Connect with us

Published

on

The calculation of emissions, particularly in the realm of energy consumption, is a complex process that requires careful consideration of various factors. Two primary methods, location-based and market-based emissions reporting, play a critical role in understanding your company’s carbon footprint

This article delves into the intricacies of both methodologies, offering insights into their distinct calculations and implications for businesses.

Both location and market based emissions reporting applies to two emission categories: scope 2 or purchased electricity and scope 3 or fuel and energy related emissions. Let’s break down each method starting with location-based emissions. 

Understanding Location-Based Emissions 

Location-based emissions refers to what you physically consume at your operations site or business facility. It’s calculated using solely the average emission intensity of the local grid where you source power. 

power grid for location based carbon emissions accountingThat means a location-based method doesn’t factor in any green measures you’re adopting such as renewable energy credits (RECs). So, location-based emissions would be the same regardless if you use RECs but would be different vs. your market-based emissions. 

For a clearer understanding in determining your location-based emissions, let’s use an example of a business in L.A., California. You can find the actual emission factors for your local power grid from the International Energy Agency (IEA) database.

Now, let’s calculate. First step is to get the emissions factor for the average CO2 or GHG intensity of the LA power grid, expressed in kg of CO2e per kWh. Then let’s multiply that emissions factor by the building’s electricity consumption to get Scope 2 emissions. 

  • Here’s the formula to keep in mind: kWh of electricity used  x  local grid emissions factor = Location-based Scope 2 Carbon or GHG Emissions

To get location-based emissions for your Scope 3, simply do the same with the upstream emission factor.

The idea behind calculating and reporting Scope 2 location-based emissions is that everyone in the same power grid is equal. Nobody gets exception and everybody shares the same emissions of the grid based on the amount of electricity they consume. 

Given the formula above, one option to reduce your location-based emissions is to just decrease overall energy use. Or you can increase on-site renewable energy generation used directly by your office building or production facility. 

Understanding Market-Based Emissions 

Unlike location-based methods, the calculation for market-based emissions focuses on the individual company and its contract agreements in the market. Market-based emissions are associated with energy a company purchases, which is different from the power the local grid generates. 

There are various instruments or contracts involved in getting market-based emissions. These include these common ones:

  • Renewable Energy Contracts (RECs)
  • Direct contracts 
  • Supplier-specific emission rates 
  • The residual mix  

Calculating for these energy contracts or instruments should adhere to the GHG protocol Scope 2 emissions quality criteria. If they don’t, the company may still opt to report them separately for transparency. But they can’t be included in calculating market-based Scope 2 emissions.

So how does getting market-based vs. location-based Scope 2 emissions differ? 

As mentioned, market-based emissions take into account energy purchase agreements. So, taking the example provided above for location-based emissions, the California company is taking its electricity from the local grid. But they want to buy RECs from a renewable energy developer. 

While that company still connects with and consumes power from the grid, the market-based method requires them to factor in emissions of the RECs. By doing that, the company can claim the emission reductions from the renewable energy supply instead of applying the emissions factor of the grid as the case with the location-based method.

Here are the steps to calculate market-based emissions using this formula: 

  • kWh consumed  x  Contract source emissions factor (EF) = Market-based Scope 2 CO2e GHG Emissions
  1. Get the emissions factors for energy sources specified in the contracts (refer to GHG protocol quality criteria)
  2. Multiple the power bought from a source by its specific emission factor. Do the same for all the sources in energy contracts and sum them all up. 
  3. For electricity use emissions that’s included in your contracts, use the residual mix emission factor. 

Residual mix refers to the emission factor for the grid that excludes electricity generation claimed by your electricity contracts.

  • A quick tip: choose higher precision EF wherever applicable when calculating market-based emissions as the GHG Protocols Hierarchy suggests.

This approach of measuring emissions is attributed to the same energy consumed used in calculating location-based emissions. When you determine Scope 2 emissions using both methods, you don’t sum them up, but disclose them separately. 

The goal is to report these two emissions side-by-side to show different stories about the same activity data. 

Comparing Location-Based and Market-Based Emissions 

With the differences in calculating Scope 2 emissions, which method should you use?  

Given the more detailed and accurate market-based emissions, you might opt for this calculation method. After all, carbon accounting must prioritize accuracy and market-based emissions are more specific to your business operations. 

However, calculating market-based is a bit trickier. You need to have a clear understanding of your contract emission factor or know if it’s 100% renewable. It matters a lot as shown in the formula, but it doesn’t fully capture the actual emissions of your energy use. 

