10 / 2020 Navigating The Nuances Of Net-zero Targets
10 / 2020Navigatingthe nuances ofnet-zero targetsAuthorsNewClimate Institute & Data-Driven EnviroLab
Navigatingthe nuances ofnet-zero targetsProject number219051 NewClimate Institute & Data-Driven EnviroLab 2020AuthorsThomas Day, Silke Mooldijk, Takeshi Kuramochi(NewClimate Institute)Angel Hsu, Elwin Lim, Zhi Yi Yeo, Amy Weinfurter,Yin Xi Tan, Ian French, Vasu Namdeo, Odele Tan,Sowmya Raghavan, Ajay Nair (Data Driven Envirolab)DisclaimerThe views and assumptions expressed in thisreport represent the views of the authors and notnecessarily those of the funders and partners.Suggested citationSuggested citation: NewClimate Institute & DataDriven EnviroLab (2020). Navigating the nuances ofnet-zero targets. Research report prepared by theteam of: Thomas Day, Silke Mooldijk and TakeshiKuramochi (NewClimate Institute) and Angel Hsu,Zhi Yi Yeo, Amy Weinfurter, Yin Xi Tan, Ian French,Vasu Namdeo, Odele Tan, Sowmya Raghavan,Elwin Lim, and Ajay Nair (Data-Driven EnviroLab).DesignMeike NaumannIAcknowledgementsMany thanks to following organisations that shared and, inseveral instances, helped address questions regarding climateaction data: Business Ambition for 1.5 C, C40 Cities ClimateLeadership Group, CDP, Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit,Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy, GlobalCovenant of Mayors (EU Secretariat), Science-Based TargetsInitiative, States and Regions Annual disclosure to CDP, inpartnership with The Climate Group, ICLEI carbonn CenterUnder2 Coalition (Secretariat: The Climate Group), UnitedStates Climate Alliance, the United States Climate Mayors.Thanks also to Oscar Widerberg for sharing data on Swedishsubnational climate commitments, and Andrew Clapper for hissupport with CDP data. Special thanks go to Matthew Phillips(UNFCCC) and Todd Edwards (Mission 2020) for providingvaluable feedback and support on the communicationsand outreach of this report, in collaboration with the HighLevel Champions for Chile and UK. Many thanks to Rik vanSteekelenburg for his dedicated support in researchingcompanies’ targets. Thank you to Kelly Levin of the WorldResources Institute for providing review comments.This work was generously funded by the IKEA Foundation(grant no. G-2001-01507).
Table of ContentsIAcknowledgementsIIIList of Figures, Tables and BoxesIVAbbreviations243Nuances of net-zero targets forclimate ambition241Summary6Foreword781Introduction: Relevance and riseof net-zero target setting30234Landscape of net-zero targets814II303.1Overview of nuances andtheir implications for climateambition3.2Reduction of emissions3.2.1Operational measures fordeep decarbonisation3.2.2Electricity-related emissions412.1Terminology of targetsand claims3.2.3Supply chain and out-ofboundary emissions472.2Overview of subnational andcorporate net-zero targets3.3Neutralisation of emissionsthrough offsetting52152.2.1Cities and ng carbon dioxideremoval technologies andpractices4Conclusions: Target transparencyfor accountability and ambition59References70Annex I: Definitions anddata sources73Annex II: Criteria for assessmentof net-zero target nuances
List of Figures, Tablesand BoxesFigures2Figure S1Overview of the key nuances of net-zero target implementation approaches5Figure S2Ten basic criteria for net-zero target transparency14Figure 1Internet searches for net-zero emissions15Figure 2Map of cities and regions pursuing net-zero emissions16Figure 3Population of cities and regions with net-zero targets, by geographic region20Figure 4Revenue of actors pursuing net-zero emissions, according to CDP Industryclassifications22Figure 5Net-zero target years for cities, regions, companies and investors25Figure 6Overview of the key nuances of net-zero target implementation approaches34Figure 7How well planned are targets for emission reductions?34Figure 8Types of renewable electricity supply and procurement constructs implementedby companies36Figure 9REC procurement models41Figure 102019 inventory emissions of companies with net-zero targets, by emission scopeand CDP Industry45Figure 11Number of corporate net-zero actors with scope information45Figure 12Emissions included within the scopes of cities’ and regions’ net-zero targets50Figure 13Trends from carbon credit markets for voluntary offsetting in 201851Figure 14Use of offsetting approaches for subnational actors’ net-zero targetimplementationTables9Table 1Overview of emissions per scope for subnational and corporate actors12Table 2Lexicon of common net-zero terms and vocabulary29Table 3Implications of net-zero target setting approaches for contribution to globaldecarbonisation70Table A1Data sourcesBoxesIII10Box 1Interpretation of climate positive and carbon negative targets11Box 2Making net-zero commitments transparent17Box 3Consumption-based emissions18Box 4China’s subnational actors in support of the country’s 2060 carbon neutralitytarget21Box 5Net-zero goals in hard-to-abate sectors23Box 6Understanding ambition30Box 7Companies aiming for „zero“ emissions
