[tedpower]

Ya totally! Another way to think about it — in climate lingo, there are 3 types of emissions: First there are Scope 1 emissions, which are the emissions from burning fossil fuels directly (gas in your car, natural gas for your stove, etc.). Then there are Scope 2 emissions, which are from energy (you buy electricity from utilities, and those utilities use some percentage of non-renewable generation, like coal or natural gas). And finally Scope 3 is everything else — all the goods and services you buy, upstream and downstream.

But I think the point you guys are making, is that actually everything is Scope 1 emissions plus some number of hops. So if you buy gas, that's 0 hops. If you buy energy from your utility, and they use natural gas, that's 1 hop. If you buy an ice cream that was made in a factory powered by natural gas, that's 2 hops. And if you buy that ice cream with a cone, purchased by the ice cream shop, that was manufactured in a factory ... etc.

The problem is, consumers are often the ones who apply the pressure to address climate (don't wait for the fossil fuel companies to take this on themselves). And so we need to trace back all those upstream emissions, all the way back to those Scope 1 emissions, to really size the impact, and align incentives to decarbonize.

Historically, climate programs only focused on Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. But that only addresses maybe 20% of emissions for most companies. This is why it's critical to consider the impact of all the goods and services your company purchases.

[robertlagrant]

> consumers are often the ones who apply the pressure to address climate (don't wait for the fossil fuel companies to take this on themselves)

Possibly, but equally consumers have not cried out for nuclear power for the last 40 years in most countries, which would've annihilated so much coal use. Consumers can more recently be won over by nice packaging and messages if they can afford a product that has green PR, which is great, but that's really minimal.

[ramraj07]

At least my suggestion is that the more effective way to reduce emissions (given we are not gonna go fully green for 80 years probably) is to just spend less. Park more of the money you make. Make Even more money and park it more.

Economically that might be the worst but environmentally that might be the best. The pandemic lockdowns kinda proved that as well.

Having said that your approach isn’t mutually exclusive. Even this dimensional balance method still suggests if more of our economy goes green then it’s better. So if your endeavor can shame more orgs to go green then great.

[tedpower]

Unfortunately 'spend less' is not by itself a viable strategy for most growing companies. Companies need to invest in their growth. But companies can instead shift their spend from higher 'carbon intensity' goods and services to lower carbon intensity goods and services. E.g. if you need to buy a vehicle, buy an electric vehicle. Or if you need to rent office space, rent well-insulated efficient office space. Or if you need cloud hosting, select the greenest cloud and the greenest region. Or if you need to meet with a prospective customer, maybe do it over Zoom vs. getting on a plane. We try to help you prioritize that list of lower-carbon options.