The core concepts include an ontology (a view of what exists), an epistemology (a view of how we know things) and a semiology (a view of how things are represented).
We work from the assumption that thinking well about these aspects in the beginning will enable us to develop software, systems and processes that will not easily become redundant. This does not mean one must be able to plan every detail of how things will develop in future - it is in a sense the opposite: If the basic structure is comprehensive yet flexible and can incorporate learning and development, the chances of becoming redundant in the future is low.
This means we are looking for a deeper description of what climate action and accounting is than just a description of how things currently are. We are more looking for a description of how things will be in 100 years from now. We attempt to break down the phenomenon of climate action and the process of climate accounting to its most essential structure and use that as a basis for designing representation thereof in software.
Impact accounting within the context of climate action and the SDGs
The surroundings of a living being, i.e. the space or sphere in which it operates or functions, is generally referred to as the environment of the living being. Earth, as the home of a vast number of living beings, can be seen as consisting of a vast number of environments. Some of these environments have clear geographical boundaries, but many do not; most of these environments in fact overlap or can be viewed as sub-environments of some larger environment (e.g. a tidal pool can be viewed as an environment on its own, but it can also be viewed as part of the environment of its surrounding shoreline).
The state of an environment refers to the conditions prevalent in the environment. The more favourable the conditions are for sustaining life, the better (more valuable) the state is said to be; the less favourable the conditions are for sustaining life, the worse (less valuable) the state is said to be. Conditions are measured in terms of parameters, such as the amount of CO2 in the environment’s atmosphere, or the average daytime temperature inside the environment.
What differentiates living beings from other objects in their environments is the capacity of living beings to willfully engage in certain activities (such as moving themselves from one location to another, or consuming something); non-living beings do not have such a capacity (e.g. a rock can be moved from the top of a hill to the foot of the hill by wind or water or some other force, but it cannot move from the top of the hill to the foot of the hill by its own will). This means that when a living being is the willful agent of an activity, the living being in question can be held accountable for the impact that the activity in question has on the state of their environment.
To be able to hold an agent accountable in a manner that is fair and just, we need to be reasonably sure how their activities impact their environment – and this is where accounting standards come into play. The impact that the activity of an agent has on the state of their environment is measured and expressed in terms of the changes that the activity causes in the defining parameters of the environment; an accounting standard tells us how to measure these parameters, i.e. which of them we should measure, how often we should measure them and what methods we should use to measure them. Accounting standards also tell us how to determine the boundaries of the environment of interest and what the desired state thereof is.
The problem of plurality
The problem is that humankind has, over the years, created different accounting standards for the same activities and agents, and the differences between them often lead to disagreements between their findings of how and to what extent a certain agent’s activities impact their environment. The solution to this problem is unfortunately not as simple as just choosing one of the standards and getting all of humankind to only use that standard henceforth – each of the standards have their pros and cons, and the arguments against a specific standard is often just as many as the arguments for that standard. The solution, instead, seems to lie in finding a structured way to compare the different standards – their requirements, their approaches, and what they take into account.
Generic formulation of the accounting process
Premise: An agent engages in an activity that impacts a state.
An agent deliberately engages in an activity.
The activity impacts one or more states of an object that is considered valuable. In our case the planet Earth is the object of concern.
Accounting is the presentation of claims about the outcome of the activities and the nature and magnitude of the impact that it had/s on states that are considered valuable.
A claim is made up of representations of the key aspects and dimensions of agents, activities and states as well as representations about the claim itself.
Some claims are proofs. A proof contains all the information needed to evaluate its veracity. Claims are often constructed from other claims.
Standards prescribe the content and structure of such claims and allow third parties to assess the veracity of thereof.
Epistemology
We know about things through direct participation in them or through representations.
For things we experience directly we do not need any further assurance that they are true. The cred
Credit: Alfonso Govela (Alfonso Govela)
Ontology, epistemology and semiology
Ontology (What are the 'things' that the accounting system should know about? What are the defining properties or characteristics of each 'thing'?) | Epistemology (How will the accounting system get information about these things and their attributes?) | Semiology (How will each of the things be represented in the accounting system?) | |
|---|---|---|---|
Agents |
| An agent asserts their identity though digital signatures Agents provide proofs of their properties through verified credentials Other parties can verify agent properties and make claims about their methods and results | Digital signature Verified credentials Validation claim by third party |
Activities |
* An audit is a special type of activity where the input is a claim and the output is an evaluation of that claim. | Ex ante: An agent asserts their intentions to act in a Projet Design Document (PDD) Ex post: An agent describe their actions in a Projet Design Document (PDD) The activity and its results and impacts are documented by the agent at intervals in a monitoring report (MR) |
Consider a token for an activity that contains all the essential elements in column 1. Such a token must have a time limit and proof of life requirements (e.g. minimum process data feed to confirm it is ongoing) |
States |
*State as in environmental state (not political state) | Indicators for states Indicators delivered by agents via PDDs and MRs |
|
| Indicators |
|
| |
| Standards |
|
| |
Someone or something gathers data
- observes a phenomenon using some instrument
Someone or something presents data as a claim
- A claim concerns at least one property of an agent or activity or one paramater of a state and is accompanied by metadata (the instrument, agent and sampling frame)
Someone or something evaluates the claim
Should there be an event class? An event is like an activity but without the intention of an agent. An accident is an event but it is not an activity.
(Where do impact claims fit in? Standards contain requirements for claims and claims are made up of indicators and assertions)
An impact claim (a state change claim)
- agent
- activity
- "before" state for every every environment and aspect of the state under consideration
- "after" state for every every environment and aspect of the state under consideration
- causal connection between activity and the resultant state (e.g. scope 1 (primary/secondary), scope 2 or scope 3)
- standard followed
For discussion: Where do we list the natural processes that lead to climate change?
(emission factors are indicators)