31Box 8Commonly implemented operational measures for decarbonisation36Box 9Types of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs)38Box 10Renewable electricity in the tech industry39Box 11National railways’ 100 percent renewable electricity claims43Box 12Decarbonising the portfolios of commercial financial institutions51Box 13Carbon neutral aviation through low-cost offsets54Box 14Permanence and methodological uncertainties of carbon dioxide removaloutcomes55Box 15Subnational governments’ efforts on Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) CDegrees CelsiusBECCSBiomass Energy with Carbon Capture and StorageCCSCDRCDMCERCO2CO2eCarbon Capture and StorageCarbon Dioxide RemovalClean Development MechanismCertified Emission ReductionCarbon DioxideCarbon Dioxide EquivalentDAC(CS)Direct Air Capture (and Carbon Storage)GDPGHGGross Domestic ProductGreenhouse GasIEAIPCCInternational Energy AgencyIntergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeMRVMonitoring, Reporting and VerificationNDCNZEBNationally Determined Contributions (to the Paris Agreement)Near-Zero Energy BuildingsPPAPower Purchase AgreementRERECRenewable EnergyRenewable Energy CertificateSBTiSMEScience-Based Targets initiativeSmall and Medium-sized EnterpriseUNFCCCUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeAbbreviationsIV
SummaryNavigating the nuances of net-zero targetsanalyses the momentum of targets for net-zeroemissions across companies, cities and regionsworldwide. We seek to unravel the net-zerotargets to better enable the identification of trulyambitious actors and enhance support towardsthem. We offer recommendations for increasingtarget transparency with the aim of achievinggreater accountability and ambition.“net-zero emissions” has grown since late 2018, withspikes of activity coinciding with key climate-relatedevents. Simultaneously, civil society mobilisationfor climate action has also grown, with increasedparticipation in global climate marches and the youthled movement Fridays for Future. Citizen-facingservice companies are also the most active industryin setting net-zero targets, suggesting an appeal toconsumer demands.The momentum around net-zero targetsetting is accelerating across cities,regions and companies in every continentImprecise net-zero terminology preventsclarity in target setting( Section 2.1)( Section 2.2)The number of net-zero pledges from citiesregions and companies has roughly doubled in lessthan a year since late 2019. As of October 2020, actorswith net-zero targets (either economy- or companywide, or for a specific sector) cover at least 826 cities,103 regions, and 1,565 companies across all continents.In total, they represent over 880 million residents, 24.9million employees, and 10 gigatonnes of greenhousegas emissions. Cities and regions from Europe, LatinAmerica and the Caribbean, and East Asia and thePacific lead the way among subnational governments,while companies from the services industry contributethe greatest number of net-zero pledges.Even companies in emissions-intensive andhard-to-abate industries, such as fossil fuels,materials and transportation services, are settingambitious targets. Some actors plan to reach net zerothe near future, and others are going beyond theirdirect emission scopes, targeting supply-chain anddownstream emissions.There are indications that increasing citizen,investor, and consumer concern plays an importantrole in driving this action. Google search interest in1Actors adopt a wide range of terms to representsimilar concepts, such as “net zero”, “carbon neutral”and “climate neutral.” Due to a lack of standardiseddefinitions and criteria for use, these terms are oftenused interchangeably, making it difficult to compareclimate commitments between actors based on theterminology alone. By providing examples of howthese terms are used in practice, along with suggesteddefinitions, we present a possible starting point foractors who wish to set climate targets transparently.While many new targets are being set,implementation has yet to followOnly a limited number of subnationalgovernments and companies have developed actionplans towards their net-zero targets or incorporatedthem into binding legislation. Some actors are settingambitious timelines for meeting net-zero targets asearly as this year, but most pledges target 2050.Accelerated, ambitious action - paired with specificemission reduction targets for direct gross emissionsand robust interim targets - is key to ensuring longterm goals for decarbonisation are met.
