Tag Archives: Sustainability strategy

Clear the Air BCSD Australia Summit

Last Tuesday 11th February 2020, 100% Renewables attended the Business Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD) Australia’s Clear the Air Australian Climate Action Summit, held at Parliament House in Canberra. The event was hosted in partnership with the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University (ANU), and was an opportunity to take stock of where we are as a country and within major sectors of the economy in terms of our response to the challenges of climate change.

Business Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD) Australia’s Clear the Air Australian Climate Action Summit, held at Parliament House in Canberra
Business Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD) Australia’s Clear the Air Australian Climate Action Summit held at Parliament House in Canberra

Some of the key take-outs we took from the 1-day conference were:

  • IKEA’s Australia / New Zealand CEO Jan Gardberg, is also the company’s Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO), highlighting that sustainability is central to business success. Jan noted “it’s a win win win to go all in on sustainability”, and IKEA’s rapid progress towards a circular business by 2030 is evidence of the company’s leadership and commitment. IKEA’s plans to launch home solar and battery storage at their stores during 2020 will also help their customers to accelerate their shift to a more sustainable society.
  • “Switch to renewable energy”, “electrify everything” remain two of the key and achievable ‘pillars’ in the deep decarbonisation of the Australian economy by mid-century, as highlighted by a panel including ClimateWorks Australia’s CEO Anna Skarbek and ANU’s Professor Frank Jotzo. Even under a no-policy scenario most of Australia’s power will come from renewables within a couple of decades. Electrification of heat and transport are challenging but developing rapidly.
  • Energy efficiency and energy productivity represent ongoing challenges, despite the fact that these measures can deliver a large chunk of Australia’s required decarbonisation at negative cost! Despite huge steps made by the commercial building sector, significant challenges remain to improve the efficiency of our residential building stock – both existing buildings and new construction, as highlighted by Luke Menzel, CEO of the Energy Efficiency Council. In the manufacturing sector, the Australian Alliance to Save Energy’s Jon Jutsen highlighted the fact that just 15% of energy generated actually performs useful work and services, and the A2SE’s goal to double our energy productivity by 2030 would have huge benefits for manufacturing and other sectors.
  • Lastly, the ACT’s Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability Shane Rattenbury spoke of the Territory’s continuing work to decarbonise the ACT, having achieved their target to be 100% renewables for electricity. The Minister noted that in committing to source electric vehicles (EVs) for new ACT Government fleet, the simple step of increasing their lease terms from three to four years was key in making the business case stack up. The ACT is already seeing huge drops in operating costs for EVs. The Minister also highlighted the ‘ambassadorial effect’ of EVs, where their use across the ACT often generates discussion between users and the public.

An overarching message is that accelerated action on climate change needs to be the new business-as-usual and already is for some businesses, many of the solutions are already viable and others are rapidly emerging, and most importantly leadership is critical to success. And don’t forget energy efficiency and productivity, which will boost your bottom line.

100% Renewables are experts in helping organisations develop their renewable energy strategies and timing actions appropriately. If you need help with developing emission scenarios that take into account policy settings, please contact  Barbara or Patrick.

Feel free to use an excerpt of this blog on your own site, newsletter, blog, etc. Just send us a copy or link and include the following text at the end of the excerpt: “This content is reprinted from 100% Renewables Pty Ltd’s blog.

Part 3: University leadership – SDGs

Looking back at part 1 and part 2 of our University leadership climate change blog series, we highlighted the ambitious renewable energy and carbon-neutral commitments of leading universities across Australia as well as showcasing their efforts in the built environment to improve their carbon footprint by aiming for and achieving Green Star certification.

In this article, we focus on universities’ commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals or ‘SDGs’. According to the ‘Getting started with the SDGs in universities’ reference guide, engaging with the SDGs will benefit universities by helping them demonstrate the impact a university can have, capture demand for SDG-related education, build new partnerships, access new funding streams, and define a university that is responsible and globally aware. Education and research are explicitly recognised in a number of the SDGs and universities have a direct role in addressing these.

Universities commitment to the SDGs

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their associated 169 targets were agreed by all United Nations member states in September 2015 and constitute a shared global framework of development priorities to 2030. They aim to bring an end to extreme poverty, promote prosperity and well-being for all, protect the environment and address climate change, and encourage good governance, peace and security.

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The University Commitment to the SDGs is a short statement that affirms a university’s intention to support and promote the SDGs through their research, education and operations, as well as report on activities in support of the goals.

The Commitment was initiated by SDSN Australia, NZ & Pacific (AusNZPac) as a tool to engage senior university leadership on the SDGs, start conversations within a university on how it can support them, and demonstrate to external stakeholders why universities are critical for addressing the SDGs.

The universities’ commitments include:

  • support and promote the principles of the Sustainable Development Goals
  • undertake research that provides solutions to sustainable development challenges
  • provide the educational opportunity for students to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development
  • contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals by ensuring campuses and major programs are environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive, and
  • report on activities in support of the Sustainable Development Goals

Universities who have signed up to the SDGs

Below is the list of Australia’s universities who are signatories to the University Commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals[1].

StateUniversityDate SignedLink to Commitment
QLDJames Cook University19 August 2016Website
SAThe University of Adelaide26 August 2016Announcement
VICUniversity of Melbourne31 August 2016Sustainability Plan
VICMonash University1 September 2016Announcement
NSWUniversity of Technology, Sydney2 September 2016Announcement
VICRMIT University12 January 2017Website
NSWWestern Sydney University3 March 2017Announcement, Website
VICDeakin University3 April 2017Case Study
QLDGriffith University13 October 2017Website
VICSwinburne University of Technology21 June 2018Announcement
WAMurdoch University29 March 2019Announcement
TASUniversity of Tasmania18 April 2019Sustainable University Report
QLDBond University9 July 2019Website
NSWCharles Sturt University20 September 2019Announcement
NSWUniversity of Wollongong25 September 2019Announcement

[1] At the time of writing, the web page was last updated in September 2019.

Deakin University, Griffith University, La Trobe University, Monash University, RMIT University, University of Melbourne, University of Western Australia, University of Wollongong and  University of Technology Sydney  are also signatories to the UN Global Compact.

