If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now
Climate Counts ranking

Corporate Carbon Emissions Report Finds 51% Emitting Unsustainable Levels

Climate Counts rankingAutodesk, Unilever and Eli Lilly are the top three sustainable companies, according to a study analyzing greenhouse gas emissions of 100 companies.

Climate Counts 2013 Carbon Study looked at companies that have voluntarily disclosed their emissions publicly since 2005 through CDP.

It analyzed the companies against science-based targets that seek to limit climate change to 2 degrees Celsius and found 49 percent rated sustainably. On the flip side, however, 51 percent of companies are emitting unsustainable levels of CO2 with UPS, Molson Coors and Weyerhaeuser scoring the bottom three spots in the ranking.

The study looked at factors such as emissions output and financial performance (contribution to gross domestic product) to assign a company-level carbon budget and to determine whether a company’s emissions are on track with the reductions called for by the scientific community to limit climate change to 2 degrees and stabilize greenhouse gas emissions. Any company scoring less than or equal to one is considered “sustainable,” while any company scoring greater than one would be considered “unsustainable.”

Of the 49 companies that scored sustainably, 25 grew their revenue as their emissions declined. Climate Counts says this proves that decoupling of growth and emissions is possible, at least in the short term.

The top two companies have histories of using a science-based approach to setting carbon targets, the study says. Since 2009, Autodesk has been applying C-FACT (Corporate Finance Approach to Climate-stabilizing Targets), the company’s open-source methodology tied to IPCC targets for GHG emissions reductions. Additionally, Unilever subsidiary Ben & Jerry’s piloted an early version of the Center for Sustainable Organizations Context-Based Carbon Metric in its 2006 Social & Environmental Assessment Report.

Last year Unilever topped the Climate Counts Company Scorecard ranking of corporate sustainability leaders.

 

Practical Guide to Transforming Energy Data into Better Buildings
Sponsored By: Lucid

  
Video: Expense & Data Management for Complex Payables
Sponsored By: Ecova, Inc.

  
Leveraging EHS Software in Support of Culture Changes
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS

  
The Corporate Sustainability Professional's Guide to Better Data Management
Sponsored By: Urjanet

  

4 thoughts on “Corporate Carbon Emissions Report Finds 51% Emitting Unsustainable Levels

  1. If 51% of companies that voluntarily report their emissions part are emitting unsustainable levels, I wonder what percentage of non-reporting companies emit levels which are unsustainable? Sadly, that number is probably somewhere near 95%.

  2. Remaining Climate Blame Believers;

    When you look your child in the eyes and tell them science agrees a crisis will happen for them you become no better than a fear mongering neocon for science has NEVER agreed it will happen. It’s just you and news editors and politicians agreeing it WILL be a crisis. Prove us wrong and find us one single IPCC warning that agrees beyond “could be” a crisis.

    Believe all you like but do as science does and NEVER say a crisis WILL happen, only could.

    And get up to date:

    *Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians.

    *Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).

    *Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier.

    *Obama had not mentioned the crisis in two State of the Unions addresses.

    Deny that.

  3. We are now up to at least the seventh time that mememine69 has cut&paste essentially the same meaningless troll-line into a comment section at this site. Here are some of the other occasions:
    http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/08/09/agriculture-assets-face-8-trillion-risk-from-climate-change-water-scarcity/comment-page-1/#comment-1155915
    http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/03/18/manufacturers-freaked-out-about-climate-guidelines/comment-page-1/#comment-961141
    http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/04/22/climate-change-and-the-water-industry/comment-page-1/#comment-1019648
    http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/05/20/taking-stock-of-climate-change-efforts-as-european-carbon-market-falters-ca-expands-cap-and-trade-to-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-1062619
    http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/09/12/cdp-global-500-10-of-largest-companies-produce-73-of-ghgs/comment-page-1/#comment-1194478
    http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/12/18/cas-climate-change-trilogy-research-reduce-adapt/
    As on the other occasions, I reply that such troll-lines are false and irrelevant. OccupyWallStreet, for example, has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. And Julian Assange is likewise completely irrelevant to the discussion. Furthermore, the silly nonsense about scientific certainty is just that: silly nonsense. Such remarks say far more about the lack of scientific understanding possessed by the person making them; than they do about any science or about the well-accepted scientific standing of climate change. Such remarks also represent the denier fall-back position; when they realize that they are unable to defend their head-in-the-sand position by debating the science. The well-accepted scientific standing of climate change among those who are trained to do the science; stands by itself. Despite the untrained and illogical denial-troll opinions expressed here and elsewhere.

  4. I also suggest that EnvironmentalLeader might need to re-think their policies concerning this particular denier-troll: mememine69, AKA CO2good, AKA Inventor, AKA ?. At the very least, maybe it would be a good idea to begin to refuse to post such repeated cut&paste troll-bombs. And if they were to stop being posted, then my cut&paste reply-bombs would naturally no longer appear either. Wouldn’t the readers of EnvironmentalLeader, who come here for more worthy fare; be well-served by such a policy change? A quick visit over to Grist would lead to a story they just published about a blog being run that has started just such a denier-troll exclusion policy. Check it out – and then consider implementing something similar here.

Leave a Comment