@douglas_marett
Shared by Douglas Marett
Enablesus
60 w
•
When you buy your next car, are you actually supporting an auto company with a transparent and effective climate change strategy? Enablesus analysed the climate targets and reporting of 13 big industry players to determine what action — if any — they are taking to hasten this shift. Our analysis yielded four key recommendations on what you should look for to make a more climate-friendly choice. Is the industry showing us its real impact? All 13 companies reviewed published information on their current Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which are the emissions from in-house activities they directly control. While all report on their Scope 3 emissions too, not all give an actual full accounting. Noting that Scope 3 includes upstream emissions of everything that goes into making a vehicle, plus downstream emissions that includes the use of the vehicle (include electricity or fuels) and its later disposal. What is the industry’s climate ambition? We observed that the industry companies are responding to the pressure to reduce their climate impact. We found that 12 out of 13 companies have set themselves goals of reaching ‘net-zero’ and ‘carbon neutrality‘. Stellantis has the ambitious goal to reach net-zero by 2038. While most other companies including Ford, Honda, Nissan, BMW, and Renault are working towards achieving full carbon neutrality by 2050. But ‘net-zero’ and ‘carbon neutrality‘ are actually different goals! Carbon neutrality means a company has reduced its GHG emissions from all its activities (e.g. Scopes 1, 2, and 3), and then offsets what it cannot remove through investments via verified carbon offsets generated from climate-friendly projects around the world. While net-zero means that all, or nearly all, of a company’s emissions are reduced to zero and if any is left over it is directly removed from the atmosphere and stored long-term via new technology or other practices. What is the industry doing now? In addition to net-zero and carbon neutrality goals, some companies have also set short- and medium-term emission reduction targets they will work to achieve by 2025 or 2030. Ford, for example, has committed to a 76% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2035 (compared to 2017). Volkswagen’s target comprises a 30% reduction of their Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2030 (compared to 2018). But not all automotive companies are following the same road. Looking more closely at the emission reduction targets set by other companies can be insightful. For example, while most targets are absolute (e.g. total GHG emissions), BMW is one of the companies that only sets an emission reduction target per vehicle. This means that BMW does not necessarily intend to cut their absolute emissions, but merely to reduce the average emissions associated with producing each car. If BMW increases their production a lot, overall emissions may still climb, although BMW meets its climate goal per car. Still, BMW does lead the way for Scope 3 targets by setting individual reduction goals for the upstream purchased goods and products, as well as for the downstream use of sold products. We did not see full up- and down-stream targets with any other company in our analysis. Looking closer: What do companies (not) say in their reports? While the industry is making progress in terms of climate change and wider environmental reporting as well as related target setting, their sustainability reports often lack full transparency. Hyundai’s 2022 Sustainability Report reveals a clear carbon neutrality goal for 2045, highlighting the strategic areas the company will address. However, besides purchasing 100% renewable energy, there is little information on concrete actions the company will take to reach this neutrality goal. This lack of detailed on actions is unfortunately the same for many other companies as well. Tesla on the other hand – despite being a leader in EV production – only reported their corporate-wide emissions for the first time in 2021. Scope 1 and 2 emissions are reported as normal. However, for Scope 3 emissions Tesla only reports on downstream emissions (e.g. use of vehicles) and not the upstream (e.g. the emissions from suppliers to Tesla). This means their reported overall impact will be smaller than their actual impact, as emissions from purchased goods and services, and business travel are not included. What can you do to check on an auto company’s climate impact? With a very little bit of effort, you can easily find out if an auto company, and its car brands, actually meet your climate values. Here are four great tips. 1. Does the auto company set absolute emissions reduction targets that cover the entire company and value chain, or is the target only per-vehicle? The first shows real ambition and impact, while the latter means that overall emissions could still increase if their production volume increases. 2. Does the auto company have short-, medium-, and long-term emissions targets, as well as what is the overall goal? If a company is not acting on short-term targets (until 2025) then that really brings into question their true climate commitment, while only having only medium- (until 2030) and/or long-term (2035 and beyond) targets mean they may be kicking the can down the road. 3. Does the auto company have a focus on measuring all Scope 3 emissions. To make genuine progress, it’s important that companies set concrete emissions reduction targets, measures these annually, and take real actions in all Scope 3 categories – both upstream and downstream. 4. Does the auto company ensure transparent reporting and include details on its planned climate actions. This includes developing and using more sustainable manufacturing materials and processes, strengthening biodiversity, and reducing energy, waste and water use. This is key to holding industry peers accountable and for maintaining public trust. To answer these questions you can review the auto company’s sustainability website or its annual sustainability reports. Both simple and comprehensive information on auto companies sustainability are freely and easily available at one location with enablesus (search on https://enablesus.com). Authors: Lena Depner, Anna Theou-Tsafara, and Douglas Marett 1.
Douglas Marett
64 w
🍔 Veg. Burgers and Review I just finished up IG Live with @tripdoodler conclusions between Veg. and Beef Burgers are: ⬇️ 37x less climate impact ⬇️ 4x less water impact ⬇️ 47x less land impact Review of @maxburgersdk ⭐⭐⭐ Delifresh Plant Burger ⭐⭐ Christy no Chicken Burger ⭐ Premium Plant Shack (choc) The Delifresh Plant Burger was really good, the closest to a beef burger in taste i have ever eaten. The Christy no Chicken Burger was very good, will likely be my go to burger at Max (value for money). The Premium Plant Shack (choc) was not creamy enough, and a bit too sweet for me. Was like drinking candy.
27 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
•
64 w
Vegan all the way
•
64 w
What a burger!!Clean in all ways
•
64 w
I love the sustainable production.
