Carbon Working Group -- Final Draft of Plan

Dave Walsh

LEEDuser Basic Member

0 thumbs up

July 6, 2020

Hi Carbon Working Group,

It’s been a while since our last online meeting on 3/31 –- admittedly, a bit too long -- so I wanted to share some updates. You might have seen Candice Pearson’s 5/13 post about the structure of the Contractor’s Commitment and how it’s evolving into a set of guidelines available not only to our SCL Group but to the construction community at large.

To support the idea of a set of guidelines available to a wider audience, I have reformatted the tiers we discussed in our 2/26 and 3/31 meetings into a Plan that’s focused on best management practices. In the 3/31 meeting, there was a good discussion about the Carbon Plan should not be just about tracking, reduction and disclosure our impacts as GCs, but also should include our advocacy and encouraging carbon reductions with our partners as well. The idea of advocacy is also in this revision.

Please take a look at the attached revised draft Carbon Plan and graphic of the tiers and let me know if there are any last tweaks that need to happen prior to the Summit.

Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you.

--Dave

Post a reply

Conor McGuire

Director of Sustainability

Columbia

LEEDuser Basic Member

0 thumbs up

Thu, 07/09/2020 - 15:45

Hi Dave, Thanks for working on this! This looks great. Overall I agree with your layout with two exceptions. I think it is important to include employee commuting from the very beginning (Tier 1). Transportation is the largest source of GHGs in the US and don't agree with postponing action (tracking, etc.) until Tier 2. Using Fossil Fuels for transportation also happens to be the least effective and efficient use of fossil fuels. From an energy point of view, burning for heat isn't nearly as bad as burning for mobility (think 90%+ efficient vs ~20% efficient). Additionally, some employees have gas cards but not company cars. They may or may not also receive a car stipend. How/where are gas cards included? Maybe could/should be added to Tier 1 mobile emissions since the tab is being picked up by the company? Should the 3 tiers be re-named to Good Management Practices, Better Management Practices, and Best Management Practices? I mean 'best' is singular by definition! :) I'm looking forward to hearing others' feedback on this!

Dave Walsh

LEEDuser Basic Member

0 thumbs up

Sun, 07/19/2020 - 19:34

Connor, Thanks for your comments. I like your suggestion to rename the Tiers 1, 2 and 3 as "Good", "Better" and "Best" respectively. I will update the graphic for the Summit to reflect those.

I agree that employee commuting is impactful and significant. The thought about delaying that until the Tier 2 better managment practices is a bit of strategy to make the onramp to compliance more accessible and then increasingly upping the rigor with Tiers 2 and 3. The collection of commuting GHG data for all employees in all offices on projects equating to 80% of revenue may be a challenging entry point for Tier 1, hence the idea of having that come with Tier 2.

I'd love to hear from others on this point by July 24th: is collecting commuting data needed in Tier 1 since it is so impactful, or should Tier 1 be about a quick wins to involve as any companies as possible and address more challenging data collection in Tiers 2 and 3? For the other members of the Carbon Working Group: please let me know your thoughts on this by July 24th, so we can firm up the requirements prior to the Summit. Thanks
--Dave

Conor McGuire

Director of Sustainability

Columbia

LEEDuser Basic Member

0 thumbs up

Mon, 07/20/2020 - 18:54

Hi Dave, I feel like we should also establish the metrics for tracking and internal/external reporting GHGs for the companies. 1) Absolute GHGs 2) GHGs/$ revenue 3) GHGs/employee Is that sufficent? I'm stunned that there is not more chatter on this document.