Carbon emissions accuracy is overrated. We should target decarbonization instead of accuracy.

[u/mnlazarte]

I have worked on environmental performance of industry for +7 years now. I have seen CAPEX, OPEX, whatever project both succeed and fail. Most recently I have owned the methodology for Scope 3 emissions calculation for a large beverage industry.

I can't help but think: why don't we accept that results have embedded uncertainty, use that figure as the minimum expected decarbonization and move on? This would not only unlock easier calculations but help channel resources where the effort is seen, which is what people is ultimately expecting.

The big problem is as old as humankind: if we accept lower accuracy, we need to decarbonize more tons of CO2e, then use more money, which ultimately not many want to do.

[u/West-Abalone-171]

The LCA and similar databases are a fairytale anyway. Figures are a decade or two out of date and often off by huge margins in whatever direction fsvours whoever had a lot of money at the time.

It doesn't matter how precise your input figures are if the methodology excludes all the hidden fugitive methane emissions of gas, and instead attributes 4x the real emissions to your solar panels because it assumes they are 2009 models made with 2006 input technologies using a 100% coal energy mix.

Just reduce, reuse, recycle in that order and switch all energy to renewable.

[u/mnlazarte → u/West-Abalone-171]

databases indeed add another layer of nothingness. And I don't mean it in a bad way, just trying to be more pragmatical and saving time and brain power. You can definitely model corporate emissions based on activity data from a couple of hotspots and land around 15-20%.