Perhaps I’m missing something, but the hamburger example seems to be a carbon offset, not scope 4 emissions unless you went there to attend a beef reduction conference… Seemingly a better example would be if your New Zealand trip inspired others to reduce their carbon emissions that would not have happened without the trip.
I’ve been struggling with this in a project of mine, a car-free infill multifamily development focused on sustainable & attainable workforce/student housing. It's located in a beach/college town with an extreme housing shortage that is pushing people to live in cheaper towns inland that require a 1-2 hours driving commute due to no viable transit options and being beyond what most people would consider bikeable.
Even with using a pretty radical approach to upfront and operational emissions it will still have significant scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. What would be the “business as usual” version for determining scope 4 emissions? Likely one of two things:
1. A traditional developer takes on the project and optimizes everything around maximizing profit. They build fewer, larger units, dozens of parking spots, and have no regard for upfront or operational emissions. It would house ~⅓ as many people, most of whom would use cars as their primary transportation.
2. The site remains vacant for the foreseeable future, there are no upfront or operational emissions.
If we throw out scope 4 emissions, option 2 is the clear winner, but even using very conservative math, both alternatives result in dramatically higher emissions over the long term.
Calculating scope 4 emissions amounts to trying to predict the future, best case they’ll be a rough estimate, and worst case are an opportunity for rampant greenwashing. However, dismissing them entirely seems like a case of letting perfection be the enemy of good.
I know this is satire, but i have yet to see an example of Scope 4 (or, in my world, negative A1-A3 applied to an overall project) that aren't just bad grade school math. Like, you can't take an ADDITIONAL negative value on something when its LOWER Scope 1-3 already accounts for that same negative. In order do mathematically do so you would have to somehow prove that by selling that lower GWP product, somehow guaranteed the higher emissions comp never got produced.
I do hope you aren't taking this seriously. It smells almost trumpy, or like burning trees for electricity. Peter to pay Paul. Would this work for your body if you had a bag of chips instead of a salad, and humus sandwich? The lecture circuit is as pure as the Paris fashion circuit, if you do a zoom presentation, wouldn't you truly be adhering to to the 1.5 goal and not fooling yourself or me or your broader audience . If you were having a vegan burger and not a beef burger you have made a small dent, if you don't eat the 1100 burgers, ie skip 1100 meals, ok you may be making a compensational dent in your CF, and pay back for the flight. Lloyd this is a rough note reacting to a bad math article.
"1800 kg of carbon divided by 3.3 is only 43 hamburgers, or an additional few months, taking me to 11.8 years without a burger. Easy!" Or 26 years, according to Bob Baal. Can you promise to live those extra 26 years? If not, the whole discussion becomes moot and the planet burns. BTW Lloyd, did you account for the methane emanating from the 2302 burgers?
Now I know how to square my flying with my focus on emissions and climate change. I just flew round trip from Boston to Seattle. Carbonfootprint.com shows 1.08 metric tonnes of CO2e with radiative forcing, or 2,381 pounds. That's the equivalent of about 120 gallons of gasoline. My Honda Fit gets about 43 mpg, so that's 5,160 miles. So far this year I've biked 4,757 miles, so I have 403 miles of biking to go before I offset my trip to Seattle. Did I do my math right?
I didn't fly to NZ or Australia, so I can eat 1757 hamburgers. But I don't eat meat, or fly. So please send me a pony. And a cookie.
And two espressos, made with locally grown coffee :-)
Perhaps I’m missing something, but the hamburger example seems to be a carbon offset, not scope 4 emissions unless you went there to attend a beef reduction conference… Seemingly a better example would be if your New Zealand trip inspired others to reduce their carbon emissions that would not have happened without the trip.
I’ve been struggling with this in a project of mine, a car-free infill multifamily development focused on sustainable & attainable workforce/student housing. It's located in a beach/college town with an extreme housing shortage that is pushing people to live in cheaper towns inland that require a 1-2 hours driving commute due to no viable transit options and being beyond what most people would consider bikeable.
