This post is a summary of the Q&A on a Carbon+Alt+Delete webinar.
Q: Would you say sequestred emissions from bio-based products should not be included as a GHG reduction since they will be emitted anyway at EOL?
A: We are awaiting the final guidance from the FLAG update on this point, also depending on the expected life time of the product.
Q: Regarding data from EPDs of generated electricity: Where are the upstream, core, downstream emissions allocated to (scope 2 vs 3.3)? Also: The fossil emissions are of course reported, but what about the biogenic emissions? Since GRI now ask for biogenic emissions also from scope 3 categories, do you include biogenic emissions from electricity “upstream” and “downstream” emissions in the total scope 3 biogenic emissions even though the origin of these emissions is scope 2 (where biogenic emissions is not a reporting requirement).
A: Upstream emission from electricity generation are reported under scope 3 activity 3 for “generation” and “transmission and distribution”. Biogenic emissions should be reported out of scope, but linked to their corresponding activity in scope 2-3. So biogenic emissions linked to upstream electricity, should be reported out of scope but referring to scope 3 act 3.
Q: regarding biogenic emissions: the sbti asks for including of bioenergy emissions from combustion, other then the GHGP. Can we work towards the SBTi with a netting of biogenic emissions and biogenic removals? Or do we have to include biogenic emissions completely in scope 1 for the SBTi, destroying the advantage of biofuels?
A: To our knowledge the SBTi is in line w/ the GHG Protocol. See R4 on this link.
