Comments on: The Cost of Corporate Carbon Footprinting

By: Indirect & Direct Cost of CMS « Information Systems for Environmental Sustainability

Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:42:17 +0000

[...] costs, though a “startup” and “recurring” fee is typical for SaaS models. Green Research has some info. that pertains to CMS indirectly: UPS spends $1 million per year to measure its [...]

By: Carbon Footprinting at CPGs « Green Research™

Carbon Footprinting at CPGs « Green Research™ — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:11:42 +0000

[...] my post on the cost of carbon footprinting has been so popular with my readers, I took the opportunity to [...]

By: Chris Lindley

Chris Lindley — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:15:42 +0000

An Impact Assessment form is available on the recently published web page for the UK DEFRA’s “draft guidance on how to measure and report your greenhouse gas emissions”.

It includes example costs and time scales of performing a GHG Inventory based on company size. The hourly rates used in their calculations may be a bit low but you can substitute those for your own figures.

It also includes estimates of savings in resources through improved efficiency and case studies supplied by the UK Carbon Trust.

Available here – http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/greenhouse-gas/index.htm

By: Paul Palazzolo

Paul Palazzolo — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:45:25 +0000

David,
Thanks for a solid article on this subject. I have always wondered about this subject myself.

By: Joseph Pallant

Joseph Pallant — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:42:13 +0000

Very well laid out. Thanks for the great primer. I would add a note regarding the ability of organizations to report to “The Climate Registry”. All US emitters of over 25,000 tonnes CO2e per year will be regulated as having to report their emissions. One can also voluntary post to “The Climate Registry” using the WRI protocol, or ISO14064-1.

Happy counting!

Joseph

By: David Schatsky

David Schatsky — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:09:13 +0000

Thanks, Chris!

By: David Schatsky

David Schatsky — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:51:00 +0000

Thanks for this perspective, Marc.

By: Marc Karell

Marc Karell — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:35:07 +0000

Excellent points, Mr. Klaftner. You are right that any company can do its own inventory. It’s just a matter of whether they have the time to do it (in a constrained business world, env. professionals are already overtaxed) and the confidence. Many companies would rather have a new responsibility done by a 3rd party so they can learn (and perhaps have someone to blame).

I am a consultant who has done several GHG emission inventories. First, I must echo what Mr. Klaftner said. The USEPA contractor on Climate Leaders does give limited, but free and definitely useful advice. To answer the initial question about the cost of a “typical” GHG emissions inventory, a lot of time (and therefore cost) is devoted to data gathering. I always give the choice of facilities gathering their own data based on guidance or a tool from me or have me in there to lead the way. The former certainly cuts down the consultant cost. But as the consultant, I must accept facility-generated data as correct (unless it is obviously missing or makes no sense). If a facility or company wants me there to gather/review the data, then there is a better chance of quality data and saving their internal people time, but that adds to the consultant cost. That seems to be a major determinant of cost. Hope this is helpful.

Marc Karell, P.E.
Climate Change & Environmental Services, LLC

By: Bruce Klafter

Bruce Klafter — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 01:16:40 +0000

Thanks for the post. I think a lot of the confusion about carbon accounting stems from an apples and oranges phenomenon. It shouldn’t be that costly for a typical company, including even a “typical” manufacturer, to calculate its emissions if it can get all of the required inputs. For most companies the lion’s share of emissions are Scope 2 emissions from purchased electricity and Scope 1 natural gas, propane or fuel oil. When you described what UPS and Starbucks and others were doing it was clear they were deep into Scope 3 (transportation, supply chain, products, etc.) If you look just at Scope 1 and 2 emissions from a Starbucks outlet, the numbers are very small. While I appreciate what consultants can do for me (having been one myself in a former life!) there is an inherent bias on the part of consultants who either imply or state outright that a company can’t or shouldn’t do an inventory on its own. The fact remains that most Fortune 500 companies started with internal inventories, using employee time and elbow grease, spreadsheets and the WRI Protocol. That approach is an investment on the part of companies that pays off in knowledgeable employees who can do future inventory work or who can closely supervise a consultant. You also make a real important point about USEPA assistance; we received very valuable and expert assistance through Climate Leaders. It did not dramatically alter our inventory, but they certainly enhanced it and the learning was a great aid in refining our approach. It allows us to state that our inventory has been verified and lends it credibility. For this round of the CDP, Climate Leaders also provided some useful verbiage that we added to our response.

By: Chris Lindley

Chris Lindley — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:48:30 +0000

Hi David.

It’s worth mentioning that as well as the costs, there should be as strong a focus on the return on investment of performing a carbon footprint project as well.

I’ve just posted some thoughts on this here – http://blog.rev-id.com/2009/06/return-on-investment-of-corporate.html

Thanks