The ongoing effort to protect and revitalise forests is one of the key ways people are coming together to combat climate change. Deforestation, after all, is responsible for around 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Now, ecologists are hinting that climate change is causing yet another harmful feedback loop that reduces forests' ability to store carbon.
Throughout the tropics, lianas compete with trees for light, water and soil nutrients. These fast-growing vines use the tree trunks for support and then sprout luxuriant leaves when they reach the tree canopy. Where lianas are particularly aggressive, trees are weaker and die faster. In some cases, they become so thick that trees are more easily blown over in heavy wind and rain. The fallen trees die, but the flexible lianas survive and sprout new shoots.
As ecologist Dr. Stefan Schnitzer notes in the New York Times article, “If you come back in a year, it will have changed,” he said. “There will be a whole lot of vines in there, all rooted, all growing. And all the trees will be very unhappy.”
Faster growing trees are better able to compete with lianas, but these tend to have softer, less dense wood - which stores less carbon. All told, the growth of lianas can reduce the carbon storage capacity of a forest by as much as 10%, according to the article.
Now for the climate feedback connection: lianas appear better able than trees to adapt to extended dry periods, precisely the conditions expected in much of the tropics as the planet warms. Lianas also appear more effective at utilising extra carbon dioxide to form new growth, so increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations could be enhancing lianas' competitive advantage versus slower-growing trees. In other words, human activity may be impeding forests' ability to absorb CO2, which makes it harder to reduce CO2 concentrations.
Long-term studies to understand how lianas and trees interact are just beginning, but this is a sobering reminder of the unanticipated effects of global climate change.
Thursday, 26 May 2011
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
After the DECC Quality Assurance Scheme
As mentioned in earlier posts, the UK Government is ending support for its Quality Assurance Scheme (QAS) for carbon offsets. So what happens now?
The first point to recognise is that this isn't the end of the world for the voluntary carbon market. Few serious companies participated actively in the scheme, and even those sold relatively few QAS approved carbon offset credits. In terms of quality control and integrity, the QAS was obsolete before it even launched, having been overtaken by the Code of Practice launched in 2008 by the International Carbon Offset and Reduction Alliance (ICROA). The ICROA Code is followed by some of the largest carbon offset retailers around the world and governs the types of carbon credits sold, the way carbon footprints are calculated, the reduction advice given to customers, and the way members and their customers communicate a company's "carbon neutral" status. It should be no surprise to learn that Carbon Clear is a founding member and has actively led the evolution of the Code.
Last year the British Standards Institute launched a carbon neutrality specification that mirrors many aspects of the ICROA Code - but not the QAS.
The second point is that the end of the QAS helps unshackle the voluntary carbon offset market. The original planners of the QAS sent mixed messages, describing the characteristics of a quality carbon credit, and then rejecting VCS and Gold Standard credits even when they were shown to meet those criteria. What is more, subsequent Government guidance documents all pointed to the QAS as the arbiter of quality, despite rising criticism from indsutry.
VER credits from VCS, Gold Standard and elsewhere offer a number of benefits over the QAS approved varieties. First, these credits are directly traceable to specific projects that often provide co-benefits unmatched in the compliance credit world. Voluntary offset customers want credits that help them communicate their environmental and ethical credentials to stakeholders. It's much easier to accomplish this objective with an improved cookstove project in rural Malawi than a faceless industrial gas destruction project in China, or even more-faceless European allowances from a German steel mill. What is more, these VER credits are often half the price of compliance credits - and sometimes even less. One wonders how many customers were discouraged from offsetting by these mixed messages from the QAS.
By announcing that Government would now look to the carbon markets to establish best practice, DECC is removing a barrier to the adoption of carbon credits that meet these and other quality standards. Companies that previously offset through QAS-approved credits will be in a better position to engage with their stakeholders, and DECC is to be applauded for this bold move.
Indeed, I expect the UK voluntary carbon credit market to experience a renaissance as a result of DECC's decision. As always, Carbon Clear is here to help.
The first point to recognise is that this isn't the end of the world for the voluntary carbon market. Few serious companies participated actively in the scheme, and even those sold relatively few QAS approved carbon offset credits. In terms of quality control and integrity, the QAS was obsolete before it even launched, having been overtaken by the Code of Practice launched in 2008 by the International Carbon Offset and Reduction Alliance (ICROA). The ICROA Code is followed by some of the largest carbon offset retailers around the world and governs the types of carbon credits sold, the way carbon footprints are calculated, the reduction advice given to customers, and the way members and their customers communicate a company's "carbon neutral" status. It should be no surprise to learn that Carbon Clear is a founding member and has actively led the evolution of the Code.
Last year the British Standards Institute launched a carbon neutrality specification that mirrors many aspects of the ICROA Code - but not the QAS.