The UN Global Compact is a voluntary initiative based on CEO commitments to implement universal sustainability principles and to take steps to support UN goals. Here in Australia, we have the business-led network of the UN Global Compact, the Global Compact Network Australia (GCNA). The GCNA brings together signatories to the UN Global Compact in Australia to advance corporate sustainability and the private sector’s contribution to sustainable development.

100% Renewables are experts in helping organisations develop their climate change strategies and action plans, and supporting the implementation and achievement of ambitious targets. If you need help to develop your Climate Change Strategy, please contact  Barbara or Patrick.

Feel free to use an excerpt of this blog on your own site, newsletter, blog, etc. Just send us a copy or link and include the following text at the end of the excerpt: “This content is reprinted from 100% Renewables Pty Ltd’s blog.

Part 2: University leadership – Green Star certifications

In Part 1 of the University climate change leadership series, we highlighted the ambitious renewable energy and carbon-neutral commitments of leading universities across Australia.

With the built environment accounting for a large part of a university’s carbon footprint, building efficiency is an important part of any carbon management strategy. For new buildings, in particular, aiming for and achieving Green Star certification is increasingly important.

What is Green Star?

Green Star is a voluntary sustainability rating system for buildings and communities in Australia. It was launched in 2003 by the Green Building Council of Australia.

The Green Star rating system assesses a project’s sustainability across its life cycle and aims to encourage leadership in environmentally sustainable design and construction, innovative sustainable designs, and to highlight cost savings, health and productivity benefits of sustainable buildings.

There are four Green Star ratings:

  • Green Star – Communities (for precinct-scale developments),
  • Green Star – Design & As Built (design and construction of a building),
  • Green Star – Interiors (interior fit-out of a building),
  • Green Star – Performance (operational performance of a building).

Buildings that have been registered with Green Star cannot use the Green Star certification mark until the project is certified, but they can be listed as a registered project.

There are three Green Star rating scales for the first three of these categories:

  • 4 Star – Australian Best Practice
  • 5 Star – Australian Excellence
  • 6 Star – World Leadership

Buildings assessed against the Green Star – Performance rating tool are given a Green Star rating from 1 to 6 stars. For more information, go to https://new.gbca.org.au/.

Universities with Green Star certifications

Below is a list of universities in Australia which are Green Star Certified and Registered as at January 2020. All Green Star certified ratings are valid for a restricted period, except As Built certified ratings which do not expire.

The first 6 Star – Communities rating to be awarded to an Australian University is the University of Melbourne’s Parkville Campus, recognising world leadership in sustainable master planning.

NoStateUniversityRegistered
1VICMonash University1 (Design) and 1 (As Built) **1 (Design) and 1 (As Built) **
2 (Design)
3 (As Built)
1
2VICUniversity of Melbourne1 (Design)
1 (Communities)
5 (Design)
1 (Design & As Built)
5
3NSWWestern Sydney University1 (Design) and 1 (As Built) **3 (Design)
2 (As Built)
1 (Design)
4VICRMIT University5 (Design)
1 (Interior)
1 (Design)1
5NSWUniversity of Technology, Sydney1 (Design) and 1 (As Built) **
1 (Interior)
2 (Design)
1 (As Built)
6VICLa Trobe University5 (Design)1
7SAUniversity of South Australia1 (Design) and 1 (As Built) **
2 (Design)
1 (As Built)
8TASUniversity of Tasmania1 (Design & As Built)2 (Design)2
9WACurtin University1 (Interior)1 (Design)
1 (Communities)
3
10ACTAustralian National University1 (Design) and 1 (As Built) **1 (Design)
11NSWAustralian Catholic University1 (Design) and 1 (As Built) **1 (As Built)
12QLDUniversity of Queensland1 (Design) and 1 (As Built) **1 (Design)
13QLDQueensland University of Technology1 (Design) and 1 (As Built) **
1 (Design)
1
14NSWMacquarie University1 (Design) and 1 (As Built) **3
15NSWUniversity of Newcastle1 (Design)1 (Design)1
16SAUniversity of Adelaide1 (Design)
1 (As Built)
17NSWCharles Sturt University1 (Design)1 (Design)
18VICVictoria University1 (Design)1 (Design)
19NSWUniversity of Wollongong1 (Design)1 (Design)
20NSWUniversity of New South Wales1 (Design)
21QLDGriffith University1 (Design)
22QLDBond University1 (Design)
23SAFlinders University1 (Communities)
24QLDUniversity of Southern Queensland1 (Design)
25ACTUniversity of Canberra1 (Design)
26VICSwinburne University of Technology1 (Design)
27NTCharles Darwin University1 (Design)
28NSWUniversity of Sydney1

**Ratings apply to the same building

 

100% Renewables are experts in helping organisations develop their energy and carbon strategies which lead to climate change leadership. If you need help with creating an action plan that takes into account science, input from key organisational stakeholders and is shaped to your needs, please contact  Barbara or Patrick.

Feel free to use an excerpt of this blog on your own site, newsletter, blog, etc. Just send us a copy or link and include the following text at the end of the excerpt: “This content is reprinted from 100% Renewables Pty Ltd’s blog.

Developing the Renewable Energy Plans for Temora and Cowra Councils

Site visits to Temora and Cowra Councils

Last week, Barbara and I undertook site visits in Temora and Cowra. We spent two and a half days at each location to identify renewable energy and energy-saving projects to save energy and cost.

Temora Shire Council

We are working with Temora Shire Council in Western New South Wales to develop their Renewable Energy Master Plan. Temora is a regional council who are part of the New South Wales Government’s Sustainable Councils and Communities Program.

Barbara and I spent two and a half days visiting Temora Shire Council’s major facilities and looked at energy efficiency and renewable energy opportunities. With a prolonged drought in NSW, it is great that Council has a recycled water system which is used to water parks and gardens in Temora.

It was also fantastic to discuss potential opportunities with Council’s engineering manager who wants to see more renewables and energy efficiency implemented across Council.

The council has already installed three solar PV systems and will shortly install a further two systems. We hope through this holistic view across Council to help Temora implement another 10 or 15 projects over the next few years, including larger-scale solar projects with battery storage. Council is also planning to upgrade all of its street lighting to new energy-efficient LED technology. As part of our work, we will help to ensure that the Council gets access to Energy Saving Certificates (ESCs) which can reduce the cost of the project.

