Substantiating claims of carbon neutrality in world class events

Presentation for Green BreakfastCraig Simmons

Co-founder & Technical DirectorBest Foot Forward

craig.simmons@bestfootforward.com

www.bestfootforward.com

Best Foot Forward’s core business

FootprinterFootprint Reporter

Excel modellingCustom web tools

ConsultancyApplied research

Training & writing

Greenhouse gasesEcological FootprintWater & other metricsRisk analysis

14 years experience 

3,000 + footprint analyses

300 + clients   25

sectors 

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

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

Answer: They are all planning to host carbon neutral world class events (Winter Olympics, America’s Cup, Football World Cup)

What is Carbon  Neutrality? 

“Carbon neutral means that  – through a transparent 

process of calculating   emissions, reducing those 

emissions and offsetting  residual emissions – net   carbon emissions equal 

zero.”

Definition arising out of DECC Consultation, 2009

London 2012Despite what has been said in the media, London 2012 made no commitment to be ‘carbon neutral’ but has taken a broader approach to ‘compensating’ for its carbon footprint.

London 

2012 

has 

never  stated 

the 

aim 

to 

be 

‘carbon 

neutral’. 

We  believe 

this 

is 

a 

potentially 

misleading term. 

The 

reason 

for 

this 

is  because 

there 

are 

no 

fixed 

boundaries 

on 

a 

project 

of  this 

scale; 

any 

claim 

of 

carbon 

neutrality    would  be arbitrary and unrealistic  to prove. 

London 2012  Sustainability Plan 2nd

Edition ‐

Dec 2009

Broad recognition by world event organisers  that better carbon management lowers risk 

But what carbon are you going to ‘neutralise’?

•What are the boundaries of the  Games?

•How can you measure the  impact of an event that will not 

happen for several years?•Who is responsible for 

reducing the impact?•What reduction targets should 

be set?•What are the most practical, 

cost effective actions to take?•How to quantify the ‘carbon 

legacy’

and best compensate for  the residual emissions?

Photo: Olympic Ski Jump, Salt Lake City

Olympic footprints – 2000-2012There are no agreed standards for measuring the carbon footprint and determining the carbon neutrality of world class events such as Olympics

Year Host Estimated Emissions (tCO2 )

Offsets Clean Energy

2000 Sydney Not calculated N/ARenewable energy supplied to venues (saving 30,000 tCO2)

2002 Salt Lake City 180,000 18 million trees planted cleaner and greener (look-up)

2004 Athens Not calculated N/AThree new energy & transport projects

2006 Torino 121,000 Energy efficiency and afforestation projects

Domestic renewable and sustainable energy projects.

2008 Beijing 1,181,900 Emissions reductions enabled carbon-neutral games. No offsets.

Installed solar panels and used local renewable energy.

2010 Vancouver 336,608 Local offset fundHybrid vehicles and decrease in secondary diesel generators.

2012 London 3,400,000 Target Neutral offset scheme

Building of new energy center .

London 2012 Footprint: 3.4MtCO2 e (before reductions)

Like adding 2 weeks to London’s annual emissions

Venues

Spectators

Transport Infrastructure

Operations

Of this, 2.3MtCO2 e ‘Owned’ by London 2012 bodies – the responsibility for remaining emissions rests with others although London 2012 could influence.

Comparison of emission sources includedHECTOR/Torino Vancouver 2010 London 2012

SpectatorsAir travel xCar travel x xPublic transport xAccommodation xCatering x xWaste xMerchandise (official) x xOperationsOverlay & fit‐out x xMediaIT services x xOlympic Family travelOCOG staff travel & officesMedical x xSecurity x xVenue energy useTorch relay & cauldronOther ceremonies & culture x xTravel grantsConstructionNew venues/infrastructure/village x x

Comparison between Vancouver & London

tCO2 eVancouver

2010London

2012%

variationMain methodology

differences

venues & infrastructure 4,000 2,278,000 56950%

2010 amortises construction over 60 years

operations 148,160 347,000 234% 2010 omits overlay

spectators 178,737 730,000 408% 2010 omits car travel

sensitivity 5,712 0 0%

TOTAL 336,608 3,355,000 997%

Differences mainly due to methodology

and event sizeNote: comparisons are approximate as different emission source categories were used

To avoid confusion we created the London 2012 Carbon Footprint MethodologyProvides comprehensive guidance on 

how to calculate an event footprint.

