Best Foot Forward

CEMARS (Certified Emissions Measurement and Reduction Scheme) provides certification to ISO14064 Part 1 and requires all Scope 1 and 2 emissions to be reported and four mandatory Scope 3 emissions. BFF is providing a range of consultancy services for organisations of all sizes, informing applicants on setting boundaries, collecting data, entering data and identifying emissions reductions opportunities.

BFF’s Managing Director Paul Cooper commented: “We are already seeing the impact of the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme on the market with renewed focus on energy use for participants. The league table element of the scheme has also created much debate about how to improve league table positions and reduce scheme costs. We have been impressed by the content of CEMARS and approach taken by Achilles, so are excited to provide support to companies applying for the scheme. The key factor is action to reduce emissions, and we believe that widespread uptake of CEMARS can make a difference to reducing emissions from the UK’s public and private sectors”.

Find out more about the CEMARS scheme here or contact paul@bestfootforward.com

Take transport emissions: despite their caveat that the figures should be taken with a 'pinch of salt', it's easy to see a hole in the calculations as big as the Premier League wage bill (£1.3billion/year). The article reckons international spectator travel is c. 33% of emissions - equal to that of competitor travel. This doesn't pass a sense check. To explain here is a quick Fermi estimate:

There are expected to be c. 500, 000 spectators, with 150,000 from Africa. So lets say 400,000 international travellers.  A back of an envelope estimate of players & staff is as follows: 32 teams x 23 per squad. Lets double for support staff. Heck, let's quintuple it ... That makes 3,500 players & staff. So, the question is: how does the international transport emissions of 3,500 people equate to 400,000 spectators (as their pie chart suggests)? We know emissions per passenger km are higher for 1st class air travel ... but this wouldn't make up the difference! A private jet for each player perhaps?

One potential answer is that the analyst has not allocated 100% of those spectator travel emissions to the World Cup event (spectators will be travelling for other reasons too - a nice safari perhaps). This argument is less strong for 'destination events' such as a World Cup or Olympic Games as they would be considered the primary motivation for travel.

Interestingly, a guest on Radio 4's Today Programme this morning predicted a limited increase in total visitors to South Africa this year, hundreds of thousands below expectations. If this is the case then transport emissions will not have increased much against an average year. Whether this is because of the economic downturn or non-football fans shunning the country is unclear. It it was the latter then there is a strong argument for including only the increase in transport emissions above a baseline scenario.

As you can see there are many competing approaches to take in environmental accounting, each with their own advantages and disadvantages.

We're not trying to be pedants and really welcome the advent of more numbers in discussions about sustainability. However, in order to retain the value of environmental accounting, all practitioners need to make sure the numbers stack up - or at least explain their assumptions.

The analysis will examine emissions sources from across the supply chain – from farm to consumer – and highlight emissions reduction opportunities. Footprint results will be presented by dairy product and for the industry as a whole.

Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead said: “Scotland’s dairy sector plays a vital role in supporting our rural communities and has already taken great strides to become more resource efficient.

"This project will provide further opportunities to reduce its collective carbon footprint and utilise Scotland’s natural assets to deliver a sustainable future for dairy production and help us to meet our ambitious climate change targets.

"It's also important in demonstrating to consumers that the dairy sector takes its duty to improve the environment seriously."

The HLF Footprinter pilot presently underway is discussed and the author notes that "HLF is the first lottery distributor to do this, but other major funders are likely to follow".

There are versions of the Footprinter software available to suit a wide variety of applications, and full customisation is possible. Visit www.footprinter.com to explore the available versions, or for a short video demonstration.

Footprinter has been a key tool in his company’s efforts to address carbon and environmental risk. James had this to say about Standard Footprinter: “As a growing business in a tough market, we knew that we needed to start measuring and managing our carbon emissions to keep a competitive edge. Standard Footprinter provided us with a great, free way to get started, and to monitor our achievements over time.” There are several versions of the Footprinter software available, and full customisation is possible. Visit www.footprinter.com to explore the available versions, or for a short video demonstration.

This research measures the risk retained within the UK economy by the various party’s targets using the government’s own methodology for carbon pricing. The slower or lower the abatement levels, the higher the level of risk retained within the economy. But the question remains, what is a reasonable level of carbon risk, and how much should we be investing to abate carbon? For more information see our short report.

Here's an abridged extract from the report ...

The London 2012 Carbon Footprint Study was devised in part through necessity. No Summer Games has ever attempted to map its carbon footprint before. Equally, no existing footprinting standard for events can be applied meaningfully to an Olympic and Paralympic Games.

In the original London 2012 bid, the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) made a commitment to deliver a ‘low‑carbon Games’. In order to define their performance, however, it was clear that the scope and scale of Games‑related emissions needed to be properly measured and understood. That is why in the second half of 2007, London 2012 began the process of measuring its carbon footprint.

This report arises from work commissioned by LOCOG – in partnership with the ODA and the LDA – in March 2008. It followed an initial study carried out from June to November 2007 to scope and provide an early estimate of the carbon footprint of the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. Both phases of this work were carried out by Best Foot Forward.