http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/04/announcing-climatepulse-with-climatecheck/ Business, Better. Since 2005 Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:05:57 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/04/announcing-climatepulse-with-climatecheck/comment-page-1/#comment-12831 Michael Carter Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:06:50 +0000 http://www.triplepundit.com/wordpress/2008/04/announcing-climatepulse-with-climatecheck/#comment-12831 If you left a big4 firm and you are looking for a job similar with what you had, try : http://www.big4.com/home.html .Here I assure you that you'll find the perfect job If you left a big4 firm and you are looking for a job similar with what you had, try : http://www.big4.com/home.html .Here I assure you that you’ll find the perfect job

]]> http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/04/announcing-climatepulse-with-climatecheck/comment-page-1/#comment-12830 Sable Haullo Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:49:18 +0000 http://www.triplepundit.com/wordpress/2008/04/announcing-climatepulse-with-climatecheck/#comment-12830 Sound's really cool. I'm particularly interested in explaining this to people who don't understand why a company would voluntarily pay to offset, or otherwise reduce their GHG emissions. Obviously Government regulation plays a big role, but that just sends people kicking and screaming. What are the methods that also make the company more profitable, not just in terms of money, but also quality of life - a factor that too few accountants understand! Sound’s really cool. I’m particularly interested in explaining this to people who don’t understand why a company would voluntarily pay to offset, or otherwise reduce their GHG emissions. Obviously Government regulation plays a big role, but that just sends people kicking and screaming. What are the methods that also make the company more profitable, not just in terms of money, but also quality of life – a factor that too few accountants understand!

