Blake Lapthorn and Hays Recruitment - Auto enrolment seminar - 26 March 2013
Blake lapthorn green breakfast with craig simmons of best foot forward
-
Upload
blake-morgan -
Category
Technology
-
view
732 -
download
3
description
Transcript of Blake lapthorn green breakfast with craig simmons of best foot forward
Substantiating claims of carbon neutrality in world class events
Presentation for Green BreakfastCraig Simmons
Co-founder & Technical DirectorBest Foot Forward
www.bestfootforward.com
Best Foot Forward’s core business
FootprinterFootprint Reporter
Excel modellingCustom web tools
ConsultancyApplied research
Training & writing
Greenhouse gasesEcological FootprintWater & other metricsRisk analysis
14 years experience
3,000 + footprint analyses
300 + clients 25
sectors
Question: What do Sochi, San Francisco and Qatar have in common?
Question: What do Sochi, San Francisco and Qatar have in common?
Answer: They are all planning to host carbon neutral world class events (Winter Olympics, America’s Cup, Football World Cup)
What is Carbon Neutrality?
“Carbon neutral means that – through a transparent
process of calculating emissions, reducing those
emissions and offsetting residual emissions – net carbon emissions equal
zero.”
Definition arising out of DECC Consultation, 2009
London 2012Despite what has been said in the media, London 2012 made no commitment to be ‘carbon neutral’ but has taken a broader approach to ‘compensating’ for its carbon footprint.
London
2012
has
never stated
the
aim
to
be
‘carbon
neutral’.
We believe
this
is
a
potentially
misleading term.
The
reason
for
this
is because
there
are
no
fixed
boundaries
on
a
project
of this
scale;
any
claim
of
carbon
neutrality would be arbitrary and unrealistic to prove.
London 2012 Sustainability Plan 2nd
Edition ‐
Dec 2009
Broad recognition by world event organisers that better carbon management lowers risk
But what carbon are you going to ‘neutralise’?
•What are the boundaries of the Games?
•How can you measure the impact of an event that will not
happen for several years?•Who is responsible for
reducing the impact?•What reduction targets should
be set?•What are the most practical,
cost effective actions to take?•How to quantify the ‘carbon
legacy’
and best compensate for the residual emissions?
Photo: Olympic Ski Jump, Salt Lake City
Olympic footprints – 2000-2012There are no agreed standards for measuring the carbon footprint and determining the carbon neutrality of world class events such as Olympics
Year Host Estimated Emissions (tCO2 )
Offsets Clean Energy
2000 Sydney Not calculated N/ARenewable energy supplied to venues (saving 30,000 tCO2)
2002 Salt Lake City 180,000 18 million trees planted cleaner and greener (look-up)
2004 Athens Not calculated N/AThree new energy & transport projects
2006 Torino 121,000 Energy efficiency and afforestation projects
Domestic renewable and sustainable energy projects.
2008 Beijing 1,181,900 Emissions reductions enabled carbon-neutral games. No offsets.
Installed solar panels and used local renewable energy.
2010 Vancouver 336,608 Local offset fundHybrid vehicles and decrease in secondary diesel generators.
2012 London 3,400,000 Target Neutral offset scheme
Building of new energy center .
London 2012 Footprint: 3.4MtCO2 e (before reductions)
Like adding 2 weeks to London’s annual emissions
Venues
Spectators
Transport Infrastructure
Operations
Of this, 2.3MtCO2 e ‘Owned’ by London 2012 bodies – the responsibility for remaining emissions rests with others although London 2012 could influence.
Comparison of emission sources includedHECTOR/Torino Vancouver 2010 London 2012
SpectatorsAir travel xCar travel x xPublic transport xAccommodation xCatering x xWaste xMerchandise (official) x xOperationsOverlay & fit‐out x xMediaIT services x xOlympic Family travelOCOG staff travel & officesMedical x xSecurity x xVenue energy useTorch relay & cauldronOther ceremonies & culture x xTravel grantsConstructionNew venues/infrastructure/village x x
Comparison between Vancouver & London
tCO2 eVancouver
2010London
2012%
variationMain methodology
differences
venues & infrastructure 4,000 2,278,000 56950%
2010 amortises construction over 60 years
operations 148,160 347,000 234% 2010 omits overlay
spectators 178,737 730,000 408% 2010 omits car travel
sensitivity 5,712 0 0%
TOTAL 336,608 3,355,000 997%
Differences mainly due to methodology
and event sizeNote: comparisons are approximate as different emission source categories were used
To avoid confusion we created the London 2012 Carbon Footprint MethodologyProvides comprehensive guidance on
how to calculate an event footprint.
