4 ms·

>>the UK consumer is the cause for those emissions. Sure, but counting it as UK emissions would mean you count it twice, no? If other countries that mine lithi

>>the UK consumer is the cause for those emissions. Sure, but counting it as UK emissions would mean you count it twice, no? If other countries that mine lithium report their own CO2 emissions then if you add the CO2 cost of using electronics made with lithium and used in UK to UK's CO2 emission, that means you have counted the same emissions twice,no?

patmorgan23 3y ago
If you are trying to total all CO2 admissions? Yes. If you're trying to determine which countries have the biggest impact it could be a valuable metric.
mirekrusin 3y ago
It needs to be done at planet level, otherwise it's emission shifting, not reduction. Moving it from one place to another on the same planet doesn't reduce emissions.
kitbrennan 3y ago
While there's a lot of nuance to this: in carbon accounting it is standard practice to account for the same emission more than once. Carbon inventories are broken out into three different scopes, the first two scopes concern fuel and electricity generation emissions, and the third scope includes everything in your value chain (both upstream and downstream). Therefore the country producing the EV battery would report on the emission in their Scope 1 and Scope 2 inventory, and the country utilising that EV battery would report it within their Scope 3 inventory. It may seem odd to double account, but the goal of carbon accounting is not to ascribe blame to an emission (since ascribing blame is a never-ending game of finger pointing), it is to make every business/consumer responsible. The country creating the emission needs to be incentivised to decarbonise, and the country consuming that emission needs to be incentivised to decarbonise their full - including international - supply chains.
- gambiting 3y ago
  Ah - that's really interesting, didn't know this. But that means that UK should already be counting CO2 emissions of products sold there(where known), right?
  - kitbrennan 3y ago
    Yes, this is where the *nuance* mentioned at the start of my reply comes in. It *should* include all scopes, including upstream emissions from purchased goods and services from abroad. But in many countries their country-level carbon inventories still have huge gaps. UK Legislation implements the GHG Protocol scope system in the UK's carbon accounting regulations that businesses must follow for reporting their emissions (e.g. SECR), and government guidance for calculating emissions all follow the scope system too (e.g. BEIS Conversion Factors guidance). So it is very disappointing if the UK's carbon accounts has got gaps (but I wouldn't be surprised).
- IMTDb 3y ago
  > It may seem odd to double account, but the goal of carbon accounting is not to ascribe blame to an emission It's definitely how it is used by activists / NGO etc tho [1]. Another strange practice is to scale the CO2 production with the price of goods. Eg: it is assumed that you produce 10x more CO2 when you buy a $100 bottle of wine than if you buy a $10 bottle of wine. This makes no sense at all from an environmental perspective, but the conclusion you can draw from this are aligned with the political views of the people producing those reports. 1: https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/top-5-ways-billionaires-are-driving-climate-change/ https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/top-5-ways-bill...
  - tialaramex 3y ago
    Sure, for example I had accounting done as part of a study which also fitted meters (which I wanted anyway) and read the data (which I would likely have freely agreed to but obviously does need formal permission) and their baseline basically go well, about 60% of your income isn't accounted for in these days so we assume you turned that money into carbon emissions at our default rate. Actually the money was just sat in a bank account, which AFAIK doesn't cause net carbon emissions. For individuals I don't think this approach works very well, but over a population I can believe it comes out in the wash.
    - KMag 3y ago
      > Actually the money was just sat in a bank account, which AFAIK doesn't cause net carbon emissions. That depends on your definitions. I'm not sure about U.K. reserve ratios, but in the U.S., about 90% of your bank deposit goes back out as loans that hopefully increase economic activity. The majority of that activity probably isn't carbon-neutral.
      - okeuro49 3y ago
        Neither the UK nor the US have a reserve requirement. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement In addition, banks in modern times have never had to wait for deposits to extend loans.
- belorn 3y ago
  They do the same double accounting for green credits. If a country produce green energy it get accounted there. If they then sell that energy it get accounted a second time by the country who buys it. The exporter (possible a separate company from the producer) can even account it a second time, as can the consumer in the end. Basically every time green energy has changed hand there are two new credits being created, and with a international energy market there is a lot of opportunities for energy to change ownership.
abhaynayar 3y ago
Ironically you have written "twice, no?" twice.