On the contrary, the location-based method does show it. 

According to the World Resources Institute, “the location-based method reveals what the company is physically putting into the air, and the market-based method shows emissions the company is responsible for through its purchasing decisions”. 

In other words, both methods tell different sides of the story that’s essential in showing your company’s CO2 footprint. From there, you can decide the corresponding carbon reduction strategies to adopt. 

The GHG Protocol provides a comprehensive comparison between the two carbon accounting methods, including their applicability, most useful scenario, and what they miss out. 

Market-Based Vs. Location-Based Emissions Method

market based vs location based emissions
Borrowed from GHG Protocol

Policy Implications and Carbon Offsetting

Electricity sourced from a grid lacks differentiation and cannot be distinguished based on its origin. Even if your company buys renewable energy credits (RECs) or similar instruments, they don’t significantly alter or lower your emissions. They also don’t enable a complete disconnection from the grid, unless you establish your own self-sufficient power generation. 

You can account for RECs and other carbon credits in your company’s carbon offset inventory. However, they should be accounted for separately as a unique inventory line item and not included in calculating emissions from purchased power. 

In contemporary electricity grids worldwide, such as those in the U.S, Canada, and Germany, integrating renewable energy does not result in disconnection from the local electricity grid. Rather, electricity generated by your renewable energy system is often sold back into the grid, with net metering commonly employed. 

Consequently, you continue to use grid electricity, with any surplus clean energy benefit shared by all grid users. This integration leads to a reduction in the grid’s overall carbon intensity, a factor that’s useful in accounting for location-based Scope 2 emissions.

Location-Based vs Market-Based Emissions: Closing Thoughts 

As new guidance and regulations on carbon accounting and reporting corporate emissions are strengthening, companies should know the basics, at the very least, of factoring in their harmful emissions. Knowing the different methods for accounting emissions, be it location-based or market-based, and their nuances is crucial. 

While market-based emissions provide a more granular and specific picture of a company’s carbon footprint, the location-based approach offers transparency about the physical emissions generated at a site. 

Recognizing the distinct stories presented by each method allows you to develop effective carbon reduction strategies in line with your company’s or organization’s operational needs and environmental commitments. 

The post Market-Based Vs Location-Based Emissions: What’s The Difference? appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

China’s First-Ever Sovereign Green Bond Hits Global Market: Will It Power Its Net Zero Ambitions?

Published

on

china

China’s Ministry of Finance (MoF) issued its first sovereign green bond, denominated in Chinese currency to the value of USD824m, on the London Stock Exchange. This is China’s first green sovereign bond and also its first sovereign bond issued overseas. The move shows China’s rising role in global green finance.

This plan started taking shape in early 2024. In January, officials from China and the UK met to discuss green finance. Then, in February, China’s Ministry of Finance released a detailed green bond framework. It explained how the funds raised will contribute to mitigation and adaptation, natural resource protection, pollution control, and biodiversity preservation. This helped China start offering green bonds to international investors.

China’s Green Bonds: A Journey That Began in 2014

China’s green bond journey started back in 2014. That year, Sean Kidney, head of the Climate Bonds Initiative, worked with China’s central bank on a task force. Their goal was to build a green bond market.

Since then, China has made huge progress. By 2023, the country was issuing more than USD 150 billion in green bonds every year. It also created clear rules, strong government support, and trusted agencies to check the quality of green projects.

Now, with its first sovereign green bond sold overseas, China is taking the next big step. This move shows that the country is ready to lead globally in green finance.

Part of Carbon Neutral Goals

Climate Action Tracker analyzed China’s emissions, and they are still rising. By 2030, they’re expected to be just 0.5% to 1.6% higher than earlier forecasts—reaching around 13.8 to 14.6 billion tonnes of CO₂.

In a more conservative outlook, emissions might peak before 2025 and then drop slowly—about 0.5% each year. But if China speeds up its shift to renewables and cuts back on coal, then it would lead to a faster decline to about 1% per year. Technically, it can save up to 750 million tonnes of CO₂ by 2030.

Still, even in both of these scenarios, China’s current climate policies aren’t strong enough to make a big dent this decade. To meet the 1.5°C climate goal of the Paris Agreement, China will need to boost its climate action in its next big policy plan (2026–2030).

china carbon emissions net zero
Source: Climate Action Tracker

Thus, this bond fits right into China’s national green plan and net-zero goals. Since 2013, China has followed the idea of “Ecological Civilization.” This means growing the economy while protecting nature.

