Scope 1

Looking at the following week's introduction, it seems that this week's topic is scope 1 emissions.

To get to scope 1 net zero we need to be absorbing the same amount that we're locally generating. And the commitment is to be at this point within a decade at 2030.

Whilst we are connected to a (pretty much) carbon neutral electricity supply via the French nuclear and tidal supply there are plenty of on island emission sources. The obvious transport system, agriculture, construction, gas and oil heating etc are all scope 1 emission generators.

This doesn't include scope 2 emissions from transporting the huge amount of consumable products into our island or the enormous scope 3 emissions generated around the world by the production of all the items we consume.

So to get to scope 1 net zero we need to do two things. Firstly reduce our emissions to the lowest possible levels, and secondly absorb as many of these emissions as we can (sequestration). We could plant alot of trees for example and I think that would be a very good idea (for developing strong biodiversity and ecological resilience) although I would have that we would need an island much larger than Jersey covered in dense forest to offset our scope 1 emissions. I'm sure that there's a method of auditing this. I'm guessing that Jersey will be looking at carbon offsetting via credible agencies that work in developing nations in introducing renewable microgrid electrical systems in villages for example.

But here's the rub. In order to get to scope 1 net zero within a decade we have to reduce our emissions. Significantly.


Why the contribution is important

In order to reduce our emissions we will need to work across every sector of our social and economic structure. This will need to include every government department that signs up to a set of short term, intermediate and final goals to provide a structured path to net zero.

Each energy provider needs a pathway to net zero. The construction industry needs the same pathway. Logistics and transportation industries as well. The same for agriculture, hospitality, transport and infrastructure etc.

Unfortunately we have a history of kicking the can down the road. The incinerator was the least worst option that was left to the last minute. The hospital fiasco is a great example of how to not achieve net zero emissions.

It's one thing to ask individuals to play their part (even though so many are locked into high carbon lifestyles and systems) or wanting business to try and generate change and progress, but what is fundamentally essential is that government takes a strong, unified and structured approach across every sector with benchmarks and goals being consistently achieved. This is what's needed to provide the pathway to net zero scope 1 emissions.

by brucecarnegie on March 05, 2021 at 09:54AM

Current Rating

Average rating: 5.0
Based on: 1 vote


  • Posted by BigAirport March 07, 2021 at 07:44

    I am so pleased someone has explained the differences between Scope 1,2 and 3 as I thought the idea to be carbon neutral by 2030 was certainly Scope 3 and therefore complete nonsense from where we are now. I think we all have to accept that to achieve Scope 2 or even 3 we need to have a significant reduction in the population of the planet and a complete change to the attitude of having children. As we currently stand on this matter Scope 1 is almost impossible to achieve. I realised this in 1970 at the age of 14 when my father taught me about compound interest and I applied it to the rate of population increase. The results are terrifying and you only have to look at how Jersey has changed to see the consequences. Creating employment for all these people is requires endless consumption, built in obsolescence of goods, pillaging the earths resources for raw materials, more houses, factories, schools etc. Until people fully understand this saving the planet is an impossible pipe dream.
  • Posted by brucecarnegie March 08, 2021 at 18:36

    I think we're in a series of interconnected global crises. Global warming, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, pollution and contamination and yes global human population.

    Looking at the last one population tends to stabilise the more developed a nation becomes. Things that accelerate population growth is poverty and a lack of education. Schooling for girls in developing nations is fundamental in giving women opportunities and the ability to break out of the cycle of poverty and childbirth.

    Looking at Japan as an example on the other end of the scale as one of the most developed nations they have a problem with a declining population which is causing serious concerns over who will work and pay into their system.

    We're in a global bottle neck phase, feeling the squeeze. We'll get there in the end with a sustainable use of the biosphere's resources and a stable population. We'll get to cleaning up the mess that's been made. Quite simply because we have to. The issue is more how we do it and how much damage can we avoid by acting effectively.

    I think it's unlikely that we will have a sort of global Easter Island event where we completely wipe ourselves out and leave just strange monoliths for the next civilisation to discover millennia later.

    The transfer to sustainability is essential and almost certainly underway in a competitive form. China's announcement regarding emission neutrality by 2060 was a clear swipe at the exiting Trump administration and sent shockwaves through Japan who also looked to up their game.

    It's going to be a bumpy ride. I'd say that there will be some significant economic shocks as many currently dominant markets start to find themselves becoming redundant and eclipsed by others. Global markets and economies will need to learn lessons about integrating the environment and planetary health into the system. There are models that already demonstrate how this can be achieved such as Raworth's Doughnut Economics.

    I'd also think that there will be some significant political shocks and possibly stronger rises of 'isms'. China's expansionary policy across the developing nations will be embraced and repulsed in equal measure. We may see political systems that place a higher value on environmental protection and responsibilities than on human liberty and freedoms and systems that kick back against that.

    Essentially though I think it's entirely possible to live within our biosphere's resources with some structural readjustments, global investment in developing nations education, infrastructure and trading relationships.
  • Posted by brucecarnegie March 08, 2021 at 19:31

    I would reiterate that the way Jersey gets to scope 1 net zero by 2030 is for the government to engage with every sector that emits scope 1 and create a pathway to net zero.

    Across each sector.

    These pathways need to have short term and intermediate goals that are achievable.

    Much of this needs to be binding and ingrained with good legislation.

    Proposals that come to the States for debate regarding the practical steps for scope 1 net zero need to be well written and presented in order to achieve success.

    What's needed is good government creating workable and achievable structures and pathways.

    Lots of work to do.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas

Idea topics