Douglas Marett
72 w
😣 The US$ 100bn that Meta has blown on the metaverse could have fully paid for 67 GW of new on-shore wind power (10 GW in 2022 alone) this could have increased the total installed wind capacity in the United States by almost 50%. That is a missed revenue-generating, asset increase, and Net-Zero opportunity that actually would have addressed the real universe we physically live in. 🌎 Great example of why after so many decades we still have a climate crises, partially because of misaligned cooperate investments like this one. Data used for the estimations above come from International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Article link in The Guardian about the metaverse investment: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/07/metaverse-slow-death-facebook-losing-100bn-gamble-virtual-reality-mark-zuckerberg
22 more agrees trigger social media ads
•
•
•
71 w
Dear Douglas Marett Thank you for getting your climate warning to level 2! We have reached out to Facebook and asked for a response. I will keep you updated on any progress! /Muhammad We Don't Have Time
•
71 w
I thought Meta have a sustainability department to advice them accordingly.
Shared by Douglas Marett
Enablesus
73 w
•
💚 To make it clear we at @enablesus support VW's EV strategy and progress which is one of the more ambitious in the auto industry. 🖤 However, this add is misleading (it is from Instagram in Denmark on 27th Nov. 2022, and there are a few similar ones from VW). It is misleading because no EV is zero emissions. First, every vehicle has embodied emissions from it's manufacture. Typically btw. 4 and 5 tCO2 per vehicle. Second, electricity from charging is not zero emissions. With the exception of systems directly connected to renewable or nuclear power plants, which not many homes have 🙂 That being said EVs in North America and Europe do have x2 - x10 less climate impact than efficient fossil fuel cars. The best impact for EVs is found in 🇸🇪 Sweden and 🇳🇴Norway.
33 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
73 w
Zero TAILPIPE emissions
•
•
73 w
Very true! They need to be called out for this
•
73 w
Correct about the emissions, but the VW ID.Buzz has x7 less emissions than the VW Caravelle (in Denmark)
Douglas Marett
76 w
With the public hearing phase over, the EU is now closer than ever to having a common set of ESG reporting standards that increases transparency around corporate climate actions. How climate action targets are structured and communicated, along with increased transparency on background information, means that some companies may need to re-structure their climate action targets. What is the real purpose of ESRS E1? Under the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) the task for a common ESG reporting standard was handed off to the European Financial Advisory Group (EFRAG), who issued the draft European Sustainable Reporting Standards (ESRS) for public comment in April 2022. It is very clear when reviewing the draft standard for Climate Change (ESRS E1) that the disclosure requirements, including the detailed guidance, have three parallel purposes. The first is to improve the transparency of what enterprises are actually doing to address climate change mitigation and adaptation, and their related exposure to material financial risks and opportunities. The second is to feed information into the measuring & evaluation of the results of the many EU’s Green Deal regulations, initiatives, and incentives that focus on addressing climate change. While the third is to align corporate climate change disclosures with timelines and information needs under the Enhanced Transparency Framework of the Paris Agreement, for which the EU needs to report on its progress. Luckily for companies, the latter two purposes will be addressed by the EU and its member states directly through information tagging and data mining of corporate sustainability reports. Origins of “Net-Zero” In June 2020 “Net-Zero” gained the wider used formal definition in the private sector with the Race to Zero initiative spearheaded by the UNFCCC, though it was defined by the IPCC as late as 2018 in the Special Report Global Warming of 1.5 ºC. Where the IPCC basically defines Net-Zero as a global mass balance in CO2 emissions caused by human activity plus the removals achieved by human activity. In simple terms what we put out (emitted) must also be put in (permanently stored), all on a global scale. This wider used formal definition also focused on reaching the global state of Net Zero by 2050 or 2070, so that global temperature rise does not exceed 1.5°C or 2.0°C respectively. The Race to Zero wider definition started the process to define the ambiguity between the competing claims of organisations’ impacts on climate change caused by their value chain emissions and removals, plus the use of off-sets from outside the value chain. Shortly after the Race to Zero, The Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting where launched in an attempt to address these competing claims (and practices) of the use of climate neutral, GHG neutral, carbon neutral, compensation…etc., within the context of Net Zero. Technically this comes down to addressing different states of mass balance of GHG emissions from an organisation’s value chain and the use of removed and/or avoided GHG emissions outside an organisation’s value chain, as part of the pathway to reach the state of net zero over time. In October 2021 the Science Based Target Initiative (SBTi) launched the Net-Zero Standard which provides guidance and tools companies can use to set science-based net-zero targets. In this standard reaching Net-Zero is purely in the context of the IPCC’s 2018 definition, but at a company level, and it specifically does not include offsetting in the target of Net-Zero. Instead, off-setting is placed in a separate column as an option for neutralizing residual emissions or to finance additional climate mitigation beyond their science-based emission reduction targets. ESRS E1 may upend climate and Net-Zero targets of companies The ESRS E1 (draft) requires that companies disclose targets which they have adopted to address climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as material climate-related impacts, risks and opportunities. Under ESRS E1, when a company’s target is related to reducing GHG emissions they must include Scopes 1, 2, and 3 either separately or combined, though that SBTi targets require all scopes (e.g. the value chain). In a win for transparency, companies will need to explain the scope, methodologies, and frameworks applied in setting their targets under ESRS E1. In addition, under ESRS E1 targets will also need to be set on a 5-year rolling basis from 2025, where the baseline is set every 5 years. Following the SBTi approach, ESRS E1 strictly forbids companies from including offsets (carbon credits, removals, and avoided emissions) in setting and achieving targets. Companies will be able to use offsets to disclose GHG neutrality claims under ESRS E1, but this means that GHG neutrality shall not be linked to adopted GHG emissions or Net-Zero targets. Though, companies should take note of the consumer marketing practices regulation and guidance in their jurisdictions of operation, as some countries have really tightened up on the demand for scientific documentation needed to make GHG emissions neutrality claims. What is important in terms of off-sets, is that ESRS E1 (and SBTi) recognises the need for investment in CO2 removals and avoided GHG emissions outside a company’s value chain. ESRS E1 has a specific disclosure requirement for these investments, and whether companies choose to or not make GHG neutrality claims they can still invest in climate-related impacts either directly or through offsets. This is important for companies who want to make a positive impact but where the majority of their GHG emissions come from Scope 3 sources that the company has little or no control over. What