Carbon footprint study - London 2012 Carbon footprint study - Methodology and reference footprint March 2010
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
London 2012 Carbon footprint study – Methodology and reference footprint March 2010 Carbon footprint study
Contents Preface 5
Introduction 6
How we developed the reference footprint 6
Report status 6
Verification 7
Methodology 8
Summary of accounting principles 9
Complying with the principles 10
Relevance 10
Completeness 10
Consistency 11
Accuracy 11
Transparency 11
Games boundaries 12
Owned, shared and associated (OSA) impacts 13
Deciding what is ‘out of scope’ 14
Emission sources considered for inclusion 15
Applying a materiality threshold 16
Tracking emissions over time 16
Defining a reference scenario 18
Developing a reduction scenario 19
Identifying and calculating GHG emissions 20
Identifying sources 20
Selecting a calculation approach 21
Collecting data and choosing emission factors 22
Accounting renewable electricity 23
Aircraft emission factors and passenger classes 24
Applying calculation tools 24
Managing inventory quality 24
Reporting GHG emissions 26
Key performance indicators (KPIs) 26
The London 2012 reference footprint 27
Summary results 27
Big hitters 29
Reference footprint method overview 29
Spectators 31
Overview 31
Big hitters 32
Emission sources 32
Materiality threshold 33
Calculation approach 33
Assumptions 35
Transport 35
Catering 36
Accommodation 37
Merchandise 38
Data and emission factors 39
Operations 41
Overview 41
Big hitters 42
Emission sources 42
Materiality threshold 43
Calculation approach 43
Assumptions 44
IT services 44
Ceremonies and culture 44
Transport services 44
Media 45
3Travel grants 46
Staff offices and travel 46
Games workforce and athletes 47
Venue energy use 48
Overlay and fit‑out 49
Data and emission factors 49
Venues 53
Overview 53
Big hitters 54
Emission sources 55
Materiality threshold 55
Calculation approach 56
Materials 56
Transport 56
On‑site energy use 58
Assumptions 58
Olympic Stadium 58
Media Centre 59
Olympic Village 60
Aquatics Centre 61
Olympic Park works (the ‘common domain’) 61
Data and emission factors 64
Transport infrastructure 66
Overview 66
Big hitters 67
Emission sources 68
Materiality threshold 68
Calculation approach 68
Data and emission factors 68
Appendix A: London 2012 Carbon Technical Advisory Group 69
Report authors 69
Best Foot Forward 69
Terms of Reference: London 2012 Carbon Management 69
Objective 69
Remit 69
Membership 70
Modus operandi 70
Powers of the Advisory Group 70
Confidentiality 70
Communications protocol 70
Time commitment and remuneration 70
Appointment and retirement of Advisory Group members 70
Public recognition of Advisory Group membership 70
Appendix B: A description of the IO analysis used to plug data gaps 71
Appendix C: Method used to calculate uncertainty in the ICE
V1.6 materials data 72
Appendix D: Adjustment policy 73
Updating the reference footprint 73
Changes in boundaries (the inclusion/exclusion of
different emission sources) 73
Changes in data and assumptions 74
Trigger points for updating the reference footprint 75
Developing a reduction scenario 75
Reference reduction measure; date, assumptions and data sources 75
Proposed reduction measure; data, assumptions and data sources 75
4Preface How do you produce an accurate carbon footprint for an event as complex
and unconventional as the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games? For
London 2012, the search for an answer has resulted in a ‘groundbreaking’1
new approach to footprint methodology.
This London 2012 Carbon Footprint Study was devised in part through
necessity. No Summer Games has ever attempted to map its carbon footprint
before. Equally, no existing footprinting standard for events can be applied
meaningfully to an Olympic and Paralympic Games.
In the original London 2012 bid, we made a commitment to deliver a
‘low‑carbon Games’. In order to define our performance, however, it was
clear that the scope and scale of Games‑related emissions needed to be
properly measured and understood. That is why in the second half of 2007,
London 2012 began the process of measuring its carbon footprint.
This was the starting point for developing the London 2012 Carbon
Management Strategy, which has four primary objectives:
− To define and measure an initial baseline carbon footprint of the Games
(known as a reference footprint), from which to measure any carbon
reduction activities.
− To seek ways to reduce our carbon footprint through avoiding emissions,
reducing emissions and substituting conventional systems with lower
carbon technologies.
− To influence the uptake of best practices and innovative approaches
developed by London 2012, and inspire behaviour change, as a means to
mitigate unavoidable emissions.
− To implement climate adaptation strategies so that the legacy development
and parklands are appropriate for the long term.
This report focuses on the first of these objectives. In particular, the carbon
footprint for the Games is a forward‑looking estimate of potential carbon
emissions from the project. This has turned carbon footprinting into an impact
assessment tool, rather than a reporting mechanism.
As this has been the first such comprehensive carbon footprint study of the
Games, there have inevitably been data gaps, instances of low‑quality data
and assumptions made. It is also noteworthy that footprinting itself is an
emerging science.
Nevertheless, despite these cautions, which we have highlighted in the
report, this exercise has proved immensely valuable in defining the scale of
the Games and identifying major areas of impact.
We therefore feel it is important to publish this report as a technical
addendum to the London 2012 Sustainability Plan and Carbon Management
Strategy. This not only underlines London 2012’s commitment to transparent
reporting but also to building a positive knowledge legacy.
Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 Annual Report, April 2009.
1
5Introduction This report sets out the carbon footprint methodology and reference footprint
for the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games developed on
behalf of London 2012. This has informed the carbon management strategy
for the Games, which is set out in the London 2012 Sustainability Plan
(second edition) published in December 20092. The work was commissioned
by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic
Games (LOCOG), in partnership with the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA)
and the London Development Agency (LDA), in March 2008.
