edu bits
The California Global Warning Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) is the nation’s leading regulatory and market based approach to reducing greenhouse gases. The statute gives authority to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to monitor and coordinate efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. The CARB must establish a emissions cap for 2020 and develop mandatory reporting rules. It must develop a plan of action and adopt regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective emissions reductions. The CARB also must convene an environmental justice advisory committee and technology advancement advisory committee to advise the Board. AB32 also requires early action measures to be implemented before January 1, 2010. Transportation, energy generation, and cement manufacturing are some of the sectors that will be directly affected by this new legislation.
Currently, the CARB has developed the steps that different entities are required to take in order to comply with AB32. Our AB32 consulting services include an examination of specific requirements for your organization, as well as an assessment of how your organization can benefit from the emission trading schemes that developed under AB32. Sometimes, the easiest way to reduce the overall footprint of your organization is to examine and reduce your organization’s indirect, or Scope 3 emissions. We have a special service offering that focuses specifically on Scope 3 emissions, where we examine the indirect GHG emissions of your organization, and suggest and implement reduction policies.
Recently, CARB has completed an economic study of impacts of AB32 on small businesses and found no adverse effects of AB32 implementation. In fact, due to a reduction in fuel costs and creation of new jobs, the overall impact of AB32 implementation is projected to be positive for California consumers and small businesses.
Alternative fuels, such as ethanol, biodeisel, and other biofuels, usually have a lower carbon intensity than fossil fuels. Carbon intensity is the total life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from the production, transport, storage, dispensing and use of a fuel. It is expressed as the amount of carbon per unit energy (technically, grams of CO2 equivalent per megajoule of fuel energy or CO2e/MJ). For example, gasoline has a carbon intensity value of 95.86 gCO2e/MJ, while the values for biodiesel from waste oil and Brazilian sugarcane ethanol are 15.84 gCO2e/MJ and 27.4 gCO2e/MJ, respectively.
Life cycle analysis of alternative transportation fuels is becoming increasingly important, mostly due to new regulations designed to lower the greenhouse gas impact of transportation. California and the European Union have new legislation in place that aims to increase the percentage of low carbon fuels, and we expect federal legislation to follow.
In California, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard is a regulation that will reduce the life cycle carbon intensity of transportation fuel by 10% by 2020. The purpose of the regulation is to incentivize the development of lower carbon fuel for California’s transportation system. Any fuel with 10% less carbon than conventional transportation fuel can generate credits, which must be purchased by fuel producers that are non-compliant with the LCFS.
EcoShift has specialized LCA consulting services that focus on life cycle analysis of alternative fuels. Since EcoShift is familiar with the various design improvements in the acquisition and processing of fuels, and follows the ISO 14040 life cycle analysis guidelines, we can help you analyze the carbon intensity of your fuel and identify areas to improve the physical pathway used to produce your biofuel. If your company is developing new alternative fuels for which default values have not been computed, you will be required to demonstrate that these fuels reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions. Our life cycle analysis services can help you analyze the carbon intensity of your fuel manufacturing process. See our Life Cycle Analysis for Biofuels services brochure for more information.
Because carbon dioxide is evenly mixed in the atmosphere, concentrations are approximately the same worldwide, regardless of whether you measure them in Australia or New Jersey. Thus, reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can be done anywhere in the world, with the same effect. In some instances, it may make more sense to reduce your carbon footprint by investing in forests in Brazil and wind farms in Iowa rather than making expensive on-site reductions. Recognizing that, agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol allow such investments in lieu of on-site carbon reductions.
However, not all carbon offsets are created equal, and some are more legitimate, effective, and efficient than others. Properly created and registered offsets can allow you to reduce overall emissions more cost effectively, but great care must be taken to avoid purchasing offsets that do not actually reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. The ACUPCC Guidelines for Carbon Offsets Investment is a great place to start to understand how the legitimacy of offsets may be determined.
The proposed offset standards have been released by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, and the Western Climate Initiative.
EcoShift consultants offer services in both developing and investing in carbon offsets. We can help evaluate the impact of different offsets, as well as examine the legitimacy and validity of proposed offset schemes.