]]> http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/04/announcing-climatepulse-with-climatecheck/comment-page-1/#comment-12829 Tom Baumann Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:40:57 +0000 http://www.triplepundit.com/wordpress/2008/04/announcing-climatepulse-with-climatecheck/#comment-12829 Great questions Valerie. Regarding other GHG standards with a streamlined LCA approach, there is ISO 14064 Part 2 that can be used for project credits, technologies as well as products and services. I am the main author of this standard and have used it with many projects and technologies - everything from a new technology/product to de-ice aircraft, an electric vehicle, composted waste, the blade for a wind turbine, hybrid fishing vessel, and many others - you can see several other examples at www.team.gc.ca and www.sdtc.ca, GHG and clean tech investment funds that account for GHG performance based on ISO 14064 Part 2. Another good point about ISO 14064 Part 2 is that it links products and clean tech with carbon credits. In a few weeks I will do do post to explain the application of ISO 14064 Part 2 for projects and products. On your first question about differences between the use of the WRI-WBCSD GHG Protocol for Corporate Accounting (including Scope 3) and the PAS 2050 approach based around the ISO 14040 LCA standards - while Scope 3 considers the life cycle beyond Scope 1 and 2, the GHG Protocol for Corporate Accounting does not specify the same accounting requirements such as "scope and goal definition", "functional equivalence" and other accounting specifications in ISO 14040. ISO 14064 Part 2 incorporates many of these specifications and allows both simplified and rigorous accounting - depends on the needs of the user of the final GHG claim. Although the GHG Protocol describes general guidance, it can be used, often in conjunction with LCA models, to determine the carbon footprint of products - we've used it that way. Regarding monetizing opportunities in the GHG supply chain - there are many opportunities as in all other operations. There are also several challenges other than data quality/availability - such as ownership and eligibility. Transaction costs can also be a challenge. Eligibility to claim credits depends on various factors such as location of the reduction and whether or not the emissions are already covered under another GHG program (don't want double counting) - if the reduction happens upstream at a facility under a cap and trade program, then it might have excess permits/allowances. Ownership can be managed with legal contracts - although not as easy as it might seem to be. Transaction costs can be reduced with IT systems and appropriately defined verification/certification systems. To make this seem really scary, depending on how the scope/boundaries are defined for the assessment, "leakage" - that is unintended (and often unaccounted for) emissions can be very difficult to account for. Leakage is very difficult in project accounting - supply chain accounting is much worse. I don't want to sound discouraging about pursuing credits from reductions throughout the supply chain - I am strongly in favor of initiating reduction plans with suppliers. However, there is more than one way to account, and monetize, the emission reductions - the are many considerations in choosing which way is best. Great questions Valerie.
Regarding other GHG standards with a streamlined LCA approach, there is ISO 14064 Part 2 that can be used for project credits, technologies as well as products and services. I am the main author of this standard and have used it with many projects and technologies – everything from a new technology/product to de-ice aircraft, an electric vehicle, composted waste, the blade for a wind turbine, hybrid fishing vessel, and many others – you can see several other examples at http://www.team.gc.ca and http://www.sdtc.ca, GHG and clean tech investment funds that account for GHG performance based on ISO 14064 Part 2. Another good point about ISO 14064 Part 2 is that it links products and clean tech with carbon credits. In a few weeks I will do do post to explain the application of ISO 14064 Part 2 for projects and products.
On your first question about differences between the use of the WRI-WBCSD GHG Protocol for Corporate Accounting (including Scope 3) and the PAS 2050 approach based around the ISO 14040 LCA standards – while Scope 3 considers the life cycle beyond Scope 1 and 2, the GHG Protocol for Corporate Accounting does not specify the same accounting requirements such as “scope and goal definition”, “functional equivalence” and other accounting specifications in ISO 14040. ISO 14064 Part 2 incorporates many of these specifications and allows both simplified and rigorous accounting – depends on the needs of the user of the final GHG claim. Although the GHG Protocol describes general guidance, it can be used, often in conjunction with LCA models, to determine the carbon footprint of products – we’ve used it that way.
Regarding monetizing opportunities in the GHG supply chain – there are many opportunities as in all other operations. There are also several challenges other than data quality/availability – such as ownership and eligibility. Transaction costs can also be a challenge. Eligibility to claim credits depends on various factors such as location of the reduction and whether or not the emissions are already covered under another GHG program (don’t want double counting) – if the reduction happens upstream at a facility under a cap and trade program, then it might have excess permits/allowances. Ownership can be managed with legal contracts – although not as easy as it might seem to be. Transaction costs can be reduced with IT systems and appropriately defined verification/certification systems. To make this seem really scary, depending on how the scope/boundaries are defined for the assessment, “leakage” – that is unintended (and often unaccounted for) emissions can be very difficult to account for. Leakage is very difficult in project accounting – supply chain accounting is much worse.
I don’t want to sound discouraging about pursuing credits from reductions throughout the supply chain – I am strongly in favor of initiating reduction plans with suppliers. However, there is more than one way to account, and monetize, the emission reductions – the are many considerations in choosing which way is best.

]]> http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/04/announcing-climatepulse-with-climatecheck/comment-page-1/#comment-12828 Valerie Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:21:30 +0000 http://www.triplepundit.com/wordpress/2008/04/announcing-climatepulse-with-climatecheck/#comment-12828 I have a question about a new protocol: PAS 2050 on measuring embodied GHG emissions in products and services. How does this standard differ from the Scope 3 standard in the GHG protocol? Are there other standards that deal with full life cycle product emissions? It seems that for consumer products retailers (e.g., Tesco, Wal-Mart) the biggest GHG reductions are to come through greening their supply chains. What are the opportunities for monetizing reductions of GHG in the supply chain? Would a company like Wal-Mart be able to claim emissions reductions in their supply chain in any of the voluntary trading markets? Or is there some other mechanism to enable them to monetize reductions (e.g., joint implementation mechanism)? I have a question about a new protocol: PAS 2050 on measuring embodied GHG emissions in products and services. How does this standard differ from the Scope 3 standard in the GHG protocol? Are there other standards that deal with full life cycle product emissions?
It seems that for consumer products retailers (e.g., Tesco, Wal-Mart) the biggest GHG reductions are to come through greening their supply chains. What are the opportunities for monetizing reductions of GHG in the supply chain? Would a company like Wal-Mart be able to claim emissions reductions in their supply chain in any of the voluntary trading markets? Or is there some other mechanism to enable them to monetize reductions (e.g., joint implementation mechanism)?

]]>