ESRS E1 means for companies The ESRS E1 (daft) standard means that companies cannot be complacent and will need to continuously update their climate-related progress and periodically update their targets as well, showing real short-term climate action as well as medium- and long-term targets. In setting those targets and reporting on progress, off-sets are no longer a part of the equation, so for some companies retooling will be required. However, for the sake of global climate change companies really should continue to invest directly or indirectly (via. offsets) in CO2 removals and avoid GHG emissions outside a company’s value chain. For some companies this may mean sticking to an annualizes neutralization strategy by keeping this separate from corporate targets, other companies my choose to change their narrative to “investing in climate action” separate from targets, both require that companies transparently report on what and how they invest in climate action both internally and externally. Though CSRD and ESRS legally only apply to large companies and listed SMEs registered to do business in the EU, their B2B customers and partners (in and outside the EU) should be very aware that GHG emissions reporting applies to value chains and that sharing GHG emissions related information may very well be a cost of doing business with EU companies. What ESRS E1 means for investors and the general public The ESRS E1 (draft) is certainly a major improvement in transparency of reporting on a company’s climate impact and risks. Though it may confuse investors and the general public because companies are not required to set Net-Zero targets, and companies may individually set GHG emissions targets for Scopes 1, 2, and 3 either separately or combined. This means that competing companies in the same sectors may have GHG emissions targets that do not offer an apples-for-apples comparison. ESRS E1 also means that investors and consumers will need to have short memories, or clearly understand that the targets they heard a company make in 2022 may be very different from the target set in 2025. Therefore, basic climate reporting knowledge is needed by both investors and the general public to understand what a company is actually achieving. Now that the public comment period for the draft ESRS is over, it remains to be seen what changes will be made to the reporting on climate change actions in the final version. Though it is important to note that EFRAG is still in the process of drafting sector-specific standards and guidance and companies should consider joining that consultation process. About the author Douglas Marett has spent close to two decades addressing climate change and sustainability actions for governments and companies at a global scale, and is the Managing Director of both GH Sustainability and enablesus. This article was originally published on LinkdIn.
•
76 w
Interesting
Douglas Marett
76 w
😒 was at the Web Summit in Lisbon today with 70,000 other attendees in tech, and came across this very Bad Sign. These are smart people who help create our future products and services, but the majority don't have faith that the world will reach Net Zero emissions... EVER !!!!! 🧐 How do we change this ?? 💚 Meanwhile, Portugal just closed its last coal fired power plant. I appreciate Web Summit putting up this board.
116 more agrees trigger scaled up advertising
•
•
•
76 w
This is something we need to change. #wecandoit
•
76 w
Faith is important to have, it gives us the courage to act.
Douglas Marett
77 w
This week two very important sets of information were released to the public, that shows the absolute perversion of how a global addiction to fossil fuels is still driving our regulatory and fiscal policies around the world that are spewing out greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This is a perversion that will clearly lead to the ultimate tipping points in the global climate system, and there is no more waiting room to prevent it. The first set of information is the current Emissions Gap Report released by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) concluding that the current policies of the 194 countries who have ratified the Paris Agreement are not even close to reaching what is needed to avoid the tipping points. UNEP reports that the commitments will only reduce global (GHG) emissions in 2030 by 5% to 10%, where 30% to 45% is actually needed to reach the Paris Agreement goals. Where in 2018 the Global Warming of 1.5°C report from the IPCC made it clear that further reductions to net-zero are needed by 2050 and 2070, respectively to reach the global warming limit of the Paris Agreement goals of 1.5°C and 2°C. The second set of information is the amount of regular and windfall profits that seven western global oil and gas companies (bp, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Eni, ExxonMobil, Shell and TotalEnergies) have made in just the past nine months in 2022, as reported by The Guardian in their exclusive on Profits at world’s seven biggest oil firms soar to almost £150bn this year. The Guardian reports that the seven companies may surpass their profits of $65bn made in the same period as last year with an additional $108bn, for a total of $173bn. What is important to note here is that this is just seven out of dozens of large oil and gas companies globally. Oil & gas profits should help pay for the green transition An outside observer may ask, well how are these two connected, beyond the obvious GHG emissions from oil and gas extraction and use? The answer is that investment is needed for the transition that UNEP highlights, and just the windfall profits indicated above could pay for the installation of any one of the following types of renewable energy (RE), boosting global RE capacity with some RE technology by up to 16%. (table uses the latest information from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)) In addition, there is a 2009 global pledge by developed countries to prove $100bn per year in finance to assist developing countries to help their transition to address climate change. As OECD - OCDE points out in their information on Climate Finance and the USD 100 Billion Goal this pledge is still not currently being fulfilled, but private sector investment can help fill this gap. Forcing (sorry… incentivizing) oil & gas companies to invest Pure free-market capitalism and taxation are not the best of friends, even though companies and their shareholders do understand the need for taxation to ensure the security of infrastructure, resources, labor, and market function that companies need. What becomes politically difficult is one-off taxation and the potential of lowering a company’s value (and national GDP) due to increased taxation. To address the above overall perversion created by oil & gas companies, governments, and markets, would it not be better to governments to force (sorry… incentivize) oil & gas companies to invest their normal and/or windfall profits in new assets that directly impact the green transition needed to meet the Paris Agreement goals. This can be booting national or global RE capacity as shown above, or investing in green fuels and their logistics such as hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, sustainable aviation fuels, and battery-electric that can address the most difficult sectors in the global green transition that are aviation, land transport, and maritime transport. For the latter, it is important to note that oil & gas companies have over 100 years of experience in fuel logistics and to a minor extent existing usable assets and infrastructure that can help accelerate the transition needed. About the author Douglas Marett has spent close to two decades addressing climate change and sustainability actions for governments and companies at a global scale, and is the Managing Director of both GH Sustainability and enablesus.
•
•
77 w
This is the way to go!
•
•
•
77 w
Agree
•
•
77 w
Great article!
