Greenhouse Gas Accounting – GHG Accounting

Climate Lens

GHG & Climate Lens Assessment

The Climate Lens Assessment is a guidance document for infrastructure projects required by several of the Infrastructure Canada Plan Programs to motivate proponents to consider the impacts of climate change in the design and implementation phases. Under the Climate Lens, GHG Accounting Services can help you to develop the GHG Mitigation Assessment enabling your project eligibility to the Infrastructure Canada Plan programs, such as the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP), the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund (DMAF) and the Smart Cities Challenge (SCC).

GHG Accounting team has the expertise to conduct the Climate Lens analysis for your infrastructure project. With training in greenhouse gas accounting standards required for the development of the Climate Lens assessment, GHG Accounting Services team helps you to identify and quantify the project-anticipated emissions, translating data into mitigation plans. Our approach supports you to fulfill Infrastructure Canada Plan Programs requirements, while enhancing the project efficiency and reducing costs.

Regulatory Additionality

Regulatory additionality is a quality requirement for an emission reduction to be recognized as such.

In order for an emission reduction to be recognized, a project proponent must provide evidence that the project activities and all equipment and substances involved in the achievement of the emission reduction are beyond what is required based on applicable regulatory requirements. Only those emission reductions that are achieved beyond regulatory requirements are considered additional and therefore meet the regulatory additionality requirement test. Reductions that only meet the regulatory required levels are not considered to be real emission reductions.

Québec’s First Cap & Trade Permit Auction Results

In the first auction of permits under Québec’s cap-and-trade scheme on December 3, 2013, bidders purchased only about one-third of the emission allowances offered – or 1.03 million of the 2.97 million 2013 permits. As a result of the low demand, the permits cleared at the lowest possible price of $10.75 per metric tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Québec said it sold a combined CAD $29 million in 2013 and 2016 allowances in the auction. The province plans to sell the remaining 2013 carbon allowances in future auctions, which will be held every quarter starting March 4. Regulated entities will have until November 1, 2015 to acquire carbon allowances covering emissions generated in 2013 and 2014.

Yves-François Blanchet, Québec’s Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment, Wildlife and Parks said that the province is very satisfied with the results of the first auction and is confident that the remaining units will be sold at the upcoming auctions. Bloomberg New Energy Finance market analyst William Nelson observed that it was a “surprisingly under-subscribed auction”, but went on to say that the province’s failure to sell all the allowances in the first auction was a “one-time freak result”. Nelson anticipates that future auctions will fare better as the entities that did not participate in the auction this week will eventually show up as they still need to cover their emissions for the next two years.

Quebec’s program will be integrated with the larger California cap-and-trade market in 2014, when entities from both jurisdictions will be able to buy and sell emission allowances and offsets in either jurisdiction. At California’s last auction on November 19, 2013, the state sold 16.6 million tons of carbon allowances at a price of $11.48 each, which was in line with market expectations.

The results of the Québec auction are available online (in French only)

The results of California’s November 2013 auction are also available from the state’s Air Resources Board.

BC signs Climate Action Plan with California, Oregon and Washington

On October 28, 2013 the leaders of British Columbia, California, Oregon and Washington signed the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy committing their governments to a comprehensive and strategic alignment to combat climate change and promote clean energy. The region covered by the Action Plan has a combined population of 53 million people and a GDP of $2.8 trillion, which represents the world’s fifth largest economy.

Through the Action Plan, all four jurisdictions will account for the costs of carbon pollution and where feasible, link programs to create consistency and predictability across the region. In addition, the Action Plan provides for the following actions:

harmonizing 2050 targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions and developing mid-term targets needed to support long-term reduction goals;
cooperating with national and sub-national governments around the work to press for an international climate change agreement in 2015;
enlisting support for research on ocean acidification and taking action to combat it;
adopting and maintaining low carbon fuel standards in each jurisdiction;
taking action to expand the use of zero-emission vehicles, aiming for 10% of new vehicle purchases by 2016;
continue deployment of high-speed rail across the region;
supporting emerging markets and innovation for alternative fuels in commercial trucks, buses, rail, ports and marine transportation;
harmonizing standards to support energy efficiency on the way to “net zero” buildings;
supporting federal policy on regulating GHG emissions from power plants;
sponsoring pilot projects with local governments, state agencies and the West Coast Infrastructure Exchange to make infrastructure climate smart;
streamlining approval of renewable energy projects; and
supporting integration of the region’s electricity grids.

The Action Plan provides a much needed boost to regional and national efforts climate change policy efforts.

