August 19, 2008
GHG Reporting Practices Of Most Industries Overlook 75% Of Emissions
Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University are urging companies to broaden their carbon footprint calculations with a new method that estimates the amount of GHG emissions across all tiers of the entire supply chain for all industries.
Carbon footprints are typically reported in “tiers.” Tier one includes emissions by the company’s own activities. Tier two expands to include emissions from electricity and steam purchased by the company. Tier three includes all other emissions from the company’s entire supply chain of goods and services.
Companies usually opt to report only their tier one or tier two GHG emissions, but Carnegie Mellon researchers H. Scott Matthews, Chris T. Hendrickson, and Christopher L. Weber say two-thirds of U.S. industries would overlook 75 percent of GHG emissions if they continue to neglect reporting on tier three emissions.
“By far, most companies are pursuing very limited footprints — toe prints really— instead of comprehensive ones,” said Matthews in a statement.
The average industry has only 14 percent of its total greenhouse gas emissions in tier one and 12 percent in tier two for a total of 26 percent.
Advertisers
Pew Center Conference: Corporate Energy Efficiency
Reduce energy consumption, lower emissions and save money. >>
Join the Discussion
Recent Daily News [ see all ]
- 02/09/2010
- 02/08/2010
- 02/05/2010
- Caterpillar Puts Weight Behind $1.5B FutureGen CCS Project
- WR Grace Targets 20% Energy Intensity Cuts
- As UK Cap and Trade Falters, Government May Prop Up Carbon Prices
- Federal Government Proposes Climate Change Office
- University of Florida Football Complex Uses 25% Less Energy Than Similar Buildings
- 34% of Execs Cite Economy As Impediment to Adopting Sustainability
- Energy Storage Project Aims to Extend Utility of Solar Power
- Ford to Debut Electric Commercial Van
- SF OKs $150M in Property Tax Financing for Energy Efficiency, Renewables
- BNSF Signs Deal for Measuring Energy Efficiency
- Roundup: GE, IBM, Audi ‘Green Police,’ EU Carbon
- Accidental to Purposeful Sustainability: Using What You Already Have to Grow Sustainability
- Holiday Inn Express, Bardessono Boast Energy Efficiency, Renewables
- Massachusetts Adds $20M in Solar to 12 Wastewater Plants
- Novo Nordisk Cuts CO2 Emissions by 32%, Water Use by 20%
- Roundup: Dr. Suess Cease-and-Desist, Philips, EPA, Melting Drywall
- Canadian Environment Minister Denounces Quebec Vehicle Emissions Regs
- Energy-Efficient Lighting Saves Canadian Tire $6M in 2009
- Pixar Data Center Saves Money Via Cold Aisle Containment
- HVAC Software Helps University of Texas Save $500K a Year
- Data Centers Can Apply for Energy Star Rating in June
- Rytec’s Fast Cold Storage Door Helps Save Energy
- Burt’s Bees Decreases Waste to Landfill by 51.5% in 2009
- National RES Would Benefit Southeastern, Manufacturing States
- TBR Evaluates Sustainability Strategies at Dell, CSC, Cisco
- CEO Report Envisions $6 Trillion in Sustainable New Business Opportunities
- IBM ‘Cloud Computing’ Data Center Saves 15% in Energy Costs
- Bipartisan Senatorial Effort Seeks Cap and Trade for non-CO2 Emissions
- Collapsible Ocean Shipping Container May Help Reduce Emissions
- To Ensure Future Compliance, Utility Asks for CO2 Limits
- Analyzing Energy-Efficiency Metrics Can Reduce Energy Use in Data Centers
- Goose Island Touts Low-Carbon Brew
Charts [ see all ]
Popular Topics
Energy Efficiency
Data Center
Emissions
Facilities
Electricity
Sustainability
Water
Supply Chain
Efficiency
Green Marketing
Strategy & Leadership
Research
Fleets & Transportation
Carbon Finance
Conventional Energy
Clean Energy
Waste & Recycling
Paper & Packaging
Policy & Law
Utilities
Construction
Comments and Discussions
John Bergdoll on Accidental to Purposeful Sustainability: Using What You Already Have to Grow Sustainability
"I was following the logic your article..."
Liz Amason on Clorox Comes Clean With Chemical Content on Web Site
"But look at their ingredients listings. For example, their regular liquid bleach..."
Rigidflexibility on Companies Going Green Should Ignore Green Consumer
"I was about to market a metal working fluid that is 98>% Soybean oil and..."
Stuart on Canadian Environment Minister Denounces Quebec Vehicle Emissions Regs
"Canadians have been waiting for the feds to act on climate change for..."
Steve Wolford on Sports Teams Embrace Sustainability
"Hello Environmental Leader, We just returned from the National Sport Forum in Baltimore. Team and..."
Mauibrad on Bipartisan Senatorial Effort Seeks Cap and Trade for non-CO2 Emissions
"Finally some enlightened ideas out of Congress!"
Cameron Green on Data Centers Can Apply for Energy Star Rating in June
"I did a blog post about this. Essentially PUE doesn’t give you very much..."
Reader Comments
The methodology used for calculating a company’s carbon footprint depends on what they are trying to measure. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol developed by the World Resources Institute and World Business Council on Sustainable Development is the standard for calculating a corporate footprint. Many companies chose to calculate Scope 1 and 2 emissions because these are the only emissions that can be accurately calculated or will be subject to any regulation, and the scope 3 emissions are someone else’s scope 1 or 2 emissions. A company wouldn’t construct an income statement using the income and expenditures of its buyers and suppliers. Why should it do this in carbon accounting?
Estimating the financial and greenhouse gas positions of buyers and suppliers is useful in understanding a firm’s exposure to the market and potential regulations. However, estimates have inherent inaccuracies. Companies which want to account for these scope 3 emissions should request that their buyers and suppliers conduct greenhouse gas inventories. Companies wishing to calculate the GHG generated over a product’s lifecycle should use the Supply Chain protocol at http://www.ghgprotocol.org
I found the Carnegie Mellon press release to be misguided and self-serving.
Juan | August 20th, 2008
I would have to agree with Juan’s comments. This press release from Carnegie is only making a “The Sky is Blue” statement. Not only would a companies buyers and suppliers have to report their Scope 1 and 2 emissions, but carve out the percentage of emissions for each customer. At which point, those emissions would become Scope 3.
David | August 22nd, 2008
This article incorrectly refers to the GHG Protocol’s “Tiers.” What the writer is actually referring to is Scope 1, 2, & 3. The Tiers, on the other hand, indicate the data quality. Higher Tiers mean more exact activity data is being used, lower Tiers mean that less accurate data is available.
Pablo | November 21st, 2008