The following report is independent. All reasonable effort has been made by
London 2012 to ensure that the figures included in the updated London 2012
Sustainability Plan are consistent with those given in this report.
The specific objectives addressed in this report are to:
− Develop a robust methodology for calculating an initial baseline carbon
footprint of the Games (known as the reference footprint) and facilitating
the ongoing monitoring of this footprint throughout the London 2012
delivery programme.
− Develop and showcase ‘thought leadership’ and best practice in this
emerging field, leaving a positive knowledge legacy in order to assist
future events seeking to minimise their carbon footprint.
How we developed the reference footprint
This report arises from work commissioned by LOCOG – in partnership with
the ODA and the LDA – in March 2008. It followed an initial study carried
out from June to November 2007 to scope and provide an early estimate of
the carbon footprint of the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic
Games.
Both phases of this work were carried out by Best Foot Forward (BFF), a
Queen’s Award‑winning, independent consultancy specialising in carbon
footprinting. The work was overseen by a client steering group from LOCOG,
the ODA and the LDA, and supported by a Technical Advisory Group (TAG).
The TAG comprised individual specialists from universities, businesses,
(including London 2012 Commercial Partners), NGOs and Government. It
met six times during 2008 and 2009 and, between meetings, corresponded
via an online forum where early drafts and issues documents were posted.
Membership and terms of reference of the TAG are given in Appendix A.
Two wider stakeholder briefings were also held over the same period to draw
in additional commentary and debate a series of specific questions relating
to the emerging strategy. These same questions were also debated by the
Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 and conclusions were fed back
to Best Foot Forward.
Report status
This report is based on the best data, assumptions and estimates available at
the time of the research.
While the overall methodology should remain largely unchanged, it is
inevitable that certain elements of the London 2012 Strategy and reference
footprint will continue to evolve during the two‑and‑a‑half years remaining
until the Games. This is largely due to the uncertainties involved in predicting
future emissions and the continuing emergence of new research, standards
and guidance which will impact on the approach to accounting for
greenhouse gas emissions.
2
London 2012 Sustainability Plan, 2009 – london2012.com
6Subsequent updates will be reported as part of the annual review of the
London 2012 Sustainability Plan.
Verification
In line with best practice, this document has been independently reviewed by
KPMG to provide an objective assessment of the assumptions, method and
reporting principles.
We commissioned this work to provide confidence that:
− the method used is credible and complies with any relevant established
GHG accounting and reporting principles; and
− the results contain no material discrepancies – in other words,
notwithstanding the uncertainties inherent in predicting future emissions,
nothing has been omitted or substantial errors made which would
materially affect the conclusions.
7Methodology This section describes the methodology used to measure the initial baseline
carbon footprint of the London 2012 Games. Our primary goal is to provide
sufficient detail so that this methodology can be replicated to measure the
footprint of future Games and, with some limited adaptation, other large
sporting events. In this sense it forms a substantive part of London 2012’s
knowledge legacy.
Though standards and guidelines exist for the retrospective measurement of
footprints for companies, products and services, there is currently no
universally agreed approach to measuring the footprint of an event.
Furthermore, any new method devised for the Games must, if it is to be useful
in mitigating emissions, anticipate the impact of an event many years in the
future. In this sense, it has similarities to an environmental impact assessment
or risk analysis; the goal is to anticipate significant ‘carbon risks’ so that they
can be avoided, reduced or shared where possible.
Some of these problems of definition and measurement are no different to
those faced when footprinting any organisation. However, the scale, reach
and very public expectations surrounding the Games make the issues even
more acute and the solutions even more complex.
Our method is unashamedly pragmatic. We have focused primarily on trying
to identify in advance those opportunities that will cost‑effectively reduce the
footprint of London 2012. Our methodology is not presented in the style of a
formal standard – this would make it too generic and impenetrable. Instead,
we have sought to present straightforward guidance and potential solutions
to the problems that will be faced when attempting to footprint a large
sporting event.
There remain some areas of uncertainty and imprecision. Indeed, the many
healthy discussions among members of the TAG and with key stakeholders
demonstrated that there is no one right answer when deciding the best way
to footprint a large event. In its favour, the method described here has been
successfully applied to the Games and, where found to be wanting, it has
been adapted and modified accordingly.
The method builds on existing greenhouse gas accounting principles and, in
particular, the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol3 and the new PAS 20504
developed jointed by BSI, Defra and the Carbon Trust. It is worth noting that
two significant events occurred during the course of our work: the formation
of the new Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the
publication by the Committee on Climate Change of the UK’s first carbon
budget. As far as possible, the methodology presented here reflects the
impact of these advances.
3
T he Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard: Revised
Edition. Published by WBCSD and WRI; March 2004. Available at ghgprotocol.org
4
PAS2050: Assessing the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services.
Published by BSI; October 2008. Available at bsi-global.com/en/Standards-and-Publications/
How-we-can-help-you/Professional-Standards-Service/PAS-2050/
8Summary of accounting principles
We have highlighted the main features of our approach as a series of 15
accounting principles at relevant points throughout the document. In summary,
these are as follows:
1. Comply with the underpinning principles of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol
and ISO 14064‑1: Relevance, Completeness, Consistency, Accuracy and
Transparency.
2. Account direct and indirect emissions (Scopes 1, 2 and 3). As far as
possible, account for all Kyoto Protocol Greenhouse Gases. Report all
results in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents or tCO2e.
3. Set the study boundaries widely to include those elements over which
the Games have control or influence. As far as possible, allocate the
emissions into three categories: ‘owned’, ‘shared’ or ‘associated’ based
on who is responsible for generating them.
4. Establish a structured and consistent method for deciding what is in,
and out, of scope.
5. Account emissions in the year that they occur, allocating them to
pre‑Games, Games and legacy phases, as appropriate. Responsibility
for these emissions should be established and clearly documented.
