Glossary

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022: Tipping the Scale Toward Clean Energy

NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION
CONTACT
Nancy Marshall, Vice President, Marketing
484.415.7603 or nmarshall@climeco.com

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022: Tipping the Scale Toward Clean Energy

by: Erica Lasdon | August 30, 2022

Boyertown, Pennsylvania (August 30, 2022) – Sweeping legislation signed into law this month by President Biden will allow for unprecedented investments to decarbonize the nation’s economy. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) earmarks the bulk of its $490 billion spending on clean energy and climate change mitigation initiatives.

Combined with other recent spending bills, the U.S. government is set to begin a period of transformative investments. The Rocky Mountain Institute, a clean energy think tank, notes that the combined bills will more than triple annual real federal spending compared with recent years, which was already elevated from levels of the 1990s and early 2000s.

While the IRA is far from perfect, advocates say it provides extraordinary opportunities for the conservation of our nation’s lands and waterways and includes significant resources for restoring wildlife habitats and forests.

The legislation is expected to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to approximately 40%, compared to 2005-levels, by 2030. Without enactment of the IRA, the U.S. was on course to reduce its GHG emissions to only 26%, compared to 2005-levels, over this period, according to an analysis from the World Economic Forum.

For the U.S. to reach its emissions-reduction targets, it’s imperative that we begin to take action across the entire technology adoption curve. This means exploring: 

Existing technologies that are ready for market but not deployed. 
Solutions that require some further development to be market ready. 
Technologies that are only prototypes and need significant development.

Importantly, IRA resources will focus on the most hard-to-abate industrial sectors, such as electric power generation.

As widely reported, the IRA is projected to drive significant emissions reductions in the electric power sector. To a certain extent, this can lower production emissions in steel, cement, and other carbon-intensive industries. However, practical options to capture carbon from industrial processes and traditional energy production require substantial investment to help meet climate goals. The IRA addresses these challenges by creating incentives through a system of grants, loans, and tax credits, including making certain existing credits larger and more durable.

Here are a few key IRA provisions for companies and investors to be aware of:

Changes to 45Q, the existing tax credit for carbon capture and storage (CCS), make it more profitable and easier to access. Companies will be able to earn $85 for every metric ton of CO2 sequestered, rather than $50/ton previously. (The amount earned is less if the CO2 is buried during oil extraction.) The timeline is more favorable too. Previously, a company had to start building capture equipment by 2026. Now it’s 2033. The IRA also significantly lowers the minimum capture requirement.
Methane emissions are an urgent issue for many industries, as this type of emission is far more potent than carbon dioxide and hard to detect. For the oil and gas industry, investments in methane detection and a first-time federal fee on methane emissions will amplify existing initiatives within industry to tackle this problem. The IRA also funds grants, rebates, loans, and other assistance to facilities subject to the methane fee for a variety of measures, including adding or improving equipment and processes that reduce methane emissions.
Other long-term tax credits include clean hydrogen fuel development, direct-air-capture deployment, and advanced nuclear projects for heavy industry.

By driving down the cost of clean energy and other climate solutions, this approach may make it easier for companies and local governments to increase their climate ambitions. 

Regardless of your business’s sector, you will feel the impact of the IRA and related legislation. As the landscape shifts, companies and investors should factor an increasing rate of technological and systems change into their future plans.

Deep decarbonization is complex work that requires a diverse set of policy, legal, technology, and market solutions. Forthcoming investments by the U.S. government seek to put the country on a net-zero pathway. Importantly, investors and corporations have many tools available to assess their pathways to net-zero.

Since our founding, ClimeCo has been a leading transformation partner to companies, investors, and governments pursuing a low-carbon future.  As a vertically integrated sustainability solutions provider, we have enabled our clients to go beyond business as usual. By developing frontier technology- and nature-based carbon-reduction projects, transacting voluntary and compulsory environmental credits, and advising on climate risk and disclosure, our team is dedicated to implementing decarbonization pathways tailored to our clients’ specific sectors, business models, and balance sheets.

Please get in touch with us if you want to learn more about our:

Complete range of ESG Advisory solutions that help companies improve readiness and resilience in the ever-changing regulatory environment. 
Project Development capabilities around high-quality carbon projects that feature strong engagement with our project partners, local stakeholders, carbon registries, and credit buyers.
 
Environmental Credit offerings from projects we develop and projects we invest in.