China’s long-term sustainability plan includes major goals like the following:

  • The Five-Sphere Integrated Plan
  • The 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025)
  • Peaking carbon emissions before 2030
  • Reaching carbon neutrality by 2060

All of these support China’s “Beautiful China” vision that aims to make green development a key part of the country’s future.

Furthermore, China is using modern tools like artificial intelligence, smart tech, renewable energy, and carbon capture to make this successful. These technologies will help monitor the environment, save energy, and reduce pollution. They also support the growth of cleaner industries and smarter cities.

China emissions

Investors Can Now Join the Green Effort

This new green bond connects money with climate action. It gives investors a chance to support China’s green goals directly.

Apart from Government backing, businesses and local communities also play a big role. Green business ideas, government rewards, and public action all help push China toward a cleaner future.

More significantly, these bonds could help finance renewable energy projects, green transport systems, waste-to-energy plants, and climate-resilient urban infrastructure

Thus, this bond is more than a financial tool. It shows China’s commitment to building a greener, healthier world.

China Sets a High Bar for Its Green Bonds

China has created a green bond framework that meets top global and local standards. It follows both the China Green Bond Principles (2022) and the ICMA Green Bond Principles (2021 with the 2022 Appendix). By aligning with these trusted guidelines, China builds strong trust among investors—especially those who care about sustainability and ESG values.

The framework focuses on four main parts: how the money is used, how projects are chosen, how the funds are managed, and how results are reported.

All the money raised from these green bonds will go toward eco-friendly projects listed in China’s national budget. This includes building green infrastructure, funding ongoing green programs, offering tax breaks for clean initiatives, and supporting local governments working on climate action.

Furthermore, the MoF will track all fund transactions in an internal register. Every year, it will share reports showing where the money went and what environmental benefits it achieved. This clear reporting gives confidence to investors and shows that their money is used productively.

Paving the Way for Future Climate Investments

This debut is likely just the start. The Ministry of Finance has built a framework to support future green bond issuances. These could be bigger and offered in different currencies.

As interest in low-carbon development grows and China pushes for cleaner, high-quality growth, more green bonds from the government are expected to follow.

This crucial step paved the way for China to issue green sovereign bonds to global investors. It came at a moment when global sustainable debt is about to hit USD 6 trillion, following Climate Bonds standards.

The post China’s First-Ever Sovereign Green Bond Hits Global Market: Will It Power Its Net Zero Ambitions? appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

International Carbon Credits Back on the Table? EU’s Climate Goal Gets a Twist

Published

on

International Carbon Credits Back on the Table? EU's Climate Goal Gets a Twist

The European Union (EU) is considering a new plan to help meet its 2040 climate goal. According to sources, the European Commission may allow countries to use international carbon credits under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. This would be a big change from the EU’s current rule, which says climate targets must be met using domestic actions only.

Countdown to 2040: Can the EU Hit Its Green Target in Time?

The European Commission has proposed a target to cut EU greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040 compared to 1990 levels. This goal is part of the EU’s plan to become “climate neutral” or net-zero zero by 2050. 

EU 2040 climate goal
Source: Climate Action Tracker

Achieving the 2040 climate targets entails substantial financial commitments. The EU estimates a need for around €660 billion annually in energy investments during the 2031-2050 period. This represents about 3.2% of the EU’s GDP.

However, the official proposal for the 2040 goal has been delayed.

One reason for the delay is the growing political debate. Some governments and lawmakers worry that the green policies may hurt industries, especially with rising global competition and trade issues like U.S. tariffs. Because of this, the Commission is now exploring more flexible options to reach the 2040 goal.

One option is the use of international carbon credits. 

Reuters reports that sources say the Commission is thinking about a new idea. They might let EU countries use international carbon credits to help meet part of the 2040 target. This would mean that countries could support CO2-reduction projects in other parts of the world—such as forest restoration in Brazil—and count those emissions savings toward their EU goals.

This would be a major shift for the EU. Until now, the EU’s climate targets have focused only on domestic efforts. International credits were banned from the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) after 2020 due to problems in the past.

What Are International Carbon Credits?

A carbon credit is a certificate that shows one tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) has been reduced or removed from the atmosphere. These credits can be created by projects such as planting trees, using cleaner energy, or capturing emissions. Countries or companies can buy these credits to offset their own emissions.