SummaryNuances in target implementationapproaches can determine the real ambitionand impact of actors’ net-zero pledges( Section 3.1)At the highest level, approaches for implementingsubnational and corporate net-zero targets canbe broadly categorised according to whether theytarget the direct reduction of emissions, claimneutralisation of emissions through offsetting, orsupport carbon dioxide removal. Among measuresfor the direct reduction of emissions, we note aparticularly broad range of approaches for claimingthe neutralisation of electricity-related emissionsand for supporting the reduction of supply chain andout of boundary emissions.Nuances in the specific details of thoseimplementation approaches determine whether netzero targets really contribute to deep decarbonisation,or produce any impact at all. These significantnuances in target implementation approaches haveimplications for the additionality of impact, the integrityof a claimed outcome, and the extent to which theapproaches actively support or hinder problemsolving efforts for the most difficult challenges of deepdecarbonisation.Figure S1 provides an overview of the keydistinctions of the approaches identified from theanalysis.Figure S1Overview of the key nuances of net-zero targetimplementation approachesReduction ofemissionsNUANCESOF NET-ZEROTARGETSCarbondioxideremovalsSpecific issuesSupply chainand Sub stantiatedmultipoint targetOwn RE installationFull coverageof emissionsin targetUnder groundor mineralstorageNo use ofoffsetsUnsub stantiatedsingle point targetEquity in REinstallationsPartial coverageof emissionsin targetBiologicalstorageNew “highhanging fruit”projectsHigh quality PPAsActionsidentified with out coveragein targetPremium for newRE capacityNew “lowhanging fruit”projectsExisting offsetprojectsRECs: SuppliergeneratedCancellation of creditsto support projectsOther RECs andlow quality PPAsUse of credits toclaim neutrali sa tionof emissionsALTERNATIVE APPROACH2Role ofoffsettingSeparate targets to support each of these outcomes individuallywithout claiming towards own net-zero targets
SummaryMeasures for real emission reductions offerthe most direct and unambiguous strategy( Section 3.2.1)Of the various overarching strategies for netzero target implementation, those that directlylead to a reduction of the actor’s emissions providethe greatest and least disputable impact. Thesestrategies also represent a fair contribution tolong-term decarbonisation challenges; if a specificactor deems direct reductions too complex andexpensive to pursue as their primary net-zero targetimplementation strategy, who else should take on thisburden to achieve global decarbonisation?Actors with net-zero targets include those thataim for the full decarbonisation of their own emissions,as well as actors that have no target for the reductionof their own emissions at all. Only 33 percentof subnational governments’ and 8 percent ofcompanies’ net-zero targets include interim targetsto chart a decarbonisation pathway.Interim targets offer clarity and guidance onhow particular targets should be implemented.They provide the transparency necessary to ensureaccountability. A clear strategy with broad ownershipamong stakeholders and an accountability mechanismgives such targets the best chance of translatingtargets to successful and ambitious implementation.In most cases there will still be uncertainty regardingthe specific measures that can be applied in thefuture to reduce the hardest-to-abate emissions; suchuncertainties and challenges need not be a barrier forstrategy development but rather can be communicatedtransparently within those strategies.Speculative and unsubstantiated singlepoint targets without a clear strategy are less likelyto be implemented, and are less likely to result in theidentification of solutions for harder-to-abate sectors.Emission reduction impacts from renewableelectricity claims are often ambiguous( Section 3.2.2)Decarbonisation of electricity cannot beaddressed by any single actor in isolation: it is asystemic issue. Actors can contribute to longterm solutions by lobbying for supportive policyenvironments for decarbonisation of the energysystem.The optimal course of action an actor shouldadopt to ensure their electricity delivery approachyields emission reductions is dependent upon localpolicy infrastructure and market circumstances.Usually, companies combine several approaches intheir renewable energy procurement portfolio.3Approximately 20 percent of companies withnet-zero targets have on-site renewable electricitygeneration technologies, which may directly lead tothe expansion of renewable energy capacity and areduction or elimination of electricity demand fromthe grid, although this rarely accounts for a largeproportion of their electricity demand and is usuallycombined with other approaches. High qualityPower Purchase Agreements (PPAs) – pursued byapproximately 45 percent of companies with net-zerotargets – and capacity expansion premiums canalso lead to the installation of additional renewableelectricity capacities under certain circumstances.Demonstrating a causal impact from the purchase ofRenewable Energy Certificates (RECs) – pursuedby approximately 70 percent of companies with netzero targets – is much more difficult.While many of these approaches can play animportant role in supporting the electricity sector’sdecarbonisation, their use may not always justifya net-zero