The second point is that the end of the QAS helps unshackle the voluntary carbon offset market. The original planners of the QAS sent mixed messages, describing the characteristics of a quality carbon credit, and then rejecting VCS and Gold Standard credits even when they were shown to meet those criteria. What is more, subsequent Government guidance documents all pointed to the QAS as the arbiter of quality, despite rising criticism from indsutry.
VER credits from VCS, Gold Standard and elsewhere offer a number of benefits over the QAS approved varieties. First, these credits are directly traceable to specific projects that often provide co-benefits unmatched in the compliance credit world. Voluntary offset customers want credits that help them communicate their environmental and ethical credentials to stakeholders. It's much easier to accomplish this objective with an improved cookstove project in rural Malawi than a faceless industrial gas destruction project in China, or even more-faceless European allowances from a German steel mill. What is more, these VER credits are often half the price of compliance credits - and sometimes even less. One wonders how many customers were discouraged from offsetting by these mixed messages from the QAS.
By announcing that Government would now look to the carbon markets to establish best practice, DECC is removing a barrier to the adoption of carbon credits that meet these and other quality standards. Companies that previously offset through QAS-approved credits will be in a better position to engage with their stakeholders, and DECC is to be applauded for this bold move.
Indeed, I expect the UK voluntary carbon credit market to experience a renaissance as a result of DECC's decision. As always, Carbon Clear is here to help.
Government Abandons Shunned Carbon Offset Assurance Scheme
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has announced that it will close its Quality Assurance Scheme for Carbon Offsetting. The move will be welcomed by the vast majority of carbon offset providers and customers who declined to participate in the scheme since its outset.
Despite a consultation exercise in 2007 and 2008 to which many carbon offset market participants responded, the Quality Assurance Scheme refused to include popular carbon offset credits certified by organisations such as the Gold Standard and Verified Carbon Standard.
Providers of these verified emission reduction (VER) credits argued that DECC’s refusal to approve these credits was confusing and counter-productive, as these credits tend to be most popular with voluntary offset customers and meet all of the conditions laid out by DECC for quality carbon offset credits. What is more, these carbon credit types provide much needed finance for clean energy and forestry projects in the developing world. As a result, members of the industry body ICROA declined to apply for accreditation under the Quality Assurance Scheme. [Carbon Clear is a Founding Member of ICROA.]
Only nine other organisations participated in the scheme, and many of these providers offered VERs alongside the scheme’s approved credits, leaving consumers and businesses confused when comparing different carbon offset schemes. Despite initial projections, the scheme was never able to become self-sustaining, requiring DECC to part-fund the scheme.
In a statement, DECC announced that “the carbon market has moved on substantially since the introduction of the QAS and DECC now believe it is for the market to set best practice for carbon offsetting”. DECC confirmed it will no longer provide financial support for the Quality Assurance Scheme and that it will close on 30 June 2011.
Mark Chadwick, CEO of Carbon Clear says, "Carbon Clear is internationally recognised as a best practice provider of carbon offset credits, and by working with us businesses looking to ensure that their carbon offsets are certified, real and permanent can offset with confidence."
Monday, 23 May 2011
DECC QAS, R.I.P.
According to this article, the Government's so-called "Quality Assurance Scheme" for carbon offsetting has finally gotten the axe due to lack of interest.
I could have told them back when it was first announced that it was inappropriate and would be a waste of time and money.
Actually, I did.
I'll comment more fully on what this announcement means later today.
Thursday, 19 May 2011
DECC Announces Fourth Carbon Budget
The 2008 Climate Change Act requires the Government to publish a series of five-year budgets that put the country on a path to achieving an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The first Carbon Budget (2008-2012) limits greenhouse gas emissions to 3,018 million tonnes CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) - 23% below 1990 levels. The second Carbon Budget (2013-2017) is geared to achieve a 29% emissions reduction, and the third Carbon Budget (2018-2022) put the Government on track to achieve 35% reduction below 1990 levels.
Under the Fourth Carbon Budget, which covers the period 2023-2027, total UK emissions will be only 1,950 MtCO2 - half of 1990 levels. The Government is now pushing the rest of the EU to adopt a more ambitious 30% emissions reduction target by the year 2020 - up from the current 20%.
Given the difficulty of replacing fossil fuels in the transportation sector (a topic to which we'll return in subsequent blog posts), other sectors will see disproportionate emission reductions. In particular, GHG emissions from the power sector will have to drop almost to zero. All fossil fuel-fired power plants will have to have carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology - or cease operation. Already, the 750 MW Tilbury power station is in the process of switching to 100% renewable biomass instead of coal. Their fuel pellets will come from a purpose-built plant in the southeastern United States. Imports of biomass for heat and power in the UK will likely skyrocket in this low-carbon future.
Similarly, few if any residences will be able to0 use natural gas to provide heat and hot water - renewable energy and efficiency will have to pick up the slack.
