1. Substantiating claims of carbonneutrality in world class events Presentation for Green Breakfast Craig Simmons Co-founder & Technical Director Best Foot Forward firstname.lastname@example.org www.bestfootforward.com
2. Best Foot Forward’s core business Footprinter Footprint Reporter Excel modelling Custom web tools Greenhouse gases Ecological Footprint Water & other metrics Consultancy Risk analysis Applied researchTraining & writing 14 years experience 3,000 + footprint analyses 300 + clients 25 sectors
3. Question: What do Sochi, San Franciscoand Qatar have in common?
4. Question: What do Sochi, San Franciscoand Qatar have in common?Answer: They are all planning to host carbonneutral world class events (Winter Olympics,America’s Cup, Football World Cup)
5. 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
6. London 2012 London 2012 has never Despite what has been said in the stated the aim to be media, London 2012 made no ‘carbon neutral’. We commitment to be ‘carbon believe this is a potentially misleading term. neutral’ but has taken a broaderapproach to ‘compensating’ for The reason for this is its carbon footprint. 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
7. Broad recognition by world event organisers that better carbon management lowers risk
8. 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
9. Olympic footprints – 2000-2012 There are no agreed standards for measuring the carbon footprint and determining the carbon neutrality of world class events such as Olympics EstimatedYear Host Offsets Clean Energy Emissions (tCO2) Renewable energy supplied to2000 Sydney Not calculated N/A venues (saving 30,000 tCO2)2002 Salt Lake City 180,000 18 million trees planted cleaner and greener (look-up) Three new energy & transport2004 Athens Not calculated N/A projects Energy efficiency and Domestic renewable and2006 Torino 121,000 afforestation projects sustainable energy projects. Emissions reductions Installed solar panels and used2008 Beijing 1,181,900 enabled carbon-neutral local renewable energy. games. No offsets. Hybrid vehicles and decrease2010 Vancouver 336,608 Local offset fund in secondary diesel generators. Target Neutral offset2012 London 3,400,000 Building of new energy center . scheme
10. London 2012 Footprint: 3.4MtCO2e (before reductions) Like adding 2 weeks to Transport Infrastructure London’s annual emissions Operations Venues SpectatorsOf this, 2.3MtCO2e ‘Owned’ by London 2012 bodies – the responsibility forremaining emissions rests with others although London 2012 could influence.
11. Comparison of emission sources included HECTOR/Torino Vancouver 2010 London 2012SpectatorsAir 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
12. Comparison between Vancouver & London Vancouver London % Main methodology tCO2e 2010 2012 variation differences venues & 2010 amortises infrastructure 4,000 2,278,000 56950% 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% Differences mainly due to methodology TOTAL 336,608 3,355,000 997% and event size Note: comparisons are approximate as different emission source categories were used
13. To avoid confusion we created the London2012 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 reductionsDeveloped as a London 2012 legacy document.Can be used a baseline assessment for new Carbon Neutral standard (PAS 2060).
14. London 2012 Carbon Management Strategy Parallel stakeholder engagement processRefinestrategy Refine 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.
15. Basic carbon management hierarchy
16. 12 key accounting rules address common issues.. 1: Comply with underpinning principles of the GHG Protocol/ISO 14064-1 2: Account for all Kyoto Protocol Greenhouse Gases 3: Set boundaries to include elements over which control or influence 4: Use a structured method for deciding which sources in/out of scope 5: Emissions should be accounted when occur, establish responsibility 6: Count Legacy benefits – but count them separately 7: Establish a reference scenario against which reductions are accounted 8: Reduction and replacement measures must be clearly documented 9: Identify a consistent dataset of carbon conversion factors 10: Identify contentious carbon accounting issues early to allow debate 11: Document levels of uncertainty 12: Establish key performance indicators
17. 12 key accounting rules address common issues.. 1: Comply with underpinning principles of the GHG Protocol/ISO 14064-1 2: Account for all Kyoto Protocol Greenhouse Gases 3: Set boundaries to include elements over which control or influence 4: Use a structured method for deciding which sources in/out of scope 5: Emissions should be accounted when occur, establish responsibility 6: Count Legacy benefits – but count them separately 7: Establish a reference scenario against which reductions are accounted 8: Reduction and replacement measures must be clearly documented 9: Identify a consistent dataset of carbon conversion factors 10: Identify contentious carbon accounting issues early to allow debate 11: Document levels of uncertainty 12: Establish key performance indicators
18. Rule 3: Look at all emission sources overwhich London 2012 could havecontrol or influence
19. The ‘TVs and Kettles’ dilemma Do we include the impact of home viewers: • Watching TV? • Boiling kettles?Note: 0.5bn TVs x 2 hours x3 weeks x 100 watts = 2.1TWh (> 1MTCO2e )
20. Rule 4: Structured method for determining which emissions are in-scope
21. 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
22. Carbon Neutrality Concept as applied to Games 2.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2 1.5 Gross 1 EmissionsMtCO2e 0.5 Net 0 Emissions Baseline Update 1 Update 2 Allowable ‐0.5 Reference (w/reductions) (w/reductions) Compensation ‐1 Footprint Measures ‐1.5 ‐2 CARBON NEUTRALITY = NET ZERO EMISSIONS
24. Compensation MeasuresMeasures which ‘compensate’ for residual carbon after actions to ‘reduce’ emissions. Costs typically range up to £25/tCO2e
25. Compensation MeasuresMeasures which ‘compensate’ for residual carbon after actions to ‘reduce’ emissions. Costs typically range up to £25/tCO2e Legacy carbon savings not strictly allowable under PAS 2060
26. 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!
27. THANK YOU Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Craig SimmonsCo-founder & Technical Director Best Foot Forward email@example.com www.bestfootforward.com