Shared by Douglas Marett
Enablesus
88 w
•
👍 enablesus got a chance to review the sustainable actions at the 3-days music festival AiaSound 2022 yesterday, and it was an excited and energy filled crowd, and great music! 😀 Here are three tops guest facing actions we noticed: 🚲 (1) the easy access from all types of sustainable transport, and no dedicated parking or camping. This makes a big deal to GHG emissions of a festival. ♻ (2) a big effort to reuse and recycle guests waste - especially for collection and sorting. Noting that several guests had their own water bottles to fill at the drinking water stations. 🚧 (3) a lot of the equipment used by guests (tables, benches...) was reusable or repurposed. Note that we know there are a lot of other behind the scenes sustainable actions that AiaSound ApS takes, and we are looking forward to hearing more from AiaSound about these in the future!
46 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
88 w
Inspiring festival 😊
•
•
88 w
This is so cool and needed
Douglas Marett
89 w
Get to know the summary details of the climate action in the U.S. Senate's Inflation Reduction Act. Summary details found here https://www.democrats.senate.gov/summary-of-the-energy-security-and-climate-change-investments-in-the-inflation-reduction-act-of-2022&download=1
22 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
Douglas Marett
89 w
The Iberdrola owned company ScottishPower planning to build a £150m green hydrogen plant at the Port of Felixstowe to power trains, trucks and ships, and be operational in 2026 (starting with fueling 1300 trucks). Read more about it from The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/08/scottishpower-build-150m-green-hydrogen-plant-port-felixstowe?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other Image: Google Maps
87 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
Shared by Douglas Marett
Enablesus
94 w
•
It can be a challenge to shop sustainably in a supermarket without blowing up our budgets. That’s why enablesus reviewed the prices of food, drink, and dry-goods of 27 commonly purchased items in three of the largest online supermarket groups in Denmark, representing 10 of the main brick-and-mortar supermarket chains. We want to help consumers identify the most sustainable items in the store that are also affordable. Everything is getting more expensive Making sustainable choices can be challenging when there are parameters we need to consider beyond just goods and services. This is why many people bemoan the difficulty of maintaining a sustainable lifestyle on a budget, particularly at the supermarket. While reuse and repurpose leads to a positive sustainable impact in other parts of our lives, most of us still need to buy food and dry goods on a daily or weekly basis. This has become particularly difficult in the last year. The Consumer Price Index, which is the official measure of changes in costs for consumer goods and services, has increased 8.6% in the U.S., 7.2% in the U.K., and 7.3% in Denmark over the past 12 months.[1] Still, there are ways we can adjust. Recognising sustainability at the supermarket Nearly every supermarket in Europe and North America carries different types of sustainable goods, usually falling into two broad categories: either organic food and drinks or other environmentally friendly goods. These categories usually have either a government backed or independent label that certifies the items as being sustainable based on different criteria. There are over hundreds of different sustainability labels globally and many are either country or industry specific. In the U.S. consumers will find the USDA Organic and U.S. EPA Safer Choice labels at the supermarket, and in the EU, consumers will find the EU Leaf or EU Flower labels. Focus on the lowest price difference We cannot be sustainable all the time and being sustainable on a budget at the supermarket means focusing your purchases where there is the lowest price difference. We found that the top five food & drink items with the lowest price difference based on weight include chickpeas (-24%), oat milk (-16%), gummy candy (-14%), canned tomatoes (+5%), and fruit yogurt (+5%). The food and drink items with the highest price difference based on weight include frozen chickens (+114%), tortilla chips (+74%), pizza cheese (+61%), fresh beef (+55%), and white onions (+49%). Looking at the price per calories, the five least expensive sustainable food and drink items include vegan block (butter substitute), green pesto, butter blocks, bananas, and light milk. The five most expensive sustainable items are cucumbers, pork chops, canned tomatoes, ground beef, and non-dairy fruit yogurt. For dry goods, the enabelsus review found that sustainable baking sheets were less expensive (-58%) than the non-sustainable items offered, and that sustainable liquid hand soap was significantly more expensive (+73%). However, there was little or no price difference (0 to +5%) between sustainable and non-sustainable toilet paper and toiler cleaner. A rule of thumb, but not the same everywhere enablesus performed our review in Denmark, which has a higher general availability of sustainable goods. Due to market availability and pricing, different results will likely be gained in other countries. However, the results from enablesus do give a general snapshot of price differences, especially since many items are sourced from a global supply chain (with dairy items being the main exception, since they are nearly always locally produced). We do caution consumers that even though brands offer sustainable goods, it does not mean that the company is sustainable overall. It is always good to check on enablesus ( https://enablesus.com ) to see if the brand or company meets your overall sustainability values. If you are in Denmark, and likely other places, here are the four major tips to consider when making purchasing decisions. 1. If you are purchasing food by weight, the best purchases for ‘sustainable on a budget’ items are chickpeas, oat milk, gummy candy, canned tomatoes, and dairy fruit yogurt. 2. If you are purchasing food for calories (the energy we all need), the best purchases for ‘sustainable on a budget’ are vegan blocks (butter substitute), green pesto, butter blocks, bananas, and light milk. 3. Sustainable paper-based products like toilet paper and baking sheets are not that much more expensive than the non-sustainable versions. 4. Limit food purchases of food that is already highly priced, and have high price differences between their sustainable and non-sustainable versions, such as chicken, beef, pork and pizza cheese. Specific price difference results [1] Consumer Price Index (CPI) from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, United Kingdom Office of National Statistics, and Statistics Denmark. June 2021 to May 2022. About the Author: Douglas Marett has spent close to two decades addressing climate change and sustainability actions for governments and companies at a global scale, and is the CEO of GH Sustainability and Managing Director of enablesus. Special thanks to Lea Kahler McGeer for product research for this article.
•
63 w
Definitely a concept many will embrace. Thank you for the insight.
•
•
94 w
Very interesting insights that will be useful for many!