Achieving these ambitious reductions will require major structural changes in how we live, work and play. The UK Government is providing an array of carrots and sticks in the form of the EU-ETS, Carbon Reduction Commitment, feed-in-tariffs and other policies to provide incentives for organisations and individuals to reduce emissions. At Carbon Clear, we're committed to helping companies identify opportunities that arise from these shifts. Keep watching this space for more ideas and analysis.
(to the Carbon Clear Homepage)
Monday, 16 May 2011
IEMA Handbook 2nd Edition Published!
The editors, John Brady, Alison Ebbage and Ruth Lunn, wanted to perform a "root and branch" review and update of the handbook to reflect changes in environmental thinking and priorities since the first edition was released back in 2004. That's no small feat given how much the ground has shifted over the past seven years! Based on the copy that arrived on my desk the other day, I think they've done an admirable job.
One of the big shifts since 2004 has been the increased worldwide focus on climate change and sustainable energy issues. In the first edition, these topics were lumped together in a single (well-written) chapter. This time, the editors decided to create two standalone chapters on these important subjects, and also worked to weave climate change themes throughout other chapters in the Handbook.
I think this was the right choice. Aside from giving me the opportunity to author two chapters instead of one, providing separate space for each issue acknowledges that while energy and climate change are related, they are not the same thing. Energy production and consumption are major sources of greenhouse gas emissions, but so are agriculture, deforestation, and the production of industrial gases like hydro-fluorocarbons (HFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). Separate chapters allow the editors (and author) freedom to explore the broader implications each has for environmental managers.
With the Handbook's publication, the Carbon Clear Blog will be focusing on some of the issues and themes discussed in the Climate Change and Energy chapters. Stay tuned!
Tuesday, 19 April 2011
10 Questions to Ask Your Carbon Offset Vendor
Investing in carbon offsets is an efficient and cost effective way to quantifiably reduce the environmental impact of your organization. Such investments also demonstrate a strong commitment to combating climate change. Having said that, navigating the world of carbon offsets as a novice can be overwhelming. Even as an educated buyer, market jargon persists, and new standards and offset vendors must constantly be evaluated.
To provide clarity surrounding carbon offset purchases, below are 10 questions you should ask your offset vendor prior to purchasing credits. The questions were developed by Canadian environmental organization, the David Suzuki Foundation, and can be found in their report ‘Purchasing Carbon Offsets’. In reproducing them here, I’ve provided context and/or answers to help you understand what to look for in responses.
1. What are the specific offset project type(s) in your portfolio, and where are they located? (project types refer to wind farm, methane recovery, etc.)
8. Do you use a publicly accessible registry to track and retire your offsets? If yes, list the websites. If no, how do you ensure your offsets are only sold to one buyer?
Thursday, 14 April 2011
The CDP’s Carbon Action Initiative: What you need to know
Last week the CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project) announced its new Carbon Action initiative, an initiative led by institutional investors who combined manage assets of over $7.6 trillion dollars.
The initiative is fueled by an overwhelming belief that an increasingly fossil fuel constrained economy will have immense cost and other impacts on the performance of businesses worldwide. And, the investment community wants to know that the companies they invest in are doing something to manage these impacts. The logic follows that reducing costs now and warding off future price increases will deliver greater shareholder value both immediately and in the long run.
To add to this, the signatories of the Carbon Action initiative, which include groups like CCLA Investment Management, Aviva Investors, Boston Common Asset Management, and Calvert Asset Management have said that starting in 2013, they will begin divesting in companies that do not publicly disclose reduction targets to the CDP.
Steve Waywood, Head of Sustainability at Aviva Investors, a founding supporter of Carbon Action, commented, “We believe that the external costs of greenhouse gas emissions will become internalized into company cash flows and profitability. We encourage companies to consider what actions that they can take now to reduce emissions”
Through the Carbon Action initiative, the CDP is encouraging companies to do the following:
1. Measure and report your GHG emissions
2. Make year-on-year emissions reductions
3. Identify and implement investments in GHG reduction initiatives that will have a positive return on investment
4. Publically disclose emission reduction targets
What does this mean for your business? Two things, if you are a Global 500 company, you will have already received your CDP request for information letter. If not, you may experience a trickle down effect if you work with Global 500 companies looking who will be looking for new opportunities to reduce carbon (and costs) in their supply chains.
If you need help with your CDP response, or are interested in protecting or boosting your brand reputation by making an unsolicited response, Carbon Clear can help. Visit http://www.carbon-clear.com/us/services/carbon_disclosure_project
Friday, 11 March 2011
Carbon Clarity: Another Way to Think About Offsets
As part of my occasional series on increased "Carbon Clarity", I’d like to suggest an approach that may help understand how carbon offsets work.
I've noted many times before that companies and organisations are going beyond compliance to measure and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, so let’s start with the organisation’s carbon footprint.