6. Legacy benefits are lasting carbon savings as a result of Games‑funded
projects or initiatives. To count towards legacy, savings must be
additional.
7. Establish a well‑documented reference scenario against which reductions
can be accounted. Ensure that the data used to construct the reference
scenario is relevant, credible and defensible.
8. Reduction measures must be transparently documented, additional
and linked to a clear time horizon. Double counting should be avoided.
The corresponding reference scenario assumption should be readily
apparent.
9. Use the financial framework within the Candidate File to help identify
projects and activities that are likely to generate a carbon impact.
10. Identify a consistent dataset of carbon conversion factors for use
throughout the carbon management strategy process. Ensure that these
cover all Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gases, direct and indirect emissions
and include a data quality assessment. Use commonly available,
standard datasets where possible with tools to support and facilitate
data sharing and integrated planning.
11. Identify contentious carbon accounting issues early on to allow time for
research, debate and consensus building. Document the decision‑making
process.
12. The carbon conversion factors used should be responsive to local
circumstances. Rules about how to account, for example, renewable
energy are not universal. These can change as new guidance emerges
and may differ within, and between, countries.
13. Document levels of uncertainty attributable both to poor quality data and
uncertainty in the carbon conversion factors used and implement quality
control measures.
14. Annually report the carbon footprint. Clearly document any data,
methodology or scenario changes.
15. Establish key performance indicators. These will allow comparison within,
and between, Games and allow the overall effect of specific reduction
measures to be quantified.
9Complying with the principles
‘As with financial accounting and reporting, generally accepted GHG
accounting principles are intended…to ensure that the reported information
represents a faithful, true, and fair account of a company’s GHG emissions5.’
This section explains the 15 agreed accounting principles in detail and
describes how the London 2012 methodology has sought to comply with
the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol’s underpinning principles.
These are not unique to the GHG Protocol but are common to many accounting
systems, be they environmental or financial, and provide the basis for sound
and robust decision‑making.
Accounting principle 1: Comply with the underpinning principles of the
Greenhouse Gas Protocol and ISO 14064‑1: Relevance, Completeness,
Consistency, Accuracy and Transparency.
Relevance
GHG requirement: ‘Contains the information that users, both internal and
external, need for their decision making… An important aspect of relevance
is the selection of an appropriate boundary6.’
London 2012 response: The boundaries of our footprint methodology were
selected so as to include those elements over which we have influence and/or
control. In this way, all information relevant to managing London 2012’s
carbon footprint falls within scope.
Completeness
GHG requirement: ‘All relevant emissions sources within the chosen inventory
boundary need to be accounted for so that a comprehensive and meaningful
inventory is compiled. In practice, a lack of data or the cost of gathering data
may be a limiting factor7.’
London 2012 response: To ensure full coverage, we have based the reporting
categories in our footprint methodology on the financial accounts contained
within the original Candidate File. As a result, every line item in the financial
framework has been reviewed with respect to its likely carbon impact. Where
data on the anticipated energy or material use was not available (for example,
where it was too early to detail exactly how the money would be spent) then
the financial data was used directly as a proxy for carbon emissions using
input‑output (IO) analysis. As better, physical data has become available,
these figures have been replaced with more robust estimates of emissions.
(Although little IO‑derived data remains in the datasets used to calculate the
reference scenario, a brief description of the IO approach used has been
provided in Appendix B.)
The GHG Protocol warns against using a materiality threshold to exclude
impacts deemed negligible (de minimis) – arguing that this leads to an
incomplete assessment of the carbon footprint. Although a materiality
threshold has been applied here for practical purposes, we have taken care
to include some allowance for those smaller items which fall below the
threshold.
5
Extract from The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard:
Revised Edition (2004).
6
Ibid
7
Ibid
10See the ‘Materiality threshold’ section (see p.68) for more details on how this
has been applied.
Consistency
GHG requirement: ‘Users of GHG information will want to track and compare
GHG emissions information over time in order to identify trends and to assess
performance8.’
London 2012 response: The London 2012 footprint data will be used for the
IOC’s Olympic Games Impact (OGI) study. This requires the annual reporting
of the GHG emissions attributable to the Games, among other metrics. Our
approach reflects this need for consistency over time by adopting clear
reporting boundaries and a well‑defined calculation method.
We also recognise that carbon accounting is an evolving discipline and that
emerging new standards, guidelines or conversion factors may make changes
in method necessary. Through updates and revisions, our report provides a
vehicle for justifying, documenting and communicating any method or data
changes. This approach will therefore facilitate performance comparisons
over time.
Accuracy
GHG requirement: ‘Data should be sufficiently precise to enable intended
users to make decisions with reasonable assurance that the reported
information is credible9.’
London 2012 response: Unlike a standard corporate carbon report, which
typically deals with historical data, the London 2012 method needs to be
predictive. Accuracy is therefore a key concern. To address this, the method
includes a provision for rating the accuracy of all input data (see ‘Managing
inventory quality’, p24). In addition, London 2012 has also commissioned
specific work to understand the uncertainties within carbon conversion factors
(see Appendix C: Method used to calculate uncertainty in the ICE V1.6
materials data).
Transparency
GHG requirement: ‘Transparency relates to the degree to which information
on the processes, procedures, assumptions, and limitations of the GHG
inventory are disclosed in a clear, factual, neutral, and understandable
manner10.’
London 2012 response: Our engagement with stakeholders and technical
experts from the outset of this project has undoubtedly contributed to the
transparency and objectivity of the methodology. This has also had the
benefit of challenging assumptions at every stage of its development.
To make any limitation transparent, we have documented where methodology
decisions were subject to any particular challenge (for example, see
‘Accounting renewable electricity’, p.23).
Accounting principle 2: Account direct and indirect emissions (Scopes
1, 2 and 3). As far as possible, account for all Kyoto Protocol Greenhouse
Gases. Report all results in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents or tCO2e.