The council is also interested in low emissions and electric vehicles for their fleet going forward. At the moment, there are no public charging stations within the Shire, but it’s possible that this may change in Temora in the near future.

It is fortunate that Temora Shire Council is a sister council to Randwick City Council in Sydney, for we developed a Renewable Energy Roadmap to help them meet their Council’s commitment to reach 100% renewables by 2030. Urban and Regional partnerships are a great way for learning, experiences and policies to be shared so that everyone benefits, and with both Councils heading in the same direction this will undoubtedly be the case here.

Cowra Shire Council and CLEAN Cowra

We also visited another regional council, Cowra Shire Council in Central West New South Wales. Cowra Council is part of New South Wales Government’s Sustainability Advantage Program. NSW and 100% Renewables have worked previously with Cowra Shire Council to develop a high-level sustainability strategy.

Barbara and I spent two days looking at all of council’s major wastewater and water sites, aquatic centres and buildings to identify opportunities that will inform the development of a renewable energy plan for Cowra Shire Council for the next several years. This work will continue into 2020.

CLEAN Cowra

As part of this work, Sustainability Advantage also engages with a not-for-profit organisation called CLEAN Cowra. CLEAN Cowra is establishing a local, innovative energy generation project that will create and use renewable biogas to generate clean energy, provide heat to local businesses and create saleable green gas, as well as a range of other environmental and business benefits.

Our work at this stage is looking at the thermal energy requirements of industrial / manufacturing businesses in Cowra who may be part of the project, to help determine the heating demand that could be met by the renewable energy generation project.

 

100% Renewables are experts in helping organisations develop their renewable energy strategies and timing actions appropriately. If you need help with developing your renewable energy strategy, please contact  Barbara or Patrick.

Feel free to use an excerpt of this blog on your own site, newsletter, blog, etc. Just send us a copy or link and include the following text at the end of the excerpt: “This content is reprinted from 100% Renewables Pty Ltd’s blog.

 

Inaugural Energy Leaders Forum and Inspiration Award

The inaugural Energy Leaders Forum (ELF)

I’ve been asked by Luke Poliszcuk, director of ‘Energy Leaders’ to present my vision for the energy sector in 2020 at their inaugural forum on 27 November 2019. The idea of energy leaders quickly resonated with people and the event was sold out within a week of making tickets available.

Barbara Albert presenting at Energy Leaders Forum Sydney Nov 2019
Barbara Albert presenting at the Energy Leaders Forum in Sydney, Nov 2019

About Energy Leaders

Energy Leaders pledge their commitment to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), focused on smart, clean, efficient energy solutions that benefit society as a whole. Energy Leaders Forum (ELF) events provide the opportunity to interact with like-minded professionals in the clean energy sector to discuss projects, challenges and solutions, galvanise industry engagement and spark investment opportunities.

About the event

I had the pleasure to share the stage with many wonderful speakers; Ben Hutt, CEO at Evergen, Jackie McKeon from BRC-A, Liz Floyd from Polyglot and Mary Hendriks from the Australian Energy Storage Alliance.

After each of us shared our vision for the sector with the audience, we facilitated small group discussions to get input from forum participants on what they thought the most exciting opportunities were in 2020. Among opportunities identified were utility-scale developments, VPPs, integrated energy solutions for the strata sector, battery storage, corporate PPAs, green hydrogen, going beyond 100% renewables and microgrids.

The Energy Leaders forum will also run annual awards for energy leadership and forum participants brainstormed potential award categories. I’m proud to say that each of the speakers was presented with the very first Energy Leader Inspiration Award.

Barbara Albert Energy Leaders Inspiration Award
Barbara Albert, Energy Leaders Inspiration Award

My vision for the energy sector in 2020

We have 10 years left to achieve meaningful action and to limit global warming. To achieve that, we need the government, businesses, and communities to work together to reduce emissions. In the past decade, global emissions have risen by 1.5% every year. If we continue with our current emissions growth, we will end up with plus 4 degrees.

If current Paris pledges are implemented, global temperatures are projected to rise by 3°C. To stay within a 1.5°C threshold, we need to reduce worldwide emissions by 7.6% every year to avoid a climate crisis.

This is a transformative, unprecedented change that is needed across all sectors. We all need to catch up on the years in which we have procrastinated. We need an acceleration of our efforts, and everything needs to be done faster.

Transforming the electricity sector and renewable energy are two of the easiest opportunities we have to achieve fast emission reduction.

It is my vision and hope that organisations and governments will use 2020 as an opportunity to set a new baseline, look to 2030 in terms of their emissions reduction and develop a plan for how to reduce emissions rapidly.

And I think this vision is supported by the following opportunities:

  1. Renewables have become cheaper than fossil fuel-based energy
  2. Electric vehicles are within reach
  3. RE100
  4. Ambitious commitments by local governments, communities, and the education sector
  5. BRC-A
  6. SBTi
  7. SDGs
  8. NCOS have rebranded to Climate Active and expect membership numbers to increase significantly
  9. NSW’s new energy strategy
  10. Investors driving climate change risk disclosure

The following video shows an excerpt of the speech I delivered.

100% Renewables are experts in helping organisations develop their renewable energy and carbon reduction strategies. To find out more how we can help you, please contact  Barbara or Patrick.

Feel free to use an excerpt of this blog on your own site, newsletter, blog, etc. Just send us a copy or link and include the following text at the end of the excerpt: “This content is reprinted from 100% Renewables Pty Ltd’s blog.

Setting targets for community emissions – Part 5



This is part 5 of our blog post series on community emissions. The first four articles investigated the development of a community GHG inventory. This article analyses community targets for greenhouse gas emissions.

What is greenhouse gas emissions community target?

A target for a city or community relates to a desired future GHG emissions result for a local government administration boundary.

Introduction

Humans and communities are at the centre of climate change. Reducing emissions is a shared responsibility of governments, businesses and of cities and communities. Moreover, in the absence of strong national leadership, local governments need to step in and act. Setting targets enables efforts to be directed towards achieving that target, rather than letting emissions grow unchecked.

However, setting an appropriate target can be confusing. What percentage reduction should you choose? What target year shall you select? Should the target revolve around renewables or carbon emissions, or should you instead focus on tangible measures like solar PV installations in your community?

What targets are in line with science? What target will get accepted by the community? What kind of targets are other cities and communities setting themselves? Should the local government drive the target setting or shall efforts be community-driven?