Under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, countries can trade these credits internationally. This helps fund climate projects in developing countries and allows other countries to meet their climate goals in a more flexible way. These projects include initiatives like reforestation, renewable energy installations, and methane capture

EU’s Past Experience with Carbon Credits

Between 2008 and 2020, the EU allowed companies to use international credits under the ETS. Over 1.6 billion credits were used. Many of these credits came from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) systems under the Kyoto Protocol.

However, this system had problems. Many projects failed to deliver the promised emissions cuts. Some even led to fraud. Moreover, the many cheap credits lowered the carbon price in the EU. This made it easier for companies to pollute. This slowed down progress on cutting emissions inside the EU.

Because of these issues, the EU stopped accepting international credits after 2020. The current rules for the EU ETS focus only on domestic actions. 

According to the European Environment Agency (EEA), the following would be the forecasted trend of the supply and demand of EU carbon credits until 2030.

EU carbon credits outlook 2030
Source: EEA

Given the 2040 climate goals, the EC is thinking about bringing back international carbon credits. This would offer more flexibility in meeting emission reduction targets. 

Article 6 Explained: A Second Chance for Global Offsets

The Paris Agreement introduced a new system under Article 6 to improve the way international carbon credits (ITMOs) work. This system includes rules to avoid double counting, ensure credits are real, and improve transparency.

PACM Article 6.4 how it works

Supporters of Article 6 say it can help developing countries get more climate funding. If the EU uses these credits again, it could also help poorer countries develop greener economies.

Critics, however, warn that the Article 6 system is still not strong enough. Some carbon credit projects may still overestimate emissions savings or fail to remove carbon in a permanent way. There are also concerns that switching back to international offsets may reduce the pressure on the EU to cut emissions at home.

The Contradicting Views from Experts

Some experts and groups are urging caution. Linda Kalcher from Strategic Perspectives said international credits have faced many issues. These include fraud and poor environmental benefits.

Others, like Andrei Marcu of the ERCST think-tank, believe that developing countries would welcome the move. These countries often need more climate finance and would benefit from EU support for local carbon projects.

Carbon Market Watch, an environmental group, warned that using carbon credits and removals instead of real domestic reductions could weaken the EU’s climate ambition. They particularly noted that:

“Carbon Market Watch warns that reckless reliance on Article 6 credits and carbon removals is not a replacement for domestic emissions reductions commitments.”

The EU’s climate laws and scientific advisors have strongly supported domestic emissions cuts. The European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change has said the EU should cut 90–95% of emissions by 2040 through domestic action only.

Buying credits from other countries may help meet targets on paper. However, experts say it does not reduce pollution inside the EU. They warn that it could slow the shift away from fossil fuels and delay investments in clean energy and green jobs within Europe.

What’s Next: Will the EU Go Global on Carbon Trading?

The European Commission says it is still aiming for a 90% cut by 2040, but it is also listening to calls for more flexibility. EU climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra said the 90% cut is the “starting point” and plans to propose the final target before summer.

Any target must be approved by EU countries and the European Parliament. This means more talks and possibly changes before anything is final.

If the EU decides to include international carbon credits in its 2040 plan, it would mark a big policy shift. The decision could impact how the world sees the EU’s climate leadership and how the global carbon credit market develops in the future.

The post International Carbon Credits Back on the Table? EU’s Climate Goal Gets a Twist appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Copper Prices Crash as U.S.-China Tariff War Triggers Market Mayhem

Published

on

Copper

Just two weeks ago, copper prices were climbing fast due to the US stockpiling ahead of new tariffs. Traders warned that new US tariffs on copper could squeeze global supply. But things turned around quickly. But now, the copper rally has reversed into a full-blown crash.

This is a direct outcome of President Donald Trump’s trade war, aka “Trump Tariffs,” that is shaking the global market. Investors now fear that the new tariffs will slow down demand for copper worldwide.

The Copper Price Shock: Traders Scramble, Markets Tumble

Bloomberg reported, on Friday, April 4, copper prices dropped sharply, along with stock markets. The fall continued till Monday. In the London Metal Exchange, copper prices sank as much as 7.7% before bouncing back slightly to $8,735 a ton.

copper price
Source: Bloomberg

Earlier, we saw how traders rushed to send copper to the US before tariffs hit, driving premiums as high as $500 a ton. Big players like Mercuria and Trafigura even predicted prices could reach $12,000 a ton. But things changed rapidly when Trump shortened the tariff timeline, giving buyers very few days in hand.