8
Extract from The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard:
Revised Edition (2004).
9
Ibid
10
Ibid
11A carbon footprint aims to provide a measure of the full life cycle impacts
(direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions) associated with a particular
operation.
The GHG Protocol is very clear that measurement should include –
where possible – all six greenhouse gases listed in the Kyoto Protocol:
− carbon dioxide (CO2)
− methane (CH4)
− nitrous oxide (N2O)
− hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
− perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
− sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
For practical purposes, and for most types of activities, all gases but carbon
dioxide are often ignored (for example, this is the case with the Defra 2008
conversion factors). CO2 is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas and
the one around which most measurement systems (and conversion factors)
are designed.
For consistency all carbon footprint emissions data is here expressed
in tonnes of CO2 or CO2e (abbreviated as tCO2 or tCO2e).
Accounting principle 3: Set the study boundaries widely to include those
elements over which the Games have control or influence. As far as possible,
allocate emissions according to financial spend into three categories:
‘owned’, ‘shared’ or ‘associated’ based on who is responsible for
generating them.
Games boundaries
The most fundamental accounting principle is that of organisational
boundary‑setting. Any organisation needs to have a clear understanding
of where it ends and the rest of the world begins. In many cases such
boundaries are self‑evident and can be easily established by reference
to ownership structures.
The situation with London 2012 is more complex. First, London 2012
comprises two primary delivery bodies: the publicly funded Olympic Delivery
Authority (ODA), which is responsible for constructing the main venues and
infrastructure, and the privately funded London 2012 Organising Committee
(LOCOG), which is responsible for promoting and staging the Games.
Furthermore, many other agencies have a significant role in supporting delivery
of the Games (for example, Transport for London, London Development
Agency, central Government departments, British Olympic Association
and British Paralympic Association) and there are many wider but related
activities such as the Cultural Olympiad.
The Games’ organisational boundaries therefore need to be drawn more
widely than would be the case when conducting an organisational footprint.
The GHG Protocol and ISO 14064 suggest two valid approaches for
boundary setting: ‘equity share’ and ‘control’. These are based on financial
accounting rules and used to determine organisational boundaries as follows:
Equity share approach: an organisation accounts for its GHG emissions
according to its share of equity in an operation. The equity share reflects
economic interest, which is defined as the extent of rights a company has
to the risks and rewards flowing from an operation.
Control approach: an organisation accounts for 100 per cent of the GHG
emissions from operations over which it has control. It does not account for
GHG emissions from operations in which it owns an interest but has no
control. Control can be defined in either financial or operational terms.
12Neither approach applies neatly to London 2012 but elements of each
have merit.
Example 1: LOCOG may only get a small percentage of the sales from 2012
branded merchandise (hence its economic interest is relatively small) yet it
could effectively deny a licence to a manufacturer which did not comply with
certain environmental criteria (it is in a strong controlling position). It also
makes little sense to account for only a small percentage of the environmental
impact of 2012 merchandise when, in reality, all of it is Games‑related.
Example 2: A transport infrastructure project may only be minority funded by
the ODA but this support may, nonetheless, have been critical in moving the
project forward. Clearly, if the project were Games‑related then it makes
sense to include all of it within the London 2012 footprint even if the ODA
had little, or no, economic interest. On the other hand, it would be unfair to
assume that the ODA’s small contribution gave them any significant control
over the project’s environmental performance (in reality, ODA report having
no material control over some background projects).
Owned, shared and associated (OSA) impacts
A combination of equity and control approaches captures different, but
equally important, aspects of the London 2012 footprint and is closely linked
to financial spend. Fortunately, part of the London 2012 bid contained
sufficiently detailed financial estimates for LOCOG, the ODA and third
parties by broad expenditure categories. Though these will inevitably evolve
over time, they provide a good basis for initially determining and allocating
the footprint.
That said, there are impacts clearly associated with London 2012 which
would not be accounted at all under either approach. For example, spectator
travel to and from London or hotel accommodation booked by accredited
media. None of these receive any financial contribution from the London
2012 budget yet they are important to the success of the Games.
To capture all impacts, our chosen hybrid approach classifies operations as
either ‘owned’, ‘shared’ or ‘associated’ (OSA) according to the extent of the
financial contribution from LOCOG and the ODA. These are defined as
follows:
− Owned: wholly funded core activities where the entire associated carbon
footprint is allocated to London 2012 (for example, office utility use, venue
construction).
− Shared: the footprint associated with the partner contributions to jointly funded
activities (for example, jointly funded development of Olympic Village).
− Associated: activities clearly associated with the Games which are not
funded by London 2012 but over which they may exert some influence
and which result in a measurable difference.
One further complication is that many of the huge transport infrastructure
schemes being prepared in time for the Games (projects which could have
spanned the ‘owned’, ‘shared’ and ‘associated’ categories) were scheduled
to happen anyway – though the injection of London 2012 funding to some
undoubtedly led to earlier implementation. To ensure that the impacts
associated with these were neither over‑estimated nor ignored, it was
decided to include only those projects which benefited from a London 2012
financial contribution.
13Owned Dim
ini
shi
ng
de
gre
eo
fc
Shared on
tro
la
nd
infl
Closely Associated ue
nce
Boundary of measured
London 2012 footprint
Out of Scope
Figure M1: The relationship between the different OSA categories and the
associated degree of influence and control by London 2012
Accounting principle 4: Establish a structured and consistent method for
deciding what is in, and out, of scope.
Activities or projects that do not meet the OSA criteria are classified as ‘out of
scope’. In other words, they are considered to be so far removed from London
2012 that they should not be accounted at all.