•
94 w
Follow the tips, and save money! 💚 🌿 🌴
•
•
•
93 w
Douglas Marett
97 w
The next big negotiation topic under the Paris Agreement is Loss and Damage The topic of climate change has gained much greater exposure in the minds of the public at large over the past decade, which is great for a topic that governments have been working to addressed for nearly 30 years. For example, many global citizens will not be able to explain what the Kyoto Protocol (2008-2012) was, but more than likely they will recognize the Paris Agreement (from 2015 to now). Many will even be able to explain what climate change is with some detail, as well as the possible effects on their lives in the future. It is their future that the Paris Agreement focuses on, mainly by addressing the two big elements of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation and adaptation to climate change. There is however, one other element that has received less attention until now, and this is Loss and Damage, the subject of this opinion article. For those not familiar with detailed climate change and UNFCCC jargon then I apologies in advance! What is Loss and Damage? To keep it short, Loss and Damage is enshrined as Article 8 of the Paris Agreement and is recognizes specifically with the Warsaw Loss and Damage Mechanism. The basics are quite simple, in the future the climate will change and there will be Loss and Damage (both economic and non- economic) suffered by our global population and the environment. Article 8 was included to allow for actions to avert, minimize, and addressing Loss and Damage. With the idea that these actions should be addressed through cooperation and support in eight pre-defined areas, with the clear context that this support needs to be paid for and distributed under the principles of equity. What is the current debate on Loss and Damage? The definition for the mechanism and financing for Loss and Damage has been under formal discussion (and I would argue debate) since the 2014 establishment of the Warsaw Loss and Damage Mechanism. This formal discussion is continuing right now at the Bonn Climate Change Conference (June 2022) but is still stuck in semantics. However, there are three key areas that the current discussion revolves around, and I offer an opinion for possible solutions to kick the discussions into a more operational phase. These key areas are culpability, financing, and equity. How can we determine culpability within Loss and Damage? There is little debate of where the majority of past GHG emissions have originated (e.g. developed countries), but there is very much a debate on where GHG emissions will come from the future. It can be argued that future loss and damage from climate change will be caused by the combination of both past and future GHG emissions, and thus culpability can be measured in this context. On one side we have the historic large emitters of the US, EU-27 + UK, and Japan who are currently lowering their national GHG emissions, while on the other side we have China and India who are currently increasing their national GHG emissions. This leads to the question of how to define and measure the level of culpability. Culpability can be defined by the history of the UNFCCC process itself. Where the first global acknowledgment by governments of climate change and its risks was with the Rio Convention in 1992, and UNFCCC establishment in 1994. Another process determined that developed countries should report on their GHG emissions starting from 1990 and developing countries starting from 1994 onwards. This accounting for GHG emissions is based on the original 1996 guidelines established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and now countries are using the 2006 guidelines. This process offers a time based and quantitative definition of culpability since countries ratified the UNFCCC and legally reported their GHG emissions under the UNFCCC, while doing so in a scientifically accepted manner. Following the above argument means that culpability can be measured as the historic GHG emissions from the date of the first reported GHG inventory by each of the parties to the UNFCCC, and up to any specific date both now and in the future. We can refer to this as the “Culpable Emissions”. This means that the balance of current Culpable Emissions will definitely reside with US, EU-27 + UK, and Japan in the beginning, but likely shift towards China and India in the long term given current trends and NDC commitments. How do we finance Loss and Damage in a transparent way? The economic component in the Loss and Damage context of the Paris Agreement focuses on areas of enhanced understanding, actions, and support. In practice these areas have both a knowhow and financial cost that needs to be supported. Financing can be done with a new pledge for providing additional funds. Similar to the Copenhagen Accorded pledge of developed countries to provide US$ 100 bn annually in climate finance, but instead the Loss and Damage funding can require all UNFCCC parties to contribute capital on an annual basis based on their share of measured global Culpable Emissions in that year. The annual capital need should of course be determined by a political process, and hopefully based on the support needs of countries quantified by the UNFCCC or other UN agency. This means that countries like Palau, Kiribati, and Nauru will pay close to nothing, but all large emitters will contribute to the vast majority of the capital. This creates an additional financial incentive for countries to reduce their Culpable Emissions over time. Support for climate change is traditionally disturbed through the UN system / UNFCCC mechanisms (e.g. GEF and GCF), as well as through multilateral and bilateral support. There is a current debate to establish an individual loss and damage fund, but this an unnecessary waste of money and time. Each fund has a start up and operational administration cost which eats away at the money being distributed, and if the GCF is any indication it can take 5 to 10 years to see any real impactful results from a new fund. It is also noted that GEF, GCF, multilateral, and bilateral support are already funding projects that fit within the loss and damage areas. A solution for separating finance flows for loss and damage, from finance flows for mitigation and adaptions actions, is simply to piggyback on top of the existing work being done globally on climate tagging of public and multilateral funds. Then there is a real opportunity to report the support for loss and damage as a sperate category in the already establish Paris Agreement modalities, guidelines, and procedures and guideline for enhanced transparency (18/CMA.1 and 5/CMA.3). How can equity be addressed within Loss and Damage? Equity is both a political and social & environmental justice topic that in the context of Loss and Damage under the Paris Agreement, it has three components of culpability, sources of capital, and disbursement of capital. The potential solution for culpability and sources of capital are previously discussed, but the equity of disbursement of capital is just as important. It can be argued that developed countries do not need Loss and Damage support, as their economies have a much greater availability of capital and income to support Loss and Damage themselves. Support should go to developing countries and be delivered upon request to these countries (similar to existing mechanisms), but each country will have an allocated available share of the capital that can be measured by a per-capita climate vulnerability index. The index can be developed in a similar manner to risk indexes that are commonly used in the insurance sector. This may be a little messy at first but will be strengthened over time as more transparent and accurate data becomes available in countries. About the author Doulgas Marett has spent close to two decades addressing climate change and sustainability actions for governments and companies at a global scale, and is the CEO of GH Sustainability and Managing Director of @enablesus
•
96 w
Negotiations on Loss and Damage came to no real conclusion at the end of climate negotiations in Bonn this week. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/17/un-climate-talks-stalemate-hypocrisy-allegation-european?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
•
96 w
Some more insights into the current financing of Loss and Damage from WRI: https://www.wri.org/insights/current-state-play-financing-loss-and-damage?utm_campaign=wriclimate&utm_source=climatedigest-2022-06-05&utm_medium=email&utm_content=title
•
•
97 w
A very interesting article on a key topic for a fair climate transition
Shared by Douglas Marett
Enablesus
100 w
•
🚗 By 2025 Hyundai Motor Company (현대자동차) expects to be producing 300,000 EVs annual out of the Bryan County, Georgia facilities. Read more from CNN: Hyundai to build $5.5 billion EV and battery plant in the US. Here's where https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/21/business/hyundai-georgia-ev-battery-plant/index.html Image: Hyundai.dk
31 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
•
100 w
Great to see this investment from Hyundai
•
100 w
⚡☀️🌬️ now we just need to ramp up RE power generation and distribution to make sure there is a real climate benefit. We would need at least 1,300 GWh annually of electricity production to power one year of produced EVs from these Hyundai planned facilities.