The Pacific Coast Collaborative was established in 2008 to address the unique and shared circumstances of the Pacific coastal areas and jurisdictions in North America by providing a formal framework for co-operative action, a forum for leadership and the sharing of information on best practices, and a common voice on issues facing coastal and Pacific jurisdictions.

Release of Latest IPPC Report Spurs Calls for Action from Business Leaders

On September 25, 2013 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis, the first part of its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Six years in the making, the 2,200 page report was developed by 209 lead authors, citing more than 9,000 scientific publications in their analysis of key physical and scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change.

The report confirms that human influence is the dominant cause of observed warming. Scientists now state with more certainty than ever before, that it is extremely likely (95% probability) that human activities, particularly combustion of fossil fuels and changes in land use, are responsible for the 0.85ºC increase in average global temperatures that has occurred since 1880.

There has been a reduction in the rate of atmospheric temperature increases over the past fifteen years which the IPCC attributes to the absorption by the oceans of a large amount of heat, and sequestering a third of the greenhouse gas emissions. This is by no means good news, since warmer waters expands leading to rising sea levels, sea temperatures also significantly influence climate patterns and an increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in ocean waters contributes to acidification with negative impact on aquatic ecosystems. The report concludes that “human influence has been detected in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes.”

The report lays out four different potential scenarios for global temperature rise over the course of the century, ranging from 0.3 ºC to 4.8ºC. In the immediate decades, all four scenarios follow a similar trajectory, showing a low sensitivity to curbing emissions in the short-term. But if current trends continue, the effects of cumulative emissions will be difficult to mitigate due to the long half-life of greenhouse gases and their continued impact on the climate long after emissions subside.

The AR5 is the first IPCC report to define a “carbon budget” – an estimate of the maximum amount of human caused emissions that can be released in the atmosphere before we experience warming greater than 2ºC – the indicative threshold beyond which extensive global environmental and socio-economic damage is expected. That carbon budget is 1,000 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), of which approximately half has already been emitted. Based on carbon-intensive trajectories, this means that the world has just 30 years until it has used up its carbon budget. If we exceed this budget, the chance of staying within 2ºC of warming looks far less promising.

What does this mean for business? In short, climate change brings with it greater risks and investment challenges:

• More frequent extreme weather events: Higher temperatures and more extreme weather are among the most apparent business risks. At the World Economic Forum in 2013, financial experts named climate change as one of the top three business risks. From raging wildfires to severe flooding, extreme weather events can imperil operations throughout a company’s supply chain. Rising sea levels will also threaten shorelines. According to the IPCC, sea levels have likely risen nearly twice as fast as previously reported. More than 1 billion people worldwide, along with many financial centers, are located in low-lying coastal communities. According to the OECD, average flood losses in major cities around the world could exceed $52 billion per year by 2050, and possibly go as high as $1 trillion without additional protection. At the other end of the spectrum, some regions will be faced with greater water scarcity rather than flooding. In the Carbon Disclosure Project’s 2012 Global Water Report, 53% of respondent companies reported that they have experienced water-related detrimental impacts in the past 5 years (up from 38% in 2011), with costs as high as $200 million for some companies.

• Risks to energy infrastructure: Extreme weather also poses a threat to energy and electricity infrastructure by potentially disrupting production, delivery, and storage of energy. Many power sources depend on water and decreased water availability due to changing precipitation trends may threaten operations.

• Investment risks: Climate-related economic disruption also compounds risks to global investments. A 2011 Mercer study warned that climate change could increase investment-portfolio risk by 10 percent over the next two decades. The IPCC’s carbon budget may have implications for fossil fuel companies, which are traditionally among the higher grossing investments. Since their value is based on proven reserves, there is a risk of devaluation if a significant portion of the reserves are left untapped in order to keep within the carbon budget.

• Insurance risks: Extreme weather events are already having an impact on the insurance industry. As damage from extreme weather events increases, insurers are faced with either hiking rates or refusing to provide coverage in disaster-prone areas. Ultimately, increased costs will be passed onto businesses and consumers.

While climate change presents clear risks to business, smart responses can deliver economic benefits as well. In a 2010 report by the UN Global Compact, more than 86 percent of businesses named responding to climate change as an opportunity. This is reflected in the actions of many multinational corporations, which are already taking steps to reduce risks and lower their greenhouse gas emissions. Whether it is driving emission reductions throughout the supply chain, investing in renewable energy or phasing out the use of carbon intensive materials, companies are choosing to act.

