Many carbon discussions at the moment are about the quality and inclusion of scope 3 or which denominator to use in normalizing footprints. However, I think that scope 2 should also deserve some more attention. First let me start with a very quick recap:
Scope 1 are the direct emissions that come from the company by burning fossil fuels
Scope 2 are the emissions that stem from electricity purchased from utility providers1
Scope 3 emissions are all the other indirect emissions that occur along the value chain.
Thus, scope 2 are indirect emissions from electricity that is generated somewhere else. Depending on how this electricity was generated, these emissions can be higher or lower. According to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, there are two methods available for calculating the carbon footprint of scope 2 emissions:
Market-based (MB): emissions calculated using emission factors from contractual instruments
Location-based (LB): emissions calculated using the average emissions intensity of the grid.
Thus, LB scope 2 reflects what you physically get via the electricity grid, and MB scope 2 reflects what you have actually purchased. Next, we will look at how MB and LB scope 2 are empirically related. We use company reported data from CDP for the analysis. In total there are 2708 companies that report their LB scope 2. Of those, 1516 companies (56%) also reports a MB scope 2. Big companies tend to report MB scope 2 more often than small companies. The chart below shows a scatter plot between LB and MB scope 2 for all companies that report both types of scope 22.
On the bottom of the chart we see companies that have a substantial LB scope 2 but a zero MB scope 2. Those companies generally have settled contracts with renewabe energy providers, or have offset emissions via contracts with other parties. The grey line indicates an equal MB and LB scope 2.
Of all companies, 71% report a lower MB scope 2, 21% report a higher MB scope 2, and 7% report exactly the same number for MB and LB. At first I found it pretty striking that 21% of the companies report a higher MB than LB scope 2. I always had this supposition that MB scope 2 should be lower than LB scope 2, as I would simply not expect a company to buy dirtier electricity than what it physically gets delivered via the grid. But then I realized that of course not everybody can buy cleaner energy than the average.
Even more, I might actually be starting to take the opposite view, and wonder why by far the most mass in the chart is below the diagonal. If most companies seem to use a much cleaner electricity mix than the average, then who is using the dirtier electricity? Of course, there will be a reporting bias, with cleaner companies more prone to also report MB scope 2. In addition, it could be that small business, households and governments are net users of the dirtier energy.
Furthermore, there might be some error in reporting. For instance, it is suspicious that for 7% of the companies the MB and LB scope 2 are exactly equal. All in all, I would say that really understanding MB scope 2 is not directly straightforward, and also for scope 2 there are still many questions to resolve.
Footnotes
1Purchased steam, heat, or cooling are also scope 2, but for this note we focus on electricity.
2The chart shows 1 + emissions as we needed to plot zero emission values on a log scale.
緊貼荷寶可持續投資
獲取荷寶的電郵月報及最新觀點報告，構建最綠色的投資組合。
免責聲明
本文由荷宝海外投资基金管理(上海)有限公司(“荷宝上海”)编制, 本文内容仅供参考, 并不构成荷宝上海对任何人的购买或出售任何产品的建议、专业意见、要约、招揽或邀请。本文不应被视为对购买或出售任何投资产品的推荐或采用任何投资策略的建议。本文中的任何内容不得被视为有关法律、税务或投资方面的咨询, 也不表示任何投资或策略适合您的个人情况, 或以其他方式构成对您个人的推荐。 本文中所包含的信息和/或分析系根据荷宝上海所认为的可信渠道而获得的信息准备而成。荷宝上海不就其准确性、正确性、实用性或完整性作出任何陈述, 也不对因使用本文中的信息和/或分析而造成的损失承担任何责任。荷宝上海或其他任何关联机构及其董事、高级管理人员、员工均不对任何人因其依据本文所含信息而造成的任何直接或间接的损失或损害或任何其他后果承担责任或义务。 本文包含一些有关于未来业务、目标、管理纪律或其他方面的前瞻性陈述与预测, 这些陈述含有假设、风险和不确定性, 且是建立在截止到本文编写之日已有的信息之上。基于此, 我们不能保证这些前瞻性情况都会发生, 实际情况可能会与本文中的陈述具有一定的差别。我们不能保证本文中的统计信息在任何特定条件下都是准确、适当和完整的, 亦不能保证这些统计信息以及据以得出这些信息的假设能够反映荷宝上海可能遇到的市场条件或未来表现。本文中的信息是基于当前的市场情况, 这很有可能因随后的市场事件或其他原因而发生变化, 本文内容可能因此未反映最新情况,荷宝上海不负责更新本文, 或对本文中不准确或遗漏之信息进行纠正。