About ClimeCo

ClimeCo is a respected global advisor, transaction facilitator, trader, and developer of environmental commodity market products and related solutions. We specialize in voluntary carbon, regulated carbon, renewable energy credits, plastics credits, and regional criteria pollutant trading programs. Complimenting these programs is a team of professionals skilled in providing sustainability program management solutions and developing and financing of GHG abatement and mitigation systems.

For more information or to discuss how ClimeCo can drive value for your organization, contact us at 484.415.0501, info@climeco.com, or through our website climeco.com. Be sure to follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter using our handle, @ClimeCo.

Dispatches from the Nature-Based Solutions Conference

by: Emily Romano | August 25, 2022

Site visit by ClimeCo at a reforestation project in Louisiana

Nature-based solutions (NBS) are an important part of the work we do at ClimeCo, and they are a growing sector of carbon markets. NBS are defined as actions that restore, manage, and protect natural habitats for societal benefit, including mitigation and adaptation to the effects of climate change. These activities, such as reforestation, peatland rewetting, or grassland management, have received extensive media coverage in recent years and months as they play an increasingly important role in many corporate and national climate plans. Successful NBS projects have the potential to achieve a trifecta of climate, community, and biodiversity benefits, while poorly designed projects are rightfully criticized as a step backward for climate goals, human rights, and ecosystem health.

With this context in mind, I attended the Nature-based Solutions Conference in Oxford, UK, in July 2022, hosted by researchers at the Nature-based Solutions Initiative. Held in the beautiful Oxford University Museum of Natural History, the conference attracted a wide range of researchers, policymakers, activists, NGO members, and practitioners. Sessions addressed topics such as the global status and criticisms of NBS, inclusive project governance and narratives, improved biodiversity outcomes, the economics of NBS, and applications for urban environments.

I learned a lot from the speakers, whose presentations addressed the conference’s central question: “How can we ensure that NBS support thriving human and ecological communities?” In this blog, I summarize and share the key messages I took home from this conference.

Bodleian Library, Oxford University

Key Takeaways

Concern for Low-Quality NBS

With careful planning and consideration, NBS projects can provide powerful, sustainable, and cost-effective benefits to their host communities. Unfortunately, a number of low-quality NBS projects around the world have failed in recent decades. These failures are almost always due to protocols with inadequate provisions for permanence and additionality or a lack of robust safeguards of human rights and biodiversity.

The conference explored numerous concerns surrounding low-quality NBS, primarily those voiced by Indigenous and local communities regarding projects that have caused and perpetuated human rights abuses. These include land tenure injustice, displacement of people and livelihoods, and denial of community access to natural resources. This sort of project is often characterized by a top-down design without the active participation of the local community, prioritization of western value systems, and a lack of transparency or long-term monitoring requirements. Low-quality projects often result in ecosystem failures due to inappropriate species selection or project location or the establishment of monoculture plantations without regard for local biodiversity.

An additional concern voiced at the conference was that NBS not be used in greenwashing schemes by polluters to replace decarbonization efforts. While ecosystems play an important role in climate change mitigation and adaptation, they are not capable of compensating for delayed emissions reductions in other sectors. Speakers also highlighted the moral hazard of entities from the Global North who might seek to export the responsibility and the work of decarbonization to the Global South.

These concerns are critically important for improving NBS project outcomes. The conference’s primary focus was on how to address these concerns and included many examples of current best practices from around the world.

Tradeoffs, Inclusive Project Design and Governance, and Narratives

While many NBS projects generate desirable co-benefits or “win-win” results for society and biodiversity, projects may also generate tradeoffs that create tension between competing project goals. For example, biophysical tradeoffs might occur if a project prioritizes one ecosystem service at the expense of another. Social tradeoffs might occur between stakeholders with different cultural or spiritual valuations of nature or between those with scientific knowledge and those with Indigenous knowledge. Project developers must acknowledge and mitigate these tradeoffs in partnership with local stakeholders to account for the full range of project impacts.

One strong message from the conference was the critical role that Indigenous and local community members must play in all stages of NBS projects and the importance of free, prior, and informed consent. Numerous speakers pointed out that many Indigenous groups have traditionally implemented successful NBS within their own communities, and their knowledge can fill critical gaps in scientific understanding. The inclusion of these groups from the design to the implementation to the monitoring stage of a project is not only a basic indicator of respect but can also tangibly improve project outcomes.

