2001. “End‐Use Consumption of Electricity 2001.” Residential Energy Consumption Survey.

Table 2. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html 125   U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency. 2005. Residential Energy Consumption Survey. Table US12. Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2005/c&e/detailed_tables2005c&e.html 126   U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency. 2008. Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. Table E1.A. Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/contents.html

A‐19
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

USE OF APPLIANCES AND DEVICES

Table 15: Emissions Related to Use of Appliances and Devices 

Source Sector Emissions 

(MMTCO2E) 

Residential appliances and devices combustion Residential 95.8 

Residential appliances and devices electricity use Electric Power 244.5 

Commercial appliances and devices combustion Commercial 44.4 

Commercial appliances and devices electricity use Electric Power 170.1 

Upstream industrial sector fossil fuel combustion Industry 26.3

Total Emissions from Use of Appliances and Devices 581

Approximately 581 MMTCO2E, or 8% of total GHG emissions are associated with commercial and

residential use of appliances and devices. This includes the emissions resulting from washing clothing,

cooking, refrigeration, office equipment, computers and other appliances, and fossil fuel extraction

and processing.

To calculate the emissions associated with the use of Appliances and Devices, the total emissions

associated with building energy use for both the residential and commercial economic sectors were

calculated. The emissions from residential and commercial electricity use are taken from the Table 2‐

14 of the Inventory. These emissions are added to the sector’s direct emissions, which is the sum of the

emissions from stationary and fossil fuel combustions found in the Table 2‐12 of the Inventory. These

emissions comprise the total emissions associated with building energy use for the residential and

commercial economic sectors. These emissions are apportioned according to their sector’s relative use

of energy for Appliances and Devices.

Following the methodology outlined for calculating the emissions for the use of Building HVAC and

Lighting described in the preceding section, the emissions for the Use of Appliances and Devices were

estimated. The residential sector uses 29% of its total building energy consumption to power

household appliances and devices.127 The commercial sector uses 21% of its total building energy

consumption on powering appliances and devices.128 These proportions are applied to the building

energy emissions totals for their respective sector. The resulting data are summed showing that the

energy used by the commercial and residential sectors’ Use of Appliances and Devices is associated

with approximately 555 MMTCO2E, or 25% of the total emissions associated with the building energy

use of both sectors. This proportion is applied to the total fossil fuel extraction and processing

emissions associated with building energy use.

 

127   U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency. 2005. Residential Energy Consumption Survey. Table US‐12. Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2005/c&e/detailed_tables2005c&e.html 128   U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency. 2008. Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. Table E1.A. Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/contents.html

A‐20
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

SECTION A‐2

METHODOLOGIES SUPPORTING TOTAL TECHNICAL POTENTIAL SCENARIOS IN OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE

GAS EMISSIONS THROUGH MATERIALS AND LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Section 3 of Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land

Management Practices includes a number of total technical potential scenarios. The term total

technical potential refers to the estimated GHG emission reductions that would occur if the scenarios

presented were achieved, setting aside economic, institutional, or technological limitations. Such

scenarios are a common first step in climate policy analysis and allow for the examination of the GHG

reduction potential of various mitigation strategies. These total technical potential scenarios are useful

for scoping the order‐of‐magnitude impact of an activity and for identifying areas of promise for more

detailed analysis.  

These scenarios suppose a change from current U.S. business‐as‐usual practices and provide an

estimate of the potential climate‐related benefits from those changes (e.g., reduction in GHG

emissions measured in MMTCO2E). Some scenarios represent the GHG emission reduction that could

be achieved in addition to existing materials management practices (e.g., reducing packaging by 50%),

while others represent the GHG emission reduction that could be achieved from existing materials

management practices that are enhanced (e.g., recycle 100% of construction and demolition debris).

Recognizing that achieving 100% of the benefits presented in each scenario would be challenging, this

document has prepared 100%, 50%, and 25% scenarios to provide a better understanding of the

scalability of each scenario. It should be noted that these reduction rates do not represent EPA goals or

targets.  

The scenarios selected for this document represent a range of potential reductions (e.g., 0.2 to 2,200

MMTCO2E). The majority of hypothetical reductions are on the same order of magnitude as individual

options identified in other climate change mitigation analyses conducted by others (e.g., see McKinsey

and Company, “Reducing U.S. GHG Emissions: How Much and at What Cost?” (2007)). These scenarios

can be considered a first‐step analysis for identifying areas of opportunity for EPA and its partners. As

we consider developing programs and policies, more detailed studies that account for economic and

practical limitations and opportunities will be needed. The scenarios suggest how to direct these future

efforts to pursue options with the largest impact. An analysis and explanation of each total technical

potential scenario follows.  

SUMMARY OF MATERIALS MANAGEMENT TOTAL TECHNICAL POTENTIAL SCENARIOS

As noted in Section 3, most reductions from materials management approaches are likely to be

achieved in ways that increase materials efficiency and are, therefore, beneficial from a GHG

perspective. For example, in the example below under the “Source Reduction” group—the 50%

reduction in packaging could result from innovations such as developing lighter and stronger packaging

material, changing distribution systems to reduce or reuse packaging, or re‐purposing previously used

materials (e.g., newsprint) that require fewer raw resources.  

These total technical potential scenarios represents estimates of what GHG reductions would result

with today’s waste streams under different management scenarios relative to current practices; the

estimates do not reflect observed or projected trends in materials management practices. These

estimates are not projections of future GHG reduction benefits.  

A‐21
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

It is also important to note that these reductions cannot necessarily be combined additively to one

another, due to interactions between the different materials, waste streams and disposal options.

These estimates were prepared using EPA’s WAste Reduction Model (WARM), and therefore reflect life

cycle emission reductions. Finally, these estimates are based on current national average emissions for

domestic production and materials use practices, and do not take into account the energy use or GHG

effects of major changes to infrastructure, manufacturing processes, or transportation methods that

would be necessary to approach these potential reductions. Further, they do not take into account any

emissions reductions associated with non‐domestic production of goods and services.

Table 16: Summary of Materials Management Total Technical Potential Scenarios 

Summary of Total Technical Potential Scenarios Estimated GHG 

Emission Benefit* 

Source Reduction 

Reduce packaging use by: 50% 40—105 MMTCO2E/yr

25% 20—50 MMTCO2E/yr

Reduce use of non-packaging paper products by**: 50% 20—70 MMTCO2E/yr

25% 10—35 MMTCO2E/yr

Extend the life of personal computers by: 50% 25 MMTCO2E/yr

25% 15 MMTCO2E/yr

Reuse/Recycling 

Increase recycling of construction and demolition debris to: 100% 150 MMTCO2E/yr

50% 75 MMTCO2E/yr

25% 40 MMTCO2E/yr

Increase national municipal solid waste (MSW) recycling and composting rate from 2006 rate (32.5%) to: 100% 300 MMTCO2E/yr

50% 70—80 MMTCO2E/yr

Increase composting of food scraps from 2006 rate (2%) to: 100% 20 MMTCO2E/yr

50% 10 MMTCO2E/yr

25% 5 MMTCO2E/yr

Energy Recovery / Disposal 

Combust percentage of currently landfilled MSW: 100% 70—120 MMTCO2E/yr

50% 35—60 MMTCO2E/yr

25% 20—30 MMTCO2E/yr

Combust MSW remaining if national recycling rate is increased to 50%: 65—110 MMTCO2E/yr

Capture percentage of currently emitted methane at U.S. landfills for electricity generation: 100% 150 MMTCO2E/yr

50% 70 MMTCO2E/yr

25% 35 MMTCO2E/yr

* Most of the total technical potential scenarios presented in this table have been rounded to one significant figure. See following subsections for more 

detail on these estimates. 

** Non-packaging paper products include magazines and third class mail, newspaper, office paper, phonebooks, and textbooks. 

A‐22
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

SOURCE REDUCTION

Reduce packaging use  

by 50% 40‐105 MMTCO2E per year

by 25% 20‐50 MMTCO2E per year

In order to estimate the GHG benefits from the reduction of containers and packaging, it is first

necessary to estimate the amount of each material produced per year in the United States. According

to EPA’s 2006 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Facts and Figures report,129 the following table represents

the aggregate generation and recovery values for various packaging materials in the MSW stream (see

Table 17). These estimates do not capture all materials that are produced (since this table only

represents the generation estimates of materials that end up in the MSW stream). Packaging that is

reused or recycled before entering the MSW stream (for example, reusable pallets and crates, or boxes

sent business to business and recycled separately from the MSW stream) is not included here and

would not be reduced under this scenario. However, considering that most packaging eventually enters

the MSW stream, these values are good approximations of the total packaging materials produced in

the United States.  

The MSW Facts and Figures report describes “containers and packaging” as being comprised of steel,

aluminum, glass, paper and paperboard, plastics, wood, and other materials. Containers and packaging

comprised the largest portion of products generated, at 79.6 million tons of total MSW generation (see

Table 17).  

Table 17: Generation and Recovery of Products in MSW by Material, 2006 

(in millions of tons and percent of generation of each product) 

Containers and Packaging Weight Generated 

(tons) 

Weight Recovered 

(tons) 

Recovery as a Percent 

of Generation 

 Steel 2,750,000 1,740,000 63.27% 

 Aluminum 1,940,000 690,000 35.57% 

 Glass 11,390,000 2,880,000 25.29% 

 Paper and Paperboard 40,440,000 23,860,000 59.00% 

 Plastics 14,230,000 1,510,000 10.61% 

 Wood 8,480,000 1,310,000 15.45% 

 Other Materials 390,000 Neg. Neg. 

Total Containers and Packaging 79,620,000 31,990,000 40.18% 

Using the life cycle emission factors described in EPA’s Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse

Gases: A Life‐Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks Report130 and subsequently used in EPA’s

WARM, we use the “source reduction” emission factors to calculate the reduction in GHGs from

reducing the generation of packaging materials by a quarter and in half. Some material categories in

the MSW Facts and Figures report are not precisely represented in WARM, so for those we use

approximate matches. The proxy for “paper and paperboard” is “corrugated cardboard,” for “other

materials” we use “medium‐density fiberboard” and for “plastics” we use the average of the emission

factors for high‐density polyethylene (HDPE), low‐density polyethylene (LDPE), and polyethylene

terephthalate (PET). A baseline scenario of the amount of materials currently recovered, landfilled, and

combusted was compared to two alternative scenarios with 50% and 25% source reduction. In the

 

129 U.S. EPA. Office of Solid Waste. 2007. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2006 Facts and Figures. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm 130 U.S. EPA. 2006. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life‐Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. Available at:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/SWMGHGreport.html

A‐23
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

alternative scenarios, after taking into account the respective percent source reduction of each

material, the amount recovered, landfilled, and combusted was scaled down by 50% or 25%

accordingly to evenly distribute the materials reduction among the end‐of‐life pathways. These

calculations estimate the GHG benefits of reducing each type of packaging by 50% and 25% with the

totals equal to roughly 106 million and 53 MMTCO2E per year, respectively for each scenario when

including the forest sequestration effect, or 41 and 20 MMTCO2E per year, respectively for each

scenario when excluding forest sequestration (see Tables 18 and 19).  

By reducing the amount of paper products generated, there is an associated benefit of not harvesting

the upstream raw materials (i.e., trees) necessary for production. In turn, there will be an increase in

available virgin forest, or similarly, an increase in the average age of managed forests, enabling

additional biological carbon sequestration. The high‐end sequestration benefit assumes that while

harvesting of trees decreases, the management of forests otherwise remains constant (e.g., trees in

managed forests continue being planted and managed forests are not converted to other uses). This

high‐end estimate is an extrapolation of the marginal benefit of paper source reduction. A large

reduction in paper demand, however, would likely change forest management practices. The low‐end

estimate assumes no forest carbon sequestration benefit from the reduction. The hypothetical value

with respect to forest carbon is likely in between these bounds.

Table 18: GHG Benefits for the “Source Reduction” of 50% of the Annual Generation of Packaging Products in MSW in 2006 

Containers and Packaging 

Weight 

Generated 

(tons) 

% Source 

Reduction 

Amount Reduced 

(tons) 

GHG Reduction 

Assuming Current 

Mix of Inputs 

(MTCO2E) 

(Including Forest 

Sequestration) 

GHG Reduction 

Assuming Current 

Mix of Inputs 

(MTCO2E) 

(Excluding Forest 

Sequestration) 

Steel 2,750,000 50 % 1,375,000 (2,692,000) (2,692,000) 

Aluminum 1,940,000 50 % 970,000 (3,355,000) (3,355,000) 

Glass 11,390,000 50 % 5,695,000 (3,053,000) (3,053,000) 

Paper and Paperboard 40,440,000 50 % 20,220,000 (77,238,000) (18,144,000) 

Plastics 14,230,000 50 % 7,115,000 (14,856,000) (14,856,000) 

Wood 8,480,000 50 % 4,240,000 (4,913,000) 1,241,000 

Other materials 390,000 50 % 195,000 (321,000) 38,000 

Total Containers and Packaging 79,620,000 50 % 39,810,000 (106,428,000) (40,821,000) 

Table 19: GHG Benefits for the “Source Reduction” of 25% of the Annual Generation of Packaging Products in MSW in 2006 

Containers and Packaging 

Weight 

Generated 

(tons) 

% Source 

Reduction 

Amount Reduced 

(tons) 

GHG Reduction 

Assuming Current 

Mix of Inputs 

(MTCO2E) 

(Including Forest 

Sequestration) 

GHG Reduction 

Assuming Current 

Mix of Inputs 

(MTCO2E) 

(Excluding Forest 

Sequestration) 

Steel 2,750,000 25% 687,500 (1,346,000) (1,346,000) 

Aluminum 1,940,000 25% 485,000 (1,678,000) (1,678,000) 

Glass 11,390,000 25% 2,847,500 (1,527,000) (1,527,000) 

Paper and Paperboard 40,440,000 25% 10,110,000 (38,619,000) (9,072,000) 

Plastics 14,230,000 25% 3,557,500 (7,428,000) (7,428,000) 

Wood 8,480,000 25% 2,120,000 (2,456,000) 620,000 

Other materials 390,000 25% 97,500 (161,000) 19,000 

Total Containers and Packaging 79,620,000 25% 19,905,000 (53,214,000) (20,411,000) 

A‐24
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

In the main text and summary tables, the estimated GHG emission benefit associated with this total

technical potential scenario is rounded to 40‐105 MMTCO2E (50% scenario) and 20‐50 MMTCO2E (25%

scenario).

Reduce use of non‐packaging paper products

by 50% 20‐70 MMTCO2E per year

by 25%         10‐35 MMTCO2E per year   

While containers and packaging consist of a very large portion of the MSW stream, non‐packaging

paper products also contribute greatly to total MSW. The estimates in Tables 20 and 21 are derived

from EPA’s 2006 MSW Facts and Figures report and aggregated to include five categories of non‐

packaging paper products including magazines/third class mail, newspaper, office paper, phonebooks,

and textbooks.131

Using the life cycle emission factors described in EPA’s Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse

Gases: A Life‐Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks Report and subsequently used in EPA’s WARM,

the “source reduction” emission factors were employed to calculate the reduction in GHGs associated

with a 50% and a 25% reduction in the use of these materials (see Tables 20 and 21), accounting for

avoided emissions from production, transport, and disposal.132 A baseline scenario of the amount of

materials currently recovered, landfilled, and combusted was compared to these source reduction

alternative scenarios. In the alternative scenarios, after taking into account the source reduction of

50% and 25% of each material, the amount recovered, landfilled, and combusted was scaled down by

50% and 25%, respectively, to evenly distribute the material reduction among end‐of‐life pathways.  

