The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Greenhouse gas accounting and waste management
Abstract
Accounting of emissions of greenhouse gas (GHG) is a major focus within waste management. This paper analyses and compares the four main types of GHG accounting in waste management including their special features and approaches: the national accounting, with reference to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the corporate level, as part of the annual reporting on environmental issues and social responsibility, life-cycle assessment (LCA), as an environmental basis for assessing waste management systems and technologies, and finally, the carbon trading methodology, and more specifically, the clean development mechanism (CDM) methodology, introduced to support cost-effective reduction in GHG emissions. These types of GHG accounting, in principle, have a common starting point in technical data on GHG emissions from specific waste technologies and plants, but the limited availability of data and, moreover, the different scopes of the accounting lead to many ways of quantifying emissions and producing the accounts. The importance of transparency in GHG accounting is emphasised regarding waste type, waste composition, time period considered, GHGs included, global warming potential (GWP) assigned to the GHGs, counting of biogenic carbon dioxide, choice of system boundaries, interactions with the energy system, and generic emissions factors. In order to enhance transparency and consistency, a format called the upstream-operating-downstream framework (UOD) is proposed for reporting basic technology-related data regarding GHG issues including a clear distinction between direct emissions from waste management technologies, indirect upstream (use of energy and materials) and indirect downstream (production of energy, delivery of secondary materials) activities.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Møller, J., Boldrin, A., & Christensen, T. H. (2009) · Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy · doi:10.1177/0734242x09344876 · Cited by 270
Self-citation
Cited by
Cosate de Andrade, M. F., Souza, P. M. S., Cavalett, O., & Morales, A. R. (2016) · Journal of Polymers and the Environment · doi:10.1007/s10924-016-0787-2 · Cited by 275
Møller, J., Boldrin, A., & Christensen, T. H. (2009) · Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy · doi:10.1177/0734242x09344876 · Cited by 270
Self-citationDing, A., Zhang, R., Ngo, H. H., He, X., Ma, J., Nan, J., & Li, G. (2021) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144451 · Cited by 258
Demetrious, A., & Crossin, E. (2019) · Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management · doi:10.1007/s10163-019-00842-4 · Cited by 179
Metadata
- Authors
- Gentil, E., Christensen, T. H., & Aoustin, E.
- Venue
- Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-10-06
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 696-706
- ISSN
- 0734-242X (ISSN-L)
- 1096-3669
- OpenAlex
- W1967268840
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 27.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Greenhouse gas accounting and waste management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0734242x09346702
- The paper
- Gentil, E., Christensen, T. H., & Aoustin, E. (2009). Greenhouse gas accounting and waste management. Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x09346702
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.