Indigenous and community leaders from numerous countries, including Zambia, China, Tanzania, Peru, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, presented case studies illustrating successful NBS outcomes in their communities. These presentations called for projects to distribute benefits equitably among community members, ensure a living wage, and create sources of long-term finance controlled by the local community. Finally, the speakers emphasized the critical importance of land tenure for Indigenous peoples.

ClimeCo meeting indigenous workers at a mangrove reforestation project in Indonesia

How to Prioritize and Adequately Represent Biodiversity

Another conference theme was the need for better metrics of biodiversity, so that progress can be adequately represented in project designs and monitoring plans. Speakers highlighted several scientific and technological advances, such as ecosystem DNA and high-resolution carbon mapping tools, which would facilitate project area prioritization and robust biodiversity assessment if implemented at scale.

However, some speakers quickly pointed out that “technology is not the solution. We are the solution.” In this vein, multiple speakers recommended that biodiversity monitoring plans utilize community monitoring approaches, including input from local and Indigenous groups regarding biodiversity metric selection.

Mangrove nursery managed and developed by the local community near the reforestation site

Creating High-Quality NBS

The conference delivered a crystal-clear message that projects that do not include robust provisions for human rights and biodiversity do not fall under the umbrella of the NBS term.

To avoid the pitfalls of low-quality projects, reputable carbon offset registries have developed meaningful standards for additionality and permanence and protocols that include protections for human rights and biodiversity. The most important feature of these protocols is that registries update them when a loophole is identified. Although these updates require months or even years to go into effect, this process allows registries to enforce ever-evolving concepts of “best practice.” For this reason, carbon offsets generated using the protocols of reputable registries, such as the Climate Action Reserve, Verra, the American Carbon Registry, and Gold Standard, are categorically distinct from low-quality offsets.

Regardless of protocol requirements, project developers are responsible for designing projects that adhere to best practices and meaningfully address the concerns of Indigenous and local stakeholders. Within the voluntary carbon market, project developers and carbon credit end-users must be able to recognize the indicators of a high-quality project and must be selective in the projects they choose to support.

ClimeCo’s NBS Approach

As offset project developers, the ClimeCo team always listens for new perspectives on best practices. We believe that NBS projects have enormous potential when they are designed carefully to empower and give voice to local communities. As sustainability advisors, we also feel a keen responsibility to help clients decarbonize wherever possible. Our ESG Advisory team provides many services essential to clients at any stage of their decarbonization journey. We encourage the use of offsets to address emission sources that are difficult or impossible to abate as a part of a larger decarbonization plan.

Most importantly, we understand there is no one-size-fits-all approach to NBS project development. We are grateful for each opportunity to earn a community’s trust and seek partners who share our accountability and responsible stewardship values.

ClimeCo’s Dr. Scott Subler observing freshly planted Bald Cypress saplings

Conclusion

I left the conference inspired by the incredible work being done worldwide to improve the implementation of NBS. ClimeCo will continue to listen and apply the guidance and feedback of the global NBS community, and I cannot wait to see the good our projects can do. ClimeCo is committed to informing you of new information discovered as we continue to explore in-depth NBS concerns. We welcome comments or questions surrounding this topic.

Anyone interested in watching conference sessions can access recordings and PDFs of presentations on the conference website (I recommend Session 4 and Session 9A). For those curious to see examples of high-quality projects, the Nature-based Solutions Initiative’s organizers directed us to their Case Study Platform, a map-based tool with over 100 examples of projects from around the world that meet the researchers’ quality standards.

About the Author

Emily Romano is a Project Manager at ClimeCo based in San Francisco. Within Project Development, she applies a background in climate, ecosystem, and soil science to her work managing NBS projects. She holds a Master of Science in Environmental Science and Policy from Northern Arizona University and a Bachelor of Science in Geology from Syracuse University.

What Is The Role Of Renewable Electricity In Corporate Sustainability?

by: Garrett Keraga | March 28, 2022

In 2022, it seems that we’ve reached a crescendo of pressure from regulators, investors, customers, peers, and other stakeholders pushing companies along a sustainable path. Things that were once considered exceptional – such as pledging to reach net-zero carbon emissions or using 100% renewable electricity – have quickly become necessities for many companies to keep up with their peers. When we look back at the sustainability landscape over the last few years, it’s easy to see how this sudden boom of ESG has led to some confusion.