Shared by Douglas Marett
Enablesus
100 w
•
Image unsplash @muinatu Public transport is needed now more than ever to address climate change, but some time we can have a double benefit. 3.5 million tonnes of excavated earth was moved during Crossrail excavation in London, and used to create a nature habitat at Wallasea Island, England. This is also a nature based solution as it will lead not only to habitat growth, but also stored carbon and adaptability / resilience to climate change, every little bit counts!! Read more about this in The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/21/how-londons-new-rail-project-has-created-a-sanctuary-for-birds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
35 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
Shared by Douglas Marett
Enablesus
105 w
•
The Danish Minister for Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries, Rasmus Prehn, announced that “Denmark, as the first country in the world, will now have a government regulated certification for the climate that shall make it easier for us to make the greener choice. The certification shall be simple and easy to understand during a busy trip to the supermarket, and as much as possible be based on the individual food product’s climate impact through its value chain, in the broadest since”. Read more about Denmark expected climate certification / label here: https://app.wedonthavetime.org/posts/7e01c568-6576-4131-a2b7-988bba121d98?utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=wdht-web-app-share&utm_campaign=douglas_marett
107 more agrees trigger social media ads
•
•
•
104 w
Dear Enablesus Thank you for getting your climate love to level 2! We have reached out to Denmark.dk and requested a response. I will keep you updated on any progress! /Adam We Don't Have Time
•
•
105 w
This is very important! Making this information more accessible is necessary for consumers to make their choices
Douglas Marett
105 w
[image from Douglas Marett] 16 April 2022 One day before Easter Sunday, and the popular Easter lunches by families accross Denmark, the Danish Government announced the decision to proceed with creating a new sustainability label that shows the GHG emissions of individual food products. In his LinkedIn post announcing the decision the Minister for Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries, Rasmus Prehn, indicated that “Denmark, as the first country in the world, will now have a government regulated certification for the climate that shall make it easier for us to make the greener choice. The certification shall be simple and easy to understand during a busy trip to the supermarket, and as much as possible be based on the individual food product’s climate impact through its value chain, in the broadest since”. [1] What is available to consumers right now? There are already many great science backed sources that provide the a general estimate of the GHG emissions of food types, such as the tCO2e emissions per kg of chicken versus beef. These are mostly approximated numbers since they are based on the life cycle analysis of a few products in a category of food. This means that actual GHG emissions from that specific chicken leg you are eating can be quite different, because of where and how each chicken leg is produced and delivered to your supermarket. The Danish Salling Group piloted a private climate label with the general estimates of the GHG emissions for food types in its Netto supermarket chain in 2021, for selected food groups. [2] The values of the labels were based on the Large Climate Database prepared by CONCITO [3] This has been a long time comming The climate certification in Denmark has been a long time coming, as well as the debate around it in a political, technical, and practical sense. The last large open discussion for this topic was held in November 2021 and organised by GS1 Denmark. Though there was common consensus on the need and applicability of a climate certification for food products, there was a good bit of debate on the best means to deliver this to the public. Especially since not every tomato is equal when it comes to the GHG emissions results of a tomato producers life cycle analysis. [4] Shortly after the above debate the Danish Consumer Ombudsman issued a green claims guidance for marketing practices in Denmark, which specifically highlights the requirements for an official certified label to show environmental benefits. Failing which a life cycle analysis shall be done, with and expert opinion, to prove that the claimed environmental impact of an individual product is better than what is common in the market at that time. [5] A big step for Denmark, but what is next? This new announcement by Minister Prehn seems to be leading towards a combined approach that hopes to address both the technical issues of per product GHG emissions, but also the regulation around green claims in Denmark. This will certainly be a first and big step for Denmark and the world, but as Paul Holmbeck points out in an opinion piece in Altinget, just informing consumers of climate impacts may not be enough for systemic change. “Consumer choice is also governed by the price that is highly visible on the product. Therefore, labelling must be accompanied by CO2 taxes, which means that the price of food reflects the climate impact”. [6] Following this idea we can only hope that lessons can be learned from the 2011 Danish tax on products with high in sugar and saturated fats, that was repealed one year later for political reasons. Even though it was later determined that the tax had actually led to a statically significant change in consumer behaviour. [7] About the author Douglas Marett has spent close to two decades addressing sustainability and climate change actions for governments and companies at a global scale, and is the CEO of GH Sustainability and Managing Director at enablesus. References: [1] Rasmus Prehn (2022) “Danmark skal have verdens første klimamærke på mad” Post on LinkedIn, 15th April 2022. [2] Salling Group (2021) “Netto lancerer Danmarks første klimamærkning og tester kundernes lyst til at handle mere klimavenligt” Press Release, 2021. [3] The Big Climate Database (2022) developed by CONCITO. [4] Douglas Marett (2021) “Envisioned climate labels for products are not addressing the full solution” Article on We Don’t Have Time, 24th November 2021. [5] Danish Consumer Ombudsman (2021) “Quick guide to environmental claims” Danish Government, December 2021. [6] Paul Holmbeck (2022) “Fem forhold er afgørende, hvis klimamærke skal batte” Article on Altinget, 21st February 2022. [7] Vallgårda, et al. (2015) “The Danish tax on saturated fat: why it did not survive”. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 69, pages223–226 (2015).
•
•
105 w
very great news
•
•
•
105 w
Great news, Denmark leading the way again...