The total potential GHG benefits associated with the source reduction of 50% and 25% of each of the

listed materials ranges between approximately 21 to 73 MMTCO2E for the 50% scenario and 10 to 36

MMTCO2E for the 25% scenario. The high range GHG benefits (73 and 36 MMTCO2E for the 50% and

25% scenarios, respectively) of the source reduction of paper materials includes the forest

sequestration effect (see Tables 20 and 21).

Table 20: GHG Benefits for the “Source Reduction” of 50% of the Annual Generation of 

Five Non-Packaging Paper Materials in 2006 

Material 

Amount 

Generated in 

MSW Stream 

(tons) 

% Source 

Reduction 

Amount 

Reduced 

(tons) 

GHG Reduction 

Assuming Current 

Mix of Inputs 

(MTCO2E) 

(Including Forest 

Sequestration) 

GHG Reduction 

Assuming Current 

Mix of Inputs 

(MTCO2E) 

(Excluding Forest 

Sequestration) 

Magazines/Thirdclass Mail 8,460,000 50 % 4,230,000 (30,632,000) (6,258,000) 

Newspaper 12,360,000 50 % 6,180,000 (14,377,000) (7,104,000 

Office Paper 6,320,000 50 % 3,160,000 (20,815,000) (5,158,000) 

Phonebooks 680,000 50 % 340,000 (1,744,000) (572,000) 

Textbooks 1,130,000 50 % 565,000 (5,291,000) (1,800,000) 

Total 28,950,000 50 % 14,475,000 (72,859,000) (20,893,000) 

 

131 U.S. EPA. 2007. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2006 Facts and Figures. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm 132 U.S. EPA. 2006. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life‐Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. Available at:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/SWMGHGreport.html

A‐25
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Table 21: GHG Benefits for the “Source Reduction” of 25% of the Annual Generation of 

Five Non-Packaging Paper Materials in 2006 

Material 

Amount 

Generated in 

MSW Stream 

(tons) 

% Source 

Reduction 

Amount 

Reduced 

(tons) 

GHG Reduction 

Assuming Current Mix 

of Inputs (MTCO2E) 

(Including Forest 

Sequestration) 

GHG Reduction 

Assuming Current Mix 

of Inputs (MTCO2E) 

(Excluding Forest 

Sequestration) 

Magazines/Thirdclass Mail 8,460,000 25 % 2,115,000 (15,316,000) (3,129,000) 

Newspaper 12,360,000 25 % 3,090,000 (7,189,000) (3,552,000) 

Office Paper 6,320,000 25 % 1,580,000 (10,408,000) (2,579,000) 

Phonebooks 680,000 25 % 170,000 (872,000) (286,000) 

Textbooks 1,130,000 25 % 282,500 (2,645,000) (900,000) 

Total 28,950,000 25 % 7,237,500 (36,430,000) (10,447,000) 

  

In the main text and summary tables, the estimated GHG emission benefit associated with this total

technical potential scenario is rounded to 20‐70 MMTCO2E (50% scenario) and 10‐35 MMTCO2E (25%

scenario).

Extend the life of personal computers  

by 50% 25 MMTCO2E per year

by 25%              15 MMTCO2E per year   

We estimate the GHG benefits of extending the life of personal computers (PCs) as one example of the

benefits available from extending product lifetimes. Extending the life of PCs is assumed to be

equivalent to reducing the production of PCs that replace those computers. The rationale for this

assumption is that a 50% increase in the lifetime of a computer would lead to a reduction of

replacement computer purchases. Estimates of PC sales are described in Table 22.133

Table 22: U.S. Total Computer Sales by Type in 2006 

Computer Type 

Number of Computers 

(millions of units) 

Desktops 35.4 

Portable laptops 24.3 

Total PCs 59.7 

  

The GHG benefits were calculated using the WARM estimate of the GHG emission factor for source

reduction of “personal computers.” In the baseline, it was assumed that 26% of the materials from

desktop computers are recycled into secondary materials, 72% are landfilled, and 2% are combusted

with energy recovery, based on EPA estimates (see Table 23).134 The estimated GHG benefit assumes a

source reduction of only desktop PCs in the United States and also assumes that the PCs are produced

using the current mix of inputs.  

 

133 U.S. EPA. 2007. Management of Electronic Waste in the United States: Approach One. Final Report, EPA530‐R‐08‐009. Table 2.2, p. 9. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/manage.htm 134 U.S. EPA. 2007. Management of Electronic Waste in the United States: Approach Two. Draft Final Report, EPA530‐R‐07‐004b. Exhibit 4‐4. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/manage.htm

A‐26
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Table 23: Baseline Scenario for Desktop PCs in the U.S. Sold in 2006 

Region PCs (tons) 

Source 

Reduction 

(tons) 

Recycled 

(tons) 

Landfilled 

(tons) 

Combusted 

(tons) Total MTCO2E 

USA 1,317,000 0 342,000 948,000 26,000 (747,000) 

A 50% increase in the average lifetime of a PC in the U.S. is assumed to be equivalent to a reduction in

the manufacture of PCs of 33% of PC sales volume in 2006.135 This is roughly translated to increasing

the average life of a PC to six years, from the current four year average before reuse, storage, or

disposal.136 A 25% increase in the average lifetime of a PC in the U.S. is assumed to be equivalent to a

reduction in the manufacture of PCs of 20% of PC sales volume in 2006.137 This is roughly translated to

increasing the average life of a PC to five years, from the current average of four years before reuse,

storage or disposal.138  

Of course, the benefits of improving today’s computers would only accrue starting several years in the

future, but this estimate can be thought of as the total benefit over time. Finally, the average weight of

a typical desktop PC is assumed to be 70 pounds, and a typical laptop is assumed to be 6.4 pounds.139

The resulting GHG benefits amount to roughly 24 and 15 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent

(MMTCO2E), respectively for each scenario, from the PCs sold in 2006 (see Table 24).

Table 24: GHG Benefits from Source Reduction of Desktop PCs in the U.S. Sold in 2006 

Region Scenario PCs (tons) 

Source 

Reduction 

(tons) 

Recycled 

(tons) 

Landfilled 

(tons) 

Combusted 

(tons) 

Total 

MTCO2E 

Net 

Difference 

(MTCO2E) 

USA 50% 878,000 439,000 228,000 632,000 18,000 (25,065,000) (24,318,000) 

USA 25% 1,043,000 274,000 271,000 751,000 21,000 (15,912,000) (15,165,000) 

This result has some caveats that are necessary to point out:

1. The WARM emissions factors used for this calculation were developed for desktop PCs with

cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors. Applying these factors to laptop computers with liquid crystal

display (LCD) monitors introduces some error, due to differences in the manufacturing and end‐

of‐life management of these computers. The resulting error is likely small, since laptop

computers account for roughly 6% of the total waste stream by weight.  

2. In order for older computers to remain useful for an additional two years (i.e., extension of the

lifetime of PCs), part replacements and upgrades may be necessary in order to remain at pace

with the software and technology markets. This will further reduce the source reduction GHG

 

135 The 33% assumption comes from assuming that for every 100 computers retired under current conditions, 67 computers would be retired in the

alternative scenario (based on a simple ratio of 1 / 1.5 = 0.67).    136 U.S. EPA. 2007. Management of Electronic Waste in the United States: Approach Two. Draft Final Report, EPA530‐R‐07‐004b. Exhibit 3‐7. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/manage.htm 137   The 20% assumption comes from assuming that for every 100 computers retired under current conditions, 80 computers would be retired in the

alternative scenario (based on a simple ratio of 1 / 1.25 = 0.80).   138   U.S. EPA. 2007. Management of Electronic Waste in the United States: Approach Two. Draft Final Report, EPA530‐R‐07‐004b. Exhibit 3‐7. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/manage.htm 139 Franklin Associates. 2001. Energy and Greenhouse Gas Factors for Personal Computers. p. 3. (desktop PC weight); U.S. EPA. 2008. Electronics Waste

Management in the United States, Approach 1. Final, EPA530‐R‐08‐009. Table 2.7, p. 18. (laptop PC weight). Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/manage.htm

A‐27
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

benefits, since this hardware will have similar energy and GHG impacts as parts in new

computers.

3. If users delay the purchase of newer, more energy efficient models, some source reduction

GHG benefits will be lost due the extended lifetime of the more energy intensive models. As

manufacturers place more emphasis on energy efficiency of new models, the prolonged use of

older models will result in the consumption of more electricity during the “product use” phase

of the computer’s life cycle. On the other hand, if new computers are more energy intensive

than previous models (for example, as a result of multi‐core processors), there may be

additional GHG benefits associated with the increased lifetime of newer PCs.  

In the main text and summary tables, the estimated GHG emission benefit associated with this total

technical potential scenario is rounded to 25 MMTCO2E (50% scenario) and 15 MMTCO2E (25%

scenario).

Increase recycling of construction and demolition debris materials

to 100%    150 MMTCO2E per year

to 50%              75 MMTCO2E per year   

to 25%              40 MMTCO2E per year   

EPA’s Characterization of Building Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States, (“the

construction and demolition (C&D) Characterization Report”) was used asthe primary data source for

estimating the potential GHG reduction from recycling C&D waste.140 WARM wasthen used to quantify the

GHG reductionsfrom recycling all cardboard, lumber, metal, plastic, concrete, and clay bricks.  

Table ES‐1 from the C&D Characterization Report provides estimates of the breakdown of the total

C&D waste stream into construction, renovation, and demolition in residential and nonresidential

sectors in 1996 (see Table 25).

Table 25: U.S. Construction, Renovation, and Demolition Waste by Sector 

Residential Nonresidential Total Waste Type tons % of total tons % of total tons % of total 

Construction 6,560,000 11% 4,270,000 6% 10,830,000 8% 

Renovation 31,900,000 55% 28,000,000 36% 59,900,000 44% 

Demolition 19,700,000 34% 45,100,000 58% 64,800,000 48% 

Total 58,160,000 77,370,000 135,530,000 

Next, the results of a C&D characterization study in Des Moines, Iowa, conducted by EPA in 1998 (Table

A‐17), were used to estimate the composition of each of the above waste streams (see Table 26).141  

 

140 U.S. EPA. Office of Solid Waste, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division. 1998. Characterization of Building Related Construction and Demolition

Debris in the United States. Report No. EPA530‐R‐98‐010.   141   Ibid.

A‐28
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Table 26: Composition of C&D Waste Streams 

Residential Commercial 

Material New 

Construction Renovation Demolition Construction Renovation Demolition 

Asphalt 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 

Brick 5% 4% 4% 7% 5% 7% 

Cardboard 4% 2% 0% 7% 1% 1% 

Concrete 12% 9% 22% 33% 22% 32% 

Drywall 16% 5% 10% 7% 16% 20% 

Metal 2% 10% 5% 9% 13% 12% 

Plastic 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Roofing 6% 29% 17% 10% 10% 3% 

Wood 44% 30% 32% 19% 18% 25% 

Other 10% 11% 9% 8% 15% 0% 

The tonnages in Table 25 were then multiplied by the percentages in Table 26 for material components

in order to estimate the volume of each material, as shown in Table 27.

Table 27: U.S. Construction, Renovation, and Demolition Waste by Sector and Material 

Residential (tons) Nonresidential (tons) 

Material New Renovation Demolition New Renovation Demolition 

Total 

(thousand 

tons) 

Asphalt - - - 26,000 - - 26,000 

Brick 341,000 1,228,000 774,000 286,000 1,275,000 3,353,000 7,258,000 

Cardboard 292,000 625,000 86,000 319,000 403,000 671,000 2,396,000 

Concrete 796,000 2,896,000 4,301,000 1,406,000 6,094,000 14,251,000 29,744,000 

Drywall 1,067,000 1,714,000 2,065,000 280,000 4,371,000 8,886,000 18,383,000 

Metal 103,000 3,035,000 946,000 378,000 3,588,000 5,365,000 13,414,000 

Plastic 57,000 208,000 86,000 20,000 60,000 - 431,000 

Roofing 368,000 9,104,000 3,269,000 410,000 2,931,000 1,341,000 17,424,000 

Wood 2,909,000 9,521,000 6,366,000 801,000 5,064,000 11,233,000 35,895,000 

Other 627,000 3,568,000 1,807,000 345,000 4,214,000 - 10,560,000 

Total 6,560,000 31,900,000 19,700,000 4,270,000 28,000,000 45,100,000 135,530,000 

Next, the total volumes for cardboard, concrete, clay bricks, metal, plastic, and wood were entered

into WARM. Since data on the current end‐of‐life treatment of C&D wastes were not available, the

approach assumed that all C&D materials are 100% landfilled in the baseline, and that 100%, 50%, or

25% of the cardboard, concrete, metal, plastic and wood waste tonnage are recycled in the alternative

scenarios. Clay bricks were assumed to be reused to offset the need for new bricks. The benefits of

recycling asphalt, drywall, roofing, and the “other” categories of C&D materials were not calculated

because recycling emission factors were not available for these streams. Tables 28 through 30 display

the WARM outputs for the baseline and alternative (recycling or source reduction) scenarios, and the

results of the alternatives minus baseline, to give the net difference.  

A‐29
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Table 28: Baseline and 100% Alternative Scenario and Net Difference for C&D Recycling vs. Landfilling 

Baseline Alternative (100%) Net Difference 

Material Tons 

Landfilled Total MTCO2E Tons Recycled Total MTCO2E Total MTCO2E 

Corrugated Cardboard 2,396,000 797,000 2,396,000 (7,454,000) (8,251,000) 

Dimensional Lumber 

(Wood) 

35,895,000 (18,757,000) 35,895,000 (88,129,000) (69,372,000) 

Mixed Metals 13,414,000 515,000 13,414,000 (70,523,000) (71,038,000) 

Clay Bricks142 7,258,000 279,000 7,258,000 (2,075,000) (2,354,000) 

Mixed Plastics 431,000 17,000 431,000 (656,000) (673,000) 

Concrete 29,744,000 1,142,000 29,744,000 (233,000) (1,375,000) 

Total (16,007,000) (169,070,000) (153,063,000) 

Table 29: Baseline and 50% Alternative Scenario and Net Difference for C&D Recycling vs. Landfilling 

Baseline Alternative (50%) Net Difference 

Material Tons 

Landfilled Total MTCO2E Tons Recycled Total MTCO2E Total MTCO2E 

Corrugated Cardboard 2,396,000 797,000 1,198,000 (3,329,000) (4,126,000) 

Dimensional Lumber 

(Wood) 

35,895,000 (18,757,000) 17,947,500 (53,443,000) (34,686,000) 

Mixed Metals 13,414,000 515,000 6,707,000 (35,004,000) (35,519,000) 

Clay Bricks143 7,258,000 279,000 3,629,000 (898,000) (1,177,000) 

Mixed Plastics 431,000 17,000 215,500 (320,000) (337,000) 

Concrete 29,744,000 1,142,000 14,872,000 454,000 (688,000) 

Total (16,007,000) (92,540,000) (76,533,000) 

Table 30: Baseline and 25% Alternative Scenario and Net Difference for C&D Recycling vs. Landfilling 

Baseline Alternative (25%) Net Difference 

Material Tons 

Landfilled Total MTCO2E Tons Recycled Total MTCO2E Tons Landfilled 

Corrugated Cardboard 2,396,000 797,000 599,000 (1,266,000) (2,063,000) 

Dimensional Lumber 

(Wood) 

35,895,000 (18,757,000) 8,973,750 (36,100,000) (17,343,000) 

Mixed Metals 13,414,000 515,000 3,353,500 (17,245,000) (17,760,000) 

Clay Bricks144 7,258,000 279,000 1,814,500 (152,000) (589,000 

Mixed Plastics 431,000 17,000 107,750 (310,000) (169,000)) 

Concrete 29,744,000 1,142,000 7,436,000 798,000 (344,000) 

Total (16,007,000) (54,275,000) (38,268,000) 

 

142 Used bricks were assumed to be reused (i.e., source reduced) to offset the demand for new bricks. 143 Used bricks were assumed to be reused (i.e., source reduced) to offset the demand for new bricks. 144 Used bricks were assumed to be reused (i.e., source reduced) to offset the demand for new bricks.