As companies enhance their ESG strategy and commit to public-facing initiatives, it becomes crucial to understand how different interventions factor into their corporate carbon accounting. How can carbon offsets be used? Where can companies account for renewable energy? What projects can be undertaken to decarbonize? And ultimately, which of these efforts should be prioritized in an ESG strategy? Companies need to be able to answer these questions and communicate their strategy effectively to stakeholders. In this blog, we explain the role renewable electricity has in corporate sustainability.

How does renewable electricity factor into corporate carbon accounting?

Renewable electricity is often one of the first levers considered when creating a corporate ESG strategy, and the global transition to clean energy is accelerating every year. Bloomberg reported that global renewable energy investment grew by 6.5% in 2021 to a new record of $366 billion. For companies, switching to renewable electricity can be just part of a decarbonization strategy, or specific goals around renewable electricity consumption can be set, such as those set through RE100. When companies plan out renewable electricity adoption, there’s a lot to decipher.

First, companies need to understand how to account for renewable electricity in their carbon footprint. For this, as with all carbon accounting questions, companies will want to reference the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol, and here specifically – the Scope 2 Guidance. Scope 2 covers indirect emissions from purchased electricity and other purchased energy – basically, the emissions created by the generator of that electricity when the generator is not operated by the company conducting the carbon inventory. For most companies, this refers primarily to electricity from the grid.

Location-based Accounting: Within Scope 2, one option is to account for electricity emissions with a location-based emission factor, where reporting entities use an emission factor based on local grid mix to determine their emissions. This doesn’t allow for contractual instruments, such as Renewable Energy Credits (RECs), to be used to switch generation attributes and lower emissions.

Market-based Accounting: However, the other option – market-based accounting – allows for consumer choices in energy generation and contractual instruments to be reflected in the emission factor. In other words, continuous contracts with a supplier to use a renewable generation, or one-time REC purchases, can be accounted for in the market-based approach. Companies that are considering building renewable electricity into their ESG strategy should utilize a market-based carbon accounting approach for Scope 2.

What renewable electricity options are available to companies?

Option 1: RECs are a common entry point for companies starting to use renewable electricity. RECs represent a certified unit of electricity production from a generator. RECs must be retired on behalf of a specific entity, and once retired, that electricity generation cannot be accounted for elsewhere. RECs are often third-party-certified by entities such as Green-e® Energy. As more RECs are retired, the remaining grid mix, called the “residual mix” gets dirtier, further incentivizing companies to adopt renewable electricity. RECs can be simply purchased in bulk and used to switch a company’s entire electricity consumption to renewable sources each year. Similarly, companies can work with utilities to opt into low-carbon energy contracts, which often work by providing RECs to the purchaser. However, some critics argue that purchasing renewable electricity through RECs stunts companies’ impact on increasing the total amount of renewable electricity on the grid. Companies will also often seek to move beyond RECs to avoid the annual expenditure and price uncertainty in their renewable electricity supply.

Option 2: Onsite generation is another choice for companies, especially those that own property and/or their facilities. Rooftop solar is one popular example. Onsite generation can also occur in leased or rented spaces through collaboration with landlords. This strategy is most often employed in facilities or properties where a company has a long-term lease and plans to stay in a particular location for the foreseeable future. Companies should note that they can only take credit for renewable electricity that is generated onsite if they use power directly from their system or retire RECs generated by their systems on their own behalf. If RECs are sold, that company cannot take credit for the renewable electricity it produced on its site.

Option 3: Many companies who don’t have the assets to invest in onsite renewables opt instead to pursue a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). In a low-carbon PPA, companies will pay a third-party to develop and maintain a renewable electricity system and sell that energy physically or in the form of credits back to the company. When credits are sold back to the company, but the electricity itself is consumed elsewhere or sold to the grid, these agreements are called Virtual Power Purchase Agreements (VPPAs). Typically, companies will size a PPA based on their energy consumption and will often develop a project along with other interested companies.

In all of these cases, renewable electricity can be accounted for in a company’s carbon footprint, as long as the company uses the market-based approach for Scope 2 accounting and retires the renewable generation credits on their behalf or directly consumes renewable electricity.

Source: GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance (linked above)

“Additionality” in renewable electricity – is it an effective or appropriate metric?