Deciding what is ‘out of scope’
The power of TV: out of scope There is no easy, fail‑safe way of determining what is out of scope. Given the
but interesting global nature of the Games one could easily contrive a way of classifying
Assume two billion people worldwide most of the world as ‘associated’ and hence ‘in scope’.
watch the London 2012 Games on
TV. If a family of four watches For example, do we include the additional demand placed on a country’s
together, this equates to 0.5 billion electricity grid when a significant portion of the population simultaneously
TVs which may be tuned to coverage turn on their TVs to watch the Opening Ceremony?
of the Games for, say, two hours per
day over three weeks. Assuming all These very remote impacts of the Games may well be interesting, informative
the TVs were modern, low‑energy and serve some practical purpose (for example, determining peak energy
LCDs with a rating of 100 watts, then demand or predicting sales of TVs) but most observers would probably agree
the total global electricity consumption that these impacts are well outside London 2012’s control.
of these two billion TV viewers would
be 500,000,000 x 2 x (3 x 7) x 100 However, these examples highlight the need for the application of some
watts = 2.1TWh structured ‘test of reasonableness’. The OSA flowchart in figure 2 below
provides several helpful decision points to assist in determining whether
Assuming typical carbon intensity for something is in, or out of, scope. (Note that ‘London 2012 money spent’
electricity of 0.5kgCO2/kWh, this refers to LOCOG or ODA expenditure.) It also encapsulates the guidance
alone would result in emissions of given in the GHG Protocol that ‘only some types of upstream and
more than one million tonnes of CO2. downstream emissions may be relevant’.
Our guiding principle is that emissions should be included if they:
− are deemed critical by stakeholders;
− lead to increased risk exposure; or
− are capable of being influenced by the reporting organisation.
14Figure M2: Decision tree – determining which emissions sources are in, and
out, of scope
Include: Owned
London Is London Yes
2012 money 2012 100%
spent? Yes funding?
Include: Owned/shared
No
No
Consequence Can London Are
Can emissions
of London 2012 exert any emissions
be estimated?
2012? Yes influence? Yes Yes material?* Yes
No No No No
Include: Associated
High
stakeholder Yes
No interest?
Exclude
*See ‘Applying a materiality threshold’, p16
Emission sources considered for inclusion
The table below outlines some of the emissions sources considered by
the London 2012 Technical Advisory Group (TAG) when determining the
scope of the Games reference footprint, as well as its ultimate decision
and a brief rationale.
Emission source Decision Reason
Catering for athletes, staff and Include Paid for out of London 2012 money.
volunteers
Food purchased by spectators at Include Consequence of the Games. London 2012 can exert
London 2012 events influence through franchise arrangements. Emissions are
material and can be estimated. Stakeholder interest.
Food purchased by spectators in Exclude Paid for by spectators. London 2012 can’t easily exert
restaurants influence. Difficult to estimate emissions. Little stakeholder
interest.
Transport provided by London 2012 Include Funded by London 2012.
for Olympic Family
Spectator transport to and from Include Consequence of the Games. London 2012 can exert
Games and individual events influence through transport planning and funding of
alternate infrastructure. Emissions are material and can be
estimated. Stakeholder interest.
‘Informal’ spectator travel to pubs/ Exclude Difficult to be certain what is a consequence of the Games.
Live Sites/friends to see London Difficult to exert influence. Difficult to estimate emissions.
2012 events on TVs/big screens
15Applying a materiality threshold
Even if they meet several inclusion criteria, some emission sources may still
be excluded from detailed analysis on the basis of their small contribution
to the overall footprint. These are considered to fall below a pre‑determined
materiality threshold. Where stakeholder interest remains high, however, it
was decided that the TAG could insist on the emission source being included.
In consultation with the TAG, materiality thresholds were judged separately
for venues, operations, spectators and transport infrastructure on the
basis that:
− A single materiality threshold would have excluded many small
operational items of public and symbolic interest.
− A single materiality threshold is not appropriate where multiple
stakeholders are involved, each with their own area(s) of responsibility.
− The high degree of uncertainty in some areas (for example, where
buildings were yet to be designed) meant that a combination of highly
aggregated financial and/or physical estimates were used to calculate
likely emissions. This low level of data granularity meant that it was often
impossible to tease out smaller projects making it problematic to make
a meaningful assessment of a materiality.
Every attempt was made to adjust the results to include all ‘in scope’ impacts,
even where no detailed analysis was made. This was achieved by scaling up
the emissions from those sources which were subject to more detailed scrutiny
using input‑output analysis to assess the relative contribution.
Accounting principle 5: Account for emissions in the year they
occur and allocated to pre‑Games, Games and legacy phases, as
appropriate. Responsibility for these emissions should be established
and clearly documented.
‘A meaningful and consistent comparison of emissions over time requires that
companies set a performance datum with which to compare current emissions.’
Tracking emissions over time
When calculating its footprint, a typical organisation will produce an annual
retrospective GHG inventory. The London 2012 methodology is different in
that we are seeking to predict future emissions with the primary aim of avoiding
them while maximising legacy benefits. Furthermore, as we are geared towards
delivering a specific event, our operations vary from year to year. As a result,
the annual monitoring of annual emissions and any inherent trends is of little
practical value.
It is more logical to cluster emissions in terms of three principal phases:
− pre‑Games
− Games
− legacy
In broad terms, the pre‑Games phase relates to the demolition, remediation,
construction and commissioning work to build all the venues and infrastructure
(including transport facilities) ready for the Games.
Although the period of the Games is more clear‑cut, there remain some grey
areas. For example, most venues, the Media Centre, training facilities and
more become operational in advance of the Opening Ceremony.
Legacy refers to the post‑Games period and is principally concerned with the
transition of venues, and other facilities, into their permanent legacy configuration
(overseen in the case of London by the LDA).
16Phase Lead delivery Main impact areas What’s included
organisation
Pre‑Games ODA Venue construction Permanent and temporary structures,
Transport infrastructure venues, accommodation, transport
infrastructure, and so on, put in place
LOCOG Overlay and fit‑out before the Games. Also includes some
Test Events operations: staff offices and travel.
