Paper presented to the
International Workshop on Social Audit, Social Accounting and Accountability,
Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic, 15th – 16th May 2008
The carbon neutral public sector: an agenda for research
Amanda Ball1, Ian Mason2, Suzana Grubnic3 and Phil Hughes4
1Department of Accounting, Finance and Information Systems, and 2Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; 3Accounting and Finance Division, University of Nottingham, UK; 4Halcrow, Australia.
Abstract
In this paper, recent initiatives to implement public sector carbon neutrality in three OECD countries are reviewed in the context of the increasing visibility of climate change issues both in the media and on the political agenda. “Leading by example” has consistently been cited as a rationale for adoption of carbon neutral strategies, although factors including the size of public sector greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the contribution of the public sector to the economy are also relevant. In our three example countries, ‘direct mandate’ by the Prime Minister (NZ); ‘organic development’ from wider central government sustainability initiatives (UK); and a more ‘laissez faire’ attitude as in Australian Commonwealth Government situation, were identified as the general pathways leading to public sector carbon neutrality implementation.
A review of the public management literature revealed virtually no analysis or debate regarding public sector carbon neutrality or climate change strategies. Issues which arose in assessing the current situation of the public service included: a lack of understanding of the implementation process for carbon neutrality; a need to identify and critically examine the “threshold” at which mitigation efforts cease and offsetting is adopted; an absence of any evaluation of the “leading by example” rationale; a lack of country comparisons across various governmental systems; a gap in understanding the relationship with economic and social aspects of sustainability; and a need to evaluate the utility of the department or discrete organization as a unit of analysis. The context for these topics is the efficacy of carbon neutrality in relation to the time frame and scale of reductions of GHG emissions which are so urgently required. In order to redress this situation, and in light of the pressing nature of the climate change situation, we therefore propose an agenda of for research which encompasses these topics. Finally, we urge academics to consider research in this area with a view to contributing to the interdisciplinary solutions which we believe are required.
1. Introduction
This paper argues for research into to the effectiveness of the carbon neutral public sector[1] as an agent for meaningful action on climate change. According to widely adopted protocols (WBCSD/WRI, 2004; ISO, 2006) the process for achieving carbon neutral status includes an organisation measuring greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with its activities, reducing emissions where possible, and offsetting remaining emissions to have a zero carbon impact. We adopt the UK Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) definition of a carbon neutral organization, as follows:
“…one that causes no net accumulation of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. Therefore carbon neutrality allows emissions to be netted of in some other location, a process which is called ‘offsetting’. However the SDC would caution against a carbon neutrality policy which is focused solely on carbon offsetting. As the aim should be to reduce overall emissions over time, simply offsetting emissions without a carbon management strategy in place is at best misconceived, and at worst counter-productive.” (SDC, 2005).
Climate change moved to centre stage on the political agenda of many Western countries in concert with a number of landmark publications (Gore, 2006; Gore et al., 2006; Stern, 2006; IPCC, 2007), and the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The international scientific consensus, articulated in the IPCC report, is that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal…” and that “Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is very likely (IPCC emphasis) due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) increases…”(IPPC, 2007). We proceed on the basis that this science can be accepted. However, we believe along with others e.g. Metz and van Vuuren (2006) that the nature of the climate change problem will require more than economic or technical solutions; and that the academic community must work in a multi-disciplinary fashion in order to integrate social, technical, engineering and economic perspectives to contribute solutions. In this spirit, this paper is co-written by academic accountants, an environmental engineer, and a practitioner with substantial policy and practical experience of ‘greening’ public sector organizations.
The backdrop to the paper is the response by several governments to the climate change agenda. Between February and June, 2007, the governments of New Zealand, Costa Rica and Norway independently issued significant statements of their intentions regarding carbon-neutrality. On 13 February 2007, New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark announced to Parliament: “I believe that New Zealand can aim to be the first nation to be truly sustainable—across the four pillars of the economy, the society, the environment, and nationhood. I believe that we can aspire to be carbon neutral in our economy and way of life.” (Clark, 2007). On 21 February 2007, it was reported that the government of Costa Rica was developing plans to begin offsetting all the country’s carbon dioxide emissions (McPhaul, 2007a) and on June 7, 2007 President Oscar Arias announced “Here's the big goal, which I am personally declaring for the first time tonight. By 2021, Costa Rica's 200th birthday, we will be a carbon neutral country” (McPhaul, 2007b). Meanwhile, on 19 April, 2007, Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg had announced in a speech to the Norwegian Labour Party that “In the period up to 2050, Norway will undertake to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 100% of our own emissions.” (Anon, 2007a). Subsequently the target date for Norwegian carbon neutrality was brought forward to 2030 (Archer and Bergsli, 2008). Although several media reports have presented these quests in terms of a race to be first in the carbon-neutrality stakes (Marks, 2007; McPhaul, 2007a; Anon, 2008a), it is possible that many poorer countries are virtually carbon-neutral due to poverty limiting their ability to generate substantial levels of CO2.