Before we try to answer these questions, let’s have a look at the underlying problem first.

Rising carbon emissions and the Paris Agreement

Due to all historical and current carbon emissions, global temperatures have already increased by ~1°C from pre-industrial levels, with even higher increases being experienced on land. Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen to above 400 ppm, which exceeds the ‘safe’ level of 350 ppm. Moreover, the IPCC predicts that without additional efforts, there will be further growth in emissions due to increased economic activity and population growth.

The main driver of long-term warming is the total cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases over time. As shown by Climate Action Tracker in Figure 1, without additional efforts, human-caused carbon emissions may increase to over 100 billion tonnes annually by 2100, which is double current global emissions. The resulting increase in global temperatures could be up to 4.8°C (as per the IPCC Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report).

However, with current climate policies around the world, global temperatures are projected to rise by about 3.2°C.

To prevent dangerous climate change by limiting global warming, close to 200 of the world’s governments signed the landmark Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement forms the basis of science-based targets to limit global temperature increase to well below 2°C by 2050. With current pledges, and if all countries achieved their Paris Agreement targets, it could limit warming to 2.9°C.

The Climate Action Tracker’s warming projections for 2100, various policy scenarios
Figure 1: The Climate Action Tracker’s warming projections for 2100, various policy scenarios

However, to limit warming to well below 2°C, let alone 1.5°C, current Paris pledges made by countries are not enough[1]. Carbon emissions need to decline at a much steeper rate in the near future and reach net-zero by mid-century to have a 50% chance of keeping warming below 1.5°C.

Achieving net-zero by 2038 improves this chance to two thirds, but global emissions would have to fall by up to 70% relative to 2017 levels by 2030. For every year of failed action, the window to net-zero is reduced by two years[2].

So how many greenhouse gases can still be emitted? This concept is encapsulated in the term ‘carbon budget’.

What is a carbon budget?

Just like a financial budget sets a ceiling on how much money can be spent, a carbon budget is a finite amount of carbon that can be emitted into the atmosphere before warming will exceed certain temperature thresholds.

The concept of a carbon budget emerged as a scientific concept from the IPCC’s 2014 Synthesis Report on Climate Change and relates to the cumulative amount of carbon emissions permitted over a period. Given that the carbon budget is not annual, but cumulative, it means that once it is spent, carbon emissions have to be held at net zero to avoid exceeding temperature targets.

Higher emissions in earlier years mean that there can only be lower emissions later on. You can compare this concept to your own budget. If your yearly budget was $120,000, and you spent $30,000 in each of January and February, you would only have $60,000 left to spend between March and December, or $6,000 per month. Conversely, if you are careful with what you buy and only spend $5,000 every month, then your budget will last twice as long (2 years).

The carbon budget for limiting warming to 1.5°C is smaller than the carbon budget for limiting warming to 2°C.

Please have a look at the following two carbon budgets we developed for a local government client. The ‘blue budget’ shows a 2°C pathway, whereas the ‘orange budget’ shows a 1.5°C scenario.

Example of 2°C carbon budget

Example of a 2°C carbon budget
Figure 2: Example of a 2°C carbon budget for a community greenhouse gas emissions target

Example of 1.5°C carbon budget

Example of a 1.5°C carbon budget
Figure 3: Example of a 1.5°C carbon budget for a community greenhouse gas emissions target

The area of the carbon budget is much smaller in the ‘orange’ graphic. And while both carbon budgets trend towards net zero in 2050, there are much steeper reductions earlier on in the 1.5°C scenario.

How can you set a target/carbon budget based on science?

Targets are considered science-based if they are in line with the level of decarbonisation required to keep global average temperature increase well below 2°C compared to pre-industrial temperatures, as described in the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. All science-based target setting methods use an underlying carbon budget.

There is no universally accepted method of how to calculate carbon budgets at the city level and many cities have worked hard at developing a fair carbon budget. As per the C40 Deadline 2020 report, the three principles that dominate the debate on the allocation of carbon budgets are:

  1. Equality, based on an understanding that human beings should have equal rights
  2. Responsibility for contributing to climate change, linked to the ‘polluter pays’ principle
  3. Capacity to contribute to solving the problem (also described as capacity to pay).

Specific considerations include the current global carbon budget[3], adjusting it to an appropriate time frame, adjusting it from carbon dioxide to carbon dioxide equivalents, and then deriving a fair and equitable national budget. Once there is a national budget, it needs to be apportioned fairly to the city by using factors such as population and potentially adjusting it based on the sector representation in the community.

A simpler method to arrive at a carbon budget that is tracking towards net-zero is to follow a science-based target-setting method by adopting a target which is proportional to the overall world’s target using the contraction approach and to scale emissions down linearly. There are two science-based temperature scenarios you can align with, a 2°C and a 1.5°C scenario. The minimum annual linear reduction rates aligned with 1.5°C and 2°C scenarios are 4.2% and 2.5%, respectively.

Example method for calculating your science-based target

The following method, which you can use as an example, shows six steps on how to set a community emissions target based on science.

Step 1: Calculate your GHG inventory

Your carbon inventory should be aligned to GPC. Please read our article on calculating community carbon footprints if you are unsure about this step.

Step 2: Project emissions

Once you have a fully developed carbon inventory, project your emissions into the future to get an idea of where your emissions will be in the absence of any abatement measures

Step 3: Decide on carbon budget allocation method

Choose an approach that is suitable for your circumstances. The simplest method is to contract to net-zero by 2050.

Step 4: Choose a pathway

You need to choose whether you want your emissions trajectory to align with a 1.5°C or a 2°C scenario.

Step 5: Choose a target year

While you are aiming to track towards net zero by mid-century, it will help to establish interim targets, based on your chosen degree scenario.

Step 6: Validate your decisions

Consult your community to get feedback.

Six steps to set a science-based community emissions target
Figure 4: Six steps to set a science-based community emissions target

What kind of targets are there?

There are two main categories of targets, top-down and bottom-up ones.

Top-down targets

With top-down goals, you set the goal first, and then determine actions to get there. Top-down targets can be informed by science (‘science-based targets’) or by a community’s aspirations. Each of these approaches effectively gives the community a carbon budget to stay within for any chosen pathway.