A‐30
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

These estimates have a very high level of uncertainty due to the lack of comprehensive data

quantifying and characterizing the national C&D waste stream. Some of the factors contributing to

uncertainty in this area include:

1) The total C&D waste stream estimate is based on the 1998 EPA study. Until better data are

available, this is the only source available for characterizing this waste sector. Given the

significant uncertainty with the older values, the estimates were not scaled up to 2006 to avoid

introducing more error into the process.

2) The composition of each of the six sub‐streams (residential and non‐residential construction,

demolition, and renovation) is based on a study over a single week in Des Moines, Iowa in 1995.

There are huge regional variations in composition. For example, wood is more common in the

Northwest than in the Southwest, and Northern regions tend to have full concrete basements,

while many Southern or Western regions do not.  

3) Not all materials in the C&D waste stream can be represented in WARM. For example, WARM

does not include GHG factors for recycling asphalt shingles or gypsum wallboard.  

4) Many of the recycling pathways covered by WARM may not be applicable to C&D waste.

Lumber from new construction may be easily recycled, while wood waste from demolition and

renovation often ends up as mulch or is burned for fuel.  

5) It is also not possible to say how much these potential savings compare with existing practices.

The same C&D study estimates recycling at 30‐40% with no details on the recycling rates of

individual materials. One industry group estimates steel recycling at 85%, so the marginal

benefits likely vary by material.

In the main text and summary tables, the estimated GHG emission benefit associated with this total

technical potential scenario is rounded to 150 MMTCO2E (100% scenario), 75 MMTCO2E (50%

scenario), and 40 MMTCO2E (25% scenario).

Increase national MSW recycling and composting rate from 2006 rate (32.5%)

to 100%    300 MMTCO2E per year

to 50%    70‐80 MMTCO2E per year

According to EPA’s 2006 MSW Facts and Figures report,145 the total MSW stream was 251,330,000 tons

in 2006, as shown in the second column of Table 31 below. The report also provides the portions of

waste generated that are recovered as shown in the same table. This analysis assumed that all

materials that were “recovered” were recycled, except for recovered organic waste streams, which

were assumed to be composted. One other exception is the “mixed MSW” material type which cannot

be recovered and whose recovery amount is assumed to be landfilled in both the baseline and

alternative scenarios. The tonnage of discarded materials that were landfilled or combusted for

energy, shown in Table 31, were estimated by applying the percentages of total MSW discarded that

were landfilled or combusted (80% and 20%, respectively) to the discarded totals for the recyclable

materials. These percentages were estimated using the tonnage data presented in Table 29 of EPA’s

2006 MSW Facts and Figures report.

 

145 U.S. EPA. 2007. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2006. Table 1. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non‐hw/muncpl/pubs/06data.pdf

A‐31
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Table 31: Baseline Scenario for All MSW Materials 

Material 

Tons 

Waste 

Generated 

Tons 

Recovered 

Recovery 

Rate 

Tons 

Landfilled 

Tons 

Combusted 

for Energy 

Aluminum 3,260,000 690,000 21.2% 2,094,000 476,000 

Steel 14,220,000 5,080,000 35.7% 7,448,000 1,692,000 

Glass 13,200,000 2,880,000 21.8% 8,410,000 1,910,000 

HDPE 6,040,000 580,000 9.6% 4,449,000 1,010,000 

LDPE 6,560,000 280,000 4.3% 5,118,000 1,162,000 

PET 3,060,000 620,000 20.3% 1,988,000 451,000 

Corrugated 

Cardboard 31,430,000 22,630,000 72.0% 7,171,000 1,629,000 

Magazines/ Thirdclass Mail 8,460,000 3,320,000 39.2% 4,189,000 951,000 

Newspaper 12,360,000 10,870,000 87.9% 1,214,000 276,000 

Office Paper 6,320,000 4,150,000 65.7% 1,768,000 402,000 

Phonebooks 680,000 130,000 19.1% 448,000 102,000 

Textbooks 1,130,000 290,000 25.7% 685,000 155,000 

Mixed Paper, other 24,900,000 2,630,000 10.6% 18,148,000 4,122,000 

Dimensional 

Lumber 13,930,000 1,310,000 9.4% 10,284,000 2,336,000 

Food Scraps 31,250,000 680,000 2.2% 24,912,000 5,658,000 

Yard Trimmings 32,400,000 20,100,000 62.0% 10,024,000 2,276,000 

Mixed Metals 1,650,000 1,180,000 71.5% 383,000 87,000 

Mixed Plastics 13,830,000 560,000 4.0% 10,814,000 2,456,000 

Mixed Organics 3,720,000 0 0.0% 3,032,000 688,000 

Mixed MSW 16,390,000 2,940,000 17.9% 10,961,000 2,489,000 

Tires 6,540,000 870,000 13.3% 4,621,000 1,049,000 

Total 251,330,000 81,790,000 32.5% 138,162,000 31,378,000 

It is useful to estimate the GHG savings that are hypothetically possible in a scenario with 100%

recovery in order to identify areas of opportunity. The following graph shows the GHG savings per

material from increasing each material’s recovery rate from 0% assuming all materials are either

landfilled or combusted (80% and 20%, respectively) to 100% recovery (again, except for “mixed MSW”

which is assumed to be landfilled). The total potential GHG savings from 100% recovery (assuming this

0% scenario) is 460 MMTCO2E. The current recovery of MSW as shown in Table 31 is roughly 32.5%

across all materials. Therefore, the baseline MSW recovery scenario is already producing GHG savings

of roughly 160 MMTCO2E across all materials as compared to a 0% scenario. The total potential

additional GHG savings from increasing the recovery rate from the current baseline (32.5%) to the

hypothetical maximum (100%) is roughly 300 MMTCO2E. These added GHG savings are shown per

material in Figure A.  

A‐32
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Figure A: GHG Savings for Current Baseline Rate (32.5%) and Total Potential (100%) as Compared to No Recovery

Potential GHG Savings as Compared to Current Recycling

(5)

15

35

55

75

95

115

Aluminum Cans

Steel Cans

Glass

HDPE

LDPE

PET

Corrugated Cardboard

Magazines/third-class mail

Newspaper

Office Paper

Phonebooks

Textbooks

Dimensional Lumber

Food Scraps

Yard Trimmings

Mixed Paper, other

Mixed Metals

Mixed Plastics

Mixed Organics

Mixed MSW

Tires

Millions

MTCO2E

Additional GHG savings Baseline savings

The increase of the national average recycling rate (including composting) to 50% across all materials in

the MSW stream is complicated because each material has its own individual recovery rate, as shown

in Table 31. The 2006 baseline weighted average across all materials is roughly 32.5% with individual

materials ranging from 2 to 88%. To simplify this analysis, two alternative scenarios were considered

which both achieved a national recycling rate of 50% but differed in the allocation of the individual

materials recovery rates. Neither of these allocations reflects a likely approach for achieving this

magnitude of increase in the national recovery rate for MSW. However, together they provide a range

to illustrate the magnitude of potential GHG reductions associated with such an increase.  

Alternative 1 assumes that all materials adjust their recovery rates to 50%, including those with rates

above 50%. In this scenario, materials with current recovery rate higher than 50% such as corrugated

cardboard and newspaper would decrease to 50%, thus actually increasing GHG emissions for these

materials. Other materials with recovery rates below 50% would achieve a 50% recovery rate and

would therefore reduce GHG emissions. The remaining unrecovered materials would again be

allocated to either the landfill or combustion facility (80% and 20%, respectively). Overall, this

Alternative 1 scenario would achieve total GHG reductions of 68,130,000 MTCO2E as compared to the

current baseline shown in Table 32.  

A‐33
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Alternative 2 assumes a linear increase for each material type based on total weight generated such

that the total recycling rate is equal to 50%. In other words, each material type would increase its

individual recovery rate by 17.5%. The only exception is newspaper, which is capped at 100%. The

remaining unrecovered materials would again be allocated to either the landfill or combustion facility

(80% and 20%, respectively). Overall, the Alternative 2 scenario would achieve total GHG reductions of

78,981,000 MTCO2E as compared to the current baseline shown in Table 32.

Increasing the national MSW recycling rate to 50% produces a GHG benefit of roughly 70 to 80

MMTCO2E. Actual reductions will depend on the mix of materials recycled.

Table 32: Alternative Scenarios for all MSW Materials and Total GHG Reductions 

Material Tons Waste 

Generated 

Alternative 1 

Recovery 

Rate 

Alternative 2 

Recovery 

Rate 

Alternative 1 

GHG Reduction 

(MTCO2E) 

Alternative 2 

GHG Reduction 

(MTCO2E) 

Aluminum 3,260,000 50.0% 38.6% 12,891,000 7,804,000 

Steel 14,220,000 50.0% 53.2% 3,133,000 3,831,000 

Glass 13,200,000 50.0% 39.3% 1,189,000 736,000 

HDPE 6,040,000 50.0% 27.1% 3,910,000 1,690,000 

LDPE 6,560,000 50.0% 21.7% 5,722,000 2,184,000 

PET 3,060,000 50.0% 37.7% 1,620,000 951,000 

Corrugated 

Cardboard 31,430,000 50.0% 89.5% (22,543,000) 17,887,000 

Magazines/ 

Third-class Mail 8,460,000 50.0% 56.7% 2,471,000 4,010,000 

Newspaper 12,360,000 50.0% 100.0% (9,064,000) 2,880,000 

Office Paper 6,320,000 50.0% 83.1% (4,130,000) 4,603,000 

Phonebooks 680,000 50.0% 36.6% 377,000 213,000 

Textbooks 1,130,000 50.0% 43.1% 1,218,000 874,000 

Mixed Paper, 

Other 24,900,000 50.0% 28.0% 35,703,000 15,804,000 

Dimensional 

Lumber 13,930,000 50.0% 26.9% 10,653,000 4,581,000 

Food Scraps 31,250,000 50.0% 19.6% 10,747,000 3,923,000 

Yard Trimmings 32,400,000 50.0% 79.5% 483,000 (701,000) 

Mixed Metals 1,650,000 50.0% 89.0% (1,807,000) 1,466,000 

Mixed Plastics 13,830,000 50.0% 21.5% 11,024,000 4,188,000 

Mixed Organics 3,720,000 50.0% 17.5% 527,000 184,000 

Mixed MSW 16,390,000 50.0% 35.4% (480,600) (262,000) 

Tires 6,540,000 50.0% 30.8% 4,489,000 2,135,000 

Total 251,330,000 50.0 % 49.7% 68,130,000 78,981,000 

In the main text and summary tables, the estimated GHG emission benefit associated with this total

technical potential scenario is rounded to 300 MMTCO2E (100% scenario), and 70‐80 MMTCO2E (50%

scenario).

A‐34
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Increase composting of food scraps from 2006 rate (2%)       

to 100% 20 MMTCO2E per year

to 50%              10 MMTCO2E per year   

to 25%                5 MMTCO2E per year   

In 2006, 31,250,000 tons of food waste were generated in the U.S. according to the EPA’s 2006 MSW

Facts and Figures report.146 Of that total, 30,570,000 tons were discarded and the remaining 680,000

tons were recovered. Applying estimated percentages of the proportions of discarded MSW that were

combusted for energy or landfilled—20% and 80%, respectively—in 2006 to the 30,570,000 tons of

food waste discarded, we estimate that 5.6 and 24.9 million tons of food waste were combusted for

energy and landfilled, respectively in 2006. We assumed that all recovered food waste was composted.

Table 33 below shows the waste management tonnages for food waste for this 2006 baseline scenario.

In the alternative scenarios, shown in Table 34, we assume that 100%, 50%, and 25% of the total

tonnage of food scraps generated is composted and that the remainder is landfilled or combusted.

These volumes for the baseline and three alternative scenarios were entered into WARM.

Table 33: Baseline Scenario for Food Waste Management in 2006 

Material Tons Waste 

Generated 

Tons 

Recovered 

Tons 

Composted 

Tons 

Discarded 

Tons 

Landfilled 

Tons 

Combusted 

for Energy 

Total 

MTCO2E 

Food Waste 31,250,000 680,000 680,000 30,570,000 24,912,000 5,658,000 15,792,000 

Table 34: Alternative Scenarios Assuming 100%, 50%, and 25% of Generated Food Waste Composted and Net 

Difference between Alternative and Baseline 

Material Percent 

Composted 

Tons Waste 

Generated Tons Composted Total MTCO2E Net Difference (MTCO2E) 

Food Waste 100% 31,250,000 31,250,000 (6,192,000) (21,984,000) 

Food Waste 50% 31,250,000 15,625,000 5,045,000 (10,747,000) 

Food Waste 25% 31,250,000 7,813,000 10,663,000 (5,129,000) 

Tables 33 and 34 also display the WARM outputs in MTCO2E for the baseline and alternative scenarios,

and the results of the alternatives minus the baseline, to give the net differences. Composting 100% of

the food waste results in a GHG reduction of approximately 22 MMTCO2E, and would require roughly a

45‐fold increase in the current level of food composting. Note that this WARM run assumed the

national average of landfill gas recovery and default landfill gas collection system efficiency, and used

the default transportation distances to the various waste management facilities. Assuming no landfill

gas recovery (which would increase the emissions in the baseline), would produce a GHG benefit of 40

MMTCO2E from composting all food scraps. This calculation does not account for all of the benefits

associated with what the compost may be used for, (e.g., avoiding commercial fertilizer production or

increasing plant growth).

 

146 U.S. EPA. Office of Solid Waste. 2007. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2006 Facts and Figures. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm

A‐35
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

In the main text and summary tables, the estimated GHG emission benefit associated with this total

technical potential scenario is rounded to 20 MMTCO2E (100% scenario), 10 MMTCO2E (50% scenario),

and 5 MMTCO2E (25% scenario).

ENERGY RECOVERY/DISPOSAL

Combust percentage of currently landfilled MSW

100%                                                 70‐120 MMTCO2E per year

50%         35‐60 MMTCO2E per year

25%        20‐30 MMTCO2E per year   

The tonnage of waste landfilled was 138,170,000 in 2006, according to EPA’s 2006 MSW Facts and

Figures report.147,148 WARM was used to quantify the difference between the baseline scenario of

landfilling this amount of mixed MSW (assuming current mix of virgin and recycled inputs) using the

national average of landfill conditions,149 and alternative scenarios where 100%, 50%, and 25% of this

quantity is instead combusted for energy recovery for use in electricity generation. As Table 35

indicates, combusting varying percentages of the 138,170,000 tons of mixed MSW for energy recovery

compared to landfilling this quantity results in a net GHG benefit of approximately 68, 34, and

17MMTCO2E, respectively for each scenario, in 2006.  

Table 35: Baseline and Alternative Scenarios and Net Difference for Combusting 100%, 50%, and 25% of Landfilled MSW 

(Based on EPA’s 2007 Facts and Figures Report) 

Baseline (National Average LFG 

Recovery) Alternative Net Difference 

Material 

Tons 

Landfilled Total MTCO2E Percent Combusted 

Tons 

Combusted Total MTCO2E Total MTCO2E 

Mixed MSW 138,170,000 50,679,000 100% 138,170,000 (17,598,000) (68,276,000) 

Mixed MSW 138,170,000 50,679,000 50% 69,085,000 16,540,000 (34,138,000) 

Mixed MSW 138,170,000 50,679,000 25% 34,542,500 33,609,000 (17,069,000) 

Figures from BioCycle’s Survey on the State of Garbage in America were also used as a source for the

quantity of MSW currently landfilled in the U.S. According to BioCycle, 387,855,461 tons of MSW were

generated in 2004, and of this amount, 248,615,350 tons were discarded in landfills in 2004.150 WARM

was then used to quantify the difference between the baseline scenario of landfilling this amount of

mixed MSW (assuming current mix of virgin and recycled inputs) using the national average of landfill

conditions, and the alternative of combusting varying percentages of it as well as all of it for energy

recovery.  