emissions claim. Due to the complexcausal relationships between renewable electricityprocurement models and the installation of additionalrenewable energy capacity, the impact of thatprocurement can rarely be quantified with certainty.Claiming net-zero emissions throughoffsetting has a number of limitationsand risks under the post-2020 ParisAgreement’s global governance framework( Section 3.3)Approximately half of the companies and onequarter of the subnational governments assessedare transparent about their intention to use offsetsfor their net-zero targets. The number of actors thatexplicitly rule out using offsets is limited.Without a radical transformation of the offsettingmarket and the types of activities it supports, offsettingcannot be considered an equivalent alternative toan actor’s own emission reductions in 2020. In thelonger-term, plausible prospects for this approachare even more limited. Offsetting may divert attentionfrom the need for deep decarbonisation and the ParisAgreement’s ambition ratcheting mechanism. Withoutstringent safeguards, offsetting projects can setperverse incentives for both developed and developingcountries in their efforts to increase domesticambition. Despite a great variation in the types andquality of offset projects across existing offsettingmechanisms, we identify that these fundamentallimitations are relevant across most existing offsettingapproaches, as well as for the majority of new projectsthat are currently being developed or proposed forpost-2020 offsetting mechanisms.
SummaryA radical transformation of the offsettingmarket towards “high-hanging fruit” projectscould address some of these barriers. Emissionreduction projects that are well beyond the potentialreach of other governmental and non-governmentalactors can support rather than conflict with hostcountry ambition. The relatively higher cost ofimplementing such projects may provide a pricesignal that incentivises deep decarbonisation of theactor’s own activities Such projects are not currentlyreadily available to support through existing offsettingmarkets, due to the traditional focus of these marketson cost-efficiency and the “low-hanging fruit.”Some actors support emission reductionprojects elsewhere without using offset credits toclaim the neutralisation of their own emissions. Thiscontribution claim approach supports ambition inthe host country while maintaining constructivetransparency about the actor’s own remainingemissions.Carbon dioxide removals can besupported through separate targets( Section 3.4)Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologiesand practices need more support to reach theirpotential, but uncertainties related to methodologiesfor calculating their climate impact, as well as thepermanence of carbon dioxide storage mean thatthey should not be considered equivalent to directgreenhouse gas emission reductions and are notsuitable for claiming direct neutralisation.Recognising that the outcomes of CDR activitiesare generally not directly comparable to the realreduction of one’s own emissions, actors could setand pursue separate individual targets for eachstrategy: one target for emission reductions, andanother separate target for carbon dioxide removals.Given the ambiguity of net-zero claims, separatetargets can provide actors pursuing ambitiousemission reduction targets with the opportunity tostand out and better demonstrate the depth of theirambition.Whether or not it is appropriate to combine thosetwo targets into a net-zero target expression dependsupon the specific circumstances; actors should make4a conscious decision, with full awareness of thenuances and the accuracy of communicated claims.A net-zero target can be an ultimate indication ofambition for some actors, and is popularly perceivedas such, but the nuances of net-zero targets meanthat a single target may not be the most transparentexpression of ambition for all actors.Low standards for transparency amongnet-zero targets can create a haven forgreenwashing( Section 4)Net-zero targets can reflect mitigation ambition,but the innate ambiguity of the term “net-zero” canmake targets incomparable between actors and evenenable greenwashing. There is a significant risk thatuntransparent net-zero targets may mislead citizens,consumers and investors about the environmentalimpact associated with a product or service, leadingto decisions and behaviour that cause an increasein greenhouse gas emissions. For example, airlines’carbon neutrality claims may give the false impressionthat flying is more environmentally friendly than railtravel, and lead to an increase in demand for shorthaul flights.Transparency can enable accountabilityand positive pressure to translate targetsto ambitious action( Section 4)Transparency of net-zero target nuances andtheir implementation can unravel their potentialambiguity and facilitate constructive dialogue onpotential challenges. A
List of Figures, Tables and Boxes Figures 2 Figure S1 Overview of the key nuances of net-zero target implementation approaches 5 Figure S2 Ten basic criteria for net-zero target transparency 14 Figure 1 Internet searches for net-zero emissions 15 Figure 2 Map of cities and regions pursuing net-zero emissions 16 Figure 3 Population of cities and regions with net-zero targets, by geographic region
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. 3 Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
