Substantiating claims of carbon

neutrality in world class events

Presentation for Green Breakfast

Craig Simmons

Co-founder & Technical Director

Best Foot Forward craig.simmons@bestfootforward.com

www.bestfootforward.com

Best Foot Forward’s core business

Footprinter

Footprint Reporter

Excel modelling

Custom web tools

Consultancy

Applied research

Training & writing

Greenhouse gases

Ecological Footprint

Water & other metrics

Risk 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 2012

Despite 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

Reduced Carbon Risk

Operational

Lower energy costs

Lower material costs

Less wastage

Reputational

Better media relations

Better OC/sponsor

relations

National credibility

Regulatory

Compliance with environmental

legislation

Lower compensation

costs

Carbon market opportunities

Supply Chain

Less price volatility

Promotes green innovation

More beneficial legacy

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 – 2000-2012 There 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/A Renewable 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/A Three 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 fund Hybrid vehicles and decrease

in secondary diesel generators.

2012 London 3,400,000 Target Neutral offset

scheme Building of new energy center .

London 2012 Footprint: 3.4MtCO2e (before reductions)

Like adding 2 weeks to London’s annual emissions

Venues

Spectators

Transport Infrastructure

Operations

Of this, 2.3MtCO2e ‘Owned’ by London 2012 bodies – the responsibility for

remaining emissions rests with others although London 2012 could influence.

Comparison of emission sources included HECTOR/Torino Vancouver 2010 London 2012

Spectators

Air travel x

Car travel x x

Public transport x

Accommodation x

Catering x x

Waste x

Merchandise (official) x x

Operations

Overlay & fit-out x x

Media

IT services x x

Olympic Family travel

OCOG staff travel & offices

Medical x x

Security x x

Venue energy use

Torch relay & cauldron

Other ceremonies & culture x x

Travel grants

Construction

New venues/infrastructure/village x x

Comparison between Vancouver & London

tCO2e

Vancouver

2010

London

2012

%

variation

Main 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 size

Note: comparisons are approximate as different emission source categories were used

To avoid confusion we created the London

2012 Carbon Footprint Methodology Provides 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).

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 (companies, communities, products etc.)

• Goals

• Provide robustness around “carbon neutral” claims

• Encourage carbon management good practice

• Increase action on climate change

• Defines ‘allowable’ compensation measures

5. Third party assurance

4. Update footprint & report progress

3. Carbon reduction & compensation strategy*

2. Detailed baseline 'Reference' Carbon Footprint

1. Screening Assessment

Refine

strategy

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.

Refine

strategy

Basic carbon management hierarchy

Reduce

• e.g. avoid unnecessary travel

Replace

• e.g. use lower carbon transport options

Compensate

• e.g. offset residual emissions

12 key accounting rules address common issues..

1: Comply with underpinning principles of the GHG Protocol/ISO 14064-1

2: Account for all Kyoto Protocol Greenhouse Gases

3: Set boundaries to include elements over which control or influence

4: Use a structured method for deciding which sources in/out of scope

5: Emissions should be accounted when occur, establish responsibility

6: Count Legacy benefits – but count them separately

7: Establish a reference scenario against which reductions are accounted

8: Reduction and replacement measures must be clearly documented

9: Identify a consistent dataset of carbon conversion factors

10: Identify contentious carbon accounting issues early to allow debate

11: 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 14064-1

2: Account for all Kyoto Protocol Greenhouse Gases

3: Set boundaries to include elements over which control or influence

4: Use a structured method for deciding which sources in/out of scope

5: Emissions should be accounted when occur, establish responsibility

6: Count Legacy benefits – but count them separately

7: Establish a reference scenario against which reductions are accounted

8: Reduction and replacement measures must be clearly documented

9: Identify a consistent dataset of carbon conversion factors

10: Identify contentious carbon accounting issues early to allow debate

11: Document levels of uncertainty

12: Establish key performance indicators

Rule 3: Look at all emission sources over

which London 2012 could have

control or influence

The ‘TVs and Kettles’ dilemma

Note: 0.5bn TVs x 2 hours x 3 weeks x 100 watts = 2.1TWh (> 1MTCO2e )

Do we include the impact of home viewers:

• Watching TV? • Boiling kettles?

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

-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

MtC

O2

e

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Carbon Neutrality Concept as applied to Games

CARBON NEUTRALITY = NET ZERO EMISSIONS

Gross

Emissions

Net

Emissions

Carbon Neutral ‘Balance Sheet’ for Games Emissions (in ktCO2e) Sources

Reference Footprint 2011

Updated Footprint 2012

Updated Footprint 2013

Actual 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. (kgCO2e/spectator)

0.20 0.20 0.18 0.00

Compensation Measures Measures which ‘compensate’ for residual carbon after actions to ‘reduce’ emissions. Costs typically range up to £25/tCO2e

Compensation measures

Compliance

Joint Implementation/ERUs

CERs

Green Investment Scheme (‘hot air ‘)

Non-compliance VERs

REDDs

Local

Domestic carbon investment schemes

Legacy infrastructure benefits

Other legacy benefits

Compensation Measures Measures which ‘compensate’ for residual carbon after actions to ‘reduce’ emissions. Costs typically range up to £25/tCO2e

Compensation measures

Compliance

Joint Implementation/ERUs

CERs

Green Investment Scheme (‘hot air ‘)

Non-compliance VERs

REDDs

Local

Domestic carbon investment schemes

Legacy infrastructure benefits

Other legacy benefits 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 Forward craig.simmons@bestfootforward.com

www.bestfootforward.com