 

147 U.S. EPA. Office of Solid Waste. 2007. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2006 Facts and Figures. Table 29. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm 148 Note that this quantity already excludes 31.4 million tons that are combusted for energy recovery, as reported by the 2005 MSW Facts and Figures

report. In addition, this 136 million ton figure for landfilling does not include any C&D materials, since C&D is not captured in the annual MSW

generation estimates presented in the 2007 MSW Facts and Figures Report.    149 The national average of landfill conditions assumes that 25% of methane emitted from landfills is recovered for energy, 23% is flared, 5% is oxidized,

and the remaining 47% is not recovered (based on U.S. EPA. 2008. Inventory of US GHG Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2006). 150 2006. “State of Garbage in America, 15th Nationwide Survey of Municipal Solid Waste Management in the United States.” BioCycle Magazine. April

2006, pp. 26‐43. Available at: http://www.biocycle.net/

A‐36
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

As shown below in Table 36, we estimate that if 100%, 50%, and 25% of the approximately

248,615,000 tons of mixed MSW (based on BioCycle data for 2004) were combusted for energy

recovery instead of being landfilled, the net GHG benefit is roughly 123, 61, and 31 MMTCO2E for each

scenario, respectively.  

Table 36: Baseline and Alternative Scenarios and Net Difference for Combusting 100%, 50%, and 25%of Landfilled MSW 

(Based on Estimates from BioCycle Survey: The State of Garbage in America 1989 - 2004) 

Baseline (National Average LFG 

Recovery) Alternative Net Difference 

Material 

Tons 

Landfilled Total MTCO2E Percent Combusted 

Tons 

Combusted Total MTCO2E Total MTCO2E 

Mixed MSW 248,615,000 91,188,000 100% 248,615,000 (31,664,000) (122,852,000) 

Mixed MSW 248,615,000 91,188,000 50% 124,308,000 29,762,000 (61,426,000) 

Mixed MSW 248,615,000 91,188,000 25% 62,154,000 60,475,000 (30,713,000) 

Utilizing both EPA and BioCycle data, which include different wastes and secondary materials, make it

possible to account for some of the variation found in alternative data sources, and allows us to

establish upper and lower‐bound estimates of the GHG mitigation that may be possible through

combustion with energy recovery. Our estimates reveal that, based on national average conditions, the

GHG mitigation benefits of diverting 100%, 50%, or 25% of the discarded MSW from landfills to

combustion for energy recovery would range from 68 to 123 MMTCO2E, 34 to 61 MMTCO2E, or 17 to

31 MMTCO2E, respectively.

The GHG benefits calculated for these scenarios assume that all of the energy recovered from

combustion is used to offset electricity consumption from the power grid. The avoided GHG emissions

from this displaced electricity use are calculated at the marginal GHG emission rate, which is the

average mix of fossil fuel power generation in the U.S.151 The range described by this hypothetical

scenario corresponds to roughly a four‐ to eight‐fold increase in MSW energy currently consumed in

the U.S.,152 assuming an average energy content of 10 million BTU per ton of mixed MSW.

In the main text and summary tables, the estimated GHG emission benefit associated with this total

technical potential scenario is rounded to 70‐120 MMTCO2E (100% scenario), 35‐60 MMTCO2E (50%

scenario), and 20‐30 MMTCO2E (25% scenario).

Combust MSW remaining if national recycling rate is increased to 50% 65‐110 MMTCO2E per year

This estimate follows the same methodology as the scenario above, but assumes that an additional

tonnage of MSW is diverted before combustion bringing the national recycling and composting rate to

50% (reducing the tonnage of MSW available for combustion with energy recovery).  

 

151 U.S. EPA. 2006. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life‐Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. p. ES‐9, which indicates “when

estimating the GHG emission reductions attributable to utility emissions avoided, the electricity use displaced by waste management practices is

assumed to be 100 percent fossil‐derived, since fossil‐based power plants typically operate at the margin, adjusting to conform to the demand for

electricity.” Available at: http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/SWMGHGreport.html 152 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency. 2006. Renewable Energy Trends in Consumption and Electricity. Table 1.7. Available at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/rentrends.html. Assumes that the non‐biogenic portion accounts for 50% of the

energy content of the total MSW waste stream, as estimated in Table B2 on p. 17 of EIA 2007 Methodology for Allocating Municipal Solid Waste to

Biogenic and Non‐Biogenic Energy. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/mswaste/msw_report.html

A‐37
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Capture percentage of currently emitted methane at U.S. landfills for electricity generation

100%     150 MMTCO2E per year

50%                70 MMTCO2E per year   

25%                35 MMTCO2E per year   

The amount of methane generated in all U.S. landfills in 2006 was 265 MMTCO2E according to the U.S.

GHG Inventory.153 Of this, 25% of methane generated in landfills is recovered for energy, 23% is flared,

5% is oxidized to CO2, and the remaining 47% is emitted to the atmosphere. This current baseline (see

Table 37) was compared with several alternatives where 100%, 50%, and 25% of the methane

generated in U.S. landfills that is not oxidized to CO2 is captured and recovered for electricity

generation.

For the current baseline and the alternative scenarios, avoided emissions from electric utilities were

calculated to account for the electricity produced by recovering landfill gas. In all scenarios, it was

assumed that all of the recovered landfill gas was used to offset electricity production at the marginal

GHG emission rate for the U.S., which is the average mix of fossil fuel power generation.154

Table 37: Baseline for Landfill Gas Recovery in 2006 

Methane Reduction (MTCO2E) 

Material 

Methane 

Generation 

(MTCO2E) 

Recovered 

for 

Electricity 

Generation 

Flared Oxidized 

Net Methane 

Emissions 

(MTCO2E) 

Utility 

Emissions 

Avoided 

from Energy 

Recovery 

(MTCO2E) 

Total 

MTCO2E 

Mixed MSW 264,800,000 (65,300,000) (59,800,000) (14,000,000) 125,700,000 (8,569,000) 117,131,000 

Table 38: Alternative Scenarios Assuming 100%, 50%, and 25% of Methane Generated at 

U.S. Landfills is Captured and Recovered in 2006 

Reduction in methane emissions 

(MTCO2E) 

Material/ 

Scenario 

Methane 

Generation 

(MTCO2E) 

Recovered 

for 

Electricity 

Generation 

Flared Oxidized 

Net 

Methane 

Emissions 

(MTCO2E) 

Utility 

Emissions 

Avoided from 

Energy 

Recovery 

(MTCO2E) 

Total 

MTCO2E 

Net 

Difference 

(MTCO2E) 

Mixed MSW – 

100% Captured 264,800,000 250,800,000 0 14,000,000 0 (32,911,000) (32,911,000) (150,042,000)

Mixed MSW – 

50% Captured 264,800,000 128,150,000 59,800,000 14,000,000 62,850,000 (16,817,000) 46,033,000 (71,098,000)

Mixed MSW – 

25% Captured 264,800,000 96,725,000 59,800,000 14,000,000 94,275,000 (12,693,000) 81,582,000 (35,549,000)

 

153 U.S. EPA. 2008. Inventory of US GHG Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2006. Table 8‐3. Available at

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginv_archive.html 154 U.S. EPA. 2006. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life‐Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. See page ES‐9, which indicates

“when estimating the GHG emission reductions attributable to utility emissions avoided, the electricity use displaced by waste management

practices is assumed to be 100 percent fossil‐derived, since fossil‐based power plants typically operate at the margin, adjusting to conform to the

demand for electricity.” Available at: http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/SWMGHGreport.html

A‐38
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

In the alternative scenarios, 25%, 50%, or 100% of the methane generated in U.S. landfills that is not

oxidized to CO2 is assumed to be captured and recovered for electricity with 100% capture efficiency.

The total difference between the current baseline and alternative scenarios where 100%, 50%, or 25%

of the methane is captured is a GHG benefit of 150, 71, or 36 MMTCO2E, respectively (see Table 38).

In the main text and summary tables, the estimated GHG emission benefit associated with this total

technical potential scenario is rounded to 150 MMTCO2E (100% scenario), 70 MMTCO2E (50%

scenario), and 35 MMTCO2E (25% scenario).

SUMMARY OF LAND MANAGEMENT TOTAL TECHNICAL POTENTIAL SCENARIOS

The land management reductions presented in this document represent hypothetical estimates of

what GHG reductions would result from applying different management approaches to land. These

estimates are not projections of future GHG reduction benefits. It is also important to note that these

reductions cannot be combined additively to one another, due to the overlap in sites and acreage

analyzed for each scenario. These estimates do not reflect life cycle emission reductions. Finally, these

estimates have been calculated from a land management perspective, and do not take into account

the energy use or GHG emissions resulting from changes to infrastructure, manufacturing processes, or

transportation methods that would be necessary to support these hypothetical scenarios. These

estimates also do not take into account the energy use or GHG emissions resulting from changes

necessary to support these hypothetical scenarios.

   

Table 39: Summary of Land Management Total Technical Potential Scenarios 

Summary of Total Technical Potential Scenarios Estimated GHG 

Emission Benefit* 

Land Revitalization 

Shift 60% of expected new development to compact development patterns**: 79 MMTCO2E/yr

Reuse percentage of qualifying EPA-tracked contaminated land for utility-scale solar***: 100% 2,200 MMTCO2E/yr

50% 1,100 MMTCO2E/yr

25% 540 MMTCO2E/yr

Reuse percentage of qualifying EPA-tracked contaminated land for community and 100% 40 MMTCO2E/yr

utility-scale wind ****: 50% 20 MMTCO2E/yr

25% 10 MMTCO2E/yr

100% 0.4 MMTCO2E/yr

50% 0.2 MMTCO2E/yr

Reduce electricity use for the most energy-intensive treatment technologies at National Priorities

List sites by:

25% 0.1 MMTCO2E/yr

Reforest percentage of qualifying former mine lands for carbon sequestration: 100% 4 MMTCO2E/yr

50% 2 MMTCO2E/yr

25% 1 MMTCO2E/yr

* Most of the total technical potential scenarios presented in this table have been rounded to one significant figure. See following subsections 

for more detail on these estimates. 

** Expected annual benefit through 2030. 

*** The 100% scenario represents 141 times the projected increase in solar power between 2008 and 2030. 

**** The 100% scenario represents 75% of projected increase in wind power between 2008 and 2030. 

A‐39
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Shift 60% of expected new development to compact development patterns 79 MMTCO2E per year

To date, much research has focused on the GHG emissions from transportation, and the three primary

factors contributing to these emissions: vehicle fuel economy, carbon content of the fuel, and the

number of VMT. In 2008, the Urban Land Institute published, Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban

Development and Climate Change to describe the link between compact development patterns and the

potential for reducing GHG emissions through a reduction in VMT.155 The study presents evidence that

the growth in VMT is due in large part to urban development patterns. “As a larger and larger share of

the built environment has become automobile dependent, car trips and distances have increased...”

For example, the study shows that the ten most sprawling metropolitan areas travel an average of 27

vehicle miles per day, while the ten least sprawling metropolitan areas travel an average of 21 vehicle

miles per day.

The study draws from recent research that shows the amount of construction that will be required to

meet the demands of our growing population, which is expected to reach 420 million by 2050: 89

million new or replaced homes and 190 billion square feet of new offices, institutions, stores, and

other nonresidential buildings. Up to two‐thirds of all development on the ground in 2050 will be built

between 2007 and 2050, which provides an opportunity to select smart growth or compact

development patterns over sprawling, less compact patterns.

Compact development patterns are estimated to reduce the need to drive by between 20% and 40%,

compared with development at outer suburban edges. Making reasonable assumptions about growth

rates, the market share of compact development, and the relationship between vehicles miles traveled

and CO2 emissions, the authors estimate that compact development patterns (such as those modeled

on smart growth principles) could reduce total transportation related CO2 emissions by 7‐10% in 2050.

The authors further calculate that shifting 60% of new growth to compact patterns would save 79

million tons of CO2 annually by 2030.156  

This estimate does not include additional reductions from complementary measures, such as policies

designed to make drivers pay more of the full social costs of automobile use. It also does not include

the energy savings from the individual buildings (e.g., compact housing uses 20% less primary energy

for space heating and cooling), or the carbon sink that is protected by avoiding the development of

greenfields. Further, the estimate does not take into account the long‐term compounding effect,

where future land use decisions would build from the compact development patterns.

Reuse percentage of qualifying EPA‐tracked contaminated land for utility‐scale solar

100% 2,200 MMTCO2E per year

50%   1,100 MMTCO2E per year

25%        540 MMTCO2E per year

In order to estimate the potential of EPA‐tracked sites for utility‐scale solar energy generation, a

dataset of EPA sites with available latitude/longitude data and acreage data was compiled. This dataset

is largely based on the data reported in the 2008 OSWER Cross‐Program Revitalization Measures

 

155 Urban Land Institute. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. 2008. Available at:  

http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/gcindex.html 156 This estimate reflects only transportation related emissions from changes in land use patterns.

A‐40
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

(CPRM) Report;

157 however because all CPRM sites do not have available latitude/longitude data, the

acreage value of the sites mapped for this analysis is lower than reported in the CPRM and in the main

text of the Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land

Management Practices document.

The latitude/longitude data allowed the sites to be mapped against solar resource data layers to

determine which sites were located in the areas with the highest solar resource potential. The acreage

data provided the basis for estimating the amount of solar generation capacity that could be sited, as

well as estimating the GHG emission benefits. The dataset of EPA tracked land with latitude/longitude

and acreage data was compiled for Brownfields, Superfund, and RCRA sites as described below.  

Brownfields Data: Derived from data in the Assessment Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange

(ACRES) database, queried on July 8, 2008. Dataset includes properties associated with Brownfields

Grants awarded in fiscal year 2003 and beyond, where an assessment or cleanup activity has been

completed and EPA Brownfields funding was expended. This includes: Assessment, Cleanup,

Revolving Loan Fund, Section 128 and Targeted Brownfields Assessment grants.

RCRA Data: Includes all sites from the RCRA 2020 Universe Inventory from July 2007. Acreage

information was only provided for the 2008 Baseline Inventory sites, but site latitude and longitude

information was provided for all sites.

Superfund Data: Includes Superfund sites within the EPA OSWER Cross‐Program Revitalization

Measure (CPRM) universe, based on information provided by the Superfund Office on July 24,

2008, and data derived from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Information System (CERCLIS).

Additional Data Considerations

• 286 sites were identified but excluded from this analysis because latitude and longitude

information was not available or the coordinates were highly suspect, as defined by mapping

five miles or more from the recorded site.

• 24 U.S. territory sites with accurate latitude and longitude coordinates are excluded from this

analysis because wind and solar NREL data are not available for U.S. territories.

• 29 sites located in Alaska and 22 sites in Hawaii are excluded from this analysis because

transmission line data are not available for these states.

• The acreage provided in the EPA databases was used for this analysis, even if the acreage was

zero.

• In order to obtain solar resource information, the site latitude and longitude point was mapped

and a circular buffer was drawn around the site that was equal to the area reported for the site.