I've noted many times before that companies and organisations are going beyond compliance to measure and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, so let’s start with the organisation’s carbon footprint.
While even the most basic carbon management initiative will include a plan for tackling emissions from the company’s own operations and their purchased energy (Scopes 1 and 2), the main carbon footprint standards don’t explicitly require organisations to measure emissions from suppliers, partners, customers and staff. One – dangerous – way to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions is to simply outsource those emission-intensive activities to a third party. A firm could sell off its delivery fleet and hire a courier company to make deliveries on its behalf. You can make a causal link between the organisation and these emissions, but they’re caused – and controlled – by someone else.
However, companies that ignore their Scope 3 emissions are missing an important opportunity to engage their stakeholders, or worse, are potentially exposing themselves to reputational risks. in the example above, the firm that hired the delivery company isn’t reducing emissions, it is simply shifting the burden to someone else. Best practice is to take responsibility for those outsource emissions. My company Carbon Clear is not alone in making this argument: the BSI’s PAS 2060 carbon neutrality standard requires organizations to include their Scope 3 emissions whenever possible, and the latest revisions to the GHG Protocol are also focused on ways to include more of these third-party emissions.
What happens when a company works to reduce their Scope 3 emissions? Generally speaking, they are promising to devote resources to measuring and reducing part of someone else’s Scope 1 and 2 carbon footprint. They can then take credit for helping make those reductions happen.
This sounds a lot like the definition of carbon offsetting. An offset is a purchased reduction from outside the organisation’s boundaries, used to count against the organisation’s own footprint. In both cases, the company is paying for a reduction from a source beyond their immediate control.
To be clear, carbon offsets are not exactly the same as Scope 3 emission reductions. The original emissions from, for example, a factory in India were not included in the organisation’s carbon footprint (unless the organisation happens to own or purchase supplies from that factory). The purchased reductions from switching fuel sources at that factory therefore would not count as a reduction within the Scope 3 footprint; while the reductions are real and would not have happened without that payment, they're outside the footprint.
Nevertheless, the effect on the environment and the message the company sends to stakeholders are the same. Both offsets and Scope 3 measures are “outsourced” emission reductions. The company has leveraged resources to make real, measurable cuts outside its organisational boundaries. As a result, the company has made a greater impact in the fight against climate change than it could have with a more inward-focused approach to reducing carbon.
(To the Carbon Clear homepage)
(To the Carbon Clear homepage)
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
Carbon Clarity
Climate change is one of the most important issues facing the planet, so the more people engaged in carbon management the better - so long as they're doing it right. Doing it wrong risks wasting time, energy, and money, and potentially delaying the transition to a low-carbon economy.
In this post, we'll discuss what carbon management is, what it isn't and why that difference is so important.
At Carbon Clear, carbon management is all about clarity. Carbon clarity means having the right information and using that information to make good decisions.
More specifically, we view carbon management as a systematic process to identify and address the risks and opportunities presented by climate change.
The basics of our approach are straightforward enough. As they work through the process, clients who engage our services learn:
- What is my climate change exposure?
- How will my business be affected by climate change?
- How can my business adapt to gain commercial advantage?
- Will my processes need to change in a low-carbon world?
- Are we prepared for these changes?
- What can I do now? What do I need to do?
- What do my stakeholders expect and how can I address them?
- How do I measure success?
So far, so good - nothing that should surprise anyone who has worked with us before.
But there's a difference between saying and doing. There are a lot of tools out there and a lot of specialist providers who have a hammer in search of a nail. It's the first part of the definition that gives our approach to carbon management its clarity and power.
Note in particular the use of the phrase "systematic process". At Carbon Clear we find that it is often counter-productive to pre-judge where a company's greatest exposure to climate change risks and opportunities will lie. Perhaps the greatest risk is their exposure to energy prices that incorporate a rising cost of carbon. Perhaps the risk lies in supply chain disruptions caused by increasingly severe weather. Perhaps the risk is reputational, as the news media, customers and investors punish climate laggards and reward pioneers.
Limited tools can result in limited thinking. Many larger companies already employ half-hourly energy meters and legislation like the UK's CRC Scheme means the number of meters in use is growing. Companies can therefore deploy software that enables them to track energy consumption and engage in long term energy planning and targeting. Despite their power, however, these tools are not enough. As we have pointed out before, carbon management involves people throughout the company, from energy managers (the natural users of these software tools), to the HR director, the chief financial officer, and the communications manager. Each of these players will process information in a different way and have a different definition of a successful outcome. At best, this diversity makes an energy-focused software tool a difficult sell. At worst, it potentially leaves a company blind to all the other greenhouse gas emission sources in their business and to the other ways that climate change can affect them.