•
•
105 w
That's great news! But I guess nudging is not good enough and implementing CO2 tax will be needed to have a real impact
Shared by Douglas Marett
Enablesus
106 w
•
Honda is finally pushing into EVs with a $40 billion investment. This will include launching 30 EV models globally by 2030 with production volume of more than 2 million units annually. As well as build a demonstration line for the production of all-solid-state batteries with a goal to start demonstration production in Spring 2024. Read more from Honda: https://hondanews.com/en-US/honda-corporate/releases/release-3db80816ae3d093c5b3d3122fc06db68-summary-of-honda-briefing-on-automobile-electrification-business Read more about this from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/12/business/honda-electric-cars-intl-hnk/index.html Image: Honda
16 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
•
106 w
finally!
Douglas Marett
106 w
The current infrastructure bills passed by the U.S. Congress and championed by the Binden administration has allocated funds to improve community resilience for Native Alaskans. “As the effects of climate change continue to intensify, Indigenous communities are facing unique climate-related challenges that pose existential threats to tribal economies, infrastructure, lives and livelihoods,” said Deb Haaland, the secretary of the interior and America’s first Indigenous cabinet secretary. “President Biden’s historic investments in tribal communities will help bolster community resilience, replace aging infrastructure and provide support needed for climate-related community-driven relocation and adaptation." Read more in The Guardian article "US indigenous communities to receive $46m to address global heating" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/12/us-indigenous-communities-46m-global-heating Image: Joshua Sukoff / Unsplash
87 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
Douglas Marett
106 w
Join a panel discussion with some talented professionals, including myself (Douglas Marett), for 'Engaging in Positive Peace and Climate Change Mitigation'. Organized by the Institute for Economics & Peace and Greenfish, on April 14th at 15:30 CET. 🔗Register today: https://www.visionofhumanity.org/events/engaging-in-positive-peace-and-climate-change-mitigation This closing webinar of the 'Positive Peace and Climate Change Mitigation' series will host representatives from leading actors in civil society and the private sector. In a dynamic panel, we will discuss real-life cases and analyse their contribution to diverse socio-economic dimensions.
Shared by Douglas Marett
Enablesus
106 w
•
The misuse of indexing for climate mitigation goals is a recipe for global disaster. What is indexing? 📈 Indexing is when GHG emissions, or mitigation of emissions, is measured by a unit of output. Examples are CO2 per US$-of-revenue, or GDP, per-capita, car-produced, mile-driven, or kg-of-clothes…etc. Indexing does not measure net-emissions-reduction of GHG emissions, which is the actual global goal of the Paris Agreement, and what is physically needed to prevent runaway climate change. @TheGuardian, highlights how some organizations like @CDP use it to compare the performance of companies. However, indexing is used by many companies (especially in fashion, consumer products, and automotive industries) and governments (e.g. China and India) to allow themselves to continue high financial growth, with the very real risk of actually increasing net GHG emissions. 👍 We say misuse, because indexing should not be used for setting GHG mitigation goals, or measuring impactful results. However, indexing is a great tool for regulating markets after an effective net-emissions-reduction goal is set. For example, indexing can be effectively use in carbon taxing, cap-and-trade, product-labeling...etc. when it can be adjusted in the short term to meet the net-emissions-reduction goal. Read more in The Guardian article here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/09/why-eco-conscious-fashion-brands-can-continue-to-increase-emissions
76 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
•
•
106 w
@CDP has a lot of good initiatives that address climate change, we can all agree on that. The use of indexing can be one thing they can change to be better. The best science-based measure for corporate climate performance is net-emissions. A company can be honest and just say we have a lot of growth and that their growth exceeds our ability to reduce net-emissions, and transparently provide a goal and science based targets based on net-emissions. Why indexing (intensity) does not always work as a measure for real global reductions (or country, or company) is evidenced by the following, when indexing with revenue or GDP: BP’s emissions intensity (tCO2e/USD-revenue) as increased 41% between 2019 and 2021, this is because they had 42% higher revenues in 2019. At the same time their net-emissions has actually decreased by 18% (Scope-1, -2, -3-upstream-only). [ref. BP annual reports] China’s emissions intensity (tCO2e/GDP) has decreased 64% between 2005 and 2014, this is because of massive GDP growth of 360%. At the same time their net-emissions has increased by 65%. [ref. National GHG inventories and World Bank] Denmark’s emissions intensity (tCO2e/GDP) has decreased 43% between 2005 and 2014, this is mainly from reduced GHG emissions, as GDP growth was only 33%. At the same time their net-emissions decreased by 24%. [ref. National GHG inventories and World Bank] Calculations performed by GH Sustainability
•
•
106 w
it is important to use good index and indicators in order to solve the climate crisis
•
•
•
106 w
Agreed, the questions is which to use for what?
Shared by Douglas Marett
Enablesus
107 w
•
Copenhagen, and Denmark in general, has in the past not recycled milk and food cartons. This is mainly because the carton materials are often a combination of paper, plastic, resins, aluminium ...ect. Because of all those materials, not many processing facilities have the tech to separate / refine them. Now Copenhagen has found a facility in Germany to do this, so milk and food cartons are now to be sorted along with plastic. The facility takes care or the rest! There are now ten sorting fractions now in Copenhagen. Learn more about the in the link below (use Google website translator to switch to English). https://www.kk.dk/borger/affald-og-miljoe/affald/affaldssortering/plastaffald-og-mad-og-drikkekartoner A bit more about recycling milk and food cartons: https://www.treehugger.com/are-milk-cartons-recyclable-5112435
93 more agrees trigger social media ads
•
•
•
95 w
Dear Enablesus Thank you for getting your climate love to level 2! We have reached out to Københavns Kommune and requested a response. I will keep you updated on any progress! /Sarah We Don't Have Time
•
102 w
Amazing
•
•
107 w
Wonderful! Sad that they have to go to Germany to recycle but let's hope they build a recycling unit of this sort in Denmark!
