GHG Protocols #58
Draft
GHG Protocols #58
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
+ new page on GHG protocols and it's alignment to TCS - location and linking TBC + updated and expanded the glossary definition of GHG protocols + fixed bug in glossary (bad image link)
| {% include categoryLabel.html label="CatO" %} | ||
|
|
||
| Scope 2 applies to the electricity consumption of all on-site IT equipment and devices. This includes all on-premise employee devices such as computers, monitors; networking and infrastructure; and servers and storage. Energy used for lighting, heating and cooling is out of scope in the TCS, but would be accounted for in an organisation's wider GHG accounting. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this needs expanding a little, underlining the fact that we include Cat O so that we have included it for consequential accounting as mentioned above, and that it should not be used for attributional accounting. Perhaps an example of how you would use the data in an office or on prem data centre, using the electricity bill for the building for attributional and the consequential reporting to lower that bill.
I know it is already all in there -I just feel like it needs to be tied together here.
abalkham
reviewed
Sep 25, 2024
|
|
||
| ### GHG Scope 3 | ||
|
|
||
| Scope 3 makes up a large proportion of company emissions and the technology related Scope 3 emissions is no exception. Whilst it is an optional reporting category, there is increasing pressure on organisations to report Scope 3 emisions due to the scale of it's impact. Companies may wish to account for and report on Scope 3 emissions that are relevant to their business and have reliable information for. This, however can make it difficult to compare performance across companies. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| Scope 3 makes up a large proportion of company emissions and the technology related Scope 3 emissions is no exception. Whilst it is an optional reporting category, there is increasing pressure on organisations to report Scope 3 emisions due to the scale of it's impact. Companies may wish to account for and report on Scope 3 emissions that are relevant to their business and have reliable information for. This, however can make it difficult to compare performance across companies. | |
| Scope 3 makes up a large proportion of company emissions and the technology related Scope 3 emissions is no exception. Whilst it is an optional reporting category, there is increasing pressure on organisations to report Scope 3 emisions due to the scale of its impact. Companies may wish to account for and report on Scope 3 emissions that are relevant to their business and have reliable information for. This, however can make it difficult to compare performance across companies. |
|
|
||
| Scope 3 makes up a large proportion of company emissions and the technology related Scope 3 emissions is no exception. Whilst it is an optional reporting category, there is increasing pressure on organisations to report Scope 3 emisions due to the scale of it's impact. Companies may wish to account for and report on Scope 3 emissions that are relevant to their business and have reliable information for. This, however can make it difficult to compare performance across companies. | ||
|
|
||
| [The GHG Protocol Reporting Standard](https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf) acknowledges that Scope 3 is a difficult and is largely inaccurate to account for. A full life cycle analysis is not required, and the company can focus its accounting effort on GHG generating activities at their discretion. It does recommend some general guidance when assessing Scope 3 emissions: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| [The GHG Protocol Reporting Standard](https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf) acknowledges that Scope 3 is a difficult and is largely inaccurate to account for. A full life cycle analysis is not required, and the company can focus its accounting effort on GHG generating activities at their discretion. It does recommend some general guidance when assessing Scope 3 emissions: | |
| [The GHG Protocol Reporting Standard](https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf) acknowledges that Scope 3 is difficult and often inaccurate to account for. A full life cycle analysis is not required, and the company can focus its accounting effort on GHG generating activities at their discretion. It does recommend some general guidance when assessing Scope 3 emissions: |
|
|
||
| 1. **Describe the value chain.** For transparency, provide a general description of the value chain and associated GHG sources. | ||
| 2. **Determine which Scope 3 categories are relevant.** Only some upstream and downstream emissions are relevant to the company, for various reasons: | ||
| - they are (beleived to be) large relative to Scope 1 and 2 emissions |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| - they are (beleived to be) large relative to Scope 1 and 2 emissions | |
| - they are (believed to be) large relative to Scope 1 and 2 emissions |
| 1. **Describe the value chain.** For transparency, provide a general description of the value chain and associated GHG sources. | ||
| 2. **Determine which Scope 3 categories are relevant.** Only some upstream and downstream emissions are relevant to the company, for various reasons: | ||
| - they are (beleived to be) large relative to Scope 1 and 2 emissions | ||
| - they contribute to the company's GHG risk exposure and deemed critical by stakeholders |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| - they contribute to the company's GHG risk exposure and deemed critical by stakeholders | |