Similarly, unless we understand the resources and constraints available to the company, it may be premature to specify in advance the actions they should take to tackle those risks and opportunities. Just as a physician will discuss all the options before sending a patient off to surgery, a carbon management professional should help a company understand the choices and trade-offs available to them. The universe of possibilities is vast: should they invest in energy efficiency, renewable energy, demand management, supply chain optimisation, fuel switching, improved transport management, employee and customer engagement, corporate restructuring, new product development, etc, etc...? The answer, of course, is "it depends".
And within each of these categories lies a potentially bewildering number of specific approaches. Within the category of energy efficiency should the focus be on improved metering, lights, motors, insulation, load management, user behaviour or some other solution? What's the trade-off between investing to optimise existing equipment and undertaking a retrofit before the current equipment has reached the end of its useful life? And who decides?
Carbon clarity means using clear, systematic thinking to cut through these complex variables to find the right carbon management solutions for your company. As the examples above illustrate, carbon management isn't a single tool. It isn't just a carbon footprint, and it isn't a gadget you can buy. And while carbon credits may play a role, carbon management isn't just (or even mainly) about carbon offsets.
At Carbon Clear, we're your carbon management partner. We provide carbon clarity to help you change climate change from a risk to an opportunity. And we help you choose the tools that will translate those opportunities into results.
(Carbon Clear homepage)
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Why managing your carbon impact is inevitable
I believe that every business in the UK will be managing its carbon impact in 5 years. Many companies are already doing so, but there are many that are not. Those against it usually argue that investment in non-core activities is difficult, especially in this time of fiscal austerity. While this may be an understandable response, I believe it is short-sighted. Reducing your carbon impact will save you money and strengthen your business, and the sooner you do it, the sooner you can build expertise and enjoy the benefits.
Let’s look at the business case for a moment. Carbon management consultants like us have been harping on about cost savings for years. It’s not just rhetoric, nor is it rocket science. Any organisation that can work out ways to use energy more sensibly will knock a massive chunk off its electricity, gas and fuel bills. As energy prices won’t be going anywhere but up in the future, the savings accumulate accordingly.
Then there is legislation. The coalition turned the CRC Energy Efficiency scheme into a tax as part of its Comprehensive Spending Review, with the additional tax bill for the smallest participants now estimated at over £40,000 a year from 2012. On top of that they face fines for non-compliance if they don’t accurately measure their emissions. So the better you manage your carbon, the smaller your tax bill. And it’s unlikely to stop there. A recent government consultation on corporate law and governance is the first part of the coalition’s commitment to ensure that social and environmental duties are included in company reporting.
The good news is that consumers like to see companies ‘doing their bit’. They might not want to make massive changes in their own lifestyles or pay a premium for green credentials, but they do show a preference for sustainable products and services. A 2009 Europa survey found that more than 8 in 10 EU citizens felt that a product’s impact on the environment is an important element when deciding which products to buy. Brands embracing the low-carbon agenda are associated with a ‘can do’ approach, social responsibility, and innovation.
The flip side of this is, of course, that companies not tackling their environmental impact are at risk of losing out to their more forward-thinking competitors. In a 2010 PwC survey of the FTSE 350, 85% of companies are now disclosing their carbon emissions. They need to, because ethical and environmental procurement is becoming mainstream. So even non-consumer-facing businesses are vulnerable to loss of competitiveness if they supply, for example, to a major retailer such as a supermarket, or to the public sector.
Not convinced? You won’t be alone. But in 5 years time I believe you will be at a disadvantage if you don’t take these messages seriously. I think there is a good chance you’ll wind up managing your carbon anyway, eventually. Best practice suggests adopting a low-carbon approach to build value and bring in new business today. Why wait?
Mark Chadwick is CEO of Carbon Clear, a London-based carbon management consultancy.
Friday, 7 January 2011
What’s on your plate? Agriculture, meat, and carbon
(The following article originally appeared in the 15 November 2010 (no. 108) issue of the IEMA journal "the environmentalist", and is posted here with permission from the publisher.)
Most greenhouse gas reduction initiatives – including those promoted on these pages – have focused on energy industry and transport as these sectors comprise the bulk of measurable human-induced emissions. In addition, international climate negotiations (UN-REDD) have focused increasing efforts on reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation.
In general, agriculture has received less attention in carbon management policy and legislation, despite the fact that more of the earth’s surface is dedicated to farmland than to cities. Agriculture is estimated to account for anywhere from 10% to 40% of global anthropogenic GHGs.
One agricultural topic that has received more attention is the environmental consequence of the globalization of food as a commodity product. Should the carbon impact of our globalized food system and meat-intensive diet be part of the debate? Are there farming practices closer that could reverse this pattern?
Loving our Livestock
Modern society seems to have a love-hate relationship with livestock. An ice cream manufacturer might use images of grazing cows to symbolise fresh, natural products, and yet food scares from BSE to E. coli infections highlight some of the apparent risks of industrial agriculture.