The New Zealand vision is of particular interest in that it was accompanied by systematic plans for a carbon-neutral public sector, with a commitment for six Government Departments to become carbon neutral by 2012, and for the remaining 22 core public service departments to develop plans during that period. In Costa Rica the emphasis appeared to be on government funded tree-planting programmes, a voluntary carbon tax on visitors and businesses, the “cleaning up” of fossil fuel-fired power plants, and the promotion of hybrid vehicles. Norway, the world’s 5th largest oil exporter, has proposed state investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, increased fuel taxation, and planting trees and stopping deforestation in developing countries. The public sector is also a core element in other government strategies, notably that of the UK, with for example “Central Governments office estate to be carbon neutral by 2012” (SDC, 2006). Significant areas of the wider public sector, notably local governments, are also getting in on the act. For example, in December, 2007 the Wellington City Council, in New Zealand, agreed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2012 (WCC, 2007).
Although there is evidence that public sector organizations are either taking up carbon neutrality, or being asked to become carbon neutral, there is little evidence of academic debate or research that provides a detailed analysis of the outworking of a carbon neutral approach to climate change policy for different public sector functions. This situation needs to be redressed, given the huge political, media and public concern with international policy goals for stabilizing global temperature; and the possibility that ‘carbon neutrality’ will become a primary policy goal.
In order to contribute an agenda for research, the remainder of this paper is structured into three substantive sections. The next section discusses possible insights from the academic literature. Based on the authors’ expertise and physical locations, section 3 looks in more detail at how policies and approaches to carbon neutrality are being implemented in New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom. Building on insights from theory and practice of carbon neutrality in the public sector, section 4 provides an analysis and agenda for research on carbon neutrality.
2. Literature Review
Climate change has occupied natural science researchers for many decades (Christianson, 1999; Weart, 2003). In 1988 the IPCC was created to “evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature” (Oreskes, 2004) and their current position is now widely known. Whilst assertions of significant debate within the scientific community continue to be propagated in the media, most relevant scientific bodies hold similar positions to that of the IPCC e.g. Anon (2005), and there is little disagreement with the consensus position (Oreskes, 2004). In the technology and engineering literature significant bodies of work concerned with technical solutions to the problem of excessive carbon emissions have appeared – for example, from the early 1990’s onward on how to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired electricity generation. This literature has recently begun to address the public perception of such solutions e.g. Huijts et al. (2007), and journals such as “Energy Policy” embrace topics including “economics, planning, politics, pricing, forecasting, investment, conservation, substitution and environment”.
Although a growing body of work addresses high level strategies for making substantial reductions (up to 90% compared to 1990 levels) in the GHG emissions of the industrialised societies (e.g. Dyson, 1976; Kok et al, 2002; Pacala & Socolow, 2004; Verweij et al., 2006; Monbiot, 2006; IPCC 2007), there is an absence of discussion about organisation-level responses to climate change to inform our study. But as Vermeulen and Kok (2002) argue, although reductions of this magnitude will require actions at national or international levels, “in most cases the transitions depend on far-less structured decision-making mechanisms”. This will necessarily depend on “the acceptance and willingness of many (our emphasis) businesses, local institutions and individuals to contribute to the transitions.”
Ideas about how business organisations might address climate, ‘carbon accounting’ and ‘neutrality’, would seem to fit with the extant corporate social responsibility (e.g., Jackall, 1988; Fineman, 2001; Crane, 2000) and accountability literatures (e.g. Milne et al., 2006, 2007ab), but this work has barely begun to address either the conceptual framework, or the detail, of how organizations’ responsibilities in respect of climate change will occur. In the social and environmental accounting research literature, there is, notably, “…almost a complete absence of any "carbon accounting" (Gray et al., 2007). A partial explanation may be that until very recently large, transnational corporations in particular were in fact engaged in aggressive lobbying against climate policies, a position they rapidly reversed following the Kyoto Conference; and business has only very recently begun to take a more proactive position on climate (e.g. Gough and Shackley, 2001; Vermeulen and Kok, 2002; Levy and Rothenberg, 2002; Becken, 2004). Even with this change, corporate perspectives are reported as being based on economic interests, and scepticism towards climate change science is “institutionalized within American companies” (Levy and Rothenberg, 2002).