The minimum and maximum renewable energy resource value found within the buffer area

was collected and used for this analysis. The buffer analysis was conducted because the single

latitude and longitude point available for each site may not reflect the site’s overall total

potential for clean and renewable energy generation. For example, a portion of a site could

have a high wind power class due to being situated on a ridge line, but if the latitude and

longitude recorded in EPA’s databases are not along this ridgeline, the site may not meet

 

157 U.S. EPA. OSWER Cross‐Program Revitalization Measures. March 19, 2009.  Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/LANDREVITALIZATION/docs/cprm_report_031709.pdf

A‐41
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

screening criteria and may not be represented on a map. This methodology has limitations in

that sites are typically not circles and latitude and longitude are not always recorded at the

center of the site. However, given these limitations, this method will allow a more accurate

snapshot of what energy potential may be available than a single data point.  

Based on the data compiled, EPA mapped sites with an estimated total of approximately 14 million

acres, as shown in Table 40. Again, this total acreage is less than that reported in the CPRM and in the

main text, based on the factors described above.

Table 40: EPA Tracked Site Acreage as of Fall 2008 

EPA Program Acres 

Brownfields 37,190 

Non-Federal CERCLIS Proxy Sites 2,765,156 

Federal CERCLIS Proxy Sites 1,014,848 

Non-Federal RCRA Sites 577,885 

Federal RCRA Sites 9,570,585 

Total Acreage of Contaminated Sites 13,965,664 

EPA used a geographic information system (GIS) in Fall 2008 to map the contaminated sites against

utility‐scale solar siting criteria developed by EPA in partnership with the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL). The utility‐scale solar photovoltaic (PV) criteria used to identify qualifying sites in

this analysis include:  

• Direct normal solar resource availability greater than or equal to 5 kilowatt hours

(kWh)/m2/day

o As measured by the highest resource availability within the buffer area drawn around

each site’s single point of latitude and longitude

• Distance to transmission lines less than or equal to 10 miles

• Acreage greater than or equal to 40 acres

• Distance to graded roads less than or equal to 25 miles

The utility‐scale solar concentrating solar power (CSP) criteria used to identify qualifying sites in this

analysis include:

• Direct normal solar resource availability greater than or equal to 6 kWh/m2/day

o As measured by the highest resource availability within the buffer area drawn around

each site’s single point of latitude and longitude

• Distance to transmission lines less than or equal to 10 miles

• Acreage greater than or equal to 40 acres (stirling engine system); 250 acres (trough and power

tower)

• Distance to graded roads less than or equal to 25 miles

A‐42
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Table 41: EPA Site Acreage Distribution Across 

Solar Resource Potential 

Solar Resource Potential - PV/CSP 

(kwh/m2/day) Acreage 

5-5.99 942,306 PV 6-6.74 975,012 

6.75-6.99 1,448,005 

7.00-7.24 458,806 

7.25-7.49 154,731 

7.5-7.74 584,356 

CSP 

7.75+ 658,951 

Total 5,222,165 

For each site that was identified as qualifying for utility‐scale solar development, the acreage within

each site’s buffer area that was rated at 5 kWh/m2/day or more was extracted and counted as viable

acreage for development in this analysis. Table 41 shows the acreage that qualifies for utility‐scale

solar. It should be noted that EPA does not determine the reuse of EPA‐tracked sites. Reuse decisions

for contaminated land, including EPA‐tracked contaminated land, are made by individual property

owners and in accordance with local and state land use regulations.

This analysis assumes that sites with a solar resource potential of 5‐6.74 will be developed using PV

technology, and sites with a solar resource potential greater than 6.75 will be developed using CSP

parabolic trough systems. In addition, it assumes GHG emission reductions are based on a one‐to‐one

replacement of the current U.S. fuel mix by solar. We recognize that new renewable energy projects

may not actually result in a one‐to‐one replacement of the current U.S. fuel mix, but have used this

assumption based on calculations derived from NREL reporting in order to estimate the total technical

potential.158 In addition, because the fuel source for electricity generation varies by geographic region

(and therefore GHG emissions per unit of electricity capacity), we recognize that a new renewable

energy electricity generation site may not “replace” the emissions associated with the current national

fuel mix. Finally, this total technical potential scenario does not account for residual market effects

associated with adding renewable energy capacity to U.S. electricity markets, or the possible

displacement of renewable energy facilities that would have otherwise been built.  

The methodology used to estimate the GHG emission reduction potential from generating electricity at

100% of the EPA‐tracked acreage qualifying for utility‐scale solar is summarized in Tables 42 and 43.

 

158 In practice, the additional electricity generated could result in a decrease in price, which could then induce customers to increase demand. This

rebound effective could result in the use of more electricity (and thereby changing the one‐to‐one replacement ratio).   

A‐43
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Table 42: Estimate of GHG Benefits from Developing 100% of EPA-tracked Contaminated Land with Solar 

Resource Potential of 5-6.74 as Utility-Scale Solar (PV) 

Solar Resource Potential PV 

Utility-Scale Solar Potential (PV) of EPA-tracked Land (kwh/m2/day) 

5 6-6.74 Total 

(A) Annual Electricity Generation (kWh) Based on 1 MW Capacity159 1,469,700 1,696,599 

(B) Competing Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)160 10,107 10,107 

(C) Annual Output (Trillion Btu) 0.015 0.017 

(D) Carbon Coefficient (MMTCB/Trillion Btu)161 0.01783 0.01783 

(E) Annual Carbon Displaced per MW Capacity (MMTC) 0.000265 0.000306 

(F) Carbon Dioxide Conversion Factor 3.667 3.667 

(G) Annual Emissions Displaced by 1 MW (MMTCO2)162 0.00097 0.00112 

(H) Emissions Displaced per MWh Electricity Generated 

(MMTCO2/MWh) 0.00000066 0.00000066 

(I) Acreage of Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV Solar163 942,306 975,012 1,917,317 

(J) MW Capacity per Acre164 0.135 0.135 

(K) MW Capacity of Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV Solar 127,113 131,524 258,637 

(L) Annual Electricity Generation on Contaminated Land to be 

Reused for PV Solar (MWh) 186,817,321 223,144,143 409,961,463 

(M) Emissions Displaced by Developing Solar on Contaminated 

Land (MMTCO2) 123.44 147.45 271 

Calculation: Step 1 Annual Electricity Generation Based on 1 MW Capacity (A) x Competing Heat Rate (B) / 1,000,000,000,000 = Annual 

Output (C) 

Step 2 Annual Output (C) x Carbon Coefficient (D) = Annual Carbon Displaced per 1 MW Capacity (E) 

Step 3 Annual Carbon Displaced per MW Capacity (E) x Carbon Dioxide Conversion Factor (F) = Annual Emissions Displaced 

by 1 MW Solar Capacity (G) 

Step 4 Annual Emissions Displaced by 1 MW Solar Capacity (G) / (Annual Electricity Generation Based on 1 MW Capacity (A) / 

1,000) = Emissions Displaced per MWh Electricity Generated (H) 

Step 5 Acreage of Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV Solar (I) x MW Capacity per Acre (J) = MW Capacity of 

Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV Solar (K) 

Step 6 Annual Electricity Generation Based on 1 MW Capacity (A) x MW Capacity of Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV 

Solar (K) / 1,000 = Annual Electricity Generation on Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV Solar (L) 

Step 7 Annual Emissions Displaced by 1 MW Solar Capacity (G) x MW Capacity of Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV 

Solar (K) = Emissions Displaced by Developing PV Solar on Contaminated Land (M) 

 

159 Formula steps (A) through (E) from U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2006. Power Technologies Energy Data Book,

Fourth Edition. Table 12.1. Available at:  http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/.  Annual Electricity Generation (kWh) Based on 1 MW

Capacity: U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2009. A Performance Calculator for Grid‐Connected PV Systems. Data

accessed for average annual solar radiation (kWh/m2/day) for Portland, OR (Class 3), Minneapolis, MN (Class 4) Los Angeles, CA (Class 5), and

Alamosa, CO (Class 6). Available at: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/codes_algs/PVWATTS/version1/ 160   Data for steps (B) and (D) from U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2006. Power Technologies Energy Data Book,

Fourth Edition. Table 12.1. Available at:  http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/. Heat rate from: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy

Information Administration. 2004. Annual Energy Review 2004. Table A6. Available at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/multifuel/038404.pdf 161   U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2003. GPRA 2003 Data Call. Appendix B, p. B‐16. Available at:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/pdfs/fy03_gpra_data_call.pdf 162   Emissions displaced represents only direct emissions from electricity generation 163   Solar acreage estimate developed by EPA. 164 U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2004. PV FAQs. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy. DOE/GO‐102004‐1835. Available at:  http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35097.pdf

A‐44
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Table 43: Estimate of GHG Benefits from Developing 100% of EPA-tracked 

Contaminated Land with Solar Resource Potential of 6.75+ as Utility-scale Solar (CSP) 

Solar Resource Potential - 

Utility Scale Solar Potential (CSP) of EPA- CSP (kwh/m2/day) 

tracked Land 6.75-6.99 7.00-7.24 7.25-7.49 7.50-7.74 7.75+ 

Total 

(A) Acreage of Contaminated Land to be 

Reused for CSP Solar165 1,448,005 458,806 154,731 584,356 658,951 3,304,848 

(B) Land Required by CSP Plant (Acres/MW) 166 5 5 5 5 5 

(C) MW Capacity on Contaminated Land to be 

Reused for CSP Solar (MW) 289,601 91,761 30,946 116,871 131,790 660,970 

(D) Capacity Factor167 40.9% 41.3% 42.7% 44.2% 45.7% 

(E) Annual Hours 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 

(F) Annual Electricity Generation on 

Contaminated Land to be Reused for CSP 

Solar (MWh) 

1,037,593,732 331,981,001 115,754,759 452,515,552 527,598,407 2,465,443,451

(G) Emissions Displaced per MWh of Electricity 

Generated (MMTCO2E)168,169 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 

(H) Emissions Displaced by Developing CSP 

Solar on Contaminated Land (MMTCO2E) 799 256 89 348 406 1,898 

Calculation: Step 1 Acreage of Contaminated Land to be Reused for CSP Solar (A) x Land Required by CSP Plant (B) = Total Capacity (C) 

Step 2 MW Capacity on Contaminated Land to be Reused for CSP Solar (C) x Capacity Factor (D) x Annual Hours (E) = Annual Electricity 

Generation on Contaminated Land to be Reused for CSP Solar (F) 

Step 3 Annual Electricity Generation on Contaminated Land to be Reused for CSP Solar (F) x Emissions Displaced per MWh of Electricity 

Generated (G) = Emissions Displaced by Developing CSP Solar on Contaminated Land (H) 

Table 44: Estimate of GHG Benefits from Developing 100% of EPA-tracked 

Contaminated Land with Solar Summary 

Solar Grade 5 6 7+ Total 

Acreage 942,306 2,423,016 1,856,843 5,222,165 

Capacity (MW) 127,113 421,125 371,369 919,607 

Electricity Generation (MWh) 186,817,321 1,260,737,875 1,427,849,719 2,875,404,914 

Direct Emissions Displaced (MMTCO2) 123 946 1,099 2,169 

 

165   Formula steps (A) through (H) derived from U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2006. Power Technologies Energy

Data Book, Fourth Edition. Table 12.1. Available at:  http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/.  Solar acreage estimate developed by EPA. 166 Mehos, M.S. 2004. Tackling Climate Change in the U.S. Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions from Concentrating Solar Power by 2030. p. 83.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory and David W. Kearney, Ph.D. Kearney and Associates. Available at:

http://www.ases.org/climatechange/toc/04_csp.pdf 167 Ibid. p. 87.   168 Ibid. p. 87. 169   Emissions displaced represents only direct emissions from electricity generation.

A‐45
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

NOTE: The estimated amount of electricity generation from developing 100% of qualifying EPA‐tracked

land for utility‐scale solar is over 2,875 billion kWh. EIA projects that between 2008 and 2030, total

generation from solar resources will increase by over 20 billion kWh.170  Therefore, 100% of EPA‐

tracked land for solar could support approximately 141 times the projected growth in electricity

generated from solar resources by 2030.

To estimate the GHG emission reduction potential from siting utility‐scale solar on 50% of the EPA‐

tracked acreage, it was assumed that 50% of the acreage in each solar resource potential category

would be available for reuse, as summarized in Table 45.

Table 45: EPA Site Acreage Distribution Across Solar Resource Potential 

Solar Resource Potential - PV/CSP 

(kwh/m2/day) Total Acreage 50% of Acreage 

5-5.99 942,306 471,153 PV 6-6.74 975,012 487,506 

6.75-6.99 1,448,005 724,003 

7.00-7.24 458,806 229,403 

7.25-7.49 154,731 77,365 

7.5-7.74 584,356 292,178 

CSP 

7.75+ 658,951 329,476 

Total 5,222,165 2,611,083 

The same methodology was used to estimate the GHG emission reduction potential from siting utility‐

scale solar, assuming that 50% of the EPA‐tracked acreage qualifying for utility‐scale solar could be

reused, as shown in Tables 46 and 47, and summarized in Table 48.

 

170 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009.  Annual Energy Outlook. Table 16. Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html

A‐46
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Table 46: Estimate of GHG Benefits from Developing 50% of EPA-tracked Contaminated Land with Solar 

Resource Potential of 5-6.74 as Utility-Scale Solar (PV) 

Solar Resource Potential PV 

Utility-Scale Solar Potential (PV) of EPA-tracked Land (kwh/m2/day) 

5 6-6.74 Total 

(A) Annual Electricity Generation (kWh) Based on 1 MW Capacity171 1,469,700 1,696,599 

(B) Competing Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)172 10,107 10,107 

(C) Annual Output (Trillion Btu) 0.015 0.017 

(D) Carbon Coefficient (MMTCB/Trillion Btu)173 0.01783 0.01783 

(E) Annual Carbon Displaced per MW Capacity (MMTC) 0.000265 0.000306 

(F) Carbon Dioxide Conversion Factor 3.667 3.667 

(G) Annual Emissions Displaced by 1 MW (MMTCO2)174 0.00097 0.00112 

(H) Emissions Displaced per MWh Electricity Generated 

(MMTCO2/MWh) 0.00000066 0.00000066 

(I) Acreage of Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV Solar175 471,153 487,506 958,659 

(J) MW Capacity per Acre176 0.135 0.135 

(K) MW Capacity of Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV Solar 63,556 65,762 129,318 

(L) Annual Electricity Generation on Contaminated Land to be 

Reused for PV Solar (MWh) 93,408,660 111,572,071 204,980,732 

(M) Emissions Displaced by Developing Solar on Contaminated 

Land (MMTCO2) 61.72 73.72 135 

Calculation: Step 1 Annual Electricity Generation Based on 1 MW Capacity (A) x Competing Heat Rate (B) / 1,000,000,000,000 = Annual 

Output (C) 

Step 2 Annual Output (C) x Carbon Coefficient (D) = Annual Carbon Displaced per 1 MW Capacity (E) 

Step 3 Annual Carbon Displaced per MW Capacity (E) x Carbon Dioxide Conversion Factor (F) = Annual Emissions Displaced 

by 1 MW Solar Capacity (G) 

Step 4 Annual Emissions Displaced by 1 MW Solar Capacity (G) / (Annual Electricity Generation Based on 1 MW Capacity (A) / 

1,000) = Emissions Displaced per MWh Electricity Generated (H) 

Step 5 Acreage of Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV Solar (I) x MW Capacity per Acre (J) = MW Capacity of 

Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV Solar (K) 

Step 6 Annual Electricity Generation Based on 1 MW Capacity (A) x MW Capacity of Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV 

Solar (K) / 1,000 = Annual Electricity Generation on Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV Solar (L) 

Step 7 Annual Emissions Displaced by 1 MW Solar Capacity (G) x MW Capacity of Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV 

Solar (K) = Emissions Displaced by Developing PV Solar on Contaminated Land (M) 

 