Externally set top-down target – science-based:

An external top-down target is informed by science. Science-based targets are aligned with either a 2°C or 1.5°C pathway and lead to net-zero emissions by 2050.

Internally set top-down target – aspirational:

Aspirational targets express the vision of a community and where it would like to be in future. They often relate to a target year earlier than 2050.

Bottom-up targets

With bottom-up targets, you analyse the carbon footprint first and then develop abatement actions. Carbon reduction actions are modelled to investigate the amount of carbon reduction that can be achieved and the cost to facilitate and fund them. Based on the level of carbon reduction that is feasible, you set a corresponding target.

Top-down and bottom-up targets can work in tandem. For instance, you can decide to set a science-based target, and then translate this target into tangible, staged and evidence-based bottom-up targets. Examples of such tangible targets are the number of solar PV installations on houses, or the rate and amount of electric vehicle take-up in a community.

Who sets a community target?

Targets can come directly from the community, or they can be driven by the local government authority. If they are driven by the local government, it is a good idea to undertake community consultation, present the facts and then get feedback on the proposed target(s).

What does a net-zero target mean?

A net-zero target means that by (and from) the target date, there must be no greenhouse gas emissions on a net basis. Within the geographic boundaries of a city, a ‘net zero city’ is defined as:

  1. Net-zero GHG emissions from stationary energy consumption such as natural gas use (scope 1)
  2. Net-zero GHG emissions from transport activities (scope 1)
  3. Net-zero GHG emissions from electricity consumption (scope 2)
  4. Net-zero GHG emissions from the treatment of waste generated within the city boundary (scopes 1 and 3)
  5. Where a city accounts for additional sectoral emissions in their GHG accounting boundary (e.g. IPPU, AFOLU), net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from all additional sectors in the GHG accounting boundary

Table 1: Definition of a net-zero target for a city

Definition of a net-zero target for a city

Once you have achieved carbon neutrality, it needs to be maintained year after year. For further information, please refer to the C40 paper, ‘Defining Carbon Neutrality For Cities And Managing Residual Emissions’.

Using carbon offsets to reach net-zero

Even after you have reduced your emissions as much as possible, there may be a residual carbon footprint. It may not be technically or economically possible to achieve zero emissions for all inventory sources, in which case you can consider carbon offsets.

As per the C40 paper Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities, possible approaches for carbon offsets you can consider include:

  1. Developing carbon offset projects outside of the city GHG accounting boundary (including local/regional projects that may or may not generate tradeable carbon credits) and taking responsibility for managing the project for the duration of its lifetime;
  2. Investing in carbon offset projects outside of the city GHG accounting boundary (e.g. provide funding to enable a project to get underway or commit to purchasing a set quantity of future vintages, thereby providing upfront funding for credit registration costs), and
  3. Purchasing carbon offsets from outside of the city GHG accounting boundary (local, national, or globally-sourced projects that generate tradeable carbon credits) from a registered/credible/established carbon credit provider.

As with any carbon offset purchase, your carbon credits should be credible and of high quality. Criteria that your carbon offset projects should achieve are that they are real, additional, permanent, measurable, independently audited and verified, unambiguously owned and transparent.

Using Carbon Dioxide Removal and Negative Emissions Technology to reach net-zero

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) means that you are removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in addition to what would happen anyway via the natural carbon cycle. Because you are removing carbon emissions, this is also called ‘negative emissions’, or ‘negative emissions technology’ (NET).

You can draw out excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by enhancing natural carbon sinks (trees and soil) or using chemical processes, such as extracting carbon dioxide from the air and storing it somewhere suitable (e.g., underground).

Negative Emission Technology (NET) is at various stages of commercial development and differs in terms of maturity, scalability, costs, risks, and trade-offs. To date, none of these technologies has been adopted at large scale.

As a side note, in IPCC modelling, all pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C include CDR measures. If we cannot reduce emissions fast enough, global temperatures will overshoot 1.5°C, which means that we need NET to bring global temperatures back down.

A city that plans on utilising NET is Oslo. The single biggest carbon reduction measure in Oslo’s Climate and Energy Strategy is the implementation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) at its Klemetsrud waste incineration facility.

Target setting under the Global Covenant of Mayors and C40

Target setting under the Global Covenant

The Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy (GCoM) is the world’s largest alliance of cities and local governments with a shared long-term vision of promoting and supporting voluntary action to combat climate change and move to a low emission, climate-resilient future. As of October 2019, 26 local governments in Australia have joined the GCoM.

Through the GCoM, cities and local governments are voluntarily committing to fight climate change, mirroring the commitments their national governments have set to ensure the goals of the Paris Agreement are met.

Local governments committed to GCoM pledge to implement policies and undertake measures to:

  • Reduce/limit greenhouse gas emissions
  • Prepare for the impacts of climate change
  • Increase access to sustainable energy
  • Track progress toward these objectives

When you join the Global Covenant of Mayors, you need to submit a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target(s) within two years upon joining. The target boundary needs to be consistent with all emissions sources included in your GHG emissions inventory. The target year needs to be the same (or later than) the target year adopted nationally under the Paris Agreement. The national target is called the ‘Nationally Determined Contribution’ (NDC).

If you set a target beyond 2030, you also need to set an interim target. The target needs to be at least as ambitious as the unconditional components of the NDC. You are only allowed to use carbon offsets if your target’s ambition exceeds the NDC.

Target setting under C40

C40 is a network of the world’s megacities committed to addressing climate change. Cities that commit to being part of C40 need to have a plan to deliver their contribution towards the goal of constraining global temperature rise to no more than 1.5°C. In Australia, Sydney and Melbourne are members.

To remain within a 1.5°C temperature rise, average per capita emissions across C40 cities need to drop from over 5 t CO2-e per capita to around 2.9 t CO2-e per capita by 2030. Every city needs to diverge considerably from its current business-as-usual pathway and cities with a GDP over USD15,000 per capita must begin to reduce their per capita emissions immediately, which results in an immediate and steep decline of emissions.

C40 recommends that the trajectory for emission reduction follows the typology as introduced in Deadline 2020.