Cultural Olympiad events
Games LOCOG Operations Includes all impacts related to
Spectators/visitors spectators: catering, merchandise and
travel. Also includes operational impacts
related to the Olympic Family.
Legacy LDA Implementation of Legacy Ongoing energy use of new permanent
Masterplan structures (venues, Olympic Village and
so on) post‑Games and output from new
renewable energy generating capacity.
Regeneration of existing buildings and
infrastructure.
All Behaviour change* Ongoing benefit from the introduction of
new initiatives (for example, eco‑labelling
schemes) and other measures aimed at
long‑term behaviour change.
*W
hile much of the focus on legacy delivery will be towards the long‑term
use of the venues and the wider regeneration of the Olympic Park and
Lower Lea Valley area in east London, there will also be wider legacy
benefits through behavioural changes inspired by the Games.
Table M2 above shows which activities fall within each category and the
respective lead delivery organisation that is responsible for them.
Accounting principle 6: Legacy benefits are lasting carbon savings as a
result of Games‑funded projects or initiatives. To count towards legacy,
savings must be additional.
Only those benefits which are truly additional and directly related to Games
projects or initiatives should be included in our methodology. For example, if
existing regulations at the time of a planning application require a development
to be built to certain energy efficiency standards, then only incremental measures
which lead to emission savings above and beyond this are eligible for inclusion.
In other words, positive impacts as a result of ‘business as usual’ do not
count as legacy benefits.
Accounting principle 7: Establish a well‑documented reference scenario
against which reductions can be accounted. Ensure that the data used
to construct the reference scenario is relevant, credible and defensible.
While we have acknowledged that there is little value in tracking actual
annual emissions over time (see p16), it is nonetheless crucial to understand
how the projected footprint is likely to change as a result of any targeted
interventions to reduce emissions.
17Given the nature of the Games, it is clear that annual accounting relative
to a base year is an inappropriate approach. Instead, the London 2012
methodology introduces the concept of a reference footprint – a baseline
assessment of what the Games footprint would have been before efforts to
reduce it are included. Performance is then assessed against this reference
footprint using projected data which is adjusted to incorporate carbon
reduction achievements and commitments.
Defining a reference scenario
The London 2012 reference footprint is defined by the Candidate File
and assumes a ‘business as usual’ approach to sustainability based
on one or more of the following:
− basic legal compliance (for example, building and planning regulations);
− adoption of industry standard practices (for example, approach to
waste management);
− anticipated spectator and Olympic Family behaviours (for example,
catering demand);
− an assumed similarity with past Games (for example, ceremonies and
media demand);
− an assumption of average sectoral emissions per £ spent (based on
historical data); and
− using relevant Host City baseline data (for example, modal transport split).
For construction (venues and transport infrastructure), we defined our
reference footprint by:
− using information contained within the Candidate File as a starting point;
− basing carbon assessments on initial designs or, where these do not yet
exist, on the first specifications;
− using quantity surveying techniques to derive material estimates for early
designs and bills of quantities for more advanced projects;
− assuming typical construction practices within the Host City (for example,
average levels of recycled content, compliance with local building
regulations and typical waste management practices);
− filling data gaps using financial estimates of sectoral emissions adjusted,
as required, to be consistent with detailed analyses where these were
possible; and
− checking assumptions by validating against carbon data for similar buildings.
For spectators, we defined our reference footprint by:
− using Candidate File/Transport Plan estimates for ticket sales, expected
spectator numbers and origin of visitors;
− basing local travel on the historical modal split for the Host City and using
tourism data for international travel and accommodation estimates;
− using data from previous Games as a guide – for example, to
estimate number and types of meals, waste arising and purchasing
of merchandise; and
− validating data using Host City assumptions.
For operations, we defined our reference footprint by:
− using past Games as a guide – for example, on the number of uniforms,
catering requirements, Olympic Family travel needs, media operations
and so on;
− using expert advice from Games staff, partners and stakeholders – they
are often a good source of knowledge about what would be considered
normal practice, especially where they have been involved in previous
Games; and
− filling data gaps using financial estimates of sectoral emissions adjusted, as
required, to be consistent with detailed analyses where these were possible.
18It is worth noting that our approach of measuring performance against the
Candidate File submission means that none of the inherent environmental
advantages of the Host City are taken into consideration (even though these
may well have been a factor in the successful bid).
We recognise that this may make it difficult for London and some future Host
Cities that already benefit from, for example, a good public transport
infrastructure or strict building regulations to make further carbon savings.
Nonetheless, in the absence of any overarching carbon strategy for future
Games, this approach is considered to be the most credible.
As the reference footprint is the benchmark against which performance
improvements are measured it is critical that the data and assumptions are
open to scrutiny. For a full description of London 2012’s reference footprint,
see p27.
Accounting principle 8: Reduction and replacement measures must be
transparently documented and linked to a clear time horizon. Double
counting should be avoided. The corresponding reference scenario
assumption should be readily apparent.
Performance against our reference scenario needs to include measures
(achievements and commitments) designed to reduce the footprint. This is
achieved by using a reduction scenario which adjusts the reference footprint
downwards.
Developing a reduction scenario
The reduction measures fall broadly into the following hierarchy:
− reduce
− replace
− offset
It is preferable to reduce the consumption of energy and/or materials as
opposed to replacing them with more carbon efficient alternatives. Least
preferable is offsetting: compensating for increases in the footprint by
investing in projects which reduce emissions elsewhere.
There are three stages in the evolution of a carbon saving (reduction or
replacement) measure. After starting out as a vague carbon saving idea,
which is informed by an early carbon footprint analysis, it is then investigated
further before being recognised as viable reduction ‘challenge’. If formally
adopted within the Sustainability Plan then it is elevated to a ‘commitment’ –
at this stage, it is eligible to be included within the reduction scenario (see
figure 3 below). Finally, when the measure is implemented, it becomes an
‘achievement’.