171 Formula steps (A) through (E) from U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2006. Power Technologies Energy Data Book,

Fourth Edition. Table 12.1. Available at:  http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/.  Annual Electricity Generation (kWh) Based on 1 MW

Capacity: U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2009. A Performance Calculator for Grid‐Connected PV Systems. Data

accessed for average annual solar radiation (kWh/m2/day) for Portland, OR (Class 3), Minneapolis, MN (Class 4) Los Angeles, CA (Class 5), and

Alamosa, CO (Class 6). Available at: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/codes_algs/PVWATTS/version1/ 172   Data for steps (B) and (D) from U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2006. Power Technologies Energy Data Book,

Fourth Edition. Table 12.1. Available at:  http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/. Heat rate from: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy

Information Administration. 2004. Annual Energy Review 2004. Table A6. Available at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/multifuel/038404.pdf 173   U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2003. GPRA 2003 Data Call. Appendix B, p. B‐16. Available at:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/pdfs/fy03_gpra_data_call.pdf 174   Emissions displaced represents only direct emissions from electricity generation 175   Solar acreage estimate developed by EPA. 176 U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2004. PV FAQs. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy. DOE/GO‐102004‐1835. Available at:  http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35097.pdf

A‐47
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Table 47: Estimate of GHG Benefits from Developing 50% of EPA-tracked 

Contaminated Land with Solar Resource Potential of 6.75+ as Utility-scale Solar (CSP) 

Solar Resource Potential - 

Utility Scale Solar Potential (CSP) of EPA- CSP (kwh/m2/day) 

tracked Land 6.75-6.99 7.00-7.24 7.25-7.49 7.50-7.74 7.75+ 

Total 

(A) Acreage of Contaminated Land to be 

Reused for CSP Solar177 724,002 229,403 77,365 292,178 329,476 1,652,424 

(B) Land Required by CSP Plant (Acres/MW) 178 5 5 5 5 5 

(C) MW Capacity on Contaminated Land to be 

Reused for CSP Solar (MW) 144,800 45,881 15,473 58,436 65,895 330,485 

(D) Capacity Factor179 40.9% 41.3% 42.7% 44.2% 45.7% 

(E) Annual Hours 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 

(F) Annual Electricity Generation on 

Contaminated Land to be Reused for CSP 

Solar (MWh) 

518,796,866 165,990,501 57,877,379 226,257,776 263,799,204 1,232,721,726

(G) Emissions Displaced per MWh of Electricity 

Generated (MMTCO2E)180,181 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 

(H) Emissions Displaced by Developing CSP 

Solar on Contaminated Land (MMTCO2E) 399 128 45 174 203 949 

Calculation: Step 1 Acreage of Contaminated Land to be Reused for CSP Solar (A) x Land Required by CSP Plant (B) = Total Capacity (C) 

Step 2 MW Capacity on Contaminated Land to be Reused for CSP Solar (C) x Capacity Factor (D) x Annual Hours (E) = Annual Electricity 

Generation on Contaminated Land to be Reused for CSP Solar (F) 

Step 3 Annual Electricity Generation on Contaminated Land to be Reused for CSP Solar (F) x Emissions Displaced per MWh of Electricity 

Generated (G) = Emissions Displaced by Developing CSP Solar on Contaminated Land (H) 

Table 48: Estimate of GHG Benefits from Developing 50% of EPA-tracked 

Contaminated Land with Solar Summary 

Solar Resource Potential 5 6 7+ Total 

Acreage 471,153 1,211,508 928,422 2,611,083 

Capacity (MW) 63,556 210,563 185,684 459,803 

Electricity Generation (MWh) 93,408,660 630,368,937 713,924,860 1,437,702,457 

Direct Emissions Displaced 

(MMTCO2) 62 473 550 1,085 

 

177   Formula steps (A) through (H) derived from U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2006. Power Technologies Energy

Data Book, Fourth Edition. Table 12.1. Available at:  http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/.  Solar acreage estimate developed by EPA. 178 Mehos, M.S. 2004. Tackling Climate Change in the U.S. Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions from Concentrating Solar Power by 2030. p. 83.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory and David W. Kearney, Ph.D. Kearney and Associates. Available at:

http://www.ases.org/climatechange/toc/04_csp.pdf 179 Ibid. p. 87.   180 Ibid. p. 87. 181   Emissions displaced represents only direct emissions from electricity generation.

A‐48
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

NOTE: The estimated amount of electricity generation from developing 50% of qualifying EPA‐tracked

land for utility‐scale solar is over 1,437 billion kWh. EIA projects that between 2008 and 2030, total

generation from solar resources will increase by over 20 billion kWh.182  Therefore, 50% of EPA‐tracked

land could support approximately 70 times the projected growth in electricity generated from solar

resources by 2030.

To estimate the GHG emission reduction potential from siting utility‐scale solar on 25% of the EPA‐

tracked sites, it was assumed that 25% of the acreage in each solar resource potential category would

be available for reuse, as summarized in Table 49.

Table 49: EPA Site Acreage Distribution Across Solar Resource Potential 

Solar Resource Potential - PV/CSP 

(kwh/m2/day) Total Acreage 25% of Acreage 

5-5.99 942,306 235,577 PV 6-6.74 975,012 243,753 

6.75-6.99 1,448,005 362,001 

7.00-7.24 458,806 114,701 

7.25-7.49 154,731 38,683 

7.5-7.74 584,356 146,089 

CSP 

7.75+ 658,951 164,738 

Total 5,222,165 1,305,542 

The same methodology was used to estimate the GHG emission reduction potential from siting utility‐

scale solar, assuming that 25% of the EPA‐tracked acreage qualifying for utility‐scale solar could be

reused, as shown in Tables 50 and 51, and summarized in Table 52.

 

182   U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009.  Annual Energy Outlook. Table 16. Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html

A‐49
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Table 50: Estimate of GHG Benefits from Developing 25% of EPA-tracked Contaminated Land with Solar 

Resource Potential of 5-6.74 as Utility-Scale Solar (PV) 

Solar Resource Potential PV 

Utility-Scale Solar Potential (PV) of EPA-tracked Land (kwh/m2/day) 

5 6-6.74 Total 

(A) Annual Electricity Generation (kWh) Based on 1 MW 

Capacity183 1,469,700 1,696,599 

(B) Competing Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)184 10,107 10,107 

(C) Annual Output (Trillion Btu) 0.015 0.017 

(D) Carbon Coefficient (MMTCB/Trillion Btu)185 0.01783 0.01783 

(E) Annual Carbon Displaced per MW Capacity (MMTC) 0.000265 0.000306 

(F) Carbon Dioxide Conversion Factor 3.667 3.667 

(G) Annual Emissions Displaced by 1 MW (MMTCO2)186 0.00097 0.00112 

(H) Emissions Displaced per MWh Electricity Generated 

(MMTCO2/MWh) 0.00000066 0.00000066 

(I) Acreage of Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV Solar187 235,576 243,753 479,329 

(J) MW Capacity per Acre188 0.135 0.135 

(K) MW Capacity of Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV Solar 31,778 32,881 64,659 

(L) Annual Electricity Generation on Contaminated Land to be 

Reused for PV Solar (MWh) 46,704,330 55,786,036 102,490,366 

(M) Emissions Displaced by Developing Solar on 

Contaminated Land (MMTCO2) 30.86 36.86 68 

Calculation: Step 1 Annual Electricity Generation Based on 1 MW Capacity (A) x Competing Heat Rate (B) / 1,000,000,000,000 = Annual 

Output (C) 

Step 2 Annual Output (C) x Carbon Coefficient (D) = Annual Carbon Displaced per 1 MW Capacity (E) 

Step 3 Annual Carbon Displaced per MW Capacity (E) x Carbon Dioxide Conversion Factor (F) = Annual Emissions Displaced 

by 1 MW Solar Capacity (G) 

Step 4 Annual Emissions Displaced by 1 MW Solar Capacity (G) / (Annual Electricity Generation Based on 1 MW Capacity (A) 

/ 1,000) = Emissions Displaced per MWh Electricity Generated (H) 

Step 5 Acreage of Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV Solar (I) x MW Capacity per Acre (J) = MW Capacity of 

Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV Solar (K) 

Step 6 Annual Electricity Generation Based on 1 MW Capacity (A) x MW Capacity of Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV 

Solar (K) / 1,000 = Annual Electricity Generation on Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV Solar (L) 

Step 7 Annual Emissions Displaced by 1 MW Solar Capacity (G) x MW Capacity of Contaminated Land to be Reused for PV 

Solar (K) = Emissions Displaced by Developing PV Solar on Contaminated Land (M) 

 

183 Formula steps (A) through (E) from U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2006. Power Technologies Energy Data Book,

Fourth Edition. Table 12.1. Available at:  http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/.  Annual Electricity Generation (kWh) Based on 1 MW

Capacity: U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2009. A Performance Calculator for Grid‐Connected PV Systems. Data

accessed for average annual solar radiation (kWh/m2/day) for Portland, OR (Class 3), Minneapolis, MN (Class 4) Los Angeles, CA (Class 5), and

Alamosa, CO (Class 6). Available at: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/codes_algs/PVWATTS/version1/ 184 Data for steps (B) and (D) from U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2006. Power Technologies Energy Data Book,

Fourth Edition. Table 12.1. Available at:  http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/. Heat rate from: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy

Information Administration. 2004. Annual Energy Review 2004. Table A6. Available at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/multifuel/038404.pdf 185   U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2003. GPRA 2003 Data Call. Appendix B, p. B‐16. Available at:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/pdfs/fy03_gpra_data_call.pdf 186 Emissions displaced represents only direct emissions from electricity generation. 187 Solar acreage estimate developed by EPA. 188 U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2004. PV FAQs. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy. DOE/GO‐102004‐1835. Available at:  http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35097.pdf

A‐50
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Table 51: Estimate of GHG Benefits from Developing 25% of EPA-tracked 

Contaminated Land with Solar Resource Potential of 6.75+ as Utility-scale Solar (CSP) 

Solar Resource Potential - 

Utility Scale Solar Potential (CSP) of EPA- CSP (kwh/m2/day) 

tracked Land 6.75-6.99 7.00-7.24 7.25-7.49 7.50-7.74 7.75+ 

Total 

(A) Acreage of Contaminated Land to be 

Reused for CSP Solar189 362,001 114,701 38,683 146,089 164,738 826,212 

(B) Land Required by CSP Plant (Acres/MW) 190 5 5 5 5 5 

(C) MW Capacity on Contaminated Land to be 

Reused for CSP Solar (MW) 72,400 22,940 7,737 29,218 32,948 165,242 

(D) Capacity Factor191 40.9% 41.3% 42.7% 44.2% 45.7% 

(E) Annual Hours 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 

(F) Annual Electricity Generation on 

Contaminated Land to be Reused for CSP 

Solar (MWh) 

259,398,433 82,995,250 28,938,690 113,128,888 131,899,602 616,360,863

(G) Emissions Displaced per MWh of Electricity 

Generated (MMTCO2E)192,193 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 

(H) Emissions Displaced by Developing CSP 

Solar on Contaminated Land (MMTCO2E) 200 64 22 87 102 475 

Calculation: Step 1 Acreage of Contaminated Land to be Reused for CSP Solar (A) x Land Required by CSP Plant (B) = Total Capacity (C) 

Step 2 MW Capacity on Contaminated Land to be Reused for CSP Solar (C) x Capacity Factor (D) x Annual Hours (E) = Annual Electricity 

Generation on Contaminated Land to be Reused for CSP Solar (F) 

Step 3 Annual Electricity Generation on Contaminated Land to be Reused for CSP Solar (F) x Emissions Displaced per MWh of Electricity 

Generated (G) = Emissions Displaced by Developing CSP Solar on Contaminated Land (H) 

Table 52: Estimate of GHG Benefits from Developing 25% of EPA-tracked 

Contaminated Land with Solar Summary 

Solar Grade 5 6 7+ Total 

Acreage 235,576 605,754 464,211 1,305,541 

Capacity (MW) 31,778 105,281 92,842 229,902 

Electricity Generation (MWh) 46,704,330 315,184,469 356,962,430 718,851,229 

Direct Emissions Displaced (MMTCO2) 31 237 275 542 

 

189   Formula steps (A) through (H) derived from U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2006. Power Technologies Energy

Data Book, Fourth Edition. Table 12.1. Available at:  http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/.  Solar acreage estimate developed by EPA. 190 Mehos, M.S. 2004. Tackling Climate Change in the U.S. Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions from Concentrating Solar Power by 2030. p. 83.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory and David W. Kearney, Ph.D. Kearney and Associates. Available at:

http://www.ases.org/climatechange/toc/04_csp.pdf 191 Ibid. p. 87.   192 Ibid. p. 87. 193   Emissions displaced represents only direct emissions from electricity generation.

A‐51
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

NOTE: The estimated amount of electricity generation from developing 25% of qualifying EPA‐tracked

land for utility‐scale solar is over 718 billion kWh. EIA projects that between 2008 and 2030, total

generation from solar resources will increase by over 20 billion kWh.194 Therefore, 25% of EPA‐tracked

land could support approximately 35 times the projected growth in electricity generated from solar

resources by 2030.

In the main text and summary tables, the estimated GHG emission benefit associated with this total

technical potential scenario is rounded to 2,200 MMTCO2E (100% scenario), 1,100 MMTCO2E (50%

scenario), and 540 MMTCO2E (25% scenario).

Reuse percentage of qualifying EPA‐tracked contaminated land for community and utility‐scale wind

100%   40 MMTCO2E per year

50%   20 MMTCO2E per year

25%   10 MMTCO2E per year

In order to estimate the potential of EPA‐tracked sites for utility‐ and community‐scale wind energy

generation, we compiled a dataset of EPA sites that has available latitude/longitude data and acreage

data as described in the preceding section.  

We used GIS in Fall 2008 to map the contaminated sites against utility‐scale solar siting criteria

developed by EPA in partnership with the NREL. The utility‐scale wind criteria used to identify

qualifying sites in this analysis includes:  

• Wind class, measured at 50 meters above ground greater than or equal to 4

o As measured by the highest resource availability within the buffer area drawn around

each site’s single point of latitude and longitude

• Distance to transmission lines less than or equal to 10 miles

• Acreage greater than or equal to 2,000

• Distance to graded roads less than or equal to 25 miles

The community‐scale wind criteria used to identify qualifying sites in this analysis includes:  

• Wind class, measured at 50 meters above ground greater than or equal to 3

o As measured by the highest resource availability within the buffer area drawn around

each site’s single point of latitude and longitude

• Acreage of 100 – 1,999

• Distance to graded roads less than or equal to 25 miles

For each site that was identified as qualifying for utility‐scale or community‐scale wind development,

the acreage within each site’s buffer area that was rated at 4 or more, or 3 or more, respectively was

extracted and counted as viable acreage for development in this analysis. Table 53 shows the acreage

that qualifies for utility‐ and community‐scale wind. It should be noted that EPA does not determine

the reuse of EPA‐tracked sites. Reuse decisions for contaminated land, including EPA‐tracked

contaminated land, are made by individual property owners and in accordance with local and state

land use regulations.

