Net Zero Pathways

*|MC:SUBJECT|*

SCIENCE BASED TARGETS (SBT’s)

Emissions targets are considered ‘science-based’ if they are in line with what the latest climate science deems necessary to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement – limiting global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C and accelerating the transition to a net-zero economy.

Corporations play a major role in driving global emissions. The typical company that has joined the SBT Initiative, has reduced Scope 1+2 emissions 6.4% a year (which is above the 4.2% annual reduction the SBTi requires for 1.5°C). A critical mass in SBT-setting in the private sector will ensure that emissions reductions planning is prioritized across all industries.

SDG SPOTLIGHT:

IMPACT TIP:
EMISSIONS AUDITING - WHAT'S YOUR FOOTPRINT?

“You can't manage what you don't measure!”

Whether you are an individual, an organization or a community; the source of your emissions may surprise you! The Carbon Disclosure Project's 2021 Global Supply Chain report states that emissions produced in the value chain are 11.4x times higher than direct operations.

Consider your suppliers carefully! If you want to reduce your overall carbon footprint, be very picky about where you purchase your base materials and be cognizant of the affects of your product throughout it's entire lifecycle.

Check out Affirmative's Lifecycle Analysis ➙

What is a net zero pathway?
Setting net zero targets is the easy part: "We are going to reduce by x-amount, by y-date." However, the trouble comes with how we are laying out our pathway or plan to attain the targets. Major global companies are falling 72% short of required emissions reductions to achieve the Paris Agreement. Climate change is an unprecedented problem - one that requires unthinkable solutions: we need to admit the consequences of our business-as-usual actions! Robust, science-based net zero pathways are built upon quantitative scenario analysis and absolute transparency!

What is meant by "unambitious" or "gameable" targets?
One of the main political levers that is being pulled, is access to finance. The sustainable finance movement is forcing corporations to disclose portions of their emissions portfolios; which banks are using as a key performance indicator to adjust their lending decisions. Funny thing is,
which portion of the emissions portfolio must be disclosed, has yet been poorly defined. As a result, it can be difficult to understand how the overall emissions footprint came to be.

A way corporations might
unintentionally game the system, is to play with the type of metrics they are disclosing. Are they absolute emissions (the gross total emissions without nature-based reductions) or are they based in emissions intensity (emissions per unit of revenue)? What is the scope of the emissions being reported - Scope I & II (direct emissions) or Scope I, II & III (including product lifecycle)? Which temperature benchmark is the company using to delineate their goals? Are emissions measured at a single point in time or over a cumulative period? Do the commitments "ratchet up over time" or are they achieved at the recommended pace? Also, are high-emitting projects being positioned as cleaner, by being averaged in with their low-emitting counterparts?

The most ambitious targets set out clear and well-defined pathways, using the most aggressive emissions reductions and limiting global warming to the smallest possible temperature change. "A climate transition plan is a time-bound action plan that clearly outlines how an organization will pivot its existing assets, operations, and entire business model towards a trajectory that aligns with the latest and most ambitious climate science recommendations." (
CDP 2021 Climate Transition Plan Disclosure)

What about nature based and climate tech solutions?
First and foremost - reduce operational emissions! A range of actions are needed to achieve the Paris Agreement Goals of net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by mid-century,
including carbon removals.

Nature based solutions are not to be used
an excuse for inaction on rapid decarbonization by high emitters. But investing in biodiversity conservation provides co-benefits ranging from food security to disease control and climate regulation. Not to mention the economic benefits.

Learn more about target setting ➙

Previous
Previous

Diversity

Next
Next

Sustainable Finance