Figure M3: The evolution of a carbon saving (reduce/replace) measure
Included in the reduction scenario
Idea Challenge Commitment Achievement
19When accounting for measures included in the reduction scenario,
it is important that they are:
− clearly documented – assumptions and conversion factors should
be properly sourced;
− not double counted – for example, counting energy savings under
both venues and operations; and
− given a clear time horizon – for example, a saving may occur only
during the Games or persist for some years after (see legacy accounting
principle, p9).
Further guidance can be found within the Appendix D: Adjustment policy.
Accounting principle 9: Use the financial framework within the Candidate
File to help identify projects and activities that are likely to generate
a carbon impact.
Identifying and calculating GHG emissions
Figure 4 below shows the five stages of identifying and calculating GHG
emissions.
Identifying sources
To ensure full coverage, the London 2012 footprint methodology bases its
reporting categories on the financial framework contained within the original
Candidate File (also referred to as the Bid Document)11. This has been
supplemented by more than 25 face‑to‑face interviews, numerous requests
for information from LOCOG and ODA staff, as well as a review of key
documents including:
− LOCOG Games foundation plan (final draft 27 May 2007)
− LOCOG venues infrastructure delivery programme
− Venue construction and overlay responsibilities (March 2007)
− IOC/LOCOG venues construction and infrastructure delivery programme
(April 2007)
− Transport Plan for the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic
Games (October 2006)
Figure M4: Identifying and calculating GHG emissions (adapted from
GHG Protocol)
Identify emission sources
Select calculation approach
Collect data and choose
emission factors
Apply calculation tools
Aggregate data to derive
total footprint
ll documents, including the Candidate File, available at london2012.com/about-us/
A
11
publications/index.php
20The resulting items were reviewed for their likely carbon impacts, based on
the information provided, and then the list of more than 250 discrete projects
and activities were further clustered into the following four broad categories
which cover the bulk of pre‑Games and Games activities:
− Venues
− Transport infrastructure
− Operations
− Spectators
Accounting principle 10: Identify a consistent dataset of carbon
conversion factors for use throughout the carbon management strategy
process. Ensure that these cover all Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gases,
direct and indirect emissions and include a data quality assessment. Use
commonly available, standard datasets where possible with a support
system to facilitate data sharing and integrated planning.
Selecting a calculation approach
To develop the correct methodology for determining the London 2012
footprint, we commissioned Best Foot Forward (BFF) to undertake a review of
the available calculation methods and their associated datasets (see table 3).
They assessed the suitability of calculation approaches which include emission
factors for construction materials – the main omission in the UK’s official GHG
conversion factor library12. BFF concluded that no one approach satisfied all
of London 2012’s conversion factor, data management or delivery needs.
Following on from this exercise, we began to work with Bath University’s
Sustainable Energy Research Team to expand the capabilities of their
Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) V1.6 database by adding extra
construction materials, including uncertainty estimates for conversion
factors and including all greenhouse gases.
This dataset of indirect emission factors for materials (the revised V1.6 ICE)
was then supplemented with Defra’s 2007 direct emission factors, covering
fuels and transport, and the associated guidance. Late in the development
of this method, Defra announced a new, expanded and updated, dataset
covering a wider range of transport alternatives (Defra 2008). The few
remaining conversion factors not provided by either ICE V1.6 or Defra 2008
were sourced from BFF’s own in‑house database.
The resulting dataset was then formatted to allow for integration into
BFF’s Footprinter13 tool – which met all of our data management and
delivery requirements.
Greenhouse Gas Conversion Factors for Company Reporting (Defra, June 2008).
12
See footprinter.com
13
21Coverage Bath ICE v1.5 Bilan Carbone Environment EcoInvent
beta 1.5 Agency
Conversion factors
– Raw materials Y Some Y Y
– Products Some Some N Some
– Direct emissions N Y Y Y
– All GHG (not just CO2) N Y N Y
– Data quality assessment Y Y N Some
– Incl. GHG Protocol/ISO N Y N N
14064 scopes
Data management/delivery
– Calculation engine N Y Y N
– Web‑based delivery system N N N Y
– Remote data update N N N N
– Easy‑to‑use interface N N Y N
– Easily extendable database Y N N N
– Standardised reporting format N Y Y N
– International versions N N N Some
– Offers scenario capability N N N N
Collecting data and choosing emission factors
What are carbon We collected or estimated data on each project or activity from one or more
conversion factors? sources:
In order to create a single, meaningful − Project documentation (for example, the LOCOG venue requirements or
footprint for all measured emissions, it ‘schedules of accommodation’ for construction projects).
is necessary to allocate a greenhouse − Data from the project or design teams – for example, material ‘bills of
gas or carbon dioxide value to each quantities’ or logistics planning spreadsheets.
measurement. Conversion factors are − Face‑to‑face, telephone interviews and email exchanges with LOCOG and
used to convert physical quantities into ODA staff (this was often supplemented with follow‑on data).
carbon dioxide footprint values. For − News and progress reports – the london2012.com site provides regular
example, in the following equation, the updates and much quantitative information.
physical number of kilowatt‑hours of − Data from partners and stakeholders – for example, venue energy use
electricity consumed is converted to estimates from EDF Energy.
kilograms of carbon dioxide using a − Historical data from previous Games – Sydney, because of its
conversion factor of 0.53702 (grid environmental focus, proved the most useful source but, for example, data
electricity three year rolling average from both Athens 2004 and Beijing 2008 was used when estimating the
– sourced from DEFRA 2008): likely impact of the Torch Relay.