In the world of carbon offsets and project development, “additionality” is a strict qualifier that assesses whether a project was caused by intervention above and beyond regulation. To be additional, it must be determined that a project would not have happened without the intervention of the entity supporting the project. When evaluating what type of renewable electricity strategy to pursue, companies tend to ask themselves about additionality and whether they are supporting a new project – through a PPA, for example. But is this term really applicable to renewable electricity?

Ultimately, additionality isn’t a term that should be used to discuss renewable electricity. The GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance advises that “Offset additionality criteria are not fundamental to, or largely compatible with, the underlying rules for market-based scope 2 accounting and allocation.” Additionality is used to qualify projects that are an improvement over a baseline. For example, in carbon offset projects, what is being measured is a change in avoided GHG emissions from a theoretical baseline without intervention. In renewable electricity, direct energy use attributes are being claimed rather than separation from a baseline. It’s also a challenge to determine what is really “in addition” to regulation in the world of renewable electricity. On top of that, there are more aspects of additionality as used in project development, like proving that technology isn’t commonplace, which aren’t useful to apply to renewable electricity.

That said, companies may still face criticism if it’s perceived that they aren’t doing enough to support the development of new renewable electricity sources. Voluntary programs can be developed to address this concern, but for now, companies should stray away from the term “additionality” to avoid making a false claim. In the words of the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance “Maximizing the speed and efficacy of voluntary initiatives in driving new low-carbon development is an important, complex, dynamic, and evolving process for program implementers, regulators, and participants.”. Supporting development of new renewable assets is an ongoing challenge that companies can help accelerate as they increase demand for renewable electricity.

Creating a corporate renewable electricity strategy

As companies face the challenge of adopting renewable electricity and developing a robust plan to meet stakeholder demands, ClimeCo is here to develop a strategy that is right for you. For more information or to discuss how ClimeCo can drive value for your organization, contact us at info@climeco.com.

About the Author

Garrett Keraga is a Manager on ClimeCo’s Sustainability, Policy, and Advisory team based in Burlington, Vermont. His sustainability work has included greenhouse gas accounting, carbon abatement planning, ESG strategy development, and disclosure advisory. He has worked with a large variety of industries, both across consumer-facing and industrial clients. Garrett holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Vermont.

What is a Life Cycle Assessment?

by: Gary Yoder and Jaskaran Sidhu | February 22, 2022

Solutions considered essential to decarbonization reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, yet rarely come without other environmental impacts. For example, while vehicle electrification will increase battery production, the mining of lithium has a substantial environmental impact. So how do we evaluate whether each trade-off on our path to net-zero is worth it? A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which offers a framework for quantifying the potential environmental impacts of a product from cradle–to–grave (i.e., from growth/extraction of raw material inputs all the way through a product’s disposal), allows us to make that determination.

Benefits of LCAs?

Unlike GHG footprints or other Environmental, Social, & Governances (ESG) metrics that typically quantify enterprise-level impacts and show year-to-year progress, LCAs often focus on the potential environmental impact at a specific product or a facility level. Such information can be important to customers, suppliers, employees, investors, and regulatory entities.

ClimeCo has performed a variety of LCA projects across multiple industries and scopes. The goals of an LCA can vary; the following two projects provide examples of two different approaches to LCAs that ClimeCo has recently completed for our clients.

LCA Example #1

Confidential Industrial Manufacturer: Benefits of Practice Change vs. Historical Performance at a Facility

ClimeCo carried out a cradle-to-grave carbon intensity (CI) LCA for four products made at an industrial facility.

The Objective: Communicate Carbon Capture Benefit
One of the many applications of an LCA is its ability to demonstrate the environmental benefits achieved by adopting different operational practices. A detailed analysis of GHG emitted through the product lifecycles showed the reduction in CIs achieved by capturing previously vented process CO2 for sequestration. These CIs, and their recent reductions, will be used in customer communications and marketing efforts, differentiating the environmental “value” of the products from those offered by competitors.

Another Use: Evaluate Decarbonization Options
LCAs can be a reliable methodology for demonstrating GHG benefits achieved through existing decarbonization actions – as was the case for the scenario above – and for evaluating various potential reduction measures prior to their implementation. When used in combination with tools like Marginal Abatement Cost Curves (MACC), LCAs can help assess reduction pathways along with their associated monetary cost.

Financial Incentive Opportunities
Identifying GHG performance improvement opportunities can open doors to participate in current and upcoming federal- and state-level programs that come with significant financial incentives. These include California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Canada’s Clean Fuel Standard, or the IRS carbon sequestration tax credit (45Q), each requiring full product LCAs.