In the public sector, the literature underlines the role of local government agencies in particular as having responsibilities and decision-making powers in traffic, public transport, economic development, housing, and urban and land-use planning which have led to a “degree of political support for climate change policies”, but with authorities lacking central government political and financial support, as well as, in many cases, competence to act (Ball, 2002; Coenen and Menkveld, 2002; Vermeulen and Kok, 2002; Allman et al. 2004). Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, insights into how public sector organisations address climate change are absent from such journals as Public Management Review in the public management literature.
Other literature does offer insights about the outworking of carbon neutrality. Increasing debate is occurring over the role of offsetting (e.g. Bäckstrand and Lövbrand, 2006; Smith, 2007), and the extent to which it can be a real contributor to GHG reductions (e.g. Gössling et al., 2007), as opposed to simply being a means of moving responsibilities elsewhere, sometimes with sometimes inequitable results (O’Riordan, 2004) or perverse environmental outcomes (Bäckstrand and Lövbrand, 2006). Yet, worryingly, it seems that offsetting as opposed to mitigation is dominating corporate organizational strategies on climate change (Jordan and Lorenzoni, 2007; Thornes and Randalls, 2007).
The ‘grey’ literature (Auger, 1998; GreyNet, 2008) is the source of a considerable amount of the material appearing in this field from “research-based groups” (Gough and Shackley, 2001), for example the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (UK) and the PEW Centre on Global Climate Change in the USA, and is a notable phenomenon. However, the lack of peer-review means that such sources must be treated with caution.
To summarise, insights from the peer-reviewed literature into role and efficacy of the public sector in climate change mitigation to assist with the paper are, unfortunately, virtually non-existent.
3. Developments in Practice
3.1 New Zealand
The New Zealand Government proposed relatively detailed plans and guidelines for the achievement of carbon neutrality following on from the 2007 announcement by Prime Minister Helen Clark (op cit). This mandate was passed to the Ministry for the Environment, who assumed a leadership and co-ordination role, but also to individual departments, each of which has a responsibility to deliver contracted services to a Minister of the Crown. Six lead departments were selected to become carbon neutral by 2012 on the basis of their data collection performance in a sustainability initiative known as Govt3, which focused on waste reduction, buildings, transport, office consumables and equipment (MfE, 2008). This programme produced energy data, which would be crucial in assessing carbon emissions, and sustainable procurement information. Significant features of the carbon neutrality guidelines include a) an emphasis on mitigation prior to offsetting, b) a clear statement that some offsetting will nonetheless be required, and c) that offsetting projects will be located within New Zealand and managed by a single agency.
The “leading by example” ethic is clearly invoked as the primary rationale for the initiative (MfE, 2007a), whilst recognising at the same time that the direct impact of public service carbon neutrality on national CO2 emissions will be small at approximately 2% of New Zealand’s total emissions (MfE, 2007b). The emphasis on mitigation prior to offsetting is explicitly stated and justified in terms of maintaining credibility:
“Offsetting emissions without having made plausible efforts to reduce emissions first would compromise the credibility of a carbon neutrality initiative and could possibly prevent external verification of departments’ carbon neutral status.”. (MfE, 2007b)
The subsequent use of offsetting is justified on the basis that 100% emissions reduction solely by mitigation measures is not considered a practical possibility, largely on account of transport issues (MfE, 2007d). The issue of achieving authentic permanent carbon sequestration (permanence) from offsetting projects is included, and in fact made a legal requirement (MfE, 2007c). The potential for conflict between carbon neutrality aspirations and conventional economic goals is recognised and the need to identify the threshold at which offsets become the preferred option has been highlighted as a matter for further investigation (MfE, 2007b). The threshold issue is one which we believe to be of particular relevance for future research.
Departments are given specific guidance in terms of the time frame for initial offsetting actions:
“For the 5 departments for which we have good existing baseline information, trees will be planted on New Zealand Crown land in winter 2008 to offset the residual emissions so that these departments become fully carbon neutral by 2012 when tree growth will exceed emissions. Modelling shows that approximately 6 square kilometres of forest would be required to offset the 5 departments for 20 years.” (MfE, 2007d)
Target dates for reporting were also clearly specified and emissions inventories and emissions reduction plans for all 34 departments were posted on the MfE website on 4 April, 2008. Accounting requirements are prescribed and independent auditing of offset projects indicated:
“The Carbon Neutral Public Service programme will be required to have an accurate, transparent and auditable registry system to demonstrate the retirement2 of the credits or offsets used in the Carbon Neutral Public Service programme…The Ministry for the Environment will commission an independent auditor to validate forestry offset projects and certify they have sequestered the necessary amount of carbon in order to claim carbon neutrality for the six Stage 1 agencies.” (MfE, 2007c).
Other provisions clearly spell out the management structures to be set in place. The potential role of carbon markets and the price of carbon is identified, signalling an expectation the public sector will be involved in some aspects of carbon trading (MfE, 2007b). Credits will be managed through a New Zealand Emissions Units Register.
