Demanding Broader Carbon Footprint Calculations
by Jaymi Heimbuch, San Francisco, California 
on 12.31.08
Photo via tomsaint11
Carnegie Mellon University researchers are asking companies to do what is only absolutely reasonable in the face of a big global goal of reducing emissions - broaden the terms on which they calculate carbon emissions.
And that means factoring in the emissions of suppliers.
Most factories, it seems, assess only carbon dioxide released directly and not from materials processing or production of parts done by suppliers, which contributes significantly to the ultimate footprints. Similarly, most retailers analyze only their stores and not their merchandise supply lines.
Not new info, I know. We're already aware that the true footprint of a product is not properly accounted for. A product is connected to a long web of emissions - the collection of the raw materials, shipments to processors, each element of a product going to the main manufacturing plant...and so on. Companies rarely factor all the way back to the mountain, forest or ocean from which the materials came to create their product, and what effect they're having there.
They also rarely factor in the emissions of the shipments to consumers, the emissions generated by consumers using the product, and the emissions generated by landfills or recycling plants that ultimately house the product.
Why not? Because it's really, really hard to do so.
However, the researchers say that it is in the best interest of the companies to do this.
By looking beyond their own walls, businesses will uncover more ways to reduce the burden of looming carbon taxation and high fuel prices. Identifying more energy-conscious manufacturers, for example, could reduce emissions for retailers more dramatically than simply decreasing electricity use in stores.
HP has already taken the first baby steps into this process, releasing the industry's first supply chain emissions data, though full of disputable calculation methods as well, we're sure. But it's a big step and shows companies like Dell, who claim to have already reached carbon neutrality but really only neutralizes roughly 5% of their total emissions, that there's a long way to go before claims of knowing a real footprint can be made.
This is not a new demand - people have been calling for supply chair inclusion for some time now. So, we're hoping companies can take up an important New Year's Resolution. Face the headache full on, and start figuring out the true carbon footprints of their companies. Then do something real about it.
Via SciAm
More on Company Carbon Footprints:
HP Steps Up IT Industry Transparency, Releases Supply Chain Emissions Data
Big Blue Making Supply Chains Into Green Super-Models: No Floppy Disks Required.
75 Grams: The Carbon Footprint of One Bag of Potato Crisps
The Business of Green: The Supply Chain
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Reduce Your Carbon Footprint by Half in Three Steps
- Eat a Vegetarian Diet, Reduce Your Carbon Footprint by a Ton
- Homemade Real Fruit Popsicles and Fudge Pops
- Trust Stella McCartney: Meat-Free Mondays are Hip, not Hippie!
- Quickly Calculate The Carbon of Your Flights
- Why Do Some States Have Significantly Lower Carbon Emissions Than Others?
Knowledge of life cycle carbon emissions provides only a third of the ncecessary picture. Because carbpm "footprint" calculations are, by definition, trailing indicators, almost always based on a preceding year's performance, such numbers can be managed against only if paired with two other things that exist simultaneously: 1.) continuously updated annual goals for efficiency improvement; and, 2.) public declaration of progress against those goals.
Lets assume that a majority of large multinational corporations agree to do all three of the above using similar protocols (an unlikely condition without the UN or an other international governing body mediating). What is the likelihood of small to midsized businesses being able to expend the overhead effort to accomplish this? What do you suppose will be the reaction of institutional investors and equity stake holders to the information that their money is supporting energy hogs? In both cases the reaction will be severe push-back
There are plausible positive outcomes to this sorry sounding tale, but they will not surface unless industry is a stakeholder in determining best practices and unless reports can be filed analogous to the USEPAs' toxic release inventory (TRI) protocols, where ranges of values can be reported, subject to spot auditing. As a practical matter, I can imagine no other approach that would be cost effective for small businesses.
Planet Metrics is applying Carnegie-Mellon's EIO-LCA model to create visual supply chain carbon footprints, The software tool will help companies establish a wide range of carbon-related views of their extended value chain so they can then use consider dematerialization, supplier/materials substitution, logistics choices, commodity-price volatility risk, carbon taxation risk, etc. The software in currently being piloted by three customers and will be generally vaialble in mid-2009.
Craig Ramini
Director of Sales
Planet Metrics
What "company" is responsible for what emissions? Is the retailer responsible for everything? The wholesaler? And why wouldn't the consumer have a stake in neutralizing emissions when consumers are the ones who create the demand in the first place?
To ask a company (which one is that, manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer?) to be responsible right down to the silver being mined seems farfetched and unlikey. A more logical solution, to me, would be to ask each company along the way to be responsible for their own emissions.
The mining company handles their emissions up to the point of sending the raw materials to the manufactuer, the manufacturer deals with the emissions up until the wholesaler receives its goods and so on.
The reality is that none of this is genuinely going to happen unless governments force every company to be responsible for their part. And yes, that means China, India and other manufacturing companies do their part.
And at the end of the day, WE all just pay more for the crap that we consume and throw away. Maybe if a happy meal with a useless plastic toy didn't cost $2.99 this all wouldn't be an issue.
that would be perfect, so companies like dell cant fire there manufacturing employees here and ship the jobs to india at some contract facility. only to have green power at dells headquarters and call their product "green." Dell is doing the biggest green washing job ever.
Wow I did not know that about Dell, that is so disappointing!
I'm generally really clued up on green matters. I drive a Peugeot 107 as little as possible, but when I do I let gravity provide the power when going downhill. One quick thing MarkR, as well as being a Queen of Green (other people call me that, not me, I'm not that conceited) I'm also a word nerd (and very, very, proud although I tend to make my sentences too long) and I just thought you ought to know that there is a place and their is possessive, for example Dell's employees. I'm assuming the ommission of the apostrophe in can't was deliberate.
Happy new year everybody, try to make this year greener than last year. I hope you reduce, reuse and recycle!