LCA Example #2

J-Band® – Benefits of Product vs. Alternatives

ClimeCo collaborated with Asphalt Materials, Inc. (AMI) to complete an LCA-based sustainability assessment of J-Band®, AMI’s void reducing asphalt membrane (VRAM) product.

The Product
AMI designed J-Band to reduce road maintenance and extend the lifetime of asphalt pavement roads by strengthening the longitudinal (centerline) joint, traditionally a problematic site for road deterioration. The deterioration results from the intrusion of air and water due to inherently lower asphalt mixture density at the joint. Over time, the joint naturally becomes the weak link in the entire road surface, requiring periodic repairs before complete road replacement. To combat this, J-Band® is a polymer-modified asphalt product applied to the prepared surface prior to applying the new hot-mix asphalt (HMA). When the HMA pavement lifts are applied, heat from the hot-mix drives J-Band® into the available voids, sealing the joint area from below. Due to established jurisdictional practices and specification requirements, J-Band® is used in a smaller percentage of asphalt paving projects in the U.S., with traditional solutions, such as joint adhesive, pave wide trim back (PWTB), and infrared (IR) heaters, being more common.

The Product’s Competitive Edge: Performance and Cost
AMI has demonstrated that J-Band® creates a better joint compared to the alternatives, eliminating the need for frequent, significant joint repair, and prolonging the life of the road by at least three additional years. Based on this performance, AMI has shown that J-Band® has a lower lifetime cost, with its upfront costs surpassed by reduced asphalt materials, fuel, and labor costs.

A Sustainability Edge, too?
Is the same true for J-Band’s lifetime environmental and social impacts? The product requires energy and material inputs to manufacture and apply – are these impacts surpassed by the benefits of reduced maintenance and extended road lifetime? ClimeCo completed a curtailed-boundary comparative LCA, evaluating J-Band against three traditional longitudinal joint solution alternatives to answer this question. The comparative LCA approach meant impacts common to all alternatives could be excluded from quantification, such as including the production of HMA, transporting the asphalt to the job site, and energy use of the paving equipment. However, for all the life cycle phases where differences between the alternatives were established, the impacts were calculated. The following table shows the life cycle stages included in the analysis.

The Analysis
ClimeCo quantified GHGs and criteria air pollutants (AQ) impacts across raw materials extraction, materials manufacturing, product transport, joint solution application, and road maintenance. The developed calculator tool clearly documents assumptions and data sources. It is customizable for key project details, such as project length, distance to the project site, and distance to perform maintenance.

The Results
Under the assumed baseline conditions, J-Band demonstrated better sustainability performance and reduced emissions during construction and maintenance phases compared to the longitudinal joint solution alternatives. For more information on this project scope and results, please see the following PowerPoint presentation.

Using LCAs for a More Sustainable Future

As these two project examples show, LCAs can be targeted to answer specific questions and meet specific needs. However, because each LCA is context-specific and fine-tuned to its application, one LCA cannot be compared to another. To manage this limitation, ClimeCo’s standard practice is to use conservative assumptions and to be transparent with methodologies, ensuring trustworthy, well-documented LCA results that align with reality.

Whether you are looking to enhance a product or process, develop sustainability marketing claims, or meet regulatory or reporting requirements, ClimeCo has the expertise in applying LCAs to support informed decision-making across these areas.

About the Authors

Gary Yoder is a Vice President at ClimeCo, providing environmental compliance services to many clients. He specializes in the complexities of air quality compliance but also supports ClimeCo’s sustainability projects and initiatives. Gary holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Geography/Pre-Meteorology from Ohio University and a Master of Science degree in Meteorology from North Carolina State University.

Jaskaran Sidhu is an Analyst on ClimeCo’s Sustainability, Policy, and Advisory team based in Toronto. Jaskaran’s work focuses on life cycle analysis and carbon impact quantification for ClimeCo’s corporate clients. Jaskaran holds a Master of Engineering in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering from the University of Toronto and a Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering from Panjab University.

What Are Sustainable Development Goals and How Can You Assess Their Impact?

by: Stephanie Hefelfinger and Rebecca Stoops | January 19, 2022

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a popular topic worldwide, and you’ve probably seen organizations displaying their SDG contributions with these colorful icons. How are they justifying their SDG claims? How can you feel confident when purchasing credits, and what are the levels of assurance for SDG claims? What tools do professionals use to analyze their projects?