| - they contribute to the company's GHG risk exposure and are deemed critical by stakeholders |
| - they are (beleived to be) large relative to Scope 1 and 2 emissions | ||
| - they contribute to the company's GHG risk exposure and deemed critical by stakeholders | ||
| - there is opportunity to influence or reduce emissions | ||
| 3. **Identify partners along the value chain.** Identify any partners along the value chain that potentially contribute significant GHGs to identify sources, relevant data and calculate emissions. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| 3. **Identify partners along the value chain.** Identify any partners along the value chain that potentially contribute significant GHGs to identify sources, relevant data and calculate emissions. | |
| 3. **Identify partners along the value chain.** Identify any partners along the value chain that potentially contribute significant GHGs to identify sources and relevant data and to calculate emissions. |
|
|
||
| The TCS is most helpful and applicable for identifying emissions sources and calculating GHG Scope 3 emissions. Scopes 1 and 2 should never be double counted, and these Scopes are often accounted for at corporate level by taking consideration of the energy and fuels purchased by the company. So, we would advise not to use the TCS categories for reporting GHG Scopes 1 and 2, to avoid the risk of double counting. For example; the energy consumption data collected by the company does not take into any consideration of how that energy is used or distributed between heating, lighting, and technology use. These categories should be reserved for breakdown and analysis of it's contributing factors to Scope 1 and 2, rather than reporting them. GHG Protocol is focuses on an attributional model, meaning that the identification of sources and the emissions calculations are used for accoutning and reporting, "attributing" emissions to the company, fitting squarely into Scope 1, 2 or 3. But where the TCS is used to breakdown and analyse these emissions for the purpose of influencing and reducing the company's GHG emissions, the TCS shifts to a consequential model. The detailed breakdown and understanding of the sources of emissions enables companies to identify the potential effects of making changes to mitigate and reduce GHG emissions. | ||
|
|
||
| Explained below is how to view the TCS with the GHG Protocol Reporting Standard. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this sentence is needed; it's clear to me what the below is doing.
| <a class="text-center" href="https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf">Steps in identifying and calculating GHG emission - GHG Protocol Reporting Standard</a> | ||
| </div> | ||
|
|
||
| The TCS is most helpful and applicable for identifying emissions sources and calculating GHG Scope 3 emissions. Scopes 1 and 2 should never be double counted, and these Scopes are often accounted for at corporate level by taking consideration of the energy and fuels purchased by the company. So, we would advise not to use the TCS categories for reporting GHG Scopes 1 and 2, to avoid the risk of double counting. For example; the energy consumption data collected by the company does not take into any consideration of how that energy is used or distributed between heating, lighting, and technology use. These categories should be reserved for breakdown and analysis of it's contributing factors to Scope 1 and 2, rather than reporting them. GHG Protocol is focuses on an attributional model, meaning that the identification of sources and the emissions calculations are used for accoutning and reporting, "attributing" emissions to the company, fitting squarely into Scope 1, 2 or 3. But where the TCS is used to breakdown and analyse these emissions for the purpose of influencing and reducing the company's GHG emissions, the TCS shifts to a consequential model. The detailed breakdown and understanding of the sources of emissions enables companies to identify the potential effects of making changes to mitigate and reduce GHG emissions. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| The TCS is most helpful and applicable for identifying emissions sources and calculating GHG Scope 3 emissions. Scopes 1 and 2 should never be double counted, and these Scopes are often accounted for at corporate level by taking consideration of the energy and fuels purchased by the company. So, we would advise not to use the TCS categories for reporting GHG Scopes 1 and 2, to avoid the risk of double counting. For example; the energy consumption data collected by the company does not take into any consideration of how that energy is used or distributed between heating, lighting, and technology use. These categories should be reserved for breakdown and analysis of it's contributing factors to Scope 1 and 2, rather than reporting them. GHG Protocol is focuses on an attributional model, meaning that the identification of sources and the emissions calculations are used for accoutning and reporting, "attributing" emissions to the company, fitting squarely into Scope 1, 2 or 3. But where the TCS is used to breakdown and analyse these emissions for the purpose of influencing and reducing the company's GHG emissions, the TCS shifts to a consequential model. The detailed breakdown and understanding of the sources of emissions enables companies to identify the potential effects of making changes to mitigate and reduce GHG emissions. | |
