? Conversion factors Calculations Assumptions Boundaries ? Data CO2 / CO2e The Problem
Against Transparency Intellectual Property Rights Profit and competitive advantage Expediency Lack of an independent, impartial, expert scrutiny body Problem of non-expert scrutiny (e.g. by climate change deniers)
For Transparency How valuable is that IPR anyway? ‘Transparent’ does not have to mean ‘free’ Whose advantage? How expedient? Need for greater exposure to peer review – stakeholder and public confidence in results Greater transparency means results are less open to questions / claims of greenwashing
Positive Examples Free: Inventory of Carbon and Energy, University of Bath Climate Challenge Fund Route Maps, Footprint Consulting Low cost: REAP / REAP Petite, Stockholm Environment Institute Many building energy models
Heating Lighting Ventilation Appliances etc Energy CO2 / CO2e Accuracy and Building Energy Modelling
Enabling Accuracy Is there really a standard household any more? Is it time to ditch the zone 1 / zone 2 assumption? What are the implications for policy making? How accurately can we model the impact of behaviour, and behavioural interventions? What can be learnt from buildings that can be applied elsewhere?
Final Thoughts Two inter-connected problems Can greater transparency lead to greater accuracy? How can our knowledge of building energy modelling inform carbon accounting in general? How accurate can we be? And how accurate do we need to be?
The Agriculture Workshop Date: Tues 17th June Time: 10:00 - 1:00 (includes lunch) – plus an afternoon session for those able to stay Venue: Room A426, Govan Mbeki Building, Glasgow Caledonian University Workshop leaders: Dr Keith Baker, GCU & ICARB; Dr Ole Pahl, BATFarm Project, GCU; Dr Colin Burton, Cemagref, France; Dr Gary Lanigan, Teagasc, Ireland; and Dr Arthur Fallick, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Vancouver, Canada.