Climate change reduction programs utilize a market for greenhouse gas emission permits that are allotted based on past emissions. Emission reduction goals are set and companies are required to reduce where possible or face penalties for noncompliance. Companies that reduce emissions below the value of their permits may sell unused permits to companies not meeting their emission goals. So these goals be met through incorporating renewable energy, investing in energy efficiency, or employing various offsets. Additionally, organizations that are not required to reduce their emissions, but do so anyways, are credited and able to sell those reductions as offsets to regulated entities.
Although carbon markets have existed internationally for quite some time, the United States has only had a limited voluntary market on the Chicago Climate Exchange. However, starting in 2012, California will have a mandatory cap-and-trade market pursuant to AB32. While the details of the setup of the market are still being deliberated, we suspect that the rules will be similar to those of European markets, and that the Climate Registry will play a large role in registering emissions and offsets.
We can help you understand your options, and assess your emissions through our ClimateShift process.
Starting in 2010, projects undertaken in California that are required to complete an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are also required to include greenhouse gas (GHG) impact and mitigation information. Currently, regional Air Quality Districts have different standards for designating significant impacts, but overall thresholds for stationary sources have been set at 10,000 metric tons CO2e, and for other projects at 1,100 mtCO2e or 4.6 MT CO2e/yr/SP. In cases where a project’s impact is above thresholds, the EIR must include a Climate Action Plan.
EcoShift uses a comprehensive approach to examine multiple GHG emission mitigation options according to a set of financial and environmental criteria. EcoShift Consulting uses its extensive expertise in greenhouse gas consulting to identify mitigation strategies with clear GHG reductions while achieving cost savings, increasing energy conservation, and maximizing potential co-benefits. In the cases where on-site mitigation is not possible (preferred alternative under CEQA), we will help select credible, permanent, and verifiable offsets, as well as help our clients work with communities to mitigate locally, creating important social and environmental co-benefits in the process.
EcoShift consultants follow the BAAQMD guidelines to document impacts of your proposed project. As more guidelines are developed for different Air Quality Management Districts, we will incorporate those into our procedures. We examine stationary source impacts, as well as land use change, transportation, and other potential GHG sources. We use the URBEMIS model, as well as specialized modeling tools developed by EcoShift to estimate the magnitude of proposed impacts. Results of such modeling exercises are used to create a Climate Action Plan that details emission reduction and mitigation efforts. We are also monitoring the evolving standards, and adapt our techniques to reflect the current state-of-the-art procedures, ensuring a transparent and defendable final assessment.
To learn more about our climate change consulting services and CEQA, see our services page, contact us, or download our CEQA-Shift InfoPak.
A Climate Action Plan is a strategy to cost-effectively achieve meaningful reductions, based on a greenhouse gas inventory and a set of reduction targets. Because emissions result from a diverse set of activities, it is necessary to assess all avenues to achieve reductions and create a meaningful set of metrics to aid in decision-making. Some actions will save money by reducing operations costs, while others will have important environmental or community co-benefits, which are important for enhancing your company’s brand and reputation. Other recommended actions will help you mitigate against future impacts of climate change on your business. A useful Climate Action Plan will be adaptive and guide efficient and effective implementation of emissions reductions strategies to reach targets.
EcoShift’s greenhouse gas consultants create comprehensive climate action plans strategy to address your greenhouse gas footprint. We create decision-metrics for a series of emissions-cutting projects. Our clear, holistic, and adaptable process results in a decision tool you can use to choose the best options for your organization. For each potential project, we estimate total upfront costs, available financing options and incentives, total cost savings, changes in annual energy consumption, cost per ton of GHG reductions, payback periods, and net present value. We also document any co-benefits, including public visibility, natural resource consumption, health and safety, and air and water emissions. Read more about our climate change consulting services or download our ClimateShift Infopak.
Cogeneration, or combined heat and power, is the use of a power station, usually a turbine, to simultaneously generate both electricity and usable heat. Conventional power plants are not capable of effectively using heat that is produced as a byproduct of electricity generation. Cogeneration captures the heat by-product for domestic or industrial heating purposes. This usually occurs very close to the plant or in district heating systems, which are common in Scandinavian countries. Heat can also be used in absorption chillers for cooling purposes. Cogeneration increases the efficiency of fuel consumption and is valuable method of reducing carbon emissions.
