Evaluation of Carbon Emission Reduction via GCIP Projects: Creating a Better Future for Pakistan

  • Asma KhalilEmail author
  • Asif Javed
  • Hammad Bashir
Original Article


The present study focused on the evaluation of carbon emission reduction level by replacing Global Cleantech Innovation Program (GCIP) projects with conventional practices and to assess the difference between these zero or less emission technologies and conventional practices. The study included six GCIP projects that are DC solar water pump, bitsym watersense device, jal-bujh device, BOLT bike, biomass cooking stove, and dry bio-waste gasifier. A simplified version of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) method for estimating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fuel consumption was used. Research was conducted in three stages—data collection through questionnaires and interviews, environmental analysis by calculating carbon footprints of Business as usual (BAU) and emission reduction by replacing BAU with GCIP projects, and economic analysis by estimating Payback period in case of technology adoption and replacement. Results indicated that all projects have capacity to cut down carbon emissions, among which solar pump can contribute (0.32%) in carbon emission reduction followed by bitsym watersense device (7%), jal-bujh device (61.8%), BOLT bike (0.48%), biomass stove (7.2%), and agriculture dry biomass gasifier (23.2%), making gross annual CO2 reduction of 176.76tCO2e/annum. Pakistan should accelerate the efforts of replacing renewable technologies with conventional ones under the umbrella of this opportunity for the local and regional benefit by reducing CO2 emissions.