 

194   U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009.  Annual Energy Outlook. Table 16. Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html

A‐52
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Table 53: EPA Site Acreage Distribution Across Wind Class 

Wind Class (measured at 

50 meters above ground) 

Utility-Scale 

Acreage 

CommunityScale Acreage Total 

Acreage 

3 - 45,350 45,350 

4 194,595 9,271 203,865 

5 260,421 1,042 261,464 

6 44,560 155 44,715 

7 23,273 730 24,003 

Total 522,850 56,548 579,398 

Table 54 shows the steps used to calculate the GHG emission benefit of generating electricity at 100%

of the EPA‐tracked acreage qualifying for utility‐scale and community‐scale wind in lieu of the current

U.S. fuel mix. We recognize that new renewable energy projects may not actually result in a one‐to‐

one replacement of the current U.S. fuel mix, but have used this assumption based on calculations

used by NREL in order to estimate the total technical potential.195 In addition, because the fuel source

for electricity generation varies by geographic region (and therefore GHG emissions per unit of

electricity capacity), we recognize that a new renewable energy electricity generation site may not

“replace” the emissions associated with the current national fuel mix. Finally, this total technical

potential scenario does not account for residual market effects associated with adding renewable

energy capacity to U.S. electricity markets, or the possible displacement of renewable energy facilities

that would have otherwise been built.

 

195 In practice, the additional electricity generated could result in a decrease in price, which could then induce customers to increase demand. This

rebound effective could result in the use of more electricity (and thereby changing the one‐to‐one replacement ratio).   

A‐53
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Table 54: Estimate of GHG Benefits from Developing 100% of EPA-tracked Contaminated Land as Utility- and Community-scale Wind 

Utility- and Community-Scale Wind Potential 

of EPA Tracked Land Wind Class 3 Wind Class 4 Wind Class 5 Wind Class 6 Wind Class 7 Total 

(A) Total U.S. Capacity 2008 (kW)196,197 24,885,767 24,885,767 24,885,767 24,885,767 24,885,767 

(B) Capacity Factor198 32% 36% 40% 44% 47% 

(C) Annual Hours 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 

(D) Annual U.S. Electricity Generation (kWh) 69,759,782,007 78,479,754,758 87,199,727,509 95,919,700,259 102,459,679,823 

(E) Competing Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)199 10,107 10,107 10,107 10,107 10,107 

(F) Annual Output (Trillion Btu) 705 793 881 969 1,036 

(G) Carbon Coefficient (MMTCB/Trillion Btu)200 0.01783 0.01783 0.01783 0.01783 0.01783 

(H) Annual U.S. Carbon Displaced (MMTC) 12.571 14.143 15.714 17.285 18.464 

(I) Carbon Dioxide Conversion Factor201 3.667 3.667 3.667 3.667 3.667 

(J) Annual U.S. Emissions Displaced 

(MMTCO2)202 46.095 51.856 57.618 63.380 67.701 

(K) Emissions Displaced per MW Capacity 

(MMTCO2/MW) 0.001852248 0.002083779 0.002315310 0.002546841 0.002720489 

(L) Emissions Displaced per MWh Electricity 

Generated (MMTCO2/MWh) 0.000000661 0.000000661 0.000000661 0.000000661 0.000000661 

(M) Acreage of Contaminated Land to be 

Reused for Wind203 45,350 203,865 261,464 44,715 24,003 579,398 

(N) MW Capacity per Acre204 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 

(O) Capacity on Contaminated Land to be 

Reused for Wind (MW) 1,360 6,116 7,844 1,341 720 17,382 

(P) Annual Electricity Generation on 

Contaminated Land to be Reused for Wind (MWh) 3,813,751 19,287,284 27,485,070 5,170,531 2,964,781 58,721,417 

(Q) Emissions Displaced by Developing 

Wind on Contaminated Land (MMTCO2E) 2.52 12.74 18.16 3.42 1.96 39 

Step 1 Total U.S. Capacity 2008 (A) x Capacity Factor (B) x Annual Hours (C) = Annual U.S. Electricity Generation (D) 

Step 2 Annual U.S. Electricity Generation (D) x Competing Heat Rate (E) = Annual Output (F) 

Step 3 Annual Output (F) x Carbon Coefficient (G) = Annual U.S. Carbon Displaced (H) 

Step 4 Annual U.S. Carbon Displaced (H) x Carbon Dioxide Conversion Factor (I) = Annual U.S. Emissions Displaced (J) 

Step 5 Annual U.S. Emissions Displaced (J) / (Total U.S. Capacity (A) / 1,000) = Emissions Displaced per MW Capacity (K) 

Step 6 Annual U.S. Emissions Displaced (J) / (Annual U.S. Electricity Generation (D) / 1,000) = Emissions Displaced per MWh Electricity Generated (L) 

Step 7 Acreage of Contaminated Land to be Reused for Wind (M) x MW Capacity per Acre (N) = Capacity on Contaminated Land to be Reused for Wind (O) 

Step 8 Capacity on Contaminated Land to be Reused for Wind (O) * Capacity Factor (B) * Annual Hours (C) = Annual Electricity Generation on Contaminated 

Land to be Reused for Wind (P) 

Calculation: 

Step 9 Emissions Displaced per MWh Electricity Generated (L) x Annual Electricity Generation on Contaminated Land to be Reused for Wind (P) = Emissions 

Displaced by Developing Wind on Contaminated Land (Q) 

 

196   Formula steps (A) through (H) from  National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2006. Power Technologies Energy Data Book, Fourth Edition. Table 12.1.

Available at:  http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/.  Data for steps (A) through (H) also from Table 12.1, unless otherwise noted.    197   Projected values for the year 2009 from U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009.  Annual Energy Outlook. Table 16.

Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html 198 Black and Veatch draft capacity factors to be publicly released by NREL in 2008. 199   U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2004. Annual Energy Review 2004. Table A6. Available at:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/multifuel/038404.pdf 200   U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2003. GPRA 2003 Data Call. Appendix B, p. B‐16. Available at:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/pdfs/fy03_gpra_data_call.pdf 201   U.S. EPA. 2009. Clean Energy: Calculations and References.  Available at: http://www.epa.gov/solar/energy‐resources/refs.html 202   Emissions displaced represents only direct emissions from electricity generation. 203   Wind acreage estimate developed by EPA. 204 EPA interview with U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory to identify acreage required to for 5‐10 MW of capacity.

February 2008.  

A‐54
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

NOTE: The estimated amount of electricity generation from developing 100% of qualifying EPA‐tracked

land for utility‐ or community‐scale wind is over 58 billion kWh. EIA projects that between 2008 and

2030, total generation from wind resources will increase by over 77 billion kWh.205 Therefore, 100% of

EPA‐tracked land could support approximately 75% of the projected growth in electricity generated

from wind resources by 2030.

To estimate the GHG emission reduction potential from siting utility‐scale and community‐scale wind

on 50% of the EPA‐tracked sites, it was assumed that 50% of the acreage in each wind class would be

available for reuse, as summarized in Table 55.

Table 55: EPA Site Acreage Distribution Across Wind Class 

Wind Class (measured at 

50 meters above ground) Total Acreage 50% of Acreage 

3 45,350 22,675 

4 203,865 101,933 

5 261,464 130,732 

6 44,715 22,358 

7 24,003 12,002 

Total 579,398 289,699 

The same methodology was used to estimate the GHG emission reduction potential from siting utility‐

scale and community‐scale wind, assuming that 50% of the EPA‐tracked acreage qualifying for utility‐

scale and community‐scale wind could be reused, as shown in Table 56.

 

205 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009.  Annual Energy Outlook. Table 16. Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html

A‐55
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Table 56: Estimate of GHG Benefits from Developing 50% of EPA-tracked Contaminated Land as Utility- and Community-scale Wind 

Utility- and Community-Scale Wind 

Potential of EPA Tracked Land Wind Class 3 Wind Class 4 Wind Class 5 Wind Class 6 Wind Class 7 Total 

(A) Total U.S. Capacity 2008 (kW)206,207 24,885,767 24,885,767 24,885,767 24,885,767 24,885,767 

(B) Capacity Factor208 32% 36% 40% 44% 47% 

(C) Annual Hours 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 

(D) Annual U.S. Electricity Generation (kWh) 69,759,782,007 78,479,754,758 87,199,727,509 95,919,700,259 102,459,679,823 

(E) Competing Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)209 10,107 10,107 10,107 10,107 10,107 

(F) Annual Output (Trillion Btu) 705 793 881 969 1,036 

(G) Carbon Coefficient (MMTCB/Trillion Btu)210 0.01783 0.01783 0.01783 0.01783 0.01783 

(H) Annual U.S. Carbon Displaced (MMTC) 12.571 14.143 15.714 17.285 18.464 

(I) Carbon Dioxide Conversion Factor211 3.667 3.667 3.667 3.667 3.667 

(J) Annual U.S. Emissions Displaced 

(MMTCO2)212 46.095 51.856 57.618 63.380 67.701 

(K) Emissions Displaced per MW Capacity 

(MMTCO2/MW) 0.001852248 0.002083779 0.002315310 0.002546841 0.002720489 

(L) Emissions Displaced per MWh Electricity 

Generated (MMTCO2/MWh) 0.000000661 0.000000661 0.000000661 0.000000661 0.000000661 

(M) Acreage of Contaminated Land to be 

Reused for Wind213 22,675 101,933 130,732 22,358 12,002 289,699 

(N) MW Capacity per Acre214 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 

(O) Capacity on Contaminated Land to be 

Reused for Wind (MW) 680 3,058 3,922 671 360 8,691 

(P) Annual Electricity Generation on 

Contaminated Land to be Reused for Wind 

(MWh) 

1,906,875 9,643,642 13,742,535 2,585,266 1,482,390 29,360,709 

(Q) Emissions Displaced by Developing 

Wind on Contaminated Land (MMTCO2E) 1.26 6.37 9.08 1.71 0.98 19 

Step 1 Total U.S. Capacity 2008 (A) x Capacity Factor (B) x Annual Hours (C) = Annual U.S. Electricity Generation (D)

Step 2 Annual U.S. Electricity Generation (D) x Competing Heat Rate (E) = Annual Output (F) 

Step 3 Annual Output (F) x Carbon Coefficient (G) = Annual U.S. Carbon Displaced (H) 

Step 4 Annual U.S. Carbon Displaced (H) x Carbon Dioxide Conversion Factor (I) = Annual U.S. Emissions Displaced (J) 

Step 5 Annual U.S. Emissions Displaced (J) / (Total U.S. Capacity (A) / 1,000) = Emissions Displaced per MW Capacity (K) 

Step 6 Annual U.S. Emissions Displaced (J) / (Annual U.S. Electricity Generation (D) / 1,000) = Emissions Displaced per MWh Electricity Generated (L) 

Step 7 Acreage of Contaminated Land to be Reused for Wind (M) x MW Capacity per Acre (N) = Capacity on Contaminated Land to be Reused for Wind (O) 

Step 8 Capacity on Contaminated Land to be Reused for Wind (O) * Capacity Factor (B) * Annual Hours (C) = Annual Electricity Generation on 

Contaminated Land to be Reused for Wind (P) 

Calculation: 

Step 9 Emissions Displaced per MWh Electricity Generated (L) x Annual Electricity Generation on Contaminated Land to be Reused for Wind (P) = 

Emissions Displaced by Developing Wind on Contaminated Land (Q) 

  

 

206   Formula steps (A) through (H) from  National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2006. Power Technologies Energy Data Book, Fourth Edition. Table 12.1.

Available at:  http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/.  Data for steps (A) through (H) also from Table 12.1, unless otherwise noted.    207   Projected values for the year 2009 from U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009.  Annual Energy Outlook. Table 16.

Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html 208 Black and Veatch draft capacity factors to be publicly released by NREL in 2008. 209   U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2004. Annual Energy Review 2004. Table A6. Available at:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/multifuel/038404.pdf 210   U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2003. GPRA 2003 Data Call. Appendix B, p. B‐16. Available at:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/pdfs/fy03_gpra_data_call.pdf 211   U.S. EPA. 2009. Clean Energy: Calculations and References.  Available at: http://www.epa.gov/solar/energy‐resources/refs.html 212   Emissions displaced represents only direct emissions from electricity generation. 213   Wind acreage estimate developed by EPA. 214 EPA interview with U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory to identify acreage required to for 5‐10 MW of capacity.

February 2008.  

A‐56
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

NOTE: The estimated amount of electricity generation from developing 50% of qualifying EPA‐tracked

land for utility‐ or community‐scale wind is over 29 billion kWh. EIA projects that between 2008 and

2030, total generation from wind resources will increase by over 77 billion kWh.215 Therefore, 50% of

EPA‐tracked land could support approximately 38% of the projected growth in electricity generated

from wind resources by 2030.

To estimate the GHG emission reduction potential from siting utility‐scale and community‐scale wind

on 25% of the EPA‐tracked sites, it was assumed that 25% of the acreage in each wind class would be

available for reuse, as summarized in Table 57.

Table 57: EPA Site Acreage Distribution Across Wind Class 

Wind Class (measured at 

50 meters above ground) Total Acreage 25% of Acreage 

3 45,350 11,337 

4 203,865 50,966 

5 261,464 65,366 

6 44,715 11,179 

7 24,003 6,001 

Total 579,398 144,849 

The same methodology was used to estimate the GHG emission reduction potential from siting utility‐

scale and community‐scale wind, assuming that 25% of the EPA‐tracked acreage qualifying for utility‐

scale and community‐scale wind could be reused, as shown in Table 58.

 

215 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009.  Annual Energy Outlook. Table 16. Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html

A‐57
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Table 58: Estimate of GHG Benefits from Developing 50% of EPA-tracked Contaminated Land as Utility- and Community-scale Wind 

Utility- and Community-Scale Wind 

Potential of EPA Tracked Land Wind Class 3 Wind Class 4 Wind Class 5 Wind Class 6 Wind Class 7 Total 

(A) Total U.S. Capacity 2008 (kW)216,217 24,885,767 24,885,767 24,885,767 24,885,767 24,885,767 

(B) Capacity Factor218 32% 36% 40% 44% 47% 

(C) Annual Hours 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 

(D) Annual U.S. Electricity Generation (kWh) 69,759,782,007 78,479,754,758 87,199,727,509 95,919,700,259 102,459,679,823 

(E) Competing Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)219 10,107 10,107 10,107 10,107 10,107 

(F) Annual Output (Trillion Btu) 705 793 881 969 1,036 

(G) Carbon Coefficient (MMTCB/Trillion Btu)220 0.01783 0.01783 0.01783 0.01783 0.01783 

(H) Annual U.S. Carbon Displaced (MMTC) 12.571 14.143 15.714 17.285 18.464 

(I) Carbon Dioxide Conversion Factor221 3.667 3.667 3.667 3.667 3.667 

(J) Annual U.S. Emissions Displaced 

(MMTCO2)222 46.095 51.856 57.618 63.380 67.701 

(K) Emissions Displaced per MW Capacity 

(MMTCO2/MW) 0.001852248 0.002083779 0.002315310 0.002546841 0.002720489 

(L) Emissions Displaced per MWh Electricity 

Generated (MMTCO2/MWh) 0.000000661 0.000000661 0.000000661 0.000000661 0.000000661 

(M) Acreage of Contaminated Land to be 

Reused for Wind223 11,337 50,966 65,366 11,179 6,001 144,849 

(N) MW Capacity per Acre224 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 

(O) Capacity on Contaminated Land to be 

Reused for Wind (MW) 340 1,529 1,961 335 180 4,345 

(P) Annual Electricity Generation on 

Contaminated Land to be Reused for Wind 

(MWh) 

953,438 4,821,821 6,871,268 1,292,633 741,195 14,680,354 

(Q) Emissions Displaced by Developing 

Wind on Contaminated Land (MMTCO2E) 0.63 3.19 4.54 0.85 0.49 10 

Step 1 Total U.S. Capacity 2008 (A) x Capacity Factor (B) x Annual Hours (C) = Annual U.S. Electricity Generation (D) 

Step 2 Annual U.S. Electricity Generation (D) x Competing Heat Rate (E) = Annual Output (F) 

Step 3 Annual Output (F) x Carbon Coefficient (G) = Annual U.S. Carbon Displaced (H) 

Step 4 Annual U.S. Carbon Displaced (H) x Carbon Dioxide Conversion Factor (I) = Annual U.S. Emissions Displaced (J) 

Step 5 Annual U.S. Emissions Displaced (J) / (Total U.S. Capacity (A) / 1,000) = Emissions Displaced per MW Capacity (K) 

Step 6 Annual U.S. Emissions Displaced (J) / (Annual U.S. Electricity Generation (D) / 1,000) = Emissions Displaced per MWh Electricity Generated (L) 

Step 7 Acreage of Contaminated Land to be Reused for Wind (M) x MW Capacity per Acre (N) = Capacity on Contaminated Land to be Reused for Wind 

(O) 

Step 8 Capacity on Contaminated Land to be Reused for Wind (O) * Capacity Factor (B) * Annual Hours (C) = Annual Electricity Generation on 

Contaminated Land to be Reused for Wind (P) 

Calculation: 

Step 9 Emissions Displaced per MWh Electricity Generated (L) x Annual Electricity Generation on Contaminated Land to be Reused for Wind (P) = 

Emissions Displaced by Developing Wind on Contaminated Land (Q) 

 

216   Formula steps (A) through (H) from  National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2006. Power Technologies Energy Data Book, Fourth Edition. Table 12.1.

