Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that a low-carbon product standard for the U.S. steel industry, featuring an emissions intensity benchmark and tradable credits, can drive the adoption of abatement technologies. It recommends covering intermediate steel products (sheets, plates, bars, beams, pipes, and tubes) and including Scope 1, 2, and significant Scope 3 emissions in the benchmark. To prevent carbon leakage and protect competitiveness, the author suggests applying the standard to all steel products produced and sold in the U.S., including those from importers of upstream and downstream products. The paper emphasizes that while such a standard is a significant tool, a suite of complementary policies—including R&D funding, carbon pricing, and production tax credits—is necessary for full sector decarbonization.

WRI's 2010 greenhouse gas inventory recorded 4,309 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, a significant increase from 2009 due to the expanded inclusion of all Scope 3 categories. Using 2010 as a base year, WRI has set 2020 targets to reduce Scope 2 electricity emissions by 50%, business travel emissions by 20%, and all other Scope 3 categories by 20%.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) employs a comprehensive greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting methodology covering Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. The inventory uses an operational control consolidation approach and has established 2019 as its base year for 2030 reduction targets. Scope 1 includes direct emissions from diesel generators and office refrigerators. Scope 2 utilizes both location-based and market-based methods for purchased electricity, incorporating renewable energy certificates for US operations. Scope 3 is the most extensive, covering purchased goods and services (Category 1) via a spend-based USEEIO model, fuel- and energy-related activities (Category 3), waste (Category 5), business travel (Category 6), employee commuting (Category 7), and endowment investments (Category 15). The methodology emphasizes the use of regional emission factors and annual staff surveys to estimate impacts across WRI's global network.

The briefing examines the climate policy landscapes of the U.S. and China, noting that while the U.S. lacks a national carbon price, it has significant subnational activity. China has established the world's largest emissions trading scheme (ETS) but maintains that it is not obligated to provide international climate finance as a developing nation. Both countries are advancing corporate climate disclosure rules, though they differ on the requirement for Scope 3 emissions. The paper suggests cooperation on sustainable procurement, data standards for emission accounting, and subnational carbon market exchanges.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) provides as-delivered CO2 emissions rates to directly-served customers since 2012 and local power company (LPC) customers with demand over 5 MW since 2017. Unlike standard annual consumption rates, TVA uses hourly electric consumption profiles compared to the annual hourly TVA system CO2 emission rate to determine supplier-specific figures for market-based Scope 2 reporting. To support these customers, TVA developed a spreadsheet tool that allows users to compare the cost and Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) consumption differences between renewable energy goals and clean energy goals, with options to customize generation sources such as biomass and nuclear.

Corporate GHG inventories are management tools used by companies to quantify emissions, identify sources, and track reductions. Following standards like the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, companies categorize emissions into Scope 1 (direct), Scope 2 (indirect from purchased energy), and Scope 3 (other indirect). These inventories differ from national or regional inventories, which use proxy data for entire sectors, but they feed into GHG registries such as The Climate Registry and the Carbon Disclosure Project.

The document argues for a tradable low-carbon cement standard in the United States that uses emissions intensity benchmarks to reward low-carbon producers and penalize high-emitters. It suggests that such a targeted approach could be more effective than economy-wide carbon pricing for the cement sector. The proposed standard would cover Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O per unit of clinker and mineral additives. Key design recommendations include starting the benchmark slightly below current average intensity, tightening it annually, and implementing price floors and ceilings for credits. The author emphasizes that this standard must be part of a broader policy suite, including innovation and demand-stimulation policies, to fully decarbonize the cement-concrete value chain.

The document outlines the friction between utility and customer GHG reporting, specifically regarding the lack of standardized platforms and the treatment of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). It advocates for the use of supplier-specific emission factors over outdated average factors and highlights The Climate Registry's (TCR) Electric Power Sector Protocol as a best practice, while noting its failure to provide guidance on REC accounting.

Nutreco has implemented 'RoadMap 2025', a sustainability framework organized into three pillars: health and welfare, climate and circularity, and good citizenship. The company has set Science-Based Targets (SBTs) for 2030, including a 30% absolute reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions and a 58% reduction in Scope 3 emissions based on value-added economic intensity. To reduce reliance on traditional commodities that drive deforestation and overfishing, Nutreco aims for 5-10% of its feed ingredients to be 'novel' by 2025, though the document notes that global availability of such ingredients is currently limited to likely under 200,000 metric tons. The company is also adopting Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) to provide carbon transparency to clients and has established a Marine Ingredients Responsible Sourcing Policy requiring certifications such as ASC or MSC. In terms of social impact, Nutreco targets improving the livelihoods of 12,000 small farmers, with active projects in Nigeria and Guatemala.

The report finds that 48% of Fortune 500 companies have set climate or energy targets, with a notable increase in the smallest quintile of the index. Leading sectors include Consumer Staples, while the Energy sector significantly lags. The report highlights a shift toward science-based targets and 100% renewable energy commitments, noting that 190 companies reported $3.7 billion in annual cost savings from energy efficiency and renewable energy projects in 2016. It provides recommendations for companies, policymakers, investors, and the electricity sector to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy.