Blake Lapthorn South Coast green breakfast - carbon neutral world class events - southampton - 13 March 2012

  • 586 views
Uploaded on

Blake Lapthorn were pleased to welcome Craig Simmons, co-founder and director of Best Foot Forward to the first in the new series of South Coast green breakfasts hosted in association with B&Q and …

Blake Lapthorn were pleased to welcome Craig Simmons, co-founder and director of Best Foot Forward to the first in the new series of South Coast green breakfasts hosted in association with B&Q and KPMG.

More in: Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
586
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Substantiating claims of carbonneutrality in world class events Presentation for Green Breakfast Craig Simmons Co-founder & Technical Director Best Foot Forward craig.simmons@bestfootforward.com 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 transparentprocess of calculatingemissions, reducing thoseemissions and offsettingresidual emissions – netcarbon emissions equalzero.”Definition arising out of DECC Consultation, 2009
  • 6. London 2012 London 2012 has neverDespite what has been said in the stated the aim to bemedia, London 2012 made no ‘carbon neutral’. Wecommitment to be ‘carbon believe this is a potentially misleading term.neutral’ but has taken a broaderapproach to ‘compensating’ for The reason for this isits 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 Reduced Carbon Risk Operational Reputational Regulatory Supply Chain Compliance with Lower energy Better media Less price environmental costs relations volatility legislation Better Lower Lower material Promotes green OC/sponsor compensation costs innovation relations costs National Carbon market More beneficial Less wastage credibility opportunities legacy
  • 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 2012Spectators Air travel x   Car travel x x  Public transport x   Accommodation x   Catering x x  Waste x   Merchandise (official) x x Operations Overlay & fit-out x x  Media    IT services x x  Olympic Family travel    OCOG staff travel & offices    Medical x x  Security x x  Venue energy use    Torch relay & cauldron    Other ceremonies & culture x x  Travel grants   Construction New 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 onhow 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 Neutralstandard (PAS 2060).
  • 14. 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 (companies, communities, products etc.)• Goals • Provide robustness around “carbon neutral” claims • Encourage carbon management good practice • Increase action on climate change • Defines ‘allowable’ compensation measures
  • 15. London 2012 Carbon Management Strategy 1. Screening Assessment 2. Detailed baseline Reference Carbon Footprint Parallel stakeholder engagement process 3. Carbon reduction & compensation strategy*Refinestrategy Refine 4. Update footprint & report progress strategy 5. Third party assurance * 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.
  • 16. Basic carbon management hierarchy Reduce Replace Compensate • e.g. avoid • e.g. use lower • e.g. offset unnecessary carbon transport residual travel options emissions
  • 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. 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
  • 19. Rule 3: Look at all emission sources overwhich London 2012 could havecontrol or influence
  • 20. 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 )
  • 21. Rule 4: Structured method for determining which emissions are in-scope
  • 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
  • 23. Carbon Neutral ‘Balance Sheet’ for GamesEmissions (in ktCO2e) Reference Updated Updated Actual GamesSources Footprint 2011 Footprint 2012 Footprint 2013 Footprint 2014Operations 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 255Allowable Compensation Measures VCR offsets (0) (0) (0) (255) … …Net Emissions 275 268 250 0Intensity Metric eg. 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.00(kgCO2e/spectator)
  • 24. Compensation MeasuresMeasures which ‘compensate’ for residual carbon after actions to‘reduce’ emissions. Costs typically range up to £25/tCO2e Joint Implementation/ERUs Compliance CERs Green Investment Scheme (‘hot air ‘) VERs Compensation Non-compliance measures REDDs Domestic carbon investment schemes Local Legacy infrastructure benefits Other legacy benefits
  • 25. Compensation MeasuresMeasures which ‘compensate’ for residual carbon after actions to‘reduce’ emissions. Costs typically range up to £25/tCO2e Joint Implementation/ERUs Compliance CERs Green Investment Scheme (‘hot air ‘) VERs Compensation Non-compliance measures REDDs Domestic carbon investment schemes Local Legacy infrastructure benefits Legacy carbon savings not strictly allowable Other legacy benefits 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 Forwardcraig.simmons@bestfootforward.com www.bestfootforward.com