Under AB32, all cogeneration facilities must report their emissions starting on June 1st, 2009, and must have reporting verified every three years for facilities under 10MW, and every year for facilities over 10MW.
Overall, any facility that is capable of generating over 1MW of electricity, and emits over 2,500 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide is required to report emissions to the Air Resources Board.
Ecosystem services include a wide range of goods and services that are generated, usually free of charge, by the Earth’s physical and biological functioning systems. These ecosystem services can be divided into the following categories: 1) Provisioning, 2) Regulating, 3) Cultural, and 4) Supporting. For more on how EcoShift can help you understand your positive and negative impacts on ecosystem services, have a look at our Technical Services page.
Provisioning Services
Food
Fiber
Fuel
Genetic resources
Biochemicals, natural medicines, and pharmaceuticals
Ornamental resources
Fresh water
Regulating Services
Air quality regulation
Climate regulation
Water regulation
Erosion regulation
Water purification and waste treatment
Disease regulation
Pest regulation
Pollination
Natural hazard regulation
Cultural Services
Cultural diversity
Spiritual and religious values
Knowledge systems (traditional and formal)
Educational values
Inspiration
Aesthetic values
Social relations
Sense of place
Cultural heritage values
Recreation and ecotourism
Supporting Services
Soil Formation
Photosynthesis
Primary production
Nutrient cycling
Water cycling
Behavior change and employee engagement are some of the first places to look for low- or no-cost approaches to achieve cost savings and reductions in environmental impact. In addition, increasing employee engagement brings other important co-benefits, such as boosting employee morale, increasing job retention, and enhancing your company’s brand.
In many cases, investment in energy saving technologies or sustainability measures does not reach its full potential due to incomplete employee engagement. Similar to the rule of thumb that says implement energy efficiency projects before renewable energy to reduce overall energy demand, the behavior change rule of thumb suggests looking at how employees use resources and equipment before spending money on technology upgrades.
EcoShift’s climate change consultants identify strategies to implement management changes and employee incentive programs in order to reduce your energy consumption. To read more about the five steps involved in this sustainability consulting service download our BehaviorShift Infopak.
One of the most productive, and potentially lucrative, ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is through improving the efficiency of energy and transportation infrastructure. If we use lighting as an example, a standard incandescent light bulb is only 4% efficient. This means that you only get to use 4% of the energy that you pay for, which largely comes from burning fossil fuels. By comparison, compact fluorescent lighting is 10-15 times more efficient, while producing the same amount of light. There are multiple opportunities for increasing energy and transportation efficiency which can dramatically reduce costs, help meet mandated carbon reduction goals, and reduce the climate change impact, all at the same time.
A report from McKinsey and Company details the potential energy savings that accompany energy efficiency improvements
Additionally, simply the process of examining current energy use patterns generally yields insights into operational inefficiencies, and highlights potential savings from changing not only the energy-consuming devices for more efficient ones, but also from adjusting operational procedures in order to capture the most energy savings from such upgrades.
EcoShift offers several services that help our customers increase their efficiency, including EnergyShift, our comprehensive energy efficiency assessment, and BehaviorShift, our employee engagement strategy that focuses on the low-cost operational changes that have the potential to significantly improve operational energy efficiency.
Climate Policy Update – Fall 2011
For the last several months, implementation of California’s landmark Global Warming Solution Act, broadly known as AB32, was uncertain. AB32 requires broad action within the state to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. After an injunction was issued by the San Francisco County Superior Court in March, the California Air Resources Board has been revising the Scoping Plan and re-evaluating the cap-and-trade portion of the policy. On August 24, the California Air Resources Board voted unanimously to uphold the new and revised scoping plan, which retains a cap-and-trade approach for meeting some of the targets of AB32, and sets the new target date for allocating emission allowances as January 1, 2013. Aside from the cap-and-trade program, other policy tools, such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, are retained within the overall strategy to reduce California’s GHG emissions.
