This page outlines item 1 of the scope of the Hyperledger CA2SIG Standards Working Group.
Approaches to classification
There seem to be two possible approaches to classifying climate action related standards: (a) classification according to objectives and (b) classification according to position on the impact pathway.
People may account for climate impacts for different reasons, and different standards are suited to these different applications of climate accounting. These include:
- Understanding the physical processes
- Taking / allocating responsibility for contributions to climate change (offsetting is a special case of this)
- Choose between alternative courses of action
Classification according to objectives
This approach classifies climate change related standards according to what they aim to achieve. In the context of the work of the CA2SIG this can be one of two objectives:
1. Climate change mitigation
2. Adaptation to climate change
Classification according to position on the impact pathway
Alternatively, standards can be classified according to their place on the causal pathway between macro-scale driving forces of climate change and the effects of cliamte change as relating to:
1. Drivers: These are the macro forces [anthropogenic and natural] that drive the causal chain (i.e. give rise to activities that lead to the actual emissions [pressures]).
2. Pressures: Pressures are the direct emissions of greenhouse agente into the atmosphere. A pressure is the result of an activity (antropomorphic)or process (natural).
3. States: Environmental pressures lead to changes in environmental states such as the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or the temperature of the sea.
4. Impacts: Changes in states have impacts on nature and society. These are not the primary effect of the greenhouse agents (warming of the atmosphere due to increased radiative forcing - this is accounted for uner states) but the further effects of this warming.
5. Actions: People take action to reduce pressures, alter states, mitigate impacts.
A preliminary conceptual map following this approach is being developed at: https://kumu.io/cjpauw/climate-change-standards#impact-pathway-approach/transactions
Interoperability
Comparing across positions on the impact pathway is difficult (although not in principle inconceivable). It is, for example, difficult to directly compare an action related to a pressure (like driving a car or operating a power station) with an action aimed at changing the actions of others (such as implementing a policy, providing an incentive or providing information). The first type of activity resorts under Pressures while the second addresses Drivers.
- Christiaan PauwI think some more elaboration here will be beneficial.
What is standardised in climate mitigation standards?
Standards differ in the way in which account is given of:
- Physical effects accounted for (and time of relevance for those effects)
- Entities
Activities and events
Agency: There is a difference between doing something directly and causing other parties to do something. A regulation or policy by a government is typically something that causes other parties to do certain things. It is important to differentiate how each framework or standard views agency so as to not double count.
Counterfactuals
Physical effects
Standards may differ in the physical effects or the physical agents that they account for, e.g. which greenhouse gas agents are included in the standard and how they are standardised.
Entities
There is clearly a difference between accounting for the greenhouse gas emissions of a whole country or whole organisation and accounting for the emissions of a single process. Protocol, standards and methods operate at different levels of complexity and aggregatation and involves different levels of nesting. This is a potential cause of double counting because...
- Complete.
Activities and events
- Add text.
Agency
- Add text.
Counterfactuals
- Add text.
- [Tom comment: ISO produces many types of standards-related products, however it is mainly known as an SDO that creates auditable standards for conformity assessment. Such standards are typically relatively short (e.g. 20 pages). In contrast, the GHG Corporate Protocol (2001), which was followed by a suite of GHGPs, started as a "how to guidebook" that are typically relatively long (e.g. 100+ pages). In 2005, the GHGP adopted ISO-style language and requirements content to complement the guidance content. In addition to differentiating protocols and standards (there are several types of standards), CDM Methodologies and IPCC Guidelines are additional variations of "standards"]
Mapping exercise
Work in Progress: draft of a high-level categorization or taxonomy for how to map standards
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ZXqyQs2_wDCxuYawBQt24Ou5nrByM3pMpOpNBS8KVVk/edit?usp=sharing