Even with using a pretty radical approach to upfront and operational emissions it will still have significant scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. What would be the “business as usual” version for determining scope 4 emissions? Likely one of two things:
1. A traditional developer takes on the project and optimizes everything around maximizing profit. They build fewer, larger units, dozens of parking spots, and have no regard for upfront or operational emissions. It would house ~⅓ as many people, most of whom would use cars as their primary transportation.
2. The site remains vacant for the foreseeable future, there are no upfront or operational emissions.
If we throw out scope 4 emissions, option 2 is the clear winner, but even using very conservative math, both alternatives result in dramatically higher emissions over the long term.
Calculating scope 4 emissions amounts to trying to predict the future, best case they’ll be a rough estimate, and worst case are an opportunity for rampant greenwashing. However, dismissing them entirely seems like a case of letting perfection be the enemy of good.
Doing anything results in emissions - and now not doing something (Scope 4) results in more😂.
I would proceed with your original plan building with as much local wood as possible. Add bike lockers and community gardens!!
I know this is satire, but i have yet to see an example of Scope 4 (or, in my world, negative A1-A3 applied to an overall project) that aren't just bad grade school math. Like, you can't take an ADDITIONAL negative value on something when its LOWER Scope 1-3 already accounts for that same negative. In order do mathematically do so you would have to somehow prove that by selling that lower GWP product, somehow guaranteed the higher emissions comp never got produced.
love the article tho!
I do hope you aren't taking this seriously. It smells almost trumpy, or like burning trees for electricity. Peter to pay Paul. Would this work for your body if you had a bag of chips instead of a salad, and humus sandwich? The lecture circuit is as pure as the Paris fashion circuit, if you do a zoom presentation, wouldn't you truly be adhering to to the 1.5 goal and not fooling yourself or me or your broader audience . If you were having a vegan burger and not a beef burger you have made a small dent, if you don't eat the 1100 burgers, ie skip 1100 meals, ok you may be making a compensational dent in your CF, and pay back for the flight. Lloyd this is a rough note reacting to a bad math article.
Please tell me that you wrote this piece on April 1 and just got around to posting it now.
Exactly! I got to the end of the article, waiting for the "gotcha"... Did I miss it? I'm so confused.
There really is no justification for flying to NZ and Australia for such a short time. Funerals excepted.
Scope 4. - what a joke. Developed by BP too?
What next, Scope 5. - the emissions of children you didn't have?
"What next, Scope 5. - the emissions of children you didn't have?"
I like that one!
"1800 kg of carbon divided by 3.3 is only 43 hamburgers, or an additional few months, taking me to 11.8 years without a burger. Easy!" Or 26 years, according to Bob Baal. Can you promise to live those extra 26 years? If not, the whole discussion becomes moot and the planet burns. BTW Lloyd, did you account for the methane emanating from the 2302 burgers?
"1800 kg of carbon divided by 3.3 is only 43 hamburgers,"
1800 / 3.3 = 545 Burgers - you don't get of that easy!
However according to my tame AI the average Canadian consumes 90 burgers a year.
So that 1757 + 545 = 2302 / 90 = 26 years!
No burgers for you, my friend!
Now I know how to square my flying with my focus on emissions and climate change. I just flew round trip from Boston to Seattle. Carbonfootprint.com shows 1.08 metric tonnes of CO2e with radiative forcing, or 2,381 pounds. That's the equivalent of about 120 gallons of gasoline. My Honda Fit gets about 43 mpg, so that's 5,160 miles. So far this year I've biked 4,757 miles, so I have 403 miles of biking to go before I offset my trip to Seattle. Did I do my math right?
sounds good to me!
Sound right, unless you stopped for a burger on your ride.
This is correct Marc, ha, but if true "Scope 4" you should go ahead and DEDUCT that amount. comical.