| The TCS is most helpful and applicable for identifying emissions sources and calculating GHG Scope 3 emissions. Scopes 1 and 2 should never be double counted, and these Scopes are often accounted for at corporate level by taking consideration of the energy and fuels purchased by the company. So, we would advise not using the TCS categories for reporting GHG Scopes 1 and 2, to avoid the risk of double counting. For example, the energy consumption data collected by the company does not take any consideration of how that energy is used or distributed between heating, lighting, and technology use. These categories should be reserved for breakdown and analysis of their contributing factors to Scope 1 and 2, rather than reporting them. The GHG Protocol focuses on an attributional model, meaning that the identification of sources and the emissions calculations are used for accounting and reporting, "attributing" emissions to the company, fitting squarely into Scope 1, 2 or 3. But since the TCS is used to breakdown and analyse these emissions for the purpose of influencing and reducing the company's GHG emissions, the TCS shifts to a consequential model. This detailed breakdown and understanding of the sources of emissions enables companies to identify the potential effects of making changes to mitigate and reduce GHG emissions. |
|
|
||
| ### Scope 1 | ||
| Includes all direct emissions that are generated from sources that are directly owned or controlled by an organisation. For a software company there is a very small list of sources but it is not empty. It can include any emissions from fossil fuelled hire cars used to visit customers and emissions from refrigerant leaks found in A/C & fuel burnt in heating systems within offices. | ||
| Scope 1 emissions encompass the direct greenhouse gas (GHG) releases from resources a company owns and controls. These emissions enter the atmosphere as an immediate consequence of the company's operations. It's important to note that all fuel consumption resulting in GHG emissions must be accounted for within Scope 1. Scope 1 is categorised into four main areas: | ||
| - Stationary combustion; such as fuels and heating sources. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On this and the next three lines, commas instead of semicolons:
Suggested change
| - Stationary combustion; such as fuels and heating sources. | |
| - Stationary combustion, such as fuels and heating sources. |
|
|
||
| ### Scope 2 | ||
| Includes all indirect emissions from the generation of the electricity purchased and used by an organisation at local or international sites. This is a much larger list for a software company. The most prominent is the electricity produced to run computers, office lights and office A/C and heating systems. | ||
| Scope 2 includes all indirect emissions from the generation of energy purchased by an organisation. The most common is electricity consumption used by equipment, lighting, heating and cooling. The [GHG Corporate Standard](https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf) recommends multiplying electricity consumption by the supplier specific emissions factor ([carbon intensity](#carbon-intensity)) to calculate the GHG emissions impact. If the details about the electricity supply are unavailable, it is recommended to use the regional grid carbon intensity. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| Scope 2 includes all indirect emissions from the generation of energy purchased by an organisation. The most common is electricity consumption used by equipment, lighting, heating and cooling. The [GHG Corporate Standard](https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf) recommends multiplying electricity consumption by the supplier specific emissions factor ([carbon intensity](#carbon-intensity)) to calculate the GHG emissions impact. If the details about the electricity supply are unavailable, it is recommended to use the regional grid carbon intensity. | |
| Scope 2 includes all indirect emissions from the generation of energy purchased by an organisation. The most common is electricity consumption used by equipment, lighting, heating and cooling. The [GHG Corporate Standard](https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf) recommends multiplying electricity consumption by the supplier specific emissions factor ([carbon intensity](#carbon-intensity)) to calculate the GHG emissions impact. If the details about the electricity supply are unavailable, recommends using the regional grid carbon intensity. |
|
|
||
| {% include categoryLabel.html label="CatO" %} | ||
|
|
||
| Scope 2 applies to the electricity consumption of all on-site IT equipment and devices. This includes all on-premise employee devices such as computers, monitors; networking and infrastructure; and servers and storage. Energy used for lighting, heating and cooling is out of scope in the TCS, but would be accounted for in an organisation's wider GHG accounting. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| Scope 2 applies to the electricity consumption of all on-site IT equipment and devices. This includes all on-premise employee devices such as computers, monitors; networking and infrastructure; and servers and storage. Energy used for lighting, heating and cooling is out of scope in the TCS, but would be accounted for in an organisation's wider GHG accounting. | |
| Scope 2 applies to the electricity consumption of all on-site IT equipment and devices. This includes all on-premise employee devices such as computers; monitors; networking and infrastructure; and servers and storage. Energy used for lighting, heating and cooling is out of scope in the TCS, but would be accounted for in an organisation's wider GHG accounting. |
Or "computers and monitors" if you prefer.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Resolves SF-495
https://scottlogic.atlassian.net/jira/software/projects/SF/boards/76?selectedIssue=SF-495
Description of Change
Checklist