At the federal level, despite a hostile environment toward climate policy on Capitol Hill, the Obama administration has been taking measured action towards addressing climate change. This included enforcing the Clean Air Act by implementing new regulations on GHG emissions from power plants and issuing executive orders to increase fuel efficiency in car, light trucks, and, for the first time, in heavy trucks. Unfortunately, however, the trend of increasing attacks on environmental protection and climate science from the Republican congressional leadership and presidential candidates seems to have slowed this progress. On September 2nd, the Obama administration decided to abandon new rules under the Clean Air Act to reduce air pollution from ozone, citing economic instability, and GHG rules for older power plants have already been delayed several months.
On the other hand, a plethora of evidence shows the economic benefit of environmental regulation. For example, according to the Center for American Progress, the implementation of 1997 ozone standards did not result in any negative economic consequences, even though similar arguments were made against regulation at that time. In addition, according to the EPA, implementation of the Clean Air Act to reduce particulates and ozone has saved 160,000 lives in 2010 alone, and the economic benefits will reach $2 trillion by 2020.
More likely, the Obama administration is caving in to baseless attacks by Republican presidential contenders on the EPA and settled climate science. This is unfortunate because the U.S. public has consistently been in favor of regulations that protect the environment, including enforcement of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. This failure to take concrete action on Climate Change will inevitably reduce investment in green technologies and slow the growing green jobs sector, which are also critical to avoiding disastrous consequences of climate change and kick-starting our economy.
Finally, in the international arena, representatives of the majority of countries are preparing for another international meeting on climate change in Durban. This year is critical for several reasons, not the least of which is the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. Developing countries, such as India and China, are likely to agree to reductions in greenhouse gases, with China preparing for implementation of national cap-and-trade policies by 2015. We will continue to watch for developments on the international arena, but major progress seems unlikely in light of the continued resistance by the U.S. Congress to mandatory reductions of GHG emissions.
Agriculture has significant effects on carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, both directly through cultivation practices, and indirectly through the energy used to produce agricultural inputs, such as pesticides and fertilizer. Different techniques, such as low-till cultivation, multi-cropping, and low-input or organic practices help reduce the climate change impact of agriculture, and have additional ecological and financial benefits.
Additionally, animal production is associated with significant greenhouse gas emissions. Different strategies exist that minimize these emissions, and the implementation of these strategies in some instances can serve as a basis for carbon offsets.
Food production emissions are not only associated with farming practices, but also with the shipping, cooling, and packaging industries that form a crucial link between the farmer and the final consumer. Energy consumed at each of these stages represents a large proportion of the costs associated with getting produce from the field to the table. We are happy to help cooling and shipping facilities examine energy reductions that are possible with new technologies in cooling and building science.
A greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory is a quantification of the greenhouse gas emissions you produce. Standardized protocols have been created to be used in creating verifiable GHG inventories, which should be updated yearly to track changes in operations and measure improvements.
Greenhouse Gas emissions are categorized into three ‘scopes’ based on World Resources Institute standards that have been adopted by the Climate Registry and the Carbon Disclosure Project. Scope 1 emissions are onsite emissions, usually associated with onsite energy production, the burning of natural gas, or the use of vehicles. Scope 2 emissions are the associated with purchased energy, usually electricity. Scope 3 emissions are a broad category that includes all other indirect emissions, such as employee commutes, waste, air travel, supply chain, and life cycle emissions of purchased goods. Reporting Scope 3 emissions is optional, but these emissions can be a large percentage of your footprint. Understanding your Scope 3 emissions is a crucial step towards corporate stewardship
Using Climate Registry protocols and tools developed by EcoShift, our climate change consultants perform a comprehensive greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory, or carbon footprint, providing a snapshot of impacts of business operations and creating baseline data needed to demonstrate reductions. Our greenhouse gas accounting process is transparent and verifiable, enabling efficient auditing and effective planning. Read more on our service page, or in our ClimateShift Infopak.
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) trap heat from the sun that would otherwise escape into outer space, making the Earth too cold for human life. But increased GHG levels in the atmosphere are causing the Earth’s surface temperature to rise. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that human activities over the past century have had a significant impact on greenhouse gases levels, and “increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations is very likely to have caused most of the increases in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century.”
