CarbonMetrics

After the presentation of the fifth Carbon Disclosure Project I picked up and copy. A big piece of work, but unfortunately there were some glitches. Here are the three traditional GHG accounting pitfalls…

Expanding emissions. The GHG Protocol was designed to be applied on corporate level - it is not scalable. Companies report direct emissions [scope 1] and energy indirect emissions [scope 2] that is linked to imported energy. The direct emissions of the power user [scope 1] are the indirect emissions of the power user [scope 2] - but these emissions are the same. Adding scope 1 & 2 of different sectors double counts all energy imports. It makes impressive figures though.

Miraculous accuracy. Emission factors of the IPCC [2006 IPCC Guidelines Vol.2 Energy] have 3 significant digits. So natural gas has an emission factor of only 56.1 tCO2/TJ, although Excel interprets it as 56.10000000 tCO2/TJ. Because of this, the reported emissions can never have more than 3 significant digits either. Check for example the 3,632,850,767 tCO2eq in scope 3 emissions reported to the Carbon Disclosure Project by FT500 companies. This should be rounded to 3,63 Gt CO2eq. It is as if you measure the surface of a football field with a school ruler and come up with a result in thousands of square mm.

Rubber standards. The GHG Protocol and ISO14064-1 let you choose between reporting on the basis of equity, on operational control or financial control. Suppose you have an asset that is owned for 40% and over which you have no operational control. On equity basis, you’d report 40% of the GHG emissions. But if you report on basis of operational control you would report zero. Imagine for example a joint venture in which one participant reports on equity [50%] and the other participant on operational control [either 100% or 0]. You can magic away leased assets by reporting on equity basis. Now, try to compare and benchmark the reporting entities…