GCIP GHG emissions reduction Climate change Innovative technologies 



The Authors would like to thank Bahria University, Pakistan for providing opportunity and support to conduct the study. Authors further extend special gratitude to the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) for providing opportunity and technical assistance throughout the research work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all the authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. Abas N, Kalair A, Khan N, Kalair AR (2017) Review of GHG emissions in Pakistan compared to SAARC countries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 80:990–1016. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abid M, Schilling J, Scheffran J, Zulfiqar F (2016) Climate change vulnerability, adaptation and risk perceptions at farm level in Punjab, Pakistan. Sci Total Environ 547:447–460. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adnan MN, Safeer R, Rashid A (2018) Consumption based approach of carbon footprint analysis in urban slum and non-slum areas of Rawalpindi. Habitat Int 73:16–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allinson D, Irvine KN, Edmondson JL, Tiwary A, Hill G, Morris J (2016) Measurement and analysis of household carbon: the case of a UK city. Appl Energy 164:871–881. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amber KP, Ashraf N (2014) Energy outlook in Pakistan. In: International conference on energy systems and policies (ICESP), pp 1–5.
  6. Ateeq-Ur-Rehman M, Siddiqui BN, Hashmi N, Masud K, Adeel M, Khan MRA, Dawood KM, Shah SAA, Karim M (2018) Climate change impact on rural livelihoods of small landholder: a case of Rajanpur, Pakistan. Int J Appl Agric Sci 4:28–34. Scholar
  7. Bailis R, Drigo R, Ghilardi A, Masera O (2015) The carbon footprint of traditional wood fuels. Nat Clim Change 5:266–272. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biswas H, Hossain F (2013) Solar pump: a possible solution of irrigation and electric power crisis of Bangladesh. Int J Comput Appl. Google Scholar
  9. CPEIR (2015) Pakistan-climate public expenditure and institutional review (CPEIR). UNDP, Islamabad. Accessed 15 Oct 2018
  10. Hussain M, Liu G, Yousaf B, Ahmed R, Uzma F, Ali MU, Ullah H, Butt AR (2018) Regional and sectoral assessment on climate-change in Pakistan: social norms and indigenous perceptions on climate-change adaptation and mitigation in relation to global context. J Clean Prod 200:791–808. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. IPCC (2006). Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, Chap. 2 Table 2.2, vol 2. Accessed 2 Feb 2018
  12. IPCC (2013a) Introduction. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of intergovernmental penal on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York. Accessed 15 Oct 2018
  13. IPCC (2013b) Summary for policymakers. Climate change 2013–the physical science basis. Contribution working group I to fifth assessment report. Intergovernmental panel on climate change, vol 33.
  14. Irfan M, Riaz M, Arif MS, Shahzad SM, Saleem F, Rahman N, Berg LVD, Abbas F (2014) Estimation and characterization of gaseous pollutant emissions from agricultural crop residue combustion in industrial and household sectors of Pakistan. Atmos Environ 84:189–197. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johansson DJ, Persson UM, Azar C (2006) The cost of using global warming potentials: Analysing the trade-off between CO2, CH4 and N2O. Clim Change 77:291–309.
  16. Kalita N, Xu Z, Kumar A (2016) Application of software to study the impact of transportation sectors’ greenhouse gas emissions reduction on climate change. Environ Progress Sustain Energy 35:1559–1565. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kim T, Kim H (2013) Analysis of the effects of intra-urban spatial structures on carbon footprint of residents in Seoul, Korea. Habitat Int 38:192–198. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lin B, Ahmad I (2017) Analysis of energy related carbon dioxide emission and reduction potential in Pakistan. J Clean Prod 143:278–287. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mahmood A, Marpaung COP (2014) Carbon pricing and energy efficiency improvement—why to miss the interaction for developing economies? An illustrative CGE based application to the Pakistan case. Energy Policy 67:87–103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mustafa Z (2011) Climate change and its impact with special focus in Pakistan. Symposium on changing environmental pattern and its impact with special focus on Pakistan Paper no 290, pp 100–117.
  21. Pakistan Energy Yearbook (2014) Hydrocarbon Development Institute. Ministry of petroleum & natural resource. Government of Pakistan, IslamabadGoogle Scholar
  22. Qureshi MI, Rasli AM, Zaman K (2016) Energy crisis, greenhouse gas emissions and sectoral growth reforms: repairing the fabricated mosaic. J Clean Prod 112:3657–3666. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosa G, Majorin F, Boisson S, Barstow C, Johnson M, Kirby M, Ngabo F, Thomas E, Clasen T (2014) Assessing the impact of water filters and improved cook stoves on drinking water quality and household air pollution: a randomised controlled trial in Rwanda. PLoS One 9(3):e91011. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shah SA, Daudpoto J, Abbasi AF (2013) Energy and emission benefit analysis of solar powered electrical power generation in Pakistan. Sindh Univ Res J 45:417–419
  25. Shahid MS, Malik DTN, Choudhary DMA, Ahmad DZ (2014) Impact of reforms on capacity adequacy, resource mix, efficiency and emissions in the power sector of Pakistan. J Basic Appl Sci Res 4:13–20.,%204(5)13-20,%202014.pdf. Accesed 12 May 2018
  26. Shirley R, Jones C, Kammen D (2012) A household carbon footprint calculator for islands: case study of the United States Virgin Islands. Ecol Econ 80:8–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Siddiqui AR, Lee K, Bennett D, Yang X, Brown KH, Bhutta ZA, Gold EB (2009) Indoor carbon monoxide and PM2.5 concentrations by cooking fuels in Pakistan. Indoor Air 19:75–82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Umar M, Hussain A (2015) Micro hydro power: a source of sustainable energy in rural communities: economic and environmental perspectives. Pak Dev Rev 54:487–505. Accessed 8 May 2018
  29. UNDP (2012) United Nation development program. Pakistan sustainable transport project, pp 5–11Google Scholar
  30. World Bank (2017) World Development Indicators: Energy dependency, efficiency and carbon dioxide emissions. Environment 3.8
  31. Yang T, Liu W (2017) Inequality of household carbon emissions and its influencing factors: case study of urban China. Habitat Int 70:61–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang Z, Zhang Y, Zhou Y, Ahmad R, Pigott CP, Annegarn H, Dong R (2017) Systematic and conceptual errors in standards and protocols for thermal performance of biomass stoves. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 72:1343–1354. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© King Abdulaziz University and Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earth and Environmental ScienceBahria UniversityIslamabadPakistan
  2. 2.Project Management and Policy Implementation Unit (PMPIU)Ministry of Water ResourcesIslamabadPakistan
  3. 3.United Nations Industrial Development OrganizationIslamabadPakistan

Personalised recommendations