Insights on calculating the right approach to assessing the carbon footprint

Glenn Hansen, CEO of Reduce2.com, shares some lessons learned from calculating carbon footprint of corporate events As I ponder lessons learned from conducting carbon footprint calculations, I am reminded of Mark Twain’s quote, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” In my experience, I believe that is too strong of a statement, but declaring “boundaries and scope” for greenhouse gas reporting allows one to avoid data collection that is too “uncomfortable”. Uncomfortable perhaps because of what it might reveal, but, more likely, uncomfortable to expend personal energy to collect the right data. This is the big challenge to carbon calculations. Event planners need to rely on their supply chain to provide specific information and for some it is too hard to do. It’s convenient then to declare something “out of boundary”. It’s not a lie, particularly if the organisation is transparent with how boundaries and scope were decided. Without the transparency, we are getting close to a lie, or we might use the politically correct term… ‘green washing’. In this case, transparency mitigates risk. Transparency with a plan for continuous improvement is applaudable. Let’s have a look at the GHG Protocol for Scope 3 emissions reporting. There are 15 categories for reporting. Eight are considered ‘upstream’ and seven are ‘downstream’. The downstream segments are usually out of boundary for events. They simply don’t apply. Of the upstream, I find most organisations are not yet equipped to collect all the data points required. The category with the greatest impact is Category 6 – business travel. This category is generally deemed within boundary given the amount and distance of travel by attending planners, event staff, suppliers, speakers and delegates. How do all these people get from home to the departure airport, from the arrival airport to the venue and then trace those steps back home? If the organiser provides group ground transportation from the arrival airport to the venue, that part is easy to collect. But how many organisers are providing this? Home to the airport and back is a challenge. I have not seen any organiser with complete ground transportation data. Flights can be a challenge if the organising company does not require attendees to use a designated travel booking service where the data is centralised. To conduct the calculation to its fullest, data on legs of flight, class of service, and private vs. commercial aircraft use must all be collected. Yes, data can be estimated on short-, medium- and long-haul flights, but there is not one single solution for this. Different tools will provide different calculations. If you switch tools from one year to the next, you will have non-comparable data. Next, throw in ‘radiative forcing’. Using this in your calculations could double or quadruple your emissions data. Radiative forcing is the production of contrails by jets at altitude. Contrails reflect up and down. The down effect prevents emissions from escaping thus warming the planet. But scientists cannot agree on precisely what the Radiative Forcing Index (RFI) should be. Therefore, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), which offers a free tool to provide the carbon emissions of flight, tells us, “…Carbon Emissions Calculator is limited to the calculation of the CO2 amounts released into the atmosphere by the aircraft engines during a flight. Consequently, the Calculator does not quantify the climate change impact of aircraft emissions using the Radiative Forcing Index (RFI). The scientific community has not yet reached consensus on the use of the RFI or other such multipliers and therefore ICAO will only adopt a multiplier if and when the scientific community reaches a general agreement on this issue.” For an excellent paper, Radiative Forcing Associated with Emissions from Air Travel, check Stanford’s Scope 3 Emissions Program. In my opinion, we should consistently use RFI or not at all. Category 1: Purchased Goods and Services. This category includes GHG emissions from purchased goods (e.g., F&B, gifts) and services (e.g., venue). It is deemed relevant due to the number of discrete item types and total items purchased by the organiser for delegates including space. Some Banquet Event Orders (BEO) provide very specific information as to the type of food consumed – but not always. Vegetarian, fish, or vegan meals have a lower emissions factor compared to chicken or beef. With beverages, the unit of measurement is usually the issue. Is the wine reported as 750 ml bottles, or five ounces per glass (about 150 ml)? Granularity is needed, but it requires forethought by planners to ask for very precise counts. Tons of freight and distance shipped can generally be provided for staging, AV, swag, and other materials. It often requires a follow-up question or two to learn of the mode of transport since each has its own emissions factor. The more developed venues can provide an energy consumption figure by hour by square foot, including an indication if renewable energy is part of the consumption. However, I have seen some data that includes meeting room space reported as in use for 24 hours because it was ‘on hold’, rather than the hours the room was occupied and heated or cooled. It is generally less of an issue with hotels since they typically provide data on energy consumption per guest room night. If not, the Cornell Hotel Sustainability Index facilitated by Greenview, provides comparable data that can be used in your calculations. The remaining challenge is waste. All too often facilities cannot provide weight of waste for a specific event by reuse, recycle, landfill or incineration. It may have to be apportioned, which requires an additional ask of the venue. How do we solve this? The devil is in the details and requires planning. For transport, I envision organisers gathering this information as part of the registration process, probably in an app – one that has ‘required information’ before its features can be utilised. For the other data points, planners must ask for more granular information as part of their RFP-site selection process. The winners will be those in the supply chain who can help planners better manage their carbon emissions budgets. Net Zero Carbon Events initiative is working on a solution, too. With a standard data input tool, it will be easier for the supply chain to comply with planners needs. I encourage you to check it out and get involved. Image by Freepik