patmorgan23 3y ago

If you are trying to total all CO2 admissions? Yes. If you're trying to determine which countries have the biggest impact it could be a valuable metric.

mirekrusin 3y ago

It needs to be done at planet level, otherwise it's emission shifting, not reduction. Moving it from one place to another on the same planet doesn't reduce emissions.

kitbrennan 3y ago

While there's a lot of nuance to this: in carbon accounting it is standard practice to account for the same emission more than once. Carbon inventories are broken out into three different scopes, the first two scopes concern fuel and electricity generation emissions, and the third scope includes everything in your value chain (both upstream and downstream). Therefore the country producing the EV battery would report on the emission in their Scope 1 and Scope 2 inventory, and the country utilising that EV battery would report it within their Scope 3 inventory. It may seem odd to double account, but the goal of carbon accounting is not to ascribe blame to an emission (since ascribing blame is a never-ending game of finger pointing), it is to make every business/consumer responsible. The country creating the emission needs to be incentivised to decarbonise, and the country consuming that emission needs to be incentivised to decarbonise their full - including international - supply chains.

gambiting 3y ago
Ah - that's really interesting, didn't know this. But that means that UK should already be counting CO2 emissions of products sold there(where known), right?
- kitbrennan 3y ago
  Yes, this is where the *nuance* mentioned at the start of my reply comes in. It *should* include all scopes, including upstream emissions from purchased goods and services from abroad. But in many countries their country-level carbon inventories still have huge gaps. UK Legislation implements the GHG Protocol scope system in the UK's carbon accounting regulations that businesses must follow for reporting their emissions (e.g. SECR), and government guidance for calculating emissions all follow the scope system too (e.g. BEIS Conversion Factors guidance). So it is very disappointing if the UK's carbon accounts has got gaps (but I wouldn't be surprised).
IMTDb 3y ago
> It may seem odd to double account, but the goal of carbon accounting is not to ascribe blame to an emission It's definitely how it is used by activists / NGO etc tho [1]. Another strange practice is to scale the CO2 production with the price of goods. Eg: it is assumed that you produce 10x more CO2 when you buy a $100 bottle of wine than if you buy a $10 bottle of wine. This makes no sense at all from an environmental perspective, but the conclusion you can draw from this are aligned with the political views of the people producing those reports. 1: https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/top-5-ways-billionaires-are-driving-climate-change/ https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/top-5-ways-bill...
- tialaramex 3y ago
  Sure, for example I had accounting done as part of a study which also fitted meters (which I wanted anyway) and read the data (which I would likely have freely agreed to but obviously does need formal permission) and their baseline basically go well, about 60% of your income isn't accounted for in these days so we assume you turned that money into carbon emissions at our default rate. Actually the money was just sat in a bank account, which AFAIK doesn't cause net carbon emissions. For individuals I don't think this approach works very well, but over a population I can believe it comes out in the wash.
  - KMag 3y ago
    > Actually the money was just sat in a bank account, which AFAIK doesn't cause net carbon emissions. That depends on your definitions. I'm not sure about U.K. reserve ratios, but in the U.S., about 90% of your bank deposit goes back out as loans that hopefully increase economic activity. The majority of that activity probably isn't carbon-neutral.
    - okeuro49 3y ago
      Neither the UK nor the US have a reserve requirement. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement In addition, banks in modern times have never had to wait for deposits to extend loans.
belorn 3y ago
They do the same double accounting for green credits. If a country produce green energy it get accounted there. If they then sell that energy it get accounted a second time by the country who buys it. The exporter (possible a separate company from the producer) can even account it a second time, as can the consumer in the end. Basically every time green energy has changed hand there are two new credits being created, and with a international energy market there is a lot of opportunities for energy to change ownership.

abhaynayar 3y ago

Ironically you have written "twice, no?" twice.