Corporate Carbon Neutrality

Source: Getting to Zero: Defining Corporate Carbon Neutrality
By Clean Air Cool Planet and Forum for the Future, 2008

Synopsis:

Definition: True corporate carbon neutrality means there is no net increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases from the existence of the company – or from a clearly-defined part of the company that accounts for a significant portion of the company’s overall climate impact. If a company makes a claim regarding a specific product, then there should be no net increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases from the existence of that product.

This document discusses the above definition and how it can be and has been interpreted (especially the first word) in the corporate world.

Reflection:

The first, and maybe most obvious, thoughts regarding this document were: “carbon neutral” is straightforward, so why an entire document fleshing out that definition, and, is carbon neutrality really necessary? I’ll deal with these in order.

Immediately upon asking the former, I realized how naïve it is. In a world where we’ve seen the definition of “is” come under scrutiny, when the tenets of capitalism compel corporations to seek any and all advantage over their competition, it should come as no surprise that a concept as complex as carbon neutrality has been interpreted differently. There are several facets of this interpretation that are important.

The first is related to the carbon cycle itself. Economic activity produces carbon, usually as CO2 emissions. The natural world takes up that carbon, usually through photosynthesis. That means carbon neutrality could be approached from one end or the other or both. Getting to Zero does a good job of recognizing this, admitting that a corporation could get to carbon neutrality by doing nothing other than purchasing carbon offsets. As they point out, this follows the letter of the law, but not the spirit. Also, there are not enough offsets (I use that term as if I understand it, but I don’t) to cover all the world’s emissions, so on a global scale, reducing them is necessary. The analogy I drew deals with automobiles. You can reduce the amount of gas you use by driving less (reducing emissions), driving a vehicle that gets better mileage (buying carbon offsets), or both. Even if everybody in the world drove a Prius, there’s not enough gas to go around. Eventually, we’re going to need to drive less. That said, purchasing carbon offsets and hybrid vehicles will be necessary Band-Aids until deeper, longer-lasting solutions become reality, and I’m OK with that.

The second aspect of interpretation, and the one most fascinating to me, deals with the question of boundaries, i.e. what parts of your business are you going to include in your claims of neutrality? If you define a narrow boundary, it is easier to get to and claim carbon neutrality. For example, Dell computers has aspirations of carbon neutrality. If they define their boundary to include only emissions from the manufacturing process, achieving neutrality will be easier than if they choose to include emissions from the use of their product. This brings up all kinds of interesting philosophical questions, and provides an opportunity to really slide down the rabbit hole. Clearly, if Dell wants to achieve true carbon neutrality, they must assume responsibility for some of the emissions produced using their product (assuming this responsibility would also create an incentive to make more efficient machines), but the consumer and end-user must share that responsibility. We know there has to be a line drawn somewhere, but where? In a perfect world, both parties would approach the situation logically and assume responsibility for just a little bit more than needed, but that’s not going to happen, especially if carbon neutrality becomes mandatory, and ESPECIALLY not if we start quantifying carbon neutrality monetarily.

The latter brings up another interesting point. Right now, carbon neutrality is voluntary. We assume businesses recognize the marketing potential behind a claim of neutrality, and some of the more foresighted ones may recognize the possibility of a carbon market in the future, when neutrality will be synonymous with fiscal responsibility, and there are probably a few out there that are pursuing carbon neutrality because it is the “right” thing to do, but the cynic in me doesn’t see this occurring on a large scale until it is mandatory. Uh oh. I can just picture the set in my father’s jaw if I were to tell him I thought regulating carbon emissions should be mandatory for companies. That said, he’s a smart guy, and widespread regulation would undoubtedly affect our economy, but I question the notion that it would be disastrous. I’ve mentioned before our love of and talent for innovation, and figuring out how to manufacture the same widget we’ve come to know and love while reducing emissions seems like a worthy cause. Well, worthy or not, it’s got to be done. Perhaps the more important question is, if carbon neutrality is mandated, what is going to happen to the credibility of claims of neutrality? We know there are companies out there that would take shortcuts, cheat, and lie in order to avoid penalties for non-compliance. Such behavior would taint the entire process and call into question all claims of neutrality.

Conclusions? I don’t think voluntary movement toward carbon neutrality will be widespread enough. Therefore, it will need to be mandatory. Such regulation will be fought bitterly by Business As Usual. I don’t know what happens at that point, but the outcome is always the same. We can get it now, or we can get it when conditions have started affecting our quality of life.