Best Foot Forward

The debate over the impact of bottled water is almost as old as the geology which filters the product ...

For many the environmental impact of bottled drinking water has become symbolic of a wasteful society that consumes fossil fuel-intensive products when lower impact alternatives exist.

Conversely, those who support bottled water consumption point to health and taste advantages – and say that by buying locally you can minimise transport impacts and help protect British countryside and rural employment. Bottled water advocates also say that their product is often purchased as a substitute for highly processed soft drinks - which have a similar carbon footprint, but aren't targeted in the same manner.

A few clarifications about The Standard article worth noting:

The article was written without input from BFF, and consequently shows a degree of journalistic interpretation. For example: "The study warns that Parliament is damaging the environment by refusing to use only tap water." As environmental accountants we present results objectively and allow clients to come to their own conclusions, with this quote being the conclusion of the journalist. 

Also - the article says that a 750ml bottle of water emits 300 times more emissions than the equivalent volume of tap water. This comparison was not taken from our report - and we do not know the source of these figures.

You can read the article for yourself here.

The beef story is a fine example of the challenge facing environmental accountants when GHG emissions have to be allocated to co-products which result from a single system. The ENDS article (pp22-23) carries a quote from Nicky: “Rules governing how emissions are allocated between co-products are complex and not standardised, meaning it is possible to get quite a range of answers depending on your approach." She added: "It is good practice to disclose these assumptions”. The lack of this disclosure prompted Nicky to suggest the Asda media release may be “a triumph of reallocation over reduction” - a comment ENDS decided not to include!

BFF's work for LOCOG, ODA and LDA for over two years doing the total carbon footprint and carbon management strategy for the Games, was also recognised on p22 of the supplement.

Initial finding are posted below. A full report will be published once the other outstanding issues are resolved and BFF’s review is complete. BFF’s initial review of the June 2009 Conversion Factors revealed the following errors:

1. Annex 6: Air passenger travel, all factors: the total GHG is less than total CO₂. This is because the GHG formula fails to uplift by the 109% distance assumption. [Now Fixed]
2. Annex 6: Air passenger travel, domestic: the total CO₂ cell has no formula. [Now Fixed]
3. Annex 9: Biofuels emission factors are calculated, but the formulas refer to incorrect fuel properties (Annex 11).

BFF have also raised other concerns including inconsistencies between the way in which overseas and domestic electricity is accounted (Annex 10) and the materials life-cycle conversion factors (Annex 9).

The film can be viewed for free online at www.home-2009.com.

It was very interesting, therefore, for BFF to be invited by the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and World Resources Institute (WRI) as an expert adviser to comment on, and help develop, new Scope 3 Guidance. This will eventually form part of the existing and widely used GHG Protocol (published jointly by the WBCSD and WRI).

The meeting in Washington DC brought together leading businesses, academics and practitioners to discuss the lessons learned from implementation of the current GHG Protocol and PAS2050. As one of the very few organisations with practical PAS2050, ISO14064-1 and GHG Protocol experience, BFF’s contribution was much appreciated.

Whilst it is difficult to summarise the detailed technical discussions that took place, the general impression was that considerable progress can be made on tightening up Scope 3 guidance but that, as national emissions reporting becomes more widespread, tools such as Footprinter™, which allow emissions to be summed across the supply chain, will slowly replace the tedious life cycle modelling that Scope 3 estimation requires.

The Prince contrasted interdependent natural systems that work bottom-up by developing strong roots to support the whole, compared to the current globalised economic model that imposes a top-down economic and cultural monoculture. The Prince proposes that this dominant model is contrary to the more complex ecological balances developed by nature, and therefore poses a significant threat.  

UK residents can watch/listen on BBC iPlayer here.

The Bill only passed by the narrowest of margins (219 to 212 votes) and was opposed by many leading environmental groups. Greenpeace called it “a victory for coal industry lobbyists, oil industry lobbyists, agriculture industry lobbyists, steel and cement industry lobbyists, among many others.” Friends of the Earth similarly highlighted the hijacking of the complex 1,300 page Bill by big business; “the House of Representatives remains so corrupted by special interests and special interest cronies… that it is thwarting the will of the American people”.

Maybe all is not lost. By publicising the Bill’s serious flaws environmentalists are clearly aiming to secure amendments to the Bill  in the Senate. To have backed the original text would have weakened their case and sent the wrong message to legislators.

As it stands the Bill has so many concessions that it cannot hope to deliver the promised carbon savings; a 17% reduction on a 2005 baseline by 2020 and 83% reductions by 2050. When the scheme is introduced in 2012 a carbon permit will cost an estimated $13 per tonne, the equivalent of adding somewhere between $15 to $40 on to an individual’s annual motoring costs – hardly dramatic.

Arguably, the more fundamental issue is whether a market-based system can effectively deliver change full stop. After all, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme has hardly been a success with carbon prices falling at just the time when they should be incentivising efficiency improvements. Since the damage of one tonne of carbon dioxide remains the same regardless of its market price, isn’t it more appropriate to tax carbon at source rather than leave pricing to the whim of the market?

Most leading environmentalists agree. It is the politicians who need convincing.