Industry comments in response to the IPCC report highlight the urgent need for action for more, see ‘Experts React’. Nick Robins, head of the Climate Partnership at HSBC, commented that: “The IPCC report provides firmer foundations for policy action. For the world’s capital markets, climate change is an issue of strategic risk management … Our research shows that India, China, Indonesia, South Africa and Brazil are the G-20 nations that are most vulnerable to climate risks. We expect the succession of IPCC reports into 2014 to provide a renewed impetus to policy and business action through to the finalization of negotiations in December 2015.” Head of Swiss Re’s sustainability program in the Americas, Mark Way, also said: “When a body like the IPCC concludes that with 95% certainty mankind is causing climate change we would be foolish not to listen. And yet we are still not listening closely enough. The transition to a low carbon economy and a more climate-resilient society cannot be thought of as options, they are necessities.” Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres (a US-based organisation which presses for greater sustainability and environmental awareness in the business sector) summed it up nicely: “The IPCC report’s conclusion is unequivocal – climate change is happening and it’s disrupting all aspects of the global economy, including supply chains, commodity markets and the entire insurance industry. Business momentum is growing to innovate new strategies and products to manage climate risks and opportunities. But scaling these efforts to levels that will slow warming trends will require stronger carbon-reducing policies globally.”

The IPCC will release three more parts to the AR5 report in 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Mitigation of Climate Change; and a Synthesis Report. For more information on the current report, see IPCC Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.

European Commission Launches Green Products Initiative

The European Commission is proposing EU-wide methods to measure the environmental performance of products and organisations, and encouraging Member States and the private sector to take them up.

Currently, companies wanting to highlight the environmental performance of their products face numerous obstacles including the need to choose between several methods promoted by governments and private initiatives. As a result, these companies may be forced to pay multiple costs for providing environmental information and consumers are faced with confusion resulting from excessive labelling that makes products difficult to compare.

For example, a company wishing to market its product as a green product in France, UK and Switzerland would need to apply different schemes in order to compete based on environmental performance in the different national markets. In France, it would need to carry out an environmental assessment in line with the French method (BP X30-323); in the UK, it would need to apply the PAS 2050 or the WRI GHG Protocol; and in Switzerland, it would need to apply the Swiss approach which is currently under development.

According to the latest Eurobarometer on Green Products, 48 % of European consumers are confused by the stream of environmental information they receive, which affects their readiness to make green purchases. A number of industrial groups have called for a pan-European approach built on EU-wide science-based assessments and Life Cycle Analysis. This is because of concerns that multiple initiatives at Member State level would run contrary to Single Market principles, confusing consumers and increasing costs for industry.

To address these problems, the European Commission has launched the Single Market for Green Products initiative, which proposes the following actions:

establishing two methods to measure environmental performance throughout the lifecycle – the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and the Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF);
recommending the use of these methods to Member States, companies, private organisations and the financial community through a Commission Recommendation;
announcing a three-year testing period to develop product- and sector-specific rules through a multi-stakeholder process;
providing principles for communicating environmental performance such as transparency, reliability, completeness, comparability and clarity; and
supporting international efforts towards more coordination in methodological development and data availability.

The three-year testing period will be launched soon. An open call for volunteers will be published by the Commission on the Product Environmental Footprint and the Organisation Environmental Footprint sites, inviting companies, industrial and stakeholder organisations in the EU and beyond to participate in the development of product-group specific and sector-specific rules. On these sites, some preliminary information is already available about the objectives and expected timing of the test. For more information, please see this link.

Update on China: China Steps into Leadership Role as it takes Action on Climate Change

In his first comments as China’s prime minister, Li Keqiang recently laid out a vision of a more equitable society in which environmental protection trumps unbridled growth and government officials put the people’s welfare before their own financial interests. While the Prime Minister was short on specifics, his comments represent an encouraging acknowledgment of some of the pressing issues facing China.

Traditionally, China has been used as a carbon scapegoat and excuse for inaction by countries such as Canada and the U.S., whose per capita emissions are much higher. However the tables are turning with China beginning to take a leadership role in addressing climate change. China’s emergence as a climate leader means that Canada and other countries can no longer point their fingers at China as an excuse for not taking action to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions.

China to roll out Cap & Trade in 2013

As the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, China is preparing to gradually roll out cap-and-trade pilot programs in seven major cities and provinces starting in 2013. This initiative is part of a larger goal to reduce carbon intensity – or the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of economic output – by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2020.

In November 2011, the Chinese government decided to implement cap-and-trade pilots in two provinces and five cities (including Shanghai, Beijing and Shenzhen) beginning in 2013 with the final goal of implementing a nationwide exchange program by 2016. In less than two years, officials have designed and started to implement seven trading trials that cover around one-third of China’s gross domestic product and one-fifth of its energy use. If successful, the schemes could demonstrate that an emissions trading system will be an effective way for China to manage its greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, China’s activities may spur policy makers in other countries such as the US to act.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance previously estimated that the regional pilots would cumulatively cover 800 million to 1 billion tonnes of emissions in China by 2015, meaning that the market would become the world’s second largest after the European Union. It has been reported that at the beginning, regional and city-wide markets will remain separate with unique rules and criteria. For example, some of the markets will cover factories and industrial operations exclusively, while others will focus on power generation or non-industrial sectors.