  • Steep Decline – Cities with a GDP per capita over $15,000 and emissions above the average for C40. Emissions need to be immediately and rapidly reduced and the city is sufficiently developed to do so.
  • Steady Decline – Cities with a GDP per capita over $15,000 but emissions lower than the average for C40. The city is sufficiently developed to immediately reduce emissions, but a less rapid rate of reduction is required than for the Steep Decline group.
  • Early Peak – Cities with GDP per capita below $15,000 and higher than average emissions per capita. An early emissions peak is required, although the city’s development status means that decline cannot be immediate.
  • Late Peak – Cities with a GDP per capita below $15,000 and lower than average emissions per capita. A slightly later emissions peak is possible.

The following table shows the current and reduced science-aligned and C40 per capita emissions for scopes 1, 2 and 3.

Table 2: Average per capita emissions figures for C40 cities in 1.5- and 2-degree trajectories

Average per capita emissions figures for C40 cities in 1.5- and 2-degree trajectories

Examples of city targets

The following list shows examples of ambitious targets for cities across five continents.

EThekwini Municipality, Africa

The eThekwini municipality includes the city of Durban, South Africa and surrounding towns. It is the first city in Africa to develop a 1.5°C climate action plan with the support of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group. The target is to reach a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030 and 80% reduction by 2050.

Hong Kong, Asia

In May 2019, Hong Kong achieved CDP’s top ‘A’ score for its climate strategy, among 7% of cities reporting to the CDP. Hong Kong’s targets are as follows:

  • Reduce carbon intensity by 65% to 70% by 2030 compared with the 2005 level, which is equivalent to an absolute reduction of 26% to 36%
  • Resulting in per capita emission of 3.3 to 3.8 tonnes in 2030
  • Carbon emissions to peak before 2020

The 2030 Climate Plan includes objectives, such as phasing down coal for electricity generation and replacing it with natural gas by 2030, saving energy in the built environment, focusing on rail as a low-carbon public transport backbone and encouraging active transport modes, such as walking.

The Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Australia

The ACT is a federal territory of Australia containing the Australian capital city of Canberra and some surrounding townships. The ACT’s first targets were introduced in 2010, revised in 2016 to increase ambition and again in 2018. The current targets are to reduce emissions (from 1990 levels) by:

  • 40% by 2020
  • 50-60% by 2025
  • 65-75% by 2030
  • 90-95% by 2040
  • 100% (net zero emissions) by 2045.

The ACT also set a target to peak emissions per capita by 2013. This was achieved in 2012-13 at 10.53 tonnes of CO2-e per person and has remained below this level ever since. In 2017-18, emissions were 8.09 t CO2-e per capita. The ACT’s targets were informed by considering the ACT’s share of the global carbon budget.

Oslo, Europe

Oslo has the objective to become a ‘virtually zero-emission city’. The current targets are as follows:

  • Greenhouse gas emissions should not exceed 766,000 tons of CO2-e by 2020 (applicable to all emission sectors except agriculture, aviation and shipping)
  • Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 95% by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels)

The second goal depends on the successful removal of emissions from a major waste incineration plant.

In 2016, Oslo introduced a climate budget, which sets a ceiling on the volume of carbon dioxide that can be emitted in the city in a given year. The climate budget is fully integrated with the financial budget of the city. The climate budgets show measures implemented or planned for Oslo to reach its climate targets and become a low-carbon city.

San Francisco, North America

In its Focus 2030: A Pathway to Net Zero Emissions, San Francisco defines the following targets:

  • Supplying 100% renewable electricity from 2030
  • 68% reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by 2030
  • 90% reduction by 2050

San Francisco identified that emission reduction must come from three primary sectors, being buildings, transportation and waste. The city also defined sub-targets for these sectors.

Transportation:

  • Shift 80% of all trips taken to walking, biking and transit by 2030.
  • Electrify 25% of private cars and trucks by 2030 and 100% by 2040.

Buildings:

  • Electrify space and water heating with high-efficiency products such as heat pumps
  • Increase building energy efficiency
  • Power buildings with 100% renewable electricity

Waste:

  • Reduce generation by 15% by 2030
  • Reduce disposal to landfill or incineration by 50% by 2030

Conclusion

Cities and communities should consider setting themselves targets in line with science. To avoid catastrophic climate change, emissions need to start falling now and reach net zero by 2050. Interim targets will help to stay under an allocated carbon budget.

Both vision and leadership are needed to enable steep cuts to our emissions, which translates into unprecedented, rapid change across the globe to limit global warming. The way electricity is generated needs to change to clean energy. The way we transport people and goods and the way we produce everything needs innovation. Land use planning plays a big part, and different economic models need to be adopted that will makes such a transformational shift possible. In the next part of this series, we will look at community carbon abatement measures in greater detail.

100% Renewables are experts in helping organisations, communities/LGAs and councils determine suitable targets, be they science-based, aspirational or bottom-up/action-based. Our community inventories align with the GPC and targets can be based on IPCC global carbon budgets. If you need help with your community inventory, please contact  Barbara or Patrick.

Footnotes

[1] For instance, Australia’s commitment under the Paris Agreement is 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030

[2] https://www.c40.org/researches/defining-carbon-neutrality-for-cities-managing-residual-emissions

[3] The Global Carbon Budget website provides annual updates of the global carbon budget and trends.

Please share

Feel free to use an excerpt of this blog on your own site, newsletter, blog, etc. Just send us a copy or link and include the following text at the end of the excerpt: “This content is reprinted from 100% Renewables Pty Ltd’s blog. 

5 ways of visualising emission reduction pathways

Many of our services involve the development of emission reduction pathways, which greatly enhance climate change action plans. In this blog post, we will show you 5 common ways to visually display such a pathway. Seeing these different illustrations can help you to shape how you would like to present your own organisation’s pathway towards a low carbon future.

Introduction

What are emission reduction pathways?

Emission reduction pathways allow for the easy communication of

  • where your organisation is currently at in terms of greenhouse emissions (or energy consumption)
  • where you can be through the implementation of reduction measures that are feasible and cost-effective over time
  • where you would be in the absence of any measures to reduce emissions

Pathways usually start with your selected baseline year and end at some point in the future, typically at 2030, or when agreed or proposed targets are to be met.

What do emission reduction pathways cover?