Available at:  http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/.  Data for steps (A) through (H) also from Table 12.1, unless otherwise noted.    217   Projected values for the year 2009 from U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009.  Annual Energy Outlook. Table 16.

Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html 218 Black and Veatch draft capacity factors to be publicly released by NREL in 2008. 219   U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2004. Annual Energy Review 2004. Table A6. Available at:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/multifuel/038404.pdf 220   U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2003. GPRA 2003 Data Call. Appendix B, p. B‐16. Available at:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/pdfs/fy03_gpra_data_call.pdf 221   U.S. EPA. 2009. Clean Energy: Calculations and References.  Available at: http://www.epa.gov/solar/energy‐resources/refs.html 222   Emissions displaced represents only direct emissions from electricity generation. 223   Wind acreage estimate developed by EPA. 224 EPA interview with U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory to identify acreage required to for 5‐10 MW of capacity.

February 2008.  

A‐58
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

NOTE: The estimated amount of electricity generation from developing 25% of qualifying EPA‐tracked

land for utility‐ or community‐scale wind is over 14 billion kWh. EIA projects that between 2008 and

2030, total generation from wind resources will increase by over 77 billion kWh.225 Therefore, 25% of

EPA‐tracked land could support approximately 19% of the projected growth in electricity generated

from wind resources by 2030.

In the main text and summary tables, the estimated GHG emission benefit associated with this total

technical potential scenario is rounded to 40 MMTCO2E (100% scenario), 20 MMTCO2E (50% scenario),

and 10 MMTCO2E (25% scenario).

Reduce electricity use for the most energy‐intensive treatment technologies at National Priorities List

sites

by 100%   0.4 MMTCO2E per year

by 50%   0.2 MMTCO2E per year

by 25%   0.1 MMTCO2E per year

The most frequently used energy‐intensive treatment technologies used at Superfund National

Priorities List (NPL) sites are pump‐and‐treat, thermal desorption, multi‐phase extraction, air sparging,

and soil vapor extraction. Using data from cost and performance reports compiled by the Federal

Remediation Technologies Roundtable and other resources, OSWER estimates that a total of more

than 14 billion kilowatt‐hours (kWh) of electricity will be consumed through use of these five

technologies at NPL sites from 2008 through 2030.226  

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that 1.37 pounds of CO2 are emitted into the air for each

kWh of electricity generated in the United States. Accordingly, use of these five technologies at NPL

sites is anticipated to indirectly result in CO2 emissions totaling 0.40 MMTCO2E annually.227 If these

treatment technologies were optimized, replaced with alternative treatment technologies, or relied on

renewable energy sources for power to reduce emissions by 50% or 25%, it would result in a reduction

of GHG emissions of 0.20 MMTCO2E or 0.10 MMTCO2E, respectively.  

Table 59: GHG Benefits from Optimizing the Top Five NPL Energy-intensive Treatment Technologies 

Technology Estimated CO2 Emissions 

Annual Average

Pump & Treat 323,456 MTCO2E

Thermal Desorption 57,756 MTCO2E

Multi-Phase Extraction 12,000 MTCO2E

Air Sparging 6,499 MTCO2E

Soil Vapor Extraction 4,700 MTCO2E

Technology Total 404,411 MTCO2E 

= 0.40 MMTCO2E 

X 50% 

= 0.20 MMTCO2E 

X 25% 

= 0.10 MMTCO2E 

 

225   U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009.  Annual Energy Outlook. Table 16. Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html 226 U.S. EPA. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 2008. Green Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into

Remediation of Contaminated Sites. EPA 542‐R‐08‐002. p. 20. Available at: htts://www.clu‐in.org/download/remed/green‐remediation‐primer.pdf 227 Ibid.

A‐59
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Reforest percentage of qualifying former mine lands for carbon sequestration  

100%   4 MMTCO2E per year

50%   2 MMTCO2E per year

25%   1 MMTCO2E per year

There are an estimated 2.8 million acres of former mine lands tracked by EPA and states where data

were available. Of this, we estimate approximately 890,000 acres are suitable for revegetation, which

would yield an annual carbon sequestration benefit of 4 MMTCO2E. The total acreage estimate is

detailed in Table 60 and was calculated as described below.  

Table 60: Estimated Total Acreage of Former Mine Land 

AML/CERCLIS Estimate

The Abandoned Mine Land / Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Information System (AML/CERCLIS) estimate was partially derived from the AML Reference

Notebook Appendix A (September 2004), the EPA AML Team Site List (October 2007), and a

CERCLIS data pull from December 10, 2007. We coordinated the development of the list of EPA

Hardrock AMLs and discussed characteristics of mine sites available in CERCLIS and the acreage

data for mine sites in CERCLIS with the EPA AML Team. In addition, CERCLIS experts determined

which acreage values in CERCLIS are most appropriate and provided advice on use of the different

values.

The original AML inventory of 562 sites (and detailed site area data) was compiled from 2002‐2004,

from the CERCLIS database and limited information gathered from EPA Regional staff. Because the

data are entered by the individual EPA Regions, data quality may be inconsistent among Regions.  

Data queried from the CERCLIS database was manipulated and entered into a spreadsheet with

multiple information categories for each AML site. Further research from Internet and other mine‐

related resources was then used to fill in any identified data gap, resulting in the AML Team AML

Inventory. This inventory is an initial step toward a more collaborative and complete inventory to

be developed by the AML Team.

The AML/CERCLIS estimate includes only AMLs with EPA involvement. Site acreage corresponds to:

1) site size from 2004 AML inventory (converted to acres when possible); 2) acres ready for reuse

(RAU_ACRES) from December 10, 2007, CERCLIS data pull; or 3) site acreage (SITE_ACRES) from

December 10, 2007, CERCLIS data pull.

EPA’s AML list contains mills, phosphate waste, smelters, and other processing facilities that might

not be considered traditional AMLs by other programs. There is site‐specific data available for 36%

of the sites in the current EPA AML inventory. It should be noted that three very large sites make

up 61% of the total acreage:

Data Source Estimated Acreage 

AML/ CERCLIS (hardrock) 1,573,763 

State Estimates from Mine Waste 

Technology Program (hardrock) 336,257 

OSM (coal mines) 923,053 

TOTAL* 2,833,073 

*Note: There may be some duplication in sites among data sources. 

A‐60
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

• COD980717557 (400 square miles) is a watershed that extends from the Continental Divide east

to Denver; an unknown fraction of the 400 square miles is contaminated.

• UTD980667208 (320 square miles) contains radioactive waste.

• MOD981507585 (160,000 acres) is a site with much of its contamination related to

groundwater from underground mines and leaching from large tailings piles and ground

contamination.

State Estimates from EPA/DOE Mine Waste Technology Program (MWTP)

We relied on the EPA/DOE MWTP annual report to develop the estimate of state‐tracked mine

land.228 This report includes data collected from the Bureau of Land Management, Department of

the Interior, the Bureau of Mines, the U.S. Forest Service, Earthworks, the U.S. Geological Survey,

the National Park Service, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, and the Western Governors Association which includes AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM,

OR, SD, TX, UT, and WY in its membership.

OSM Data (coal mines)

We relied on a U.S. Department of Agriculture publication for the estimated baseline acreage of

coal mines requiring reclamation: “There were approximately 1.1 million acres of abandoned coal‐

mined land needing reclamation in 1977.”229 Additional Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System

(AMLIS) data provided by OSM indicates that 176,946 acres of the 1.1 million total acres were

reclaimed since 1977, leaving unreclaimed acreage of 923,053. This estimate includes Eastern

states only and may contain some underground mines.

The next step in the analysis involved estimating the portion of the total former mine land acreage that

was unforested, and therefore could be reforested for carbon sequestration GHG emission benefits.

The portion of former mine sites that could be reforested was estimated as shown in Tables 61 and 62

based on the following considerations:

• Knowledge of specific sites and consideration of the location of those sites within each state.

• Utilization of U.S. Geological Survey forest maps to assess the forested area in each state and in

the area of major mine sites, and the change in forested area over time.

• Consideration of the weighed impact of the largest sites.

• AMLIS and historical documents to come up with the rough estimate for reforestation

potential.

Table 61: Estimated Former Mine Land Acreage with Reforestation Potential – Summary 

Abandoned Mine Land Data Source Acreage 

Estimated 

Reforestation 

Potential of AMLs 

Estimated Acreage with 

Reforestation Potential 

AML/ CERCLIS (hardrock) 1,573,765 

State Estimates from MWTP (hardrock) 336,457 

Variable 5% - 75% 

(See detail below) 659,424 

OSM (coal mines) 923,053 25% 230,763 

TOTAL 2,833,275 890,188 

 

228   U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE. 2004. Mine Waste Technology Program 2004 Annual Report. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/std/mtb/mwt/annual/annual2004/mwtp2004annualrpt.pdf 229 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Rural Abandoned Mine Program. Post‐2001. Available at:

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ramp/

A‐61
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

Table 62: Estimated Former Hardrock Mine Land Acreage with Reforestation Potential – Detail 

State AML/ CERCLIS 

Acreage Total 

State Estimates from 

MWTP 

Total 

Hardrock 

Lands 

Estimated 

Reforestation 

Potential of AMLs 

Estimated Hardrock 

Acreage with 

Reforestation Potential 

AK 0 28,680 28,680 35% 10,038 

AL 0 0 0 50% 0 

AR 0 0 0 50% 0 

AZ 24,772 136,652 161,424 5% 8,071 

CA 22,407 

Accurate acreage 

information unavailable 22,407 20% 4,481 

CO 293,943 26,584 320,527 20% 64,105 

FL 11,531 0 11,531 50% 5,766 

ID 16,640 18,465 35,105 50% 17,553 

IL 3,376 0 3,376 50% 1,688 

IN 229 0 229 50% 115 

KS 22,694 0 22,694 25% 5,674 

KY 450 0 450 40% 180 

ME 27 0 27 75% 20 

MI 2,660 

Accurate acreage 

information unavailable 2,660 45% 1,197 

MO 812,763 0 812,763 50% 406,382 

MT 81,845 11,256 93,101 30% 27,930 

NC 2 0 2 60% 1 

NE 6,430 0 6,430 25% 1,608 

NJ 251 0 251 40% 100 

NM 1,877 13,585 15,462 15% 2,319 

NV 13,654 

Accurate acreage 

information unavailable 13,654 5% 683 

NY 5 0 5 65% 3 

OH 200 0 200 55% 110 

OK 25,655 0 25,655 45% 11,545 

OR 648 61,180 61,828 40% 24,731 

PA 800 0 800 65% 520 

SC 152 0 152 60% 91 

SD 4,300 4,775 9,075 15% 1,361 

TN 11 0 11 60% 7 

TX 9,331 17,300 26,631 10% 2,663 

UT 208,450 12,780 221,230 25% 55,308 

VA 84 0 84 60% 50 

VT 30 0 30 70% 21 

WI 0 200 200 40% 80 

WA 8,548 0 8,548 50% 4,274 

WY 0 5,000 5,000 15% 750 

TOTAL 1,573,765 336,457 1,910,222 659,424

Based on this analysis, 890,188 acres of former hardrock and coal mine land were estimated as viable

for reforestation.  

The rate of sequestration from reforestation varies based on soil characteristics, vegetation, climate,

land management practices, and other factors. As such, the estimated average rate of sequestration

from reforestation varies based on the data source used. A number of studies and sources were

A‐62
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

considered for use in this report, including IPCC data. This study determined that the best available

estimate was from a meta‐analysis presented in the Journal of Environmental Quality in 2006.230  

The Journal of Environmental Quality study derived an average annual rate of carbon sequestration

using multiple independent studies and estimates, including IPCC data, to estimate the aggregate

average carbon sequestration potential via revegetation on mine lands. The annual rates of carbon

accumulation from all studies were combined to generate an average value range equivalent to 3.6‐4.2

MTCO2E per year. To ensure consistency across the data underlying the aggregated average range of

carbon sequestration potential, the authors restricted the time frame for applying the average rate of

sequestration to 20 years. However, all of the underlying data sources indicated that carbon

sequestration in the litter layer and aboveground biomass continued for much longer. As such the total

technical potential estimate for revegetating abandoned mine land (i.e., 3.2‐3.7 MMTCO2E per year),

should only be applied as an estimate for years 0‐20; however, available research indicates that

additional carbon sequestration potential exists beyond year 20.

This estimate represents the potential carbon sequestration benefits of revegetation. However, soil

amendments are required to address contamination and enable re‐vegetation at many abandoned

mine lands. Early research has shown that if biosolids or other soil amendments were used to enrich

the soil with carbon, greater sequestration could occur. EPA is currently assessing the carbon

sequestration potential of organic soil amendments and revegetation, but this analysis is not yet

available.

As shown in Table 63, reforesting approximately 890,000 acres of former mine land would result in a

GHG emission benefit of 3.2‐3.7 MMTCO2E per year.  

Table 63: Estimated GHG Emission Benefit of Reforesting ~890,000 Acres of Former Mine Land 

Estimate Range MTCO2E per Year Acreage MTCO2E per Year MMTCO2E per Year 

Low 3.6 890,188 3,204,677 3.2 

High 4.2 890,188 3,738,790 3.7 

As shown in Table 64, reforesting approximately half of this acreage, or ~445,000 acres of former mine

land would result in a GHG emission benefit of 1.6‐1.9 MMTCO2E per year.  

Table 64: Estimated GHG Emission Benefit of Reforesting ~445,000 Acres of Former Mine Land 

Estimate Range MTCO2E per Year Acreage MTCO2E per Year MMTCO2E per Year 

Low 3.6 445,094 1,602,338 1.6 

High 4.2 445,094 1,869,395 1.9 

 

230 Sperow, M. “Carbon Sequestration Potential in Reclaimed Mine Sites in Seven East‐Central States.” Journal of Environmental Quality. Jul/Aug, 2006.

35:1428‐1438. Available at: http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/35/4/1428

A‐63
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices   September 2009

A‐64

As shown in Table 65, reforesting approximately half of this acreage, or ~223,000 acres of former mine

land would result in a GHG emission benefit of 0.8‐0.9 MMTCO2E per year.  

Table 65: Estimated GHG Emission Benefit of Reforesting ~223,000 Acres of Former Mine Land 

Estimate Range MTCO2E per Year Acreage MTCO2E per Year MMTCO2E per Year 

Low 3.6 222,547 801,169 0.8 

High 4.2 222,547 934,697 0.9 
This page intentionally left blank.
Solid Waste and EPA 530-R-09-017 

Emergency Response September 2009 

(5105T) www.epa.gov/oswer/