A similar contradictory relationship exists when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Intensive livestock rearing generates both direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions, while improved practices can result in quantifiable emission reductions and support the transition to a lower-carbon economy. The extent to which agriculture is a source or sink for GHGs depends on existing regional land-use and management practices. An important related question is what the alternative uses for the land would be, and whether those uses would generate even greater emissions than agriculture?
The beef carbon footprint
Greenhouse gas emissions arise at every step in getting a hamburger or steak to our tables, from preparing the soils, to growing the animal feed, to housing and feeding animals, managing their waste, transporting the animal to market, to meat processing, packing, refrigeration, transport, and finally cooking.
At each stage, GHG emissions are released - and can be mitigated. How cows are raised– e.g. whether grain fed or pasture raised-makes a difference. Most cattle are fed a diet rich in corn and alfalfa. These grains are often grown using artificial fertilisers produced through energy intensive means and harvested with mechanised farm equipment. However, the lower GHG intensity of grass-fed cattle is not always better if pastures are overgrazed and cause soil degradation and soil carbon loss. And the demand for grazing lands can put pressure on nearby forests resulting in significant emissions from deforestation.
The multi-stomached cow, while well equipped to digest otherwise inedible grasses, burps largevolumes of the greenhouse gas methane – anywhere between 100 and 700 litres per animal per day. The animal waste is also a source of methane emissions if it is stored in large lagoons where it decomposes anaerobically. And depending on the application of manure and/or nitrogen fertilizers for feed crops, nitrogen can be released into the atmosphere as N20. Both methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20) are particularly significant greenhouse gases as the former has a global warming potential 21 times that of CO2 and the latter, 310 times that of CO2.
By adding up all of these emissions sources and dividing by the amount of meat produced, it is possible to estimate the carbon footprint of each piece of beef. According to a 2009 analysis, a 150 gram burger is responsible for approximately 2 kg CO2 equivalent the same as driving 15 km in an average car.
The cumulative effect of our burger eating is huge. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report, “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004," beef cattle accounted for 71% of methane emissions in that country in 2004. The FAO estimates that cows and other livestock worldwide are responsible for total 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than for transport. As incomes rise in poorer countries, so does global meat consumption, potentially undermining efforts to reduce emissions.
Carbon Management on and Off the Farm
While attention is turning increasingly to the problem of carbon-intensive global livestock production, campaigners, policy makers and journalists have said less about the opportunities for better management practices on domestic farms. It is possible to adapt the well-tested “reduce, reuse, recycle” hierarchy to our production and consumption of food to find ways to reduce the greenhouse gas impact of the food we eat.
Accordingly, the first approach is to reduce demand of high emissions foods like beef by reducing food waste. Careful meal planning and better storage can significantly reduce the amount of food purchased and sent to landfill without being eaten. A second approach is to encourage a shift in favour of lower-carbon protein sources like pork (single-stomach pig), poultry and legumes will reduce GHGs. In the short term, however, it will prove difficult to separate people from their beef burgers and Sunday roasts. What is more, these efforts may be swamped by changing diets in the developing world.
Improving practices and finding farm & carbon management synergies
Is it possible, then, to raise cattle that emit less methane, and to reduce emissions associated with feeding them? Here the results to date have been promising. Studies have shown that changing pasture can reduce gaseous emissions by 20%, and including garlic in cattle feed can reduce emissions by 50% and lead to healthier cattle[1]. Optimizing the diet of animals not only improves the efficiency of weight gain for animals (i.e. meat) but also reduces the methane emissions. About 6% of the energy input to the cow is released as methane gas from the cow.
Best practices on farms have great potential to mitigate GHGs and improve carbon sequestration. Biomass and carbon comprises much more than the plants and animals immediately obvious on the farm. Land-use practices such as ploughing or tillage intensity can determine the extent to which soil is a sink or source for GHGs. Ploughing up grassland releases up to 84 tonnes per hectare CO2e in England and up to 330 tonnes CO2e per hectare in Scotland.[2] On the other hand, grazing animals can help maintain grasslands if grazing in controlled and pastures are rotated. By reducing land clearing and minimizing soil disturbance, soil’s role in storing carbon and available nitrogen for plants can be maximised and soil structure and microbial activity can be enhanced to increase agricultural productivity.
In short, best practice pasture management can help soils sequester carbon while, on the other hand, poor practices (e.g. overgrazing, excessive nitrogen use, and forest destruction) will lead to increases in GHGs. “Using existing technologies and best management practices, US agriculture could sequester 350-550 million tonnes of CO2e per year and current N2O and CH4 emissions could be decreased by 20-40%.”[3]
Reducing or eliminating nitrogen-based artificial fertilisers as part of a programme of integrated farm management can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from soil. Spreading manure on croplands has the dual benefits of replacing artificial fertilisers and reducing the volume of methane-generating waste lagoons.
