Best Foot Forward

A growing percentage of Reed Elsevier's revenue comes from the online part of their business – over 50% last year compared with 37% in 2006 - and so they consider it important to properly assess the environmental impacts of new delivery methods.

The study looked at the full life cycle impact of production: preparation, typesetting, printing/distribution, online hosting, and end user behaviour. We reviewed the overall impact of production (both direct such as utilities/fuel use and indirect such as materials and waste) utilising two years of data to compare the efficiency of both delivery channels. 

As a result of the study, Reed Elsevier are tackling business travel and commuting emissions (a very significant part of the product footprint). They are also surveying online customers to see if a tool providing advice on the environmental impact of their usage behaviour would be of interest.

Other recommendations included licensing remote journal printing for paper copy subscribers which would cut carbon emissions by 11%.

A summary of our report is available here.

To offset these emissions Jamie helped fund a number of projects with Climate Care - including one to improve the energy efficiency of cooking stoves in Cambodia. This is believed to be the first time a TV travel series has become 'carbon neutral'.

'Jamie's American Roadtrip' visited New York, Los Angeles, Arizona, Louisiana, Georgia and Wyoming over an eight-month shoot but often with long gaps between each location. The series will be shown on Channel 4 in September - with a book to follow.

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.