# On biogenic emissions **URL:** \ **Category:** Greenhouse Gas Protocol\ **Created:** [8 February 2024 12:45 UTC](https://community.carbonaltdelete.eu/t/on-biogenic-emissions/58 "2024-02-08T12:45:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![carbonaltdelete](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/community.carbonaltdelete.eu/carbonaltdelete/32/1_2.png) [@carbonaltdelete](https://community.carbonaltdelete.eu/u/carbonaltdelete)\ **Post date:** [8 February 2024 12:45 UTC](https://community.carbonaltdelete.eu/t/on-biogenic-emissions/58/1 "2024-02-08T12:45:09Z")
This post is a summary of the Q&A on a Carbon+Alt+Delete webinar. Q: Would you say sequestred emissions from bio-based products should not be included as a GHG reduction since they will be emitted anyway at EOL? _A: We are awaiting the final guidance from the FLAG update on this point, also depending on the expected life time of the product._ Q: Regarding data from EPDs of generated electricity: Where are the upstream, core, downstream emissions allocated to (scope 2 vs 3.3)? Also: The fossil emissions are of course reported, but what about the biogenic emissions? Since GRI now ask for biogenic emissions also from scope 3 categories, do you include biogenic emissions from electricity “upstream” and “downstream” emissions in the total scope 3 biogenic emissions even though the origin of these emissions is scope 2 (where biogenic emissions is not a reporting requirement). _A: Upstream emission from electricity generation are reported under scope 3 activity 3 for “generation” and “transmission and distribution”. Biogenic emissions should be reported out of scope, but linked to their corresponding activity in scope 2-3. So biogenic emissions linked to upstream electricity, should be reported out of scope but referring to scope 3 act 3._ Q: regarding biogenic emissions: the sbti asks for including of bioenergy emissions from combustion, other then the GHGP. Can we work towards the SBTi with a netting of biogenic emissions and biogenic removals? Or do we have to include biogenic emissions completely in scope 1 for the SBTi, destroying the advantage of biofuels? _A: To our knowledge the SBTi is in line w/ the GHG Protocol. See R4 on_ [_this link_](https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTi-criteria.pdf)_._ ---
**Author:** ![Svenleen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58f4c7/32.png) [@Svenleen](https://community.carbonaltdelete.eu/u/Svenleen)\ **Post date:** [29 May 2024 21:22 UTC](https://community.carbonaltdelete.eu/t/on-biogenic-emissions/58/2 "2024-05-29T21:22:22Z")
Hello, Thanks for this post. I had the same question from one of our customers, working in the waste management industry. He wants to reduce its scope 1 emissions of fuel consumption, using HVO. They are SBTI and when I read the statement of SBTI, it can be seen that it is not allowed to account a reduction in scope 1 when using HVO. It is to account in scope 3. Anyone has experience on the Carbon Footprint reduction (scope 1 & 3) to account when 1 liter of diesel is replaced by 1 liter of HVO? It seems that the reduction is not in the combustion, yet more in the origine of fuel. Br, Sven ---
**Author:** ![StevenDeBaerdemaeckr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@StevenDeBaerdemaeckr](https://community.carbonaltdelete.eu/u/StevenDeBaerdemaeckr)\ **Post date:** [10 June 2024 15:43 UTC](https://community.carbonaltdelete.eu/t/on-biogenic-emissions/58/3 "2024-06-10T15:43:57Z")
Hi Sven, Thanks for sharing your case. Looking at C10 of the near-term criteria of the SBTi, I think that changing fossil fuel to biofuel will not help you in reaching your target (also not for scope 3). Happy to hear the opinion/use cases of your peers. Kind regards, Steven ![image](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/uploads/carbonaltdelete/original/1X/5719077280b788ceb57131c9fa62d0e60874480d.png)