The global warming potential (GWP) of various greenhouse gases varies greatly. Carbon, by far the most widely emitted greenhouse gas, is the baseline to which other gases are compared, so is given the GWP value of 1. Methane has a GWP of 25, nitrous oxide has a GWP of 298, hydroflourocarbons (HFCs) have GWPs that range from 1,430 to 14,800, and sulfur hexafluoride has a GWP of 32,600. Although these gases are emitted in smaller quantities than carbon, it is still very important to consider emissions from these less prevalent GHGs. In some cases, it makes sense to encourage conversions of high GWP gases to lower GWP gases, such as installing methane digesters and methane powered electricity generators, converting methane to carbon dioxide.
We offer a range of GHG reduction consulting services that we tailor to your organization’s needs and regulatory requirements.
Industry-Specific Metrics: The Future of Corporate Sustainability
Corporate sustainability is developing at a lightning pace. We are in the process of moving from an era in which corporate sustainability is a piecemeal process focusing on marketing and communications to one in which sustainability metrics are integrated into the operational model of a business. Until recently, normal practice was to identify and implement a few ‘green’ actions, initiate a branding campaign based on these actions, and maybe slap an eco-label on products.
There are a couple of problems with this approach, and a focus on transparent, operational sustainability metrics can help fix these issues.
The first problem is that a firm’s overall environmental impact and the benefits of sustainability actions are not transparent to the public. Consumers are increasingly weary of claims made in marketing information or labeling schemes because there is no obvious connection between the label and actions implemented, much less to a measured reduction in impact. This means that the added brand value of sustainability is not fully utilized.
Second, and more importantly, the actions taken may or may not be the most cost-effective ones to reduce a firm’s environmental footprint. While some actions clearly save money, such as energy efficiency improvements or building commissioning, they are not necessarily the most attractive from a marketing point of view. However, they will support the firm’s bottom line, and, if couched in the right terms (i.e., a percent reduction in total energy/carbon footprint), they can indeed have marketing value. On the other hand, switching to biodegradable packaging has marketing value but its impact isn’t clear. If information isn’t available, the consumer may question the actual reduction in environmental impact from the new packaging. While biodegradable packaging sounds eco-friendly, the consumer may question whether this action had environmental benefit, and they may wonder how much this actually reduces the overall footprint of the product.
Focusing on transparent, operational metrics can address these problems. First, a metrics approach can be transparent. Performance metrics can be readily communicated to the public, like an eco-label, and they also carry real information to the customer. Second, sustainability metrics can provide benchmarks from which all potential actions can be compared, both environmentally and financially. With concise metrics, decision makers can clearly identify the right actions to pursue. Of course, certain actions will have better marketing value than others, and estimates of this value can also be incorporated into the financial impacts of an action.
For sustainability metrics to have maximum impact, they need to be integrated into core decision-making practices within a firm, in a similar fashion to the financial metrics used in business decisions. For example, in addition to net cash flow and gross margin, a firm may also track gallons of water per pound of product, or energy consumed per unit of product. When sustainability metrics are concise, this is possible and becomes a benefit to the bottom line, marketing, and environmental goals. What does it mean to integrate sustainability metrics into business practice? It means that sustainability metrics are used in decisions to inform design choices, source materials, build new facilities, and select transportation modes.
The next questions, clearly, are what metrics to use and how to collect the required information. This is where the sustainability field is still evolving, and where the latest developments are occurring. There are two main issues here: First, the right metrics vary by industry, and industry-specific metrics are still in the development phases. Second, many aspects of the environment are difficult to quantify. For example, it isn’t too difficult to quantify GHG emissions or water usage in a clear concise metric. On the other hand, impacts on biodiversity or toxicity are much harder to quantify, involve some assumptions, and inevitably, no matter our level of rigor, rely on subjective interpretations of environmental values. Ignoring these areas of impact is a disservice to the goals of sustainability, because comprehensive approaches to sustainability involve more than GHG emissions and water usage.