•Guiding philosophy
•Uses GHG Protocol principles
•Accounting Rules (to be adopted by IOC in Technical Manual for OG Impact Study)
•Stakeholder process
•Evidencing reductions
Developed as a London 2012 legacy document.Can be used a baseline assessment for new Carbon Neutral
standard (PAS 2060).
Refinestrategy
Parallel stakeholder engagement
process
London 2012 Carbon Management Strategy
* Note: Development and quantification of individual carbon reductions and legacy opportunities may require separate detailed study or options appraisal. For example, looking at individual procurement choices or temporary energy supply options.
Refinestrategy
Basic carbon management hierarchy
12 key accounting rules address common issues..
1: Comply with underpinning principles of the GHG Protocol/ISO 14064-12: Account for all Kyoto Protocol Greenhouse Gases3: Set boundaries to include elements over which control or influence4: Use a structured method for deciding which sources in/out of scope5: Emissions should be accounted when occur, establish responsibility6: Count Legacy benefits – but count them separately7: Establish a reference scenario against which reductions are accounted8: Reduction and replacement measures must be clearly documented9: Identify a consistent dataset of carbon conversion factors 10: Identify contentious carbon accounting issues early to allow debate11: Document levels of uncertainty 12: Establish key performance indicators
12 key accounting rules address common issues..
1: Comply with underpinning principles of the GHG Protocol/ISO 14064-12: Account for all Kyoto Protocol Greenhouse Gases3: Set boundaries to include elements over which control or influence4: Use a structured method for deciding which sources in/out of scope5: Emissions should be accounted when occur, establish responsibility6: Count Legacy benefits – but count them separately7: Establish a reference scenario against which reductions are accounted8: Reduction and replacement measures must be clearly documented9: Identify a consistent dataset of carbon conversion factors 10: Identify contentious carbon accounting issues early to allow debate11: Document levels of uncertainty 12: Establish key performance indicators
Rule 3: Look at all emission sources overwhich London 2012 could have control or influence
The ‘TVs and Kettles’ dilemma
Note: 0.5bn TVs x 2 hours x3 weeks x 100 watts = 2.1TWh (> 1MTCO2
e
)
Do we include the impact of home viewers:
•
Watching TV?•
Boiling kettles?
Rule 4: Structured method for determining which emissions are in-scope
So what is PAS 2060?
• Publicly Available Specification 2060:2010• The first independent standard to provide
a common and consistent approach for the demonstration of carbon neutrality
• Goals• Provide robustness around “carbon
neutral”
claims
• Encourage carbon management good practice
• Increase action on climate change
• Defines ‘allowable’
compensation measures
‐2
‐1.5
‐1
‐0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Baseline 'Reference' Footprint
Update 1 (w/reductions)
Update 2 (w/reductions)
Allowable Compensation Measures
MtCO2e
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Carbon Neutrality Concept as applied to Games
CARBON NEUTRALITY = NET ZERO EMISSIONS
GrossEmissions
NetEmissions
Carbon Neutral ‘Balance Sheet’
for GamesEmissions (in ktCO2
e)
SourcesReference
Footprint 2011Updated
Footprint 2012Updated
Footprint 2013Actual Games
Footprint 2014
Operations
Electricity (venues) 15 13 13 14
… …
Construction
Olympic stadium 60 55 57 55
… …
Spectators
Spectator travel 200 200 180 186
… …
Gross Emissions 275 268 250 255
Allowable Compensation Measures
VCR offsets (0) (0) (0) (255)
… …
Net Emissions 275 268 250 0
Intensity Metric eg.(kgCO2
e/spectator)0.20 0.20 0.18 0.00
Compensation MeasuresMeasures which ‘compensate’
for residual carbon after
actions to
‘reduce’
emissions. Costs typically range up to £25/tCO2
e
Compensation MeasuresMeasures which ‘compensate’
for residual carbon after
actions to
‘reduce’
emissions. Costs typically range up to £25/tCO2
e
Legacy carbon savings not strictly allowable under PAS 2060
Concluding thoughts on carbon neutrality & world class events
• Is it the right thing to do? – Discourages and limits measurement?
– High cost –
likely to detract from reductions?
– Does it send the right message?
– Boundaries are uncertain– De‐values legacy– Limits domestic investments in carbon reductions
– PAS 2060 is not international, yet!
THANK YOU
Questions? Comments?Thoughts?
Craig Simmons Co-founder & Technical Director
Best Foot [email protected]
www.bestfootforward.com