Large companies and institutional players are challenged to assess and calculate their carbon footprint. But they typically have the means to hire experts – in-house or consultants – and buy licenses of useful tools.This applies similarly to larger-sized SMEs. But what about distinctly small companies or indeed even individuals? How can they get a guesstimate on their carbon footprint, and possibly even some pointers how to do better going forward? Hence, here a short list of such calculators, both for individuals as well as for small companies.
This post is part of a series where I look at and into the true cost of certain goods and services. This time I’d like to look into the True Cost of all types Transport and Mobility: road, rail, aviation and water. The question therefore is: What are the total costs – the True Cost, i.e. including what is commonly called ‘externalities’ – of the different types of transport we use globally, both for passengers and for freight? Or if you prefer: how do different types of transport compare to each other when it comes to ‘collateral damage’?
Spoiler alert: It is really quite complex and rather diverse. And: public infrastructure investments and maintenance costs play a significant role in it.
This post is part of a series where I look at and into the true cost of certain goods and services. When in the previous post I looked at subsidies and the True Cost (associated with the True Price) for oil and gas, this time I’d like to look into what we know about the True Cost of Energy. Not just about fossil fuels, but indeed across the breadth of the energy spectrum.
The question therefore is: What are the total costs – the True Cost, i.e. including what is commonly called ‘externalities’ – of the
different types of energy we use globally?
Spoiler alert: It's very interesting - and also a bit suprising and counter-intuitive.
This is the first of a series that will look at and into true cost of certain goods and services. Cash subsidies thereby is one component, but certainly not the only one relevant one – indirect subsidies (e.g. in the form of environmental degradation or similar) need to be considered also. In this particular post, I’d like to focus on Oil & Gas subsidies, fossil fuels' True Cost, and what we know about these. What we already also learn: comparing apples to apples won't be easy.
True Cost calculations are only ever 'best available efforts', and much data remains missing or speculative at best. This is an issue we will encounter again also once we'll look into renewables, or indeed other kinds of industries outside of energy.
Pricing the ton of carbon is a key matter – more so as an increasing number of companies aim at publicly claiming carbon neutrality. Carbon hence has a price – and this raises the much discussed question: What is a fair (or better: ‘correct’) price for carbon?
In this post I present a glimpse of some of the challenges and realities related to the topic.
It leaves us with the question: What went wrong in the current system that fundamentally asks us to choose between having to monetarily price natural and societal resources, and a fair, equitable access to these resources specifically for hard hit communities?
The question alone should not be even asked.
And yet it seems that’s what we’re left with given the current time and age.
As companies and countries around the world pursue net zero targets, one big question is: How do you ensure the carbon removal technologies we will need 20 to 30 years down the road are available, affordable and easily scaled?
S&P Global recently published a podcast mini-series on emerging climate technology.
The series not only introduces a range of much hyped about, CO2 saving or CO2 removing technology, but also looks at scaling, the truth of potential impact, and financial viability.It is for this reason that I would like to list the three episodes in this post – and invite everyone to spend the 3 x 20 minutes to wrap their head around these insights.
Measuring Biodiversity, in terms of baseline (status quo), progress, and deliverable targets, is not a simple thing. Collateral damages are a serious risk.At the same time though, some companies use outcomes of tools, which where never intended to deal at all with biodiversity, as proxy vehicles. This of course raises the question: Where are we with tools, programmes, and measurement systems for biodiversity? Hereafter a look across what I found to be having (some) teeth - also in comparison to the more popular climate change topic. These are: TNFD, SBTN, as well as two management tools that might be helpful, FFFBB and BIA.
Ask: If you are aware of others initatives 'with teeth' as of of writing (November 2021): do let me know and I’d be happy to list them also. Thank you!
Textile Exchange recently launched their (first ever) Biodiversity Insights Report. In itself not a bad idea per se – after all, assessing the staus quo of things is at least a baseline – the report is indeed ‘insightful’ in a number of ways. Most importantly: it raises a lot of questions. Such as:
If predominantly large companies are such laggards in all things biodiversity - can you imagine the situation in companies with much less resources? And why are entirely inadequate tools used to measure biodiversity? Are the commitments not just a rehash of climate committments, that only very recently start to show teeth and results?
In the last post I explained what COP15 is: A conference with the main purpose to adopt the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. But: What exactly is the framework agreement? What does it cover and encompass? Does it offer similar KPIs such as the SDG indicators? Are there enforcement mechanisms? Assuming for a moment, that it will be adopted: what would, or could, that tangibly mean going forward? Here a try at answering these questions.
While the relevance and criticality of COP26 is hammered home in the global media, the news reporting on COP15, as an effort possibly and reality more important than its Scottish climate conference peer, was rather subdued and unspectacular.
Let’s therefore get the most context-relevant questions straight out of the way: What is COP15? And why are there two COPs? And what has biodiversity to do with it?
Europe is, no doubt, a checker board in regards to environmental (and other) legislation and jurisprudence.
