Comments on: We Are Spirits in a (Green) Material World http://www.talkstandards.com/we-are-spirits-in-a-green-material-world/ Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:30:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Mattias Ganslandt http://www.talkstandards.com/we-are-spirits-in-a-green-material-world/comment-page-1/#comment-204 Mattias Ganslandt Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:54:45 +0000 http://talkstandards.com/?p=2996#comment-204 Very true. It is very difficult to have a one mile race if the definition is unclear. As it happens there are at least three defintions, including statue 1609 meters, nautical 1852 meters, Swedish 10000 meters (no I am not kidding). You are absolutely right that measurement is key. How to optimize if you do not know what you are optimizing. Also, markets have failed for less severe problems than this. If sellers and buyers disagree on what is traded we all know that negotiations can fail. Given that this is a global coordination problem it is natuiral to think that ISO should play a key role? Very true. It is very difficult to have a one mile race if the definition is unclear. As it happens there are at least three defintions, including statue 1609 meters, nautical 1852 meters, Swedish 10000 meters (no I am not kidding). You are absolutely right that measurement is key. How to optimize if you do not know what you are optimizing. Also, markets have failed for less severe problems than this. If sellers and buyers disagree on what is traded we all know that negotiations can fail. Given that this is a global coordination problem it is natuiral to think that ISO should play a key role?

]]> By: Anastasia O'Rourke http://www.talkstandards.com/we-are-spirits-in-a-green-material-world/comment-page-1/#comment-200 Anastasia O'Rourke Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:34:29 +0000 http://talkstandards.com/?p=2996#comment-200 Many large companies now make environmental or corporate sustainability reports. But that doesn't mean that they contain terribly useful information, especially when it comes to the harder performance-type data. Although there are various guidelines and standards for reporting (in some cases, legally mandated) such as the Global Reporting Initiative and CDP, taking a close look at the data contained in these reports is an eye opener. Of all the indicators that companies are asked to report on, you would think that GHG emissions (or CO2 equivents) would be the most robust> after all there are financial costs and benefits, and in some regions at least, government requirements to do so. Moreover there are standards for reporting on emissions, from the GHG Protocol (from WRI and the WBCSD), guidance from the IPCCC and so on. There are loads of carbon calculators and tools on the market, but quite alot of ferment on the standards they rely upon. Confusion reigns, and consultants are raking it in. Many problems surface in using this data: what scope of the company are they reporting on? What methodology or calculator is being used and how do you translate between them? And the offset market is going through much of the same. For financial analysts seeking to understand climate risk, sorting through all this is not an insignificant task, and one requiring a degree of specialist knowledge. Though the environmental community would love for climate risk to be a part of any "mainstream"analysis of a company, its going to be awhile till the standards & the understanding of them are up to snuff. My question is: where is the leadership going to come from to bring the different standards together into some sort of cohesive whole? Or would doing so result in the lowest common denominator at this stage in the game? Many large companies now make environmental or corporate sustainability reports. But that doesn’t mean that they contain terribly useful information, especially when it comes to the harder performance-type data. Although there are various guidelines and standards for reporting (in some cases, legally mandated) such as the Global Reporting Initiative and CDP, taking a close look at the data contained in these reports is an eye opener.

Of all the indicators that companies are asked to report on, you would think that GHG emissions (or CO2 equivents) would be the most robust> after all there are financial costs and benefits, and in some regions at least, government requirements to do so. Moreover there are standards for reporting on emissions, from the GHG Protocol (from WRI and the WBCSD), guidance from the IPCCC and so on. There are loads of carbon calculators and tools on the market, but quite alot of ferment on the standards they rely upon. Confusion reigns, and consultants are raking it in.

Many problems surface in using this data: what scope of the company are they reporting on? What methodology or calculator is being used and how do you translate between them? And the offset market is going through much of the same.

For financial analysts seeking to understand climate risk, sorting through all this is not an insignificant task, and one requiring a degree of specialist knowledge. Though the environmental community would love for climate risk to be a part of any “mainstream”analysis of a company, its going to be awhile till the standards & the understanding of them are up to snuff.

My question is: where is the leadership going to come from to bring the different standards together into some sort of cohesive whole? Or would doing so result in the lowest common denominator at this stage in the game?

]]>