What are SDGs?

The SDGs are 17 key issues that projects, businesses, and governments must target to improve the world by 2030. They were created by the United Nations (UN) Development Program and include targets like No Poverty, Responsible Consumption and Production, and Clean Water and Sanitation.

This diagram shows how all SDGs are interlinked and depend on each other. Image source: How food connects all the SDGs – Stockholm Resilience Centre

Case Study of The WaY Project and Available SDG Tools

In the voluntary credit market, plastic credits have been established to represent 1 metric ton of plastic waste collected from the environment. Projects like this can also offer other benefits that improve the community’s well-being and the environment – these benefits can align with the Sustainable Development Goals.

The WaY (Women and Youth) plastic collection project in Cote d’Ivoire, developed by Conceptos Plásticos, collects plastic waste that would have otherwise been left in the environment. The plastic is turned into construction bricks, which are used to build schools for local communities. The project focuses on hiring women to increase empowerment and economic opportunities for a heavily underserved population. ClimeCo is partnering with the WaY Project to generate plastic credits from its plastic collection activities.

It is essential for an organization to provide a good faith effort when presenting their SDG impact claims. When purchasing credits from a project with these claims, we highly recommend that you contact them and ask what steps they took to assess their SDG impact. To help you with this, let us walk you through the public SDG tools we used to determine our project’s biggest SDG benefits.

The Tools

The SDG Impact Assessment Manager Tool is a free resource developed by the UN Global Compact and B Lab. The SDG Impact Assessment Manager Tool measures a project’s current impact and helps identify which SDGs have the greatest opportunity for improvement, with straightforward suggestions for actual changes. Think of this as an SDG personality quiz for a project.

This is an example of a question from SDG 10 – Reduced Inequalities, as well as SDG 8 – Decent Work and Economic Growth:

The SDG Compass was developed by the UN Global Compact, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Since the UN developed the SDGs at an international and country level, it can be hard to understand how they relate to smaller–scale projects. This tool translates each SDG and all the targets into manageable and realistic goals that a project can achieve. The SDG Compass recommends prioritizing SDGs that could potentially affect human rights.

The Outcome of Our Efforts

We started with the SDG Impact Assessment Manager Tool. This requires the completion of 15-30 questions for each SDG, which usually takes a few hours to complete. The higher the score percentage (see below), the higher the impact on the goal. While The WaY Project has a positive effect on many SDGs, the results of this tool demonstrate that the largest impact is on SDGs 1, 4, 5, 9, and 10.

Next, we used the SDG Compass to study each SDG in greater detail. This explains how our project intends to actively meet the relevant SDGs.

Next, we created a diagram to see what parts of our project are directly quantifiable and measurable. All impacts are important, but it’s easier to prove and certify measurable impacts. Gold Standard recommends this step through their tool.

Leveraging all three tools, we can see where our project has the biggest impact. We’ve also determined where we can improve. For example, The WaY project should continue encouraging women to use the provided Proper Protective Equipment (PPE) and work with the women to choose improved PPE offerings that fit their cultural attire.

Conclusion

For those who want greater assurance on SDG claims, there are several credit registries that offer credits with SDG impacts that a 3rd party has verified – Gold Standard, the American Carbon Registry, the Climate Action Reserve, and Verra. At ClimeCo, we want clients to feel confident in our projects and their SDG claims. We are here to educate and be a resource for understanding SDG claims, finding the right projects for clients’ ESG goals, and helping new projects develop their SDG claims. Feel free to reach out to us if you have any questions; we are happy to help.

This is an example of certified SDGs from a project listed under Gold Standard’s registry.

About the Author

Rebecca Stoops is a Project Manager at ClimeCo, focusing on plastic credit projects and refrigerant projects for carbon credits. She enjoys hiking, the great outdoors, and cleaning up nature by picking up trash. Stephanie Hefelfinger is a Project Associate at ClimeCo, focusing on plastic credit projects and livestock and composting projects for carbon credits. She enjoys hunting for pretty rocks. They both enjoy getting into the nitty–gritty details of projects to learn how they operate and their positive impacts on the environment.

Glossary

What Are Sustainable Development Goals and How Can You Assess Their Impact?

What Are Sustainable Development Goals and How Can You Assess Their Impact?

Sources

Additional Resources