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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.