Boundary:

Your emissions boundary will typically consider three things:

  • The level of an organisation or region you want to assess in terms of emissions reduction. This could be a single site, an asset class (e.g. community buildings), a Division in an organisation, a whole organisation, a town or community, and up to State and National levels.
  • The emissions and energy sources that you want to evaluate. For example, electricity, natural gas, petrol, diesel, refrigerants, waste, wastewater and so on.
  • The Scopes of emissions you want to include. Typically Scope 2 (electricity) is included, and material Scope 1 emissions (on-site combustion or direct emissions). Selected Scope 3 emissions may also be included, such as upstream emissions associated with energy usage and waste.

Units of measure:

The unit for reductions or savings to be modelled will typically be tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, or a unit of energy, such as kilowatt-hours or megajoules.

What greenhouse gas reduction measures are considered in abatement pathways?

For most organisations greenhouse gas reduction measures usually relate to six high-level carbon abatement areas as shown in Figure 1 below, being

  • Energy efficiency
  • Management of waste and other Scope 3 emissions sources
  • Sustainable transport
  • Local generation of renewable energy such as rooftop solar PV
  • Grid decarbonisation
  • Buying clean energy and/or carbon offsets

These high-level categories can be further broken down into as many subcategories as relevant within your selected organisation boundary.

Figure 1: 6 categories for carbon reduction opportunities

The need for a graphical representation of emissions pathways

For many people, it is hard to engage with complex data presented in a table or report. In our experience, it is most effective if abatement potential can be shown in a graph. The visual representation of a carbon abatement pathway allows people to better grasp the overall opportunity for abatement, where this will come from, and the timeframes involved.

It also helps organisations to better communicate their plans to their stakeholders, be they internal or external. Simple and well-presented graphics can also help when seeking decisions to budget for and implement cost-effective measures.

5 ways to graphically represent emission reduction pathways

There are many different ways you can display an emissions reduction pathway; some are more suited to specific circumstances than others. The five examples we are using in this blog post are:

  1. Line chart
  2. Waterfall chart
  3. Area chart
  4. Column chart
  5. Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC)

Let’s look at these examples in detail.



Example #1 – line chart

A line chart is a simple but effective way to communicate a ‘Business-as-usual’ or BAU pathway compared with planned or target pathways at a total emissions level for your selected boundary. Such a boundary could be comparing your whole-business projected emissions with and without action to reduce greenhouse gases.

This type of graph is also useful to report on national emissions compared with required pathways to achieve Australia’s Paris commitments, for example.

Figure 2: Example of a line chart

Example #2 – waterfall chart

A waterfall chart focuses on abatement measures. It shows the size of the abatement for each initiative, progressing towards a specific target, such as 100% renewable electricity, for example. It is most useful to highlight the relative impact of different actions, but it does not show the timeline of implementation.

Figure 3: Example of a waterfall chart

Example #3 – area graph

Area graphs show the size of abatement over time and are a great way to visualise your organisation’s potential pathway towards ambitious emissions reduction targets.

They do not explicitly show the cost-effectiveness of measures. However, a useful approach is to include only measures that are cost-effective now and will be in the future, so that decision-makers are clear that they are looking at a viable investment plan over time to lower emissions.

Figure 4: Example of an area chart that shows reduction actions and diminishing emissions

Another option of displaying an area chart is shown in Figure 5. In this area chart, the existing emission sources that reduce over time are not a focus, and instead, the emphasis is on emission reduction actions. You may prefer this version if there is a large number of reduction measures, or if you include fuel switching actions.

Figure 5: Example of an area chart which emphasises emission reduction actions



Example #4 – column graph

A column graph is similar to the area graph but allows for a clearer comparison between specific years compared with the continuous profile of an area graph. In the example column graph below, we are looking at Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, as well as abatement in an organisation over a 25-year timeframe covering past and future plans.

In the historical part, for instance, we can see Scope 1 (yellow) and Scope 2 (blue) emissions in the baseline year. The impact of GreenPower® (green) on emissions can be seen in any subsequent year until 2018.

Going forward we can see in any projection year the mix of grid decarbonisation (red), new abatement measures (aqua) including fuel switching and renewables purchasing, as well as residual Scope 1 and 2 emissions.

Figure 6: Example of a column chart

Example #5 – Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) Curve

MAC curves focus on the financial business case of abatement measures and the size of the abatement. MAC curves are typically expressed in $/t CO2-e (carbon), or in $/MWh (energy), derived from an assessment of the net present value of a series of investment over time to a fixed time in the future.

The two examples below show MAC curves for the same set of investments across an organisation. Figure 6 shows the outcome in 2030, whereas, in Figure 7, it is to 2040 when investments have yielded greater returns.

MAC curves are a good way to clearly see those investments that will yield the best returns and their contribution to your overall emissions reduction goal.

Figure 7: Example of a Marginal Abatement Cost curve with a short time horizon

Figure 8: Example of a Marginal Abatement Cost curve with a longer time horizon

Please note that no one example is superior over another. It depends on your preferences and what information you would like to convey to your stakeholders.

100% Renewables are experts in putting together emission reduction and renewable energy pathways. If you need help with determining your strategy, targets and cost-effective pathways, please contact  Barbara or Patrick.

Feel free to use an excerpt of this blog on your own site, newsletter, blog, etc. Just send us a copy or link and include the following text at the end of the excerpt: “This content is reprinted from 100% Renewables Pty Ltd’s blog.

Science-based targets in a nutshell

Target-setting in line with science

In 2015, close to 200 of the world’s governments committed to prevent dangerous climate change by limiting global warming to well below 2°C in the landmark Paris Agreement. However, total human-caused carbon emissions continue to increase. Under current trajectories, global mean temperatures are projected to grow by 2.2°C to 4.4°C by the end of this century.

Your organisation has a pivotal role in ensuring that the global temperature goals are met, but most existing company targets are not ambitious enough to achieve this.

What are science-based targets?

Science-based targets (SBT) are greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets that are consistent with the level of decarbonisation that is required to keep global temperature increase within 1.5 to 2°C compared to pre-industrial temperature levels.

SBTs are consistent with the long-term goal of reaching net zero emissions in the second half of this century as per the Paris Agreement. SBTs provide a trajectory for companies to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi)

The SBTi is a collaboration between CDP, the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), World Resources Institute (WRI), and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). The SBTi enables you to demonstrate your climate change leadership by publicly committing to science-based GHG reduction targets.

The overall aim of the initiative is that by 2020 science-based target setting will become standard business practice and corporations will play a major role in ensuring we keep global warming well below a 2°C increase.