Many industry groups are taking bold and important steps to create sustainability rating tools. This includes the Green Guide for Health Care, AASHE’s STARS rating system for higher education institutions, the Outdoor Industry Association EcoIndex, the Sustainable Apparel Coalition’s Apparel Index, and several others. All of these are in pilot or initial phases and, as is clearly acknowledged by their creators, will require an iterative process to complete. However, most of these systems are points-based systems, similar in approach to U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED program. Points are accrued for various actions, and a final score or rating is given. These systems are an excellent first step, as well as an important means to define best practices within an industry. These tools, once perfected, can serve as a roadmap towards sustainability.
In our opinion, these rating systems suffer from the same issues described above – it is difficult for the consumer to understand what 8 points out of 10 for supply chain management or a ‘Silver’ rating means for the environment or the firm’s overall footprint. In addition, it is very difficult for firms to prioritize action based on points systems. One can prioritize future activities based on potential points accrued, but not based on financial or environmental impact, and the relationship between points and financial or environmental impact is never articulated.
Several of these nascent rating systems acknowledge the need to move to a metrics-based approach, or are in the process of developing industry-specific metrics. To do so will require leadership, good science, time, and stakeholder involvement. And the benefit is immense: if early sustainability efforts can be benchmarked against by meaningful metrics, both the public and firm decision-makers will have a better sense of what sustainability means and how to get there. Industry-specific sustainability metrics will be important measuring sticks, and will likely be used both for public reporting and to tailor the appropriate metrics for each company, organization, or community. As industry-specific metrics drive operations, firm-level operations will also help refine metrics. So even in this early stage of evolution, individual organizations can participate in this process to achieve more sustainable operations and more transparent relationships with stakeholders. This will be a benefit for both the bottom line and our planet.
Life cycle assessment or analysis (LCA) is a performance metric for characterizing the resource use and material throughput for a particular commodity along all stages of the product life cycle form raw material extraction, through the manufacturing process, to the end-of-life of a product. LCA process starts by defining the goals and scope of the system under investigation and defining the systems boundaries. Next, an inventory of material and energy flows is collected along the entire commodity chain. Finally, the inventory is assessed against specific environmental impact categories and indicators. The final product gives a clear picture of a product’s life cycle impact.
With a complete life cycle analysis, efforts can be made to reduce environmental effects in the areas of greatest impact. LCA can be used for improving cradle to cradle product stewardship, pollution prevention planning, green engineering and design, compliance with environmental standards, or to better understand the impacts of material reuse and recycling. LCA can also be used to market your product against other similar products based on accepted sustainability criteria.
Life cycle assessments are completed for a variety of reasons. First, many of the same activities that reduce life cycle impacts also cut energy and other costs. Assessing and reducing your sustainability impact has a similar effect as an efficiency audit. The results will identify the most cost-effective way for you to operate. Second, the public increasingly demands information about sustainability features of the products they buy. LCA can be used to demonstrate product stewardship and corporate responsibility, identify areas to effectively mitigate impacts, and differentiate products through eco-labeling. Finally, many climate change and energy policies are including LCA requirements for sectors like renewable energy and biofuels. For example, California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standardand the DOE Loan Guarantee program both require reporting on life cycle metrics.
Our Life Cycle Analysis Services can help your organization identify potential for improvement of energy and greenhouse gas emission efficiency in all stages of operations. EcoShift can assist in all stages of LCA consulting, including mapping and greening of your supply chain, quantifying and characterizing life cycle impacts, comparing to similar products, and assessing carbon payback periods and returns on investment. We tailor our LCA services to explore the various impact categories that can improve your company’s life cycle performance. We adhere to the LCA procedures codified by the International Standards Organization (ISO) in ISO 14040. Since our LCA consultants are actively engaged in the academic community, we stay abreast of changing standards and practices in this rapidly evolving field.
You can download our LCA Consulting Services Infopak here.
