What’s so difficult about the CO2 footprint? (Part 1)

Everyone is talking about climate neutrality and with it the topic of the carbon footprint. This is intended to describe how many climate-relevant greenhouse gases are caused by an economic activity and serves as a general assessment standard, so to speak. However, a closer look reveals that the devil is in the detail.
First of all, it must be taken into account that there is a whole range of so-called greenhouse gases. In addition to the best-known carbon dioxide (CO2), which is inevitably produced in all combustion processes, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O or laughing gas) are the most important other representatives. It should be noted that the climate-related effect of methane is around 25 times more intensive than that of CO2 and that of N2O around 300 times more intensive. For this reason, emissions are described using the so-called CO2 equivalent, which describes the effects of emissions as if they were caused exclusively by CO2. However, the direct economic activity of a company does not consist of emitting or extracting greenhouse gases into or from the atmosphere, but rather arises indirectly as a result of its business activities. The consumption of primary fuels such as coal, gas or oil is of course at the forefront, followed by the electrical energy purchased. However, the costs of transportation and travel, the materials used and land use can also play a relevant role. In order to bring some order to the various levels of consideration, the internationally recognized Green House Gas Protocol has developed so-called scopes. These differentiate between the various levels of causation. Scope 1 includes all emissions caused directly by the company itself, e.g. through its own fossil fuel-fired heating system or the operation of its own vehicle fleet. Scope 2 includes purchased energy such as electricity or district heating. Scope 3 should include all indirectly caused emissions from the upstream and downstream value chain. It quickly becomes clear that the issues of system boundaries and allocation pose major challenges.
But these are not the only challenges: The framework under consideration also varies and leads to different approaches and results. The CO2 footprint of an organization is often determined. This so-called greenhouse gas balance can be done with the help of ISO 14064-1, for example. Here, the CO2 equivalents that an organization causes within a period of time – usually one year – are determined. If you look at the scopes already introduced above, you can imagine that the values for scopes 1 and 2 can be determined quite easily. The inclusion of Scope 3, on the other hand, often leads to more complex determination approaches. Based on these values, organizations can then be compared quite practically with regard to their “climate efficiency”.

We look forward to engaging in dialog with you and addressing your challenges.
Sustainably, for your success!