Components for science-based target-setting methods

SBT target-setting methods are complex and should be considered in the context of your operations and value chains. Generally, science-based target-setting methods have three components:

  • Carbon budget (defining the overall amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted to limit warming to 1.5°C and well-below 2°C),
  • An emissions scenario (defining the magnitude and timing of emissions reductions) and,
  • An allocation approach (defining how the carbon budget is allocated to individual companies).

Target setting approaches

There are three science-based target (SBT) setting approaches. As defined by SBTi:

  1. Sector-based (convergence) approach: The global carbon budget is divided by sector, and then emission reductions are allocated to individual companies based on its sector’s budget.
  2. Absolute-based (contraction) approach: The per cent reduction in absolute emissions required by a given scenario is applied to all companies equally.
  3. Economic-based (contraction) approach: A carbon budget is equated to global GDP, and a company’s share of emissions is determined by its gross profit since the sum of all companies’ gross profits worldwide equate to global GDP.

The SBTi recommends that companies screen available methods and choose the method and target that best drives emissions reductions to demonstrate sector leadership. You should not default to the target that is easiest to meet but should use the most ambitious decarbonisation scenarios and methods that lead to the earliest reductions and the least cumulative emissions.

An SBT should cover a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 15 years from the date the target is publicly announced. Companies are also encouraged to develop long-term targets (e.g. out to 2050).

It is recommended that you express targets in both intensity and absolute terms, to track both real reductions in emissions and efficiency performance.

More information about the ‘absolute-based target setting’ approach

This method requires you to reduce their absolute emissions by the same percentage as required for a given scenario (e.g. globally or for a sector). Companies setting their SBT today would be strongly encouraged to adopt absolute abatement targets well in excess of 4% per year to be aligned with limiting warming to 1.5°C.

As an alternative to setting percentage reduction targets for Scope 2 emissions (electricity consumption), you can set targets for the procurement of renewable energy. Acceptable procurement targets are:

  • 80% of electricity from renewable sources by 2025, and
  • 100% of electricity from renewable sources by 2030.

If you already source electricity at or above these thresholds, you should maintain or increase your share of renewable electricity.



How to commit to and announce a science-based target

The following steps are required to commit to and announce an SBT.

  1. Commit to set a science-based target (internal)
  2. Develop a target (internal)
  3. Submit your target for validation (to SBTi)
  4. Announce the target (public)

Criteria for SBTs

To ensure their rigour and credibility, SBTs should meet a range of criteria.

  • An SBT should cover a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 15 years from the date the target is publicly announced. You are also encouraged to develop long-term targets (e.g. up to 2050).
  • The boundaries of your SBT should align with those of your carbon inventory.
  • From October 2019 the emissions reductions from Scope 1 and 2 sources should be aligned with a 1.5°C decarbonisation pathway.
  • SBTs should cover at least 95 per cent of your Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
  • You may set targets that combine scopes (e.g., Scope 1+2 or Scope 1+2+3 targets).
  • The Scope 1 and 2 portion of a combined target can include reductions from both scopes or only from one of the scopes. In the latter case, reductions in one scope have to compensate for the other scope.
  • You should use a single, specified Scope 2 accounting approach (“location-based” or “market-based”) for setting and tracking progress toward an SBT.
  • If you have significant Scope 3 emissions (over 40% of total Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions), you should set a Scope 3 target.
  • Scope 3 targets generally need not be science-based, but should be ambitious, measurable and clearly demonstrate how you are addressing the main sources of value chain GHG emissions in line with current best practice.
  • The Scope 3 target boundary should include the majority of value chain emissions; for example, the top three emissions source categories or two-thirds of total Scope 3 emissions.
  • The nature of a Scope 3 target will vary depending on the emissions source category concerned, the influence you have over your value chain partners and the quality of data available from your partners.
  • You should periodically update your SBTs to reflect significant changes that would otherwise compromise their relevance and consistency.
  • Offsets and avoided emissions do not count toward SBTs. The SBTi requires that you set targets based on emission reductions through direct action within your own boundaries or your value chains. Offsets are only considered to be an option if you want to contribute to finance additional emission reductions beyond your SBT.

Upcoming changes to submission of SBTs

In October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR15), which was the IPCC’s first major update since its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) released in 2014.

The new report makes a very strong case about the benefits of limiting warming to 1.5°C and highlights the severe risks and impacts of reaching 2°C of warming. It provides new emissions pathways for limiting warming to 1.5°C and well-below 2°C.

Informed by SR15, in April 2019 SBTi released updated target validation criteria, target validation protocols, technical resources and tools to enable you to set targets in line with the level of decarbonisation needed to achieve the Paris Agreement.

This means that as of October 2019, the SBTi will no longer accept targets in line with 2°C. Existing targets in line with 2°C will continue to be valid and will be labelled as 2°C targets on the SBTi website.



Mandatory target recalculation

To ensure consistency with most recent climate science and best practices, targets must be reviewed, and if necessary, recalculated and revalidated, at a minimum every five years. If you have an approved target that requires recalculation, you must follow the most recently applicable criteria at the time of resubmission.

 

100% Renewables are experts in helping organisations develop their carbon reduction and renewable energy targets and pathways. Developing baselines, projecting your emissions and knowing how you can reach identified targets can be complex. If you need help, please contact  Barbara or Patrick.

Feel free to use an excerpt of this blog on your own site, newsletter, blog, etc. Just send us a copy or link and include the following text at the end of the excerpt: “This content is reprinted from 100% Renewables Pty Ltd’s blog.

Community input to the Willoughby LGA Sustainability Action Plan

Willoughby City Council ran an event at the Concourse in Chatswood this morning to get input from the community on the new Sustainability Action Plan for the Willoughby LGA.  The event was chaired by mayor Gail Giles-Gidney and facilitated by the brilliant Bernie Hobbs, ABC broadcaster. 100% Renewables is proud to be helping Council with the development of this plan. Barbara from 100% presented the keynote speech and both Patrick Denvir and Barbara participated in a Q&A session.

Barbara presenting the survey results from the community engagement
The Willoughby community deciding on their favourite options to make Willoughby a green city.
Bernie Hobbs, ABC broadcaster and science writer, facilitating the community event
Mayor Gail Giles-Gidney chaired the event