Overall we believe that a relatively robust approach to implementing a carbon neutral strategy in the public sector has been outlined in New Zealand, at least for the first 6 departments involved. The degree to which this vision will be fulfilled, and the barriers and opportunities which are revealed over the next few years will be informative, and provide considerable opportunities for research. This we will elaborate on in the discussion and analysis to follow.
3.2 Australia
In Australia, as with many responses to policy problems addressed at Commonwealth, State and Territory level, there has been a range of carbon neutral public sector responses, and differing levels of commitment. Drawing on policy documents, we summarise key responses towards climate change and a carbon neutral public sector in table 1, which highlights relevant climate change strategy, overall emissions reduction target, carbon neutral commitment and key public sector actions.
Table 1: Selected Australian Commonwealth, State and Territory Key Responses to Carbon Neutrality in the Public Sector
Jurisdiction / Public Sector Employees (2007) / Overall Strategy / Overall Target: GHG emissions / Public Sector Carbon Neutral Commitment / Key Instruments/ ActionsAustralia / 230,800 (Common-wealth) / In development
Commitment to national emission trading system
Major study (Garnaut review) to report on future directions in mid-2008 / Limit emissions in 2008-2012 to 108 percent of its emissions in 1990 (Kyoto target)
Reduce emissions by 60% on 2000 levels by 2050 / Not explicit / Energy Efficiency in Government Operations program
Energy intensity portfolio targets and environmental management systems (EMS)
New Government buildings minimum of 4.5 star environmental rating
New South Wales / 503,300 / NSW Greenhouse Plan 2005-08
NSW State Plan 2006 / 60% cut in emissions by 2050 (from 2000) and a return to year 2000 emission levels by 2025 / Not explicit
Individual agency commitments to carbon neutrality e.g. Sydney Water and City of Sydney / Building energy management
$50 m on energy efficiency for public facilities and schools
Retrofitting of state housing properties
Victoria / 360,000 / Sustainability Action Statement 2006
Victoria Greenhouse Strategy
Energy Efficiency Action Plan 2006 / 60% reduction in emissions by 2050 (from 2000)
Victorian Renewable Energy Target (VRET) requires 10% of Victoria's energy to be derived from renewable sources by 2016 / Partial: Government car fleet carbon neutral (from January 2007)
Target to improve Government energy efficiency by 20% by June 2010, and purchase 25% of electricity as Green Power by June 2010
Individual agency commitments to carbon neutrality e.g. EPA Victoria, Parks Victoria / New Government buildings minimum of 5 star environmental rating
$15 m on energy efficiency for public hospitals, schools and aged care facilities
Expansion of EMS use by departments
150 hybrid vehicles in government fleet
Queensland / 334,800 / Climate Smart 2050: Queensland Climate Change Strategy 2007: a low carbon future / 60% reduction in emissions by 2050 (from 2000) / Carbon neutral government office buildings by 2020 / Energy Management Strategy to address agencies energy use
Commitment to source 5% renewable energy
Offset emissions from the vehicle fleet: 50% by 2010 and 100% by 2020
Western Australia / 173,600 / Making Decisions for the Future: Climate Change Action Statement 2007 / 60% reduction in emissions by 2050 (from 2000)
Purchasing 20% of its electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010 / Partial: State Government car fleet is carbon neutral / Energy Smart Government Program
Smart Government purchasing
South Australia / 128,800 / Tackling Climate Change 2007-2020 / Limit emissions to 108% of 1990 levels in 2008-12
Reduce emissions by 60% (to 40% of 1990 levels) by 2050 / SA Government to reach carbon neutral status for its own operations by 2020 / Purchase minimum of 30% of accredited green power (50% by 2014)
New Government buildings minimum of 5 star environmental rating
Australia Capital Territory / 88,100 / Climate Change Strategy 2007-2025
Climate Change Action Plan 2007-2011 / Reduction of 60% of 2000 levels of emissions by 2050
Milestone of limiting 2025 emissions to 2000 levels / All ACT agencies will work towards becoming carbon neutral – to generate no net emissions from their activities
All schools will become carbon neutral by 2017 / Resource management plans (by 2009) with annual reporting
$1 m energy efficiency loan fund for agencies
School environmental management plans, energy audits and reduction initiatives
Most Australian Governments have emphasized the role of government in “leading by example” to reduce GHG emissions in key policy documents (see table 1). For example, on 18 February 2008, the South Australian Premier Mike Rann declared that “the State Government must set a clear example by reducing its carbon footprint” given it was one of the largest GHG emitters in South Australia (Rann, 2008). The State Government would work towards becoming carbon neutral for its own operations by accelerated purchases of accredited Green Power and other carbon offsets (Rann, op cit):