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.

1. Substantiating claims of carbon
neutrality 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 research
Training & writing
14 years experience 3,000 + footprint analyses 300 + clients 25 sectors

4. Question: What do Sochi, San Francisco
and Qatar have in common?

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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 broader
approach 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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
Estimated
Year Host Offsets Clean Energy
Emissions (tCO2)
Renewable energy supplied to
2000 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 & transport
2004 Athens Not calculated N/A
projects
Energy efficiency and Domestic renewable and
2006 Torino 121,000
afforestation projects sustainable energy projects.
Emissions reductions
Installed solar panels and used
2008 Beijing 1,181,900 enabled carbon-neutral
local renewable energy.
games. No offsets.
Hybrid vehicles and decrease
2010 Vancouver 336,608 Local offset fund
in secondary diesel generators.
Target Neutral offset
2012 London 3,400,000 Building of new energy center .
scheme

11. London 2012 Footprint: 3.4MtCO2e (before reductions)
Like adding 2 weeks to
Transport Infrastructure London’s annual emissions
Operations Venues
Spectators
Of this, 2.3MtCO2e ‘Owned’ by London 2012 bodies – the responsibility for
remaining emissions rests with others although London 2012 could influence.

12. Comparison of emission sources included
HECTOR/Torino Vancouver 2010 London 2012
Spectators
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 

13. 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

14. To avoid confusion we created the London
2012 Carbon Footprint Methodology
Provides 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).

15. 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

16. London 2012 Carbon Management Strategy
1. Screening Assessment
2. Detailed baseline 'Reference' Carbon Footprint Parallel
stakeholder
engagement
process
3. Carbon reduction & compensation strategy*
Refine
strategy
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.

17. Basic carbon management hierarchy
Reduce Replace Compensate
• e.g. avoid • e.g. use lower • e.g. offset
unnecessary carbon transport residual
travel options emissions

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. 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

20. Rule 3: Look at all emission sources over
which London 2012 could have
control or influence

21. The ‘TVs and Kettles’ dilemma
Do we include the impact of
home viewers:
• Watching TV?
• Boiling kettles?
Note: 0.5bn TVs x 2 hours x
3 weeks x 100 watts = 2.1TWh
(> 1MTCO2e )

22. Rule 4: Structured method for determining which emissions are in-scope

23. Carbon Neutrality Concept as applied to Games
2.5
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2
1.5
Gross
1 Emissions
MtCO2e
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. Carbon Neutral ‘Balance Sheet’ for Games
Emissions (in ktCO2e) Reference Updated Updated Actual Games
Sources Footprint 2011 Footprint 2012 Footprint 2013 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. 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.00
(kgCO2e/spectator)

25. Compensation Measures
Measures 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

26. Compensation Measures
Measures 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

27. 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!

28. THANK YOU
Questions?
Comments?
Thoughts?
Craig Simmons
Co-founder & Technical Director
Best Foot Forward
craig.simmons@bestfootforward.com
www.bestfootforward.com