The first trades took place in September 2012 in Guangdong province, when four cement-manufacturing companies invested several million dollars to acquire carbon pollution permits (allowances). The Guangdong scheme is expected to cover more than 800 companies that each emit more than 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year across nine industries, including the energy-intensive steel and power sectors. These firms account for more than 40% of the power used in the province. The Guangdong carbon market alone will regulate some 277 million tonnes of CO2 emissions by 2015.

China plans to open six further regional emissions-trading schemes in 2013, in the province of Hubei and in the municipalities of Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Chongqing and Shenzhen. It plans to expand and link them until they form a nationwide scheme by the end of the decade. A nationwide scheme could then link to international markets.

Until now, China’s experience with carbon trading has been limited to the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol. While China’s political system could let a carbon market grow faster than anywhere else because changes can be implemented quickly, the carbon market faces challenges in China. In particular, China needs to develop and enforce proper legislation and regulations to measure, report and verify carbon emissions from industrial sites. It also needs to build an effective framework to oversee the reporting and trading of carbon credits.

At this stage, the most urgent issue that needs to be addressed is how China collects and analyzes data on carbon emissions. The credibility of China’s statistics on energy use and carbon emissions has been questioned partly because of the large discrepancies between numbers calculated using top-down data and numbers calculated using bottom-up data. Without accurate numbers, the first transaction of the Guangdong trading scheme was based on expected future carbon emissions, rather than historical data. Improved statistical methodology and political action will be required to boost the reliability of carbon emissions data in China. China will also need specific laws to ensure transparent reporting and strong enforcement to prevent fraudulent or misleading claims about carbon emissions.

Chinese Carbon Tax on the Horizon

On the climate front, the Chinese government appears to be on the verge of taking a critical step which has been demonized by politicians in Canada and the USA – that is, implementing a carbon tax. Although the carbon tax is expected to be modest, China plans to also increase coal taxes.

According to Jia Chen, head of the tax policy division of China’s Ministry of Finance (MOF), China will proactively introduce a set of new taxation policies designed to preserve the environment, including a tax on carbon emissions. In an article published on the MOF web site in February 2013, Jia wrote that the government will collect an environmental protection tax instead of pollutant discharge fees, as well as levy a tax on carbon emissions. The local taxation authority will collect the taxes, rather than the environmental protection department. The article did not specify the level of carbon tax or when the new measures will be implemented. In 2010, MOF experts suggested levying a carbon tax in 2012 at 10 yuan per tonne of carbon dioxide, as well as recommended increasing the tax to 50 yuan per tonne by 2020. These prices are far below the 500 yuan (US $80) per tonne that some experts have suggested would be needed to achieve climate stability.

It is not anticipated that China’s plan will have a significant impact on global climate change, although the tax may have some beneficial impact within China itself, where air pollution is a serious problem. A paper from the Chinese Academy for Environmental Planning suggests that a small tax could still raise revenue and provide an incentive to reduce emissions, thus bolstering China’s renewable energy industry.

To conserve natural resources, the government will push forward resource tax reforms by taxing coal based on prices instead of sales volume, as well as raising coal taxes. A resource tax will also be levied on water. In addition, the government is also looking into the possibility of taxing energy intensive products such as batteries, as well as luxury goods such as aircraft which are not used for public transportation.

European Parliament Approves New Rules for Monitoring GHG emissions, including Forestry and Agriculture

On March 12, 2013, the European Parliament approved two new laws to improve EU rules on monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including those from forestry and agriculture. It is expected that the Council will adopt these laws, after which they will be published in the Official Journal and enter into force.

Connie Hedegaard, European Commissioner for Climate Action, said: “These new rules will help Europe develop robust evidence-based climate policies and keep better track of progress towards meeting our emission targets. They improve transparency, coordination and the quality of data reported, and forest and agriculture emissions will now be accounted for in a harmonised way. We hope that these new rules will also set an example in the context of the international climate negotiations and serve as a benchmark for transparency of climate action by other countries.”