Additionally, we have a specialized service offering that focuses specifically on life cycle analysis of alternative fuel pathways. California has approved a plan to reduce the life cycle carbon intensity of transportation fuel by 10% by 2020. If your company is developing revolutionary new alternative fuels, you will be required to demonstrate that these fuels reduce overall GHG emissions. We can help you analyze the carbon intensity of your fuel manufacturing process using our Life Cycle Analysis for Biofuels service.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:
Listen to a recent Commonwealth Club podcast on sustainability and the value chain
Take a look at a good example of an LCA done by Apple Computers here.
Here is an example of a comparison between a traditional and an LED lightbulb, from a life cycle standpoint
Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) are tradable commodities which represent proof that 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity was generated from a renewable energy resource. A green energy producer is credited with one REC for every megawatt hour of electricity produced. Each REC is coded with an identification number to ensure that it is not double-counted. Renewable energy produced is fed into the electrical grid, but the REC associated with that energy can be sold separately. An entity that desires to use renewable energy and reduce carbon emissions can purchase a REC from the energy producer and claim the emissions reductions associated with it. The purchaser only receives the REC, not the energy produced. RECs create incentives for carbon-neutral renewable energy by creating a commodity separate from the energy produced which in effect subsidizes renewable electricity generation. Renewable energy credits are fraught with controversy as to whether they actually create incentives for additional renewable energy, and we at EcoShift have the experience to determine REC fact from fiction.
Renewable energy utilizes the sources that are replenished from the non-exhaustible resources like the wind, sun, geothermal heat, rain, and tides. It is contrasted with conventional energy that relies on limited stocks of resources that have taken millions of years to accumulate. The range of renewable energy technologies includes wind turbines, solar thermal water heating, geothermal, small scale hydro-electric turbines, tidal and wave power, and solar photovoltaics. Renewable energy requires an initial investment, after which it is “fueled” by processes that are naturally available and routine maintenance. There are many choices for renewable energy, and they will depend on your needs and location.
Our team has developed partnerships with several organizations that specialize in different renewable energy technologies, and together we will implement ones that make the most sense for your organization, after we examine potentials for lower-cost, and often faster ROI, improvements in energy efficiency.
Scope 3 GHG emissions are a broad category of emissions that includes all other indirect emissions that are not onsite combustion (Scope 1) or purchased electricity (Scope 2). This can include employee commutes, waste, air travel, and life cycle emissions of purchased goods. Reporting Scope 3 emissions is optional, but these emissions can be a large percentage of your footprint. Understanding your Scope 3 emissions is a crucial step towards corporate stewardship.
Including Scope 3 GHG emissions in your inventory means that you are fully disclosing your climate impacts, even though such reporting is not required in existing climate change regulations. Companies are increasingly looking to reduce emissions in their full supply chain because they are aware that their climate impacts extend well beyond operations. Scope 3 emissions can be a large percentage, or even a majority, of your total footprint, so understanding your Scope 3 emissions is a crucial step towards corporate stewardship. Our Scope-3-Shift greenhouse gas consulting service, along with our supply chain consulting services will help you understand, calculate, and take steps to reduce your Scope 3 emissions and green your supply chain. It is an important optional component of our carbon reduction strategy services. You can download the full InfoPak on our Scope 3 emission services here.
Supply chain greenhouse gas emissions are the GHGs emitted during the phases of production and shipping that are outside the boundary of your organization. For this reason, these emission are classified as Scope 3 emissions. Although there are no greenhouse gas regulations that require accounting of supply chain emissions, there are several important reasons why companies are deciding to conduct supply chain GHG emissions inventories and create carbon reduction strategies for them.
First, your supply chain is probably an important source of costs to your business, so if your suppliers are operating inefficiently, you are probably paying more for your goods and services that you need to. The second reason is transparency. For many organizations, supply chain emissions are the large majority of GHG emissions. By reducing onsite emissions, you may not be tackling your real hotspots, and your greening efforts may not be considered complete in the public eye. The last reason is your environmental stewardship potential. Through our innovative carbon consulting strategies to encourage greening of your supply chain, you can influence the actions of your suppliers with no effect on your own operations.
You can learn more about how EcoShift helps manages and mitigate supply chain emissions on our services page or in our Scope 3 Infopak, and the draft World Resources Institute Scope 3 Protocol gives guidelines for Scope 3 emissions inventories.