While the European Union is is hammering out the different fence poles related to its Green Deal and Green Taxonomies some other countries run ahead with their own locally applicable laws.
One law that is considered 'innovative' since its publication - the French 2019 Law on Energy and Climate, and its 2021 implementing decree - are worth a somewhat closer look. These pieces of law focus - once more - predominantly on financial industry players and reporting. The innovative part is the explicit inclusion of Biodiversity impact reporting. What are the bets of them beeing at the root of change?
The finance industry does have its share to play in a ‘just transition’ to a low carbon and more ‘doughnut-ty’ economy. This is a given. I have written repeatedly about it.
In most contexts, the finance industry is characterised and promoted as a ‘driver’ of said transition. But is that really so? After all, the by far and distant most frequent tenor in ESG (the finance industry’s term for all things ‘sustainability’) is predominantly about risk. With that in mind, let's tell it as it is: The finance industry’s ESG discourse is opportunistic. As indeed all it’s actions and views have been, and as indeed the the industry’s clockwork is set out to be and function. Opportunistic.
Media hell broke loose when Greta Turnberg a few days ago dared to mock global politicians with her ‘blablabla’ speech. Personally, I thought it was time for celebration. I envy her boldness, her fearlessness.
Because we all know: she’s right. Very, very, right.
Sadly, in Greta’s shadow Vanessa Nakate went unappreciated: she made a very good point about social inclusion to achieve the energy transition.
I raise a glass to both of these ladies!
Watch their speech in full.
P.S: the only two note worthy responses - from Italy, strange as it may sound ...
"The good thing about Science is that it’s true, whether or not you believe in it." This short quote by astrophysist Neil deGrasse Tyson is fundamental to making true progress specifically in the current times in the sustainability area.
Science does not mean 'claim what you want as long as you have some data to go with it'.
Instead it means: An approach whereby hard data and insights, together with the methodology how you got there, are transparently and openly provided. To be scuritinzed and - important! - improved upon.
A call to give the Scientific Discourse waaaay more airtime in business.
Most companies have had a brush with sustainability (or it’s finance industry lens: ESG) at the very least on an operational level. Not necessarily always voluntarily or out of conviction, mind.
Looking at corporate boards however, the picture starts to change – not necessarily to the better. While boards of listed companies may have been forced to look at non-financial disclosure, it is rare that any board has a sound grasp, never mind approach, to all things ESG and sustainability.
This is why I list in this post the few tools I am aware of that are specifically targetting and intended to help corporate boards start on the journey towards becoming climate and SDG savvy.
Most recently I read Ed Gillespie' blog post about the 'Omerta of Consulting' - specifically aimed at sustainability consultants like myself. He makes a very valid point in what he says, and he gives a compelling example of how Scope 3 ('impact of products sold') should be be the one and only KPI that we would be measured against.
He's right. At least in principle.
But what about all those companies - many of which are SMEs - that are still struggling to even get on the bandwagon of understanding proper sustainability KPIs and their measurement? What is the better - for the climate and society - approach: trying to get them on the bandwagon, or just let them be?
Science fiction literature and movies are obsessed with the story line, and the film industry has made billions of dollars from it: a time traveller goes backwards in time. Changes (‘corrects’) a small thing – and Voila! All will be good.
But precisely in the here and now Big and Bold things need happening - yet, doing small and important things remains relevant.
Not the least because few of us humans see themselves as capable of completing Big and Bold things.
So - maybe inspiration from science fiction is not all bad afterall ...
A week or so ago, the latest, sixth, IPCC report dropped.
My suggestion hence is simply read it.
Even if only the executive summary.
But just read it.
All I would like is to grab the opportunity to give a HUGE thank you to all the scientists involved.
Thank you dear IPCC scientists!
Thank you for all the work, the patience, and the glimmer of hope that despite it all remains a firm part of the reports.
Even this latest one.
You can’t manage what you can’t measure.
This common sense platitude holds true for a lot of things:
Salary, punctuality in trains, inflation. And – of course – sustainability/ESG data.
Measuring alone can be complex enough.
But there are also incentive systems. And the impact they have on aspirations to deliver results.
Where sales targets for instance are as good as always understood as ‘invitation to be exceeded’ (with financial and other bonuses resulting from overachievement) the near opposite holds true for ESG/sustainability related KPIs.
And that absolutely must change.
For every single person in every single company.
KPI priorities must be flipped on their heads.
Over the last couple of years a plethora of pledges has arisen in the sustainability/ESG space.
The weird thing: Pledges intend to drive change the wrong way around. Commit people (read: companies) publicly, then hope they will actually move in accordance to the pledge/commitment, and then only hold them to account if and when they do not delivery. If anyone remembers that is.
Do we need all these pledges? Do they really make a difference?
Data says: probably not ...
Shouldn't hence the Lemma simply be:
Actions before words.
Impact before messaging.
Walk before talk.
Science before marketing.