− Official UK Government data sources – for example, existing statistics on
1000 kWh x 0.53702kgCO2/kWh travel within London were used when trying to identify a base case for
= 537.02kgCO2 spectator travel.
We collected consumption data according to the following main emission
categories:
− catering (food and packaging)
− utilities (gas, electricity and other)
− passenger transport (by air, water, road and rail)
− freight transport (by air, water, road and rail)
− accommodation
− materials (various including metals, clothing and minerals)
Accounting principle 11: Identify contentious carbon accounting issues
early on to allow time for research, debate and consensus building.
Document the decision‑making process.
22Emission factors were selected by BFF with support on materials from Bath
University. Most emission categories and types were straightforward to map
onto conversion factors extracted from the aforementioned databases.
That said, a number of areas were less clear‑cut and provoked considerable
debate within the TAG. These were:
− How should renewable electricity be treated?
− What aircraft emission factors should be used?
− Should the analysis differentiate between aircraft passenger classes?
Accounting principle 12: The carbon conversion factors used should be
responsive to local circumstances. Rules about how to account, for
example, renewable energy are not universal. These can change as new
guidance emerges and may differ within, and between, countries.
Accounting renewable electricity
London 2012 is planning to install a 2MW wind turbine on the Olympic Park
site as well as a low‑carbon combined cooling, heating and power plant
(CCHP). The issue here was one of additionality. In other words, was there
proof that these new low‑carbon generators would have been built regardless
of the Games? TAG members felt that proof of additionality was needed
before this ‘green’ energy could be given a zero carbon rating.
The complexity arises because there are many incentive schemes operating
in the UK aimed at increasing installed renewable capacity. Any new capacity
which benefits from one of these schemes (such as the Renewables Obligation) is
deemed to contribute to meeting the national statutory target. It therefore cannot
be considered ‘additional’ (at least, not until the national target is surpassed).
Following specific discussions with EDF Energy and Defra, the London 2012
position is to follow the new UK GHG reporting guidance published during
the course of this research14, which states:
‘If you generate renewable electricity on‑site, and do not sell Renewable
Obligation Certificates (ROCs) or Levy Exemption Certifications (LECs) to a third
party, this electricity should be rated as zero emission. “Renewable electricity”
in this context should be considered any form of generation that does not emit
carbon dioxide, or generation of electricity from renewable biomass.’
Furthermore: ‘If you generate renewable electricity on‑site, and do sell
Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) or Levy Exemption Certifications
(LECs) to a third party, emissions should be calculated as per UK Grid
electricity use15.’
A related issue concerns whether the purchase of electricity for the Games
through a green tariff could be claimed as zero carbon? Although less clear,
London 2012 again follows Defra guidance16:
‘For the 2008–09 reporting year, we recommend that best practice will be
for businesses to use the grid average electricity quotient. This fits with wider
policy, such as the upcoming Carbon Reduction Commitment, and is
consistent on how Government reports its own carbon emissions.
‘However, we do recognise that some existing and future green tariffs may
well deliver broader environmental benefits and may have the potential to
deliver these carbon benefits in the long term…’
14
Guidelines to Defra’s Greenhouse Gas Conversion Factors for Company Reporting (June 2008).
15
At the time of writing a ROC is worth approximately £50 and equates to 1MWh of renewable
electricity. For a 2MW wind turbine, assuming a 25 per cent load factor, selling ROCs would
generate around £200,000 per annum.
16
Guidelines to Defra’s Greenhouse Gas Conversion Factors for Company Reporting (June 2008).
23Aircraft emission factors and passenger classes
Several emissions factors exist to calculate the impact of domestic, short and
long haul passenger flights and to account for radiative forcing and the other
global warming impacts associated with flying. Each is likely to produce a
different result. The TAG considered carefully which emissions factors would
prove to be the most accurate.
A secondary issue when calculating flights was whether or not to distinguish
between different classes of passenger: economy, business and first class.
Some conversion factor datasets (for example, Bilan Carbone) make great
efforts to differentiate between travel classes but Defra – at the time of the
discussions – did not. Defra subsequently issued an updated conversion
factor dataset which includes conversion factors for passenger classes as well
more detailed basic emission factors.
Various experts on the TAG provided academic papers, presentations and
scientific reviews which were collated and offered up on the CMS Forum for
comment. A meeting was also organised with British Airways (BA), the official
airline partner for 2012, to discuss both issues. Several helpful exchanges
with easyJet also took place.
Based on these extensive discussions, we decided to:
− Use the new Defra 2008 figures for air travel and passenger classes.
− Recognise the scientific uncertainty surrounding the non‑CO2 global
warming impacts associated with flying, account only CO2 to be consistent
with Defra 2008.
− Ensure that any offset programme for air travel emissions should include a
margin of at least 20 per cent to reflect the scientific uncertainty.
Applying calculation tools
The GHG Protocol is supported by various sector‑specific and cross‑sectoral
tools, but none was suitable for footprinting London 2012. Instead, we
developed a custom Excel spreadsheet for each of our four main categories:
venues, transport infrastructure, operations and spectators. This made it
possible to aggregate data to give the total Games footprint.
We undertook and reported the analyses of these four categories’ footprints
separately. This made the calculation process more manageable and also
reflected the different nature of these elements of the Games.
Accounting principle 13: Document levels of uncertainty that are
attributable both to poor quality data and uncertainty in the carbon
conversion factors used, and implement quality control measures.
It is good practice (as recognised in the GHG Protocol and ISO 14064‑1) to
provide an assessment of data quality. This helps to guide interpretation of
the results and highlight areas for future improvement.
Managing inventory quality
Recognising that all data on energy and material use was necessarily going
to be estimated (with the exception of ‘live’ data from projects already
underway), each of the results from the footprinting of a project or venue was
rated as being either of high (H), medium (M) or low (L) quality. Data gaps
were also highlighted to demonstrate completeness. These were defined as
follows:
24You can also read