Where waste lagoons are unavoidable, they can aerated to break down the waste aerobically, producing CO2 instead of the more powerful greenhouse gas methane. An alternative is to capture the methane and flare it or use it to generate renewable heat and electricity. Feed-in tariffs and standard contracts in the UK and US provide generous incentives for farmers to generate power in this way, in order to displace fossil fuel-fired generation (as described in our article in issue 104 of ‘the environmentalist’.
A final approach is to look at local land use practices. The decision about the best use of a given parcel of land is made jointly by landowners, local communities, government and other stakeholders. Allowing livestock grazing may be considered the best way to preserve open space, which also allows recreation and provides habitat for native species. The challenge then is to ensure that the practice helps to reduce net emissions rather than contributing to them.
Reducing over-grazing and using perennial grasses helps to maintain soil structure and reduce soil carbon emissions. Managing sites for some woodland growth can aid carbon sequestration and conservation. Indeed, livestock can be part of a program to control invasive species and encourage native ones.
As farmers in the USA have learnt, wind farms are often a perfect complement to livestock grazing. Around the town of Klickitat, Wisconsin, landowners have given wind developers permission to install over 600 turbines, generating enough power to supply 300,000 to 400,000 homes. In this way, local farmers are making a significant contribution to the low-carbon economy. What is more, the landowners earn approximately $18,000 (about £11,000) per year for each turbine on their land – a significant boost to modest local incomes.[4]
Conclusion
Domesticated livestock have been with humanity since before written records began. It is important that we recognise the carbon cost of our intensive agriculture and food choices, and continue to seek ways to balance our meat consumption with our need to combat climate change.
Suzy Hodgson AIEMA is a Principal Consultant and Jamal Gore MIEMA,CEnv is Managing Director at carbon management company Carbon Clear Limited.
Suzy Hodgson AIEMA is a Principal Consultant and Jamal Gore MIEMA,CEnv is Managing Director at carbon management company Carbon Clear Limited.
References:
2 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Challenges and Opportunities for Agriculture, US Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, May 2004
3 Nathan Fiala, “The Greenhouse Hamburger”, Scientific American, February 2009.
Thursday, 6 January 2011
Carbon Neutrality: In From the Cold
(Ed: This article was originally written by Jamal Gore and Suzy Hodgson in October 2009 for the IEMA journal "the environmentalist", but was never published. Nevertheless, its content remains relevant. Enjoy!)
Companies around the world are increasingly taking action to reduce and offset their greenhouse gas emissions. A few years ago, businesses took pains to publicise their reduction programmes, so much so that in 2007 the term “carbon neutral” gained an official dictionary entry. However, in more recent years companies have appeared less willing to draw attention to their low-carbon initiatives.
Sorting a market muddle
Some of this reluctance stems from confusion and even cynicism about “carbon neutral” claims. While most agree that carbon neutrality requires measurement, reduction and offsetting, many claims have been plagued by a lack of transparency. In one highly publicised example, a computer company was criticised for making its offices and business travel “carbon neutral”, while ignoring the much larger emissions from the manufacture and use of its core product. Few companies that have gone carbon neutral publicly disclose all aspects of their carbon footprint.
As a result, it has been difficult for stakeholders to understand how organisations’ footprints are measured, and whether internal reductions or offsets have been used to achieve carbon-neutral status. Without an objective standard and faced with accusations of “greenwash” many companies have understandably wished to keep a low profile.
We think this is a missed opportunity. By promoting their carbon reduction initiatives, businesses have an opportunity to engage staff and customers and are more likely to stay the course during difficult economic conditions.
The UK Government and the British Standards Institute (BSI) seem to agree, stepping forward with parallel solutions to address this market failure. In late 2008, the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) launched an informal process to develop guidance on using the term “carbon neutral”. The main aim was to provide clarity for former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s target to make all Government estates “carbon neutral” by 2012, but also to provide greater clarity for other organisations and serve as a reference to reinforce the Government’s Green Claims Code.
At roughly the same time, BSI began working on a new Publicly Available Specification (PAS 2060:2010) to give guidance on making carbon neutral claims. BSI was responding to a perceived need from businesses for a consistent approach to carbon neutrality. BSI intends to serve the interests of a wide range of industrial sectors, both in the UK and abroad, with a PAS that is useful, relevant, and authoritative and potentially serves as a precursor to an ISO standard.
Both the DECC guidance document[1] and the BSI specification[2] have the potential to create a more level playing field for organisations working in this area. The two documents are generally in lockstep in their references to accepted standards and protocols for carbon footprint quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions (see our article “Whose footprint is it anyway?” in issue 53 of the environmentalist.), and both outline the key stages of carbon management, i.e. determining the subject scope, measuring the footprint, implementing a reduction plan, requantifying the residual carbon footprint, and offsetting.