Monitoring Mechanism

The Monitoring Mechanism Regulation enhances the current reporting rules on Member States’ GHG emissions in order to meet requirements arising from current and future international climate agreements, as well as the 2009 climate and energy package. In particular, the revised Monitoring Mechanism aims to help the EU and Member States keep track of progress towards meeting their emission targets for the period 2013-2020 and to facilitate further development of the EU climate policy mix. The EU and Member States already cooperate to monitor and report GHG emissions, producing annual GHG inventories which are used to assess progress towards meeting Kyoto Protocol emission targets. In addition, information is compiled on GHG projections and on policies and measures to reduce emissions.

The revised rules aim to improve the quality of data reported and introduce some new elements, such as:

reporting of emissions and removals from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF);
reporting of Member States’ adaptation to climate change;
reporting of Member States’ and the EU’s low-carbon development strategies;
reporting on financial and technical support provided to developing countries, and commitments arising from the 2009 Copenhagen Accord and 2010 Cancún Agreements;
reporting on Member States’ use of revenues from the auctioning of allowances in the EU emissions trading system (EU ETS). Member States have committed to spend at least half of the revenue from such auctions on measures to fight climate change in the EU and third countries.

LULUCF

The second law approved by the European Parliament establishes common rules for accounting for GHG emissions and removals of carbon from the atmosphere resulting from activities related to land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF). This represents a first step towards incorporating the forestry and agriculture sectors – the last major sectors without common EU-wide rules on GHG emissions – into EU climate policy. Forests and agricultural lands cover more than three-quarters of the EU territory and naturally hold large stocks of carbon, preventing its escape into the atmosphere. If their capacity to “trap” carbon were improved by just 10 percentage points (for example through improved forest or grassland management), this would remove the equivalent of annual emissions of 10 million cars from the atmosphere.

This decision requires Member States to report on their actions to increase removals of carbon and decrease emissions of greenhouse gases from forests and soils. While the law does not currently include national emission reduction targets for these sectors, such targets may be introduced at a later stage once the accounting rules have proven robust.

More information is available from the European Commission

Ontario Ministry of Environment seeks input on Greenhouse Gas Discussion Paper

On January 21, 2013, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) released a discussion paper entitled Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions in Ontario. The purpose of the paper (available online): is to support discussions and gather feedback on the development of a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction program. In addition, these discussions will elicit information to support Ontario’s intention to obtain equivalency with the developing federal greenhouse gas regulations in certain sectors (including natural gas‐fired electricity generation), meaning that Ontario industries will not be subject to duplicate requirements.

In 2007, Ontario introduced its Climate Change Action Plan which includes the following GHG emissions reduction targets:

6% below 1990 levels by 2014,
15% below 1990 levels by 2020, and
80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Ontario estimates that current initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will deliver 60% of the reductions needed to reach the 2020 reduction target. While a GHG emissions reduction program alone will not close the gap, it will play an important role in moving Ontario towards its goal of being 15% below 1990 emissions levels by 2020.

The program elements presented for discussion in the paper have been developed based on a set of key principles aimed at balancing Ontario’s economic and environmental interests. These principles include:

Achieving absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in a cost‐effective way that considers competitiveness and supports achieving equivalency with the federal government.
Simplicity, consistency, transparency and administrative efficiency.
Striving to treat sectors and facilities equitably.
Taking into account early action by industry leaders.
Using accurate and verified emissions data to support policy development.
Promoting development and deployment of clean technologies.
Considering broad alignment with other emissions reduction programs of similar rigour that provides opportunity for linking in the future.
Considering integration with other provincial environmental policies.

The paper indicates that Ontario’s program would initially limit GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired electricity generators and large GHG emitters in certain industries, including petroleum refining, chemicals, steel, cement and pulp and paper. The paper also indicates that the program would limit emissions from facilities in these sectors (other than the electricity generation sector) to the level of their current total emissions, with the limit declining thereafter by 5% over five years. Although it does not explicitly advocate a cap-and-trade system, the paper does suggest that the MOE will consider the use of emissions trading mechanisms to establish a carbon price and provide businesses with options on how to achieve reductions at the lowest cost.

In addition, the paper proposes that Ontario’s program would be in place one year prior to federal regulation of greenhouse gases from industry. A one year window will provide time for the province to negotiate and finalize an equivalency agreement with the federal government to ensure there is a single regulator for greenhouse gas emissions in the province.

Ontario acknowledges that other North American jurisdictions are also taking action to address emissions of GHGs. It notes that Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia all have or are developing regulations to reduce greenhouse gases. It also notes that in the USA, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative limits emissions from electricity generation in north-eastern states, while California has introduced a broad greenhouse gas emissions trading regime with an intention of linking to Quebec’s program.

The MOE will accept submissions on the discussion paper until April 21, 2013. For further information, please refer to the Environmental Registry: Here