So many companies talk about their policies to be sustainable or zero carbon. They go to great extends to change their processes and products to achieve that. Apart from not creating emissions, what is the next best thing?
In other words… is it worth replacing plastic straws in the office with paper ones or donate once a year a new scooter to India in replacement of a horrible rIcksaw, that is spitting soot like a London Chimney in the 1800s?
A more concrete example: Nespresso goes to great extends to recycle their pods. They create special plastic packaging, pay for the postage (which creates emissions) and ofc spend energy to recover the aluminium from the pods. Would it make sense to instead ship their coffee machines with an eco conscious ship instead of a mazut guzzling behemoth?
In: Technology
One thing I would like to add to this, Some companies are not open on the type of Net Zero standard they are aiming for.
Some like to claim they are Net zero and only follow Scope 1/2 where their building has solar panels, or pay an energy company to guarantee they generate enough green energy to cover the businesses use and offset their carbon.
There are 3 scopes which gradually include more of where carbon comes from
Scope 1 – Energy the company directly controls. i.e fuel burnt from a company car,
Scope 2 – the emissions a company causes indirectly i.e. electricity used from the grid may come from a coal power plant,
Scope 3 – Carbon from pretty much EVERYTHING! upstream and downstream.
IT Servers in the cloud – Microsoft will be net zero by 2030
Stationary/ computer purchases
Shipping coffee to the factory
shipping finished coffee product to your consumers
printing documents
waste
business travel
The Gold standard would be Scope 3 as I understand it, but don’t assume all net zero companies are equal
I just looked at Nestle who make Nescafe
Scope 1 emissions are 3.3 million tonnes of CO2 3.0%
Scope 2 emissions are 2.5 million tonnes of CO2 2.2%
Scope 3 emissions are 107.3 million tonnes of CO2 94.8%
Latest Answers