Setting the scope
BSI and DECC take similar approaches to scoping emissions, using the GHG Protocol and ISO 14064 as their starting point. DECC recommends that at a minimum, emissions within Scope 1 (sources under the organisation’s direct control) and Scope 2 (from purchased energy) be included. In addition, DECC recommends that organisations include their “significant” Scope 3 [other indirect] emissions with guidance for determining significance.
As DECC does with the word “significant”, BSI provides guidance for determining “materiality” for Scope 3 emissions, stating that “those Scope 3 emissions deemed to be material to the subject shall be included.” To remove doubt about what must be included, BSI states that where the subject is an organisation, “the boundaries shall be a true and fair representation of the organisation’s greenhouse gas emissions (i.e. shall include all emissions relating to core operations including subsidiaries owned and operated by the organisation.)”
Clearly, “significant” and “material” do leave room for managerial discretion in determining Scope 3 emissions. DECC and BSI both recognise that organisations will differ in the extent to which they are responsible for, or can influence the emissions of third parties who pollute as a result of the organisation’s activities. Nonetheless, organisations are required to document their decisions transparently. However, differences in interpreting Scope 3 mean that the DECC guidance and BSI specification do not make it easy to rank carbon-neutral organisations in a league table.
Reductions done right
BSI takes a different approach. While PAS 2060 requires an ambitious plan for internal reductions, it acknowledges that it may take several years for these plans to bear fruit. PAS 2060 allows companies to recognise, as part of this longer-term target, reduction activities begun before the carbon reduction claim. This approach reflects that organisations can often reap significant reductions in the first year, but that subsequent reductions might require significant investment and be realised more slowly. Requiring a set reduction every year might inadvertently discourage companies from making investments in ambitious long-term emission reduction activities.
Interestingly, neither guidance document specifies a minimum level of internal emissions reduction. Instead, they require that organisations announce a reduction plan and publicly disclose their progress each year, allowing stakeholders to scrutinise activity and form their own opinions regarding their appropriateness.
Offsets – an essential component
Both guidance documents outline the methodology and strict requirements for offsets. These criteria include requirements that all offsets used to achieve carbon neutrality are:
- Genuine
- Additional
- Without leakage
- Permanent
- Independently verified by a third party
- Transparent (i.e. supported by publically available project documentation on an established registry)
Beyond this point, the two guidance documents diverge. Recognising the national and international organisations likely to use PAS 2060, BSI does not specify particular offset quality standards, but provides a list of popular schemes that meet these criteria, including the Clean Development Mechanism, Voluntary Carbon Standard, and Gold Standard. Regardless of the standard, BSI requires organisations to publicly disclose the type and quantity of offset credits used to balance out their residual emissions. Again, BSI relies on public opinion to drive good behaviour.
DECC, on the other hand, recognises only those offsets that have been accredited under the Government’s Quality Assurance Scheme. At present, only “compliance” credits from the Kyoto Protocol and the EU ETS can be accredited under this scheme. These credits typically cost twice as much as voluntary credits certified under other schemes – and sometimes even more. While DECC recognises that voluntary carbon credit standards have the potential to meet the criteria for generating quality offset credits, and often provide social and environmental co-benefits, the Department states that it is currently unable to vouch for their quality. Organisations that wish to use unaccredited offsets are required to demonstrate that they have performed due diligence and met the criteria described above.
Which to use?
As the above points demonstrate, the DECC and BSI documents share a number of common elements: GHG Protocol/ ISO 14064 footprints, a plan for measurable internal reductions, high quality carbon offsets, and public disclosure throughout.
But, the differences between these two documents mean that they are not interchangeable. DECC is more prescriptive in the timing of internal reductions and the types of offset credits organisations can use to achieve carbon neutrality. The more flexible BSI approach will appeal to organisations that operate across national boundaries, and to large organisations making significant long term capital investments to achieve their internal reductions, or whose offsetting bill is so large that a reliance on compliance credits might force them to abandon the effort altogether.
On the other hand DECC’s approach, , may be more attractive to organisations that are already demonstrating year-on-year reductions and using compliance credits for their offsetting, or who prefer to rely on an implicit Government endorsement of their lower-carbon initiatives to deal with stakeholder scepticism. The more prescriptive approach and implied hierarchy of the DECC guidance may offer the impression of increased rigour, even as it excludes some would-be users.
Conclusion
Because these two documents allow organisations to choose the scope for their measurement, reduction and offsetting programmes, they do not facilitate direct comparisons between organisations making carbon neutral claims. Even so, they both have the benefit of making these claims more specific, transparent, and readily verified. As a result, we expect this guidance help reduce stakeholder scepticism and make it easier for organisations to speak more confidently about their carbon reduction initiatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