•Guiding philosophy

•Uses GHG Protocol principles

•Accounting Rules (to be adopted by IOC   in Technical Manual for OG Impact Study)

•Stakeholder process

•Evidencing reductions

Developed as a London 2012 legacy document.Can be used a baseline assessment for new Carbon Neutral 

standard (PAS 2060).

Refinestrategy

Parallel stakeholder engagement

process

London 2012 Carbon Management Strategy

* Note: Development and quantification of individual carbon reductions and legacy opportunities may require separate detailed study or options appraisal. For example, looking at individual procurement choices or temporary energy supply options.

Refinestrategy

Basic carbon management hierarchy

12 key accounting rules address common issues..

1: Comply with underpinning principles of the GHG Protocol/ISO 14064-12: Account for all Kyoto Protocol Greenhouse Gases3: Set boundaries to include elements over which control or influence4: Use a structured method for deciding which sources in/out of scope5: Emissions should be accounted when occur, establish responsibility6: Count Legacy benefits – but count them separately7: Establish a reference scenario against which reductions are accounted8: Reduction and replacement measures must be clearly documented9: Identify a consistent dataset of carbon conversion factors 10: Identify contentious carbon accounting issues early to allow debate11: Document levels of uncertainty 12: Establish key performance indicators

12 key accounting rules address common issues..

1: Comply with underpinning principles of the GHG Protocol/ISO 14064-12: Account for all Kyoto Protocol Greenhouse Gases3: Set boundaries to include elements over which control or influence4: Use a structured method for deciding which sources in/out of scope5: Emissions should be accounted when occur, establish responsibility6: Count Legacy benefits – but count them separately7: Establish a reference scenario against which reductions are accounted8: Reduction and replacement measures must be clearly documented9: Identify a consistent dataset of carbon conversion factors 10: Identify contentious carbon accounting issues early to allow debate11: Document levels of uncertainty 12: Establish key performance indicators

Rule 3: Look at all emission sources overwhich London 2012 could have control or influence

The ‘TVs and Kettles’ dilemma

Note: 0.5bn TVs x 2 hours x3 weeks x 100 watts = 2.1TWh (> 1MTCO2

e

)

Do we include the impact of  home viewers:

•

Watching TV?•

Boiling kettles?

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

So what is PAS 2060?

• Publicly Available Specification 2060:2010• The first independent standard to provide 

a common and consistent approach for  the demonstration of carbon neutrality

• Goals• Provide robustness around “carbon 

neutral”

claims

• Encourage carbon management good  practice

• Increase action on climate change

• Defines ‘allowable’

compensation  measures

‐2

‐1.5

‐1

‐0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Baseline 'Reference' Footprint

Update 1 (w/reductions)

Update 2 (w/reductions)

Allowable Compensation Measures

MtCO2e

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Carbon Neutrality Concept as applied to Games 

CARBON NEUTRALITY = NET ZERO EMISSIONS

GrossEmissions

NetEmissions

Carbon Neutral ‘Balance Sheet’

for GamesEmissions (in ktCO2

e) 

SourcesReference 

Footprint 2011Updated 

Footprint 2012Updated 

Footprint 2013Actual Games 

Footprint 2014

Operations

Electricity (venues) 15 13 13 14

… …

Construction

Olympic stadium 60 55 57 55

… …

Spectators

Spectator travel 200 200 180 186

… …

Gross Emissions 275 268 250 255

Allowable Compensation Measures

VCR offsets (0) (0) (0) (255)

… …

Net Emissions 275 268 250 0

Intensity Metric eg.(kgCO2

e/spectator)0.20 0.20 0.18 0.00

Compensation MeasuresMeasures which ‘compensate’

for residual carbon after

actions to 

‘reduce’

emissions. Costs typically range up to £25/tCO2

e

Compensation MeasuresMeasures which ‘compensate’

for residual carbon after

actions to 

‘reduce’

emissions. Costs typically range up to £25/tCO2

e

Legacy carbon savings not strictly allowable under PAS 2060

Concluding thoughts on carbon neutrality  & world class events

• Is it the right thing to do? – Discourages and limits measurement?

– High cost –

likely to detract from reductions?

– Does it send the right message?

– Boundaries are uncertain– De‐values legacy– Limits domestic investments in carbon reductions

– PAS 2060 is not international, yet!

THANK YOU

Questions? Comments?Thoughts?

Craig Simmons Co-founder & Technical Director

Best Foot Forwardcraig.simmons@bestfootforward.com

www.bestfootforward.com