It's probably not possible to totally and accurately account for all the "carbon emissions" that occur from ANY activity. Reminds me of the old joke about hiring an accountant, where the CEO set up a mock set of data and asked the three finalists what the cost per unit was.
The first confidently laid out a spreadsheet and said, "It costs $6.32 per unit."
The second confidently laid out HIS spreadsheet and said, "It costs $38.71 per unit."
The third came in and said, "How much would you LIKE it to cost?" and got the job.
I fear that most "carbon accountants" are the third type.
The absolute worst I am aware of is the highly emotional discussion about agriculture and especially cows. Ridiculous statements like "cows emit more greenhouse gas than transportation."
My take is that we need to separate NEW carbon emissions (mainly fossil fuels) from RECYCLED emissions. Our gardens and livestock make NO new carbon, they just recycle. Every carbon atom that a cow emits, or that builds a stalk or leaf in our Permie forests, came from CO2 that was already in the air, taken up by the grass, and turned into cow or human food. So, NO net increase in greenhouse gas. Cows are not alchemists! (by the way they ALSO don't destroy water, another weird myth.) And the methane that they emit, supposedly a worse greenhouse gas, would ALSO be emitted from the grass that ferments and breaks down in the field if the cows don't eat it, AND methane breaks down in the atmosphere anyway with a half life of about 10 years. Now our agricultural "system" does use a lot of fossil fuels to make nitrogen fertilizer and to transport things from California to Montana but industrial plant AND animal agriculture are equally culpable here.
I'm proud of what I do with my larval Permaculture efforts despite the fact that my compost heaps certainly emit CO2 and methane, but no "neocarbon".