Shared by Douglas Marett
Enablesus
109 w
•
👏 A win for all investors and the public who supports #climateaction! 🏛 The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued the “Proposed Rules to Enhance and Standardize Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors” which is of course a big regulatory step for the U.S. when addressing #climatechange. 💚 The biggest result of this proposed rule (if enacted) is the requirement to really define and disclose climate risks to business, and the added requirement for GHG emissions disclosure which also leads to greater transparency. In an analysis by Enablesus of 18 leading global brands climate actions, we found that: 🌪 only 56% of brands report on identified climate risks to their business, 🚫 while and only 39% and 33% are taking adaptation actions and reporting on results respectively. 🏢 however, 89% reported on their corporate Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions, 🚚 with only 72% on their Scope 3 GHG emissions. More information the Enablesus study can be found here: https://lnkd.in/gJpuKZC8 More on the US SEC proposed rule here: https://lnkd.in/dVtkCpgM #sustainability #esgreporting #transparencyinsustainability #transparency
33 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
•
109 w
This is great news! It will help climate and green finance to develop further
•
109 w
I agree...and I don't. It's a step forward..but it's late...it's not enough and it does not mention the ultimate goal. In a near future all corporations and business will do a double scouting of money and eqCO2. Each product and service will carry a cost...and a burden.. it's own eqCO2 weight. That's our future That's what we need to get prepared to. That's what we need to claim for That's what we need to be able, as consumers to make the right choice, the good one, the lucid one. And we will do it with our own universal personal carbon account. The same for everyone! I, you, we we all manage the decarbonation of our economies! And win against the odds ! In peace, in joy, in hope, in pleasure of saving the planet, saving our children, saving our neighbors, saving all other strangers...definitely bound to us by the same goal. The ultimate goal !
Douglas Marett
110 w
The Australian federal court struck down the ruling that government must consider the impact of carbon emissions on children when approving new coal mining projects. The court didn't question the severity of climate change, but gave the government a 'get out of jail free card'. In summary, since Australia (similar to USA) doesn't have a climate change law / act and past environmental protection acts do not specifically address that climate change is a 'duty of care' issue then the government can choose to neglect its impact on future generations in applying regulation. From CNN today: Australian court overturns teenagers' landmark climate https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/15/asia/australia-climate-court-appeal-intl-hnk/index.html The Court Judgement: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2022/2022fcafc0035
78 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
•
110 w
Shame on them... It's is unbelievable that a federal court can be that unreasonable especially on matters that can save the planet from extinction
•
•
110 w
I wish the Australian federal court can take the French court as an example, and start considering climate change as a real threat!
•
•
110 w
Australia seems to be a bit doomed when it comes to climate action :(
•
110 w
I tend to agree with you...It all starts with the prime minister who's very snobbish of taking climate actions and it's sad that his courts are proving difficult for the future generations to seek refuge in them.
Shared by Douglas Marett
Tomas Roovete
111 w
•
Telecommunications and media giant AT&T announced it has purchased 155 MW of solar power from energy and commodity trading company Vitol. The deal brings the company’s total renewable energy portfolio to more than 1.7 GW, supporting AT&T’s target to reach net-zero emissions by 2035. AT&T and Vitol have signed two virtual power purchase agreements (VPPAs) for approximately 80 MW and 75 MW. AT&T is buying clean power from the Bluegrass solar project in Maryland, and the Swiftwater solar project, in Pennsylvania, both owned by affiliates of Vitol. AT&T has committed to net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across its global operations by 2035. According to the company, its largest source of emissions comes from electricity used to power its network. Last year, the company announced the launch of its Connected Climate Initiative, aimed at helping businesses reduce 1 billion metric tons of GHG emissions by 2035. https://about.att.com/story/2022/commitment-to-sourcing-renewable-energy.html
77 more agrees trigger social media ads
•
•
•
110 w
Dear Tomas Roovete Thank you for getting your climate love to level 2! We have reached out to AT&T and requested a response. I will keep you updated on any progress! /Adam We Don't Have Time
•
•
111 w
This exciting new... It shows that it is possible to switch to renewable
•
•
•
111 w
Great news!
Shared by Douglas Marett
Marine Stephan
111 w
•
Maria Alejandra (Majandra) Rodriguez Acha is a climate justice and queer feminist activist from Peru, who focuses mainly on climate justice, gender equality, and intersectionality. She is the co-founder of TierrActiva Perú, a national network working towards “system change for Buen Vivir” and the building of alternatives centering on justice, care, and the sustainability of life in the face of the climate and environmental crisis. She is also the co-Executive Director at FRIDA, The Young Feminist Fund. “We need to protect ourselves, but not by building higher walls that only protect those who are privileged, while [others] are being severely impacted by climate change, being displaced, and losing incomes. There is enough for everyone, we just aren't sharing it.” (UN) For her inspiring life and her fights as an activist, she deserves Climate Love 💚 Source: https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2020/1/i-am-generation-equality-majandra-rodriguez-acha-youth-leader-climate-justice If you wanna read more on the link between feminism and climate justice: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-young-feminists-climate-justice_b_9369338
124 more agrees trigger social media ads
•
•
•
106 w
Dear Marine Stephan Thank you for getting your climate love to level 2! We have reached out to Majandra Rodriguez Acha and requested a response. I will keep you updated on any progress! /Adam We Don't Have Time
•
•
106 w
She deserves it,indeed she is a true hero
•
111 w
Great work Majandra.She's such a woman of substance 👏👏...Activism is the price we pay for our stay on planet earth.Guarding it is not an optional calling given that the crisis is very much escalated and our voices and bold efforts are what could change this dire situation.
Write or agree to climate reviews to make businesses and world leaders act. It’s easy and it works.
Certified accounts actively looking for your opinion on their climate impact.
One tree is planted for every climate review written to an organization that is Open for Climate Dialogue™.
•
44 w
@Enablesus, Thank you for the in-depth analysis of the car makers climate actions which gives the true picture of the situation at hand. Comparing the Cos is also very crucial as we now know who is honestly putting extra effort to achieve the net zero goals.
•
•
•
59 w
Interesting to learn that Tesla is falling behind on scope 3 emissions reporting. Hope they shape up soon.
•
•
•
59 w
@douglas_marett, thanks for enlightening me on this. Your analysis is a very interesting read.