Water footprint

UNESCO-IHE (2005), The Water Footprint of Cotton Consumption, Value of Water Research Report series no. 18, http // www.waterfootprint.oig/Reports/Reporti8.pdf... 

Choudhary and Laroia Technological developments and cotton production in India and China, Current Science (2001) 80 (8) 925-932 Chapagain, A.K., Hoekstra, A.Y. andSavenije, H.H.G., Gautam, R. (2005) The water footprint of cotton consumption. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 18, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.http //www.water-footprint, org/ Reports/ Reporti8. pdf... 

Related indicators to EF are the carbon and water footprints. A carbon footprint is a measure of the impact human activities have on the environment in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases produced, measured in units of carbon dioxide. The water footprint is an indicator of water use that includes both direct and indirect water use of a consumer or producer. Water use is measured in water volume consumed (evaporated) and/or polluted per unit of time. 

ISO, 2014. Environmental Management — Water Footprint — Principles, Requirements and Guidelines. International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva, Switzerland. 

Blue water footprint (BWF) was calculated following Hoekstra et al. (2011). Assumptions are detailed in the relevant subsections. 

Agric. Land occupation Blue water footprint... 

Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M., Mekonnen, M.M., 2011. The Water Footprint Assessment Manual. Earthscan, London, http //www.waterfootprint.org/downloads/ TheWaterFootprintAssessmentManual.pdf (accessed October 2014). 

Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2012. The blue water footprint of electricity from hydro-power. Hydro . Earth Syst. Sci. 16, 179—187. 

However, when considering the sustainabUity of apparel retail, the most important aspect of the business model to consider is associated with how the retailer sources products. This activity has the most direct impact on the ability of the retailer to be sustainable. The retailer s products and supply chain are the most significant source of the environmental and social impacts. Up to two-thirds of a retailer s carbon footprint and up to 90% of its water footprint is created by its products and supply chain (WRAP, 2011). And as a retailer s supply chain may have more than 20 times more workers in it than in its retail operation, and often in countries where social issues may be significant, the supply chain is a major source of social and ethical challenges for the retailer. Therefore, the sourcing model for products and suppliers is a critical consideration in the development of a sustainability strategy. 

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is the preeminent method for the estimation of the complete carbon and water footprints associated with products, including energy resources. LCA is a system-level approach that accounts for all such activities from cradle to grave , with well-defined guidelines specified by ISO [1]. In addition to permitting environmental comparisons of alternative energy sources, LCA facilitates the elucidation of the relative environmental impacts of particular operations over the life cycle of the product under investigation. 

To quantify this variability, we have assessed the carbon and water footprints of Barnett and Marcellus shale gases, which are geologically and geographically distinct, and feature different drilling and completion practices as well as treatment and processing requirements. 

LCA evaluates environmental impacts in the context of the function of a product, which permits meaningful comparisons of products or activities. In our work, we employ a Tunctional unit of MWh of electricity generated . This permits comparison of the carbon and water footprints of power generated from shale gas with other methods of power generation (e.g. coal power). 

In Table 2 we report the life cycle carbon and water footprints associated with power generated from shale gas, as well as the fraction of gross methane that is emitted to the atmosphere. 

One may consider the effect of the variability of EURs and other operational characteristics over a shale play using Monte Carlo. We describe the procedure in detail in our previous work (2). In brief, we conduct N (e.g. 5000) trials in which we select input data from their distributions at random and conduct the LCA. This results in N sets of results (e.g. carbon footprints, water footprints), which constitute distributions for those results in lieu of single point estimates. We report 80% confidence intervals (CIs) for these estimates in Table 2. From the overlap of the CIs, it is evident that there is no statistically significant difference among the carbon footprints, water footprints, and other characteristics of Barnett and Marcellus shale gases. 

As previously discussed, our functional unit permits comparison of shale gas with other energy sources. In 2012, NETL reported that the carbon and water footprints of coal are 1031 kg C02eq/MWh generated and 450 gal/MWh generated respectively [4], Therefore, we can conclude that the carbon and water footprints of shale gas are about half those of coal when the fuels are used for electricity generation. 

Ercin AE, Aldaya MM, Hoekstra AY. Corporate water footprint accounting and impact assessment the case of the water footprint of a sugar-containing carbonated beverage. Water Resour Manage 2011 25 721-741. 

Chapagain AK, Hoekstra AY. The green, blue and grey water footprint of rice from production and consumption perspectives. Ecol Econ 2011 70(4) 749—58. 

Water Footprint Network. Water Footprint, 2008. http //www.waterfootprint. org/ page=flles/... 

Water Footprint Network. Water Eootprint, 2008. http7/www.waterfootprint.org/ page=files/... 

Measurement of water footprint genetic engineering with adequate built-in diversity antibiotics free-meat products. 

Product life cycle assessment (LCA) - Intertek offers Simplified LCA, Streamlined LCA and Full LCA studies according to ISO 14040 44 to meet your specific needs. LCAs can allow brands, manufacturers and retailers to better understand the environmental impacts of then-products like Carbon Footprint, GHG, Water Footprint during all of the stages of a product s life cycle. 

Table 5.4.6 shows the water footprint of selected countries for the period 1997-2001, and Table 5.4.7 shows the domestic water consumption for the example of Germany. Compared to the global average value of the water footprint of about 34001 per capita (pc) and day, the industrialized countries consume up to a factor of two more water, for example, about 68001 pc and day in the USA, whereas developing countries consume much less. If only the consumption of domestic water is considered, the difference is even higher, for example, more than 9001 pc and day in Australia compared to only 711 pc and day in China. 

Table 5.4.6 Water footprint of some countries (1997—2001, Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2007).

Total water footprint Domestic water Water for agricultural goods Water for industrial goods ... 

Hoekstra, A.Y and Chapagain, A.K. (2007) Water footprints of nations water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern. Water Res. Manage., 21, 35-48. 

---