Because of this, copper is piling up outside the US. Global buyers have more to choose from, but many aren’t interested. With demand dropping due to tariffs, the extra supply doesn’t help.

Chile’s Price Cut Signals Looming Economic Strain

Chile, the world’s biggest copper producer, is preparing to lower its copper price estimate for 2025. It’s a telltale sign of growing global economic concerns.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Chile’s copper agency, Cochilco, held its 2025 price forecast at $4.25 per pound in February. This came after it raised the estimate from $3.85 back in May 2024.

It also kept the 2026 forecast at $4.25. Cochilco expects copper prices to stay above $4.00 per pound for the next ten years.

  • But the new data show copper prices to average between $3.90 and $4 per pound this year, which is below its previous forecast.

The final figure will be announced by the end of April. However, Juan Ignacio Guzman, head of Chilean mineral consulting firm GEM, said,

“If the trade war triggers a recession, prices could tumble to as low as $3 a pound — or about $6,600 a ton.”

copper price
CSource: Bloomberg

Chile, which produced 24% of the world’s copper last year, is now feeling the pressure.

In a separate report from the Shanghai Metals Market, we discovered that,

  • Chilean Customs data showed that Chile exported 182,338 metric tons of refined copper, including 33,496 metric tons to China in March.
  • Exports of copper ore and concentrate totaled 1,304,782 metric tons, with China receiving 810,135 metric tons in the same month.

Earlier this year, in January and February, Chile’s copper production dropped compared to the previous month. Exports to China also declined during that period.

Analysts Warn of More Trouble Ahead

The Bloomberg report highlighted that the worst might not be over. Max Layton, global head of commodities research at Citigroup Inc., warned that the global trade shake-up could lead to a historic market correction. Citi now expects copper prices outside the US to average $8,500 this quarter — but they also say the risk of further drops is high.

BNP Paribas SA strategist David Wilson, who had warned prices could collapse, now sees the downtrend continuing in the short term. Goldman Sachs still believes in copper’s long-term value but admits that slower global growth could delay the expected supply shortage.

Meanwhile, JPMorgan now expects the US to fall into a recession this year. UBS estimates that every 1% drop in US GDP could cut output in export-driven Asian economies like Taiwan and South Korea by up to 2%.

China’s 34% Tariff Sparks Copper Stock Rout

Copper stocks have taken a beating amid falling prices, global slowdown fears, and rising trade tensions. The sharp selloff followed news from China’s Xinhua News Agency that Beijing will impose a 34% tariff on all US imports starting April 10.

Here’s a quick look at how major mining companies are reacting:

  • Freeport-McMoRan: Shares dropped 13.1% in a single day. The stock is down 24.1% this week, bringing its market value to $41.9 billion.
  • BHP Group and Rio Tinto: BHP’s shares fell 9.5%, cutting its value to $107.3 billion. Rio Tinto’s dropped 6.4%, is now valued at $93.5 billion. Both saw trading volumes nearly triple the usual.
  • Southern Copper: Based in Mexico, the company fell 9.6% on Friday alone, pushing its weekly loss to 16.7%. Its market value now stands at $62.4 billion.
  • Zijin Mining: This Chinese mining giant lost 7.2%, dropping to a market cap of $56.9 billion. It’s one of the few firms producing over 1 million tonnes of copper a year.
  • Glencore and Anglo American: Glencore dropped 11.5%, while London-listed Anglo American fell 11%. Their market caps now stand at $36.9 billion and $28.6 billion, respectively. Both are down about 20% this week.
  • Canadian Miners (Teck Resources, Ivanhoe Mines, First Quantum): Canadian copper stocks saw sharp losses. Teck dropped 12.1%, Ivanhoe fell 12.6%, and First Quantum slid 12.8% as investors pulled back across the board.
  • Hindustan Copper: In India, shares fell 5.4% over the past five days and are down 15.7% so far in 2025.

KNOW MORE: Copper Prices Slump Below $9,000: What Does It Mean for Global Growth?

What started as a bullish rush has turned into a brutal crash. With tariffs rising and demand shrinking, copper is now a symbol of deeper market fears. Global supply chains are out of sync, and the world’s top miners are feeling the heat. If trade tensions escalate, this copper price crash may face a difficult recovery.

The post Copper Prices Crash as U.S.-China Tariff War Triggers Market Mayhem appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com