# data[].attributes.body
It was mentioned that searching on Google use 10 times less energy compared to Ai systems such as ChatGPT. As standard, Google searches now create an Ai overview automatically using Gemini. Does this use more energy than original Google searches pre-Ai?

# data[].attributes.body
This section explores:

- how we are influenced

- how we influence other people

- our spheres of influence

- historical social activism

- the politics of climate change

- developing positive communication strategies

# data[].attributes.body
An article by the Carbon Literacy Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many consumers have heard of carbon offsetting, used often by companies to compensate for their carbon emissions. However, another solution, increasingly preferred by companies, is cropping up, known as carbon insetting.

With governments and companies rushing to hit net-zero by 2050, many are adopting carbon offsetting and buying carbon credits to reach carbon-neutral status. Carbon offsetting is when a company invests in carbon-reduction projects elsewhere to compensate for the carbon its value chains produce. This is a convenient solution for the company, as it can then claim to have achieved net-zero without altering its production line.

However, this does not reduce the amount of carbon dioxide already produced and emitted into the atmosphere, which will continue to contribute to global warming and climate change. Additionally, due to its convenience, many companies choose offsetting instead of other solutions, often affecting direct efforts to solve the root problem - carbon emissions.
Carbon Insetting
Carbon insetting offers an alternative to this flawed solution. Aptly described by the World Economic Forum, "carbon insetting focuses on doing more good rather than doing less bad within one's value chain". Instead of investing in projects outside their value chains, companies engaging in carbon insetting invest in reducing carbon emissions within their own value chains. At the same time, these projects can also create positive impacts on communities, landscapes and ecosystems.

Companies committing to carbon insetting have to first determine their scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, to identify areas with high carbon emissions and develop appropriate measures to reduce them. Hence, implementing carbon insetting usually helps develop a better and more efficient supply chain, compelling a company to reduce emissions internally across its business activities.

According to the International Platform for Insetting, common insetting actions involve implementing effective nature-based solutions, such as natural systems agriculture and ecosystem restoration approaches. Local producers and communities are often positively impacted too as these investments improve their livelihoods.

Not only does insetting help companies achieve their sustainability goals, but it also allows them to build climate resilience, supply chain stability and future-proof their businesses.
A business that took action
Many companies have already started their carbon insetting journey, and one such example is the coffee giant, Nespresso. Heavily reliant on agriculture for its coffee products, Nespresso is vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change. Coffee farmers have been negatively impacted by varying climate conditions, such as drought or extreme rainfall, which decreases their coffee quality and yield, ultimately affecting their livelihood.

In order to increase the resilience of farming communities against climate change, the coffee company introduced its agroforestry programme in 2014. Agroforestry is where trees are deliberately planted among or around crops on the same piece of land. This protects, conserves and diversifies vital natural resources and ecosystems.

When specifically applied to coffee farms, coffee trees grow beneath a canopy and within the landscape of other trees. Adding these non-agricultural trees brings a range of benefits, including soil protection, water replenishment, windbreak and temperature regulation. These factors, combined with the fact that coffee trees flourish when grown under shade, mean crops are produced at a more stable volume with consistent quality - increasing farmers' yield and, thus, their livelihood. Additionally, the trees also act as a carbon sink and improve wildlife habitats, leading to an increase in biodiversity.

Through agroforestry, not only is Nespresso able to build resilience against climate change across communities and its supply chains, but it also restores the ecosystem its business depends heavily on.

The example shows that carbon insetting has unlimited potential and endless possibilities. Its successful implementation will not only bring the company closer to net-zero and tighten its supply chain, but will also improve livelihoods, communities and ecosystems.
Taking the first step
Carbon offsetting can offer a viable solution for companies to achieve some of their climate goals, but it is only a first step. The credibility and integrity of such claims have slowly been improving, with the Voluntary Carbon Market Integrity Initiative (VCMI) launching its Claims Code of Practice just last month. New standards have been released to ensure companies' claims about their contribution to combat climate change are sound. It calls for businesses to purchase only the highest quality of carbon credits, and most importantly, it emphasises that the use of carbon credits should accelerate - and not hinder - businesses' direct efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

Carbon insetting requires a company to be proactive in its fight against climate change rather than being reactive. Organisations serious about reaching net-zero should take action by looking inwards at their supply chains and identifying critical areas where carbon insetting can be applied. By doing so, they can make tangible progress in reducing their carbon footprint and driving positive change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Carbon Insetting vs Carbon Offsetting - The Carbon Literacy Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many consumers have heard of carbon offsetting, used often by companies to compensate for their carbon emissions. However, another solution, increasingly preferred by companies, is cropping up, known as carbon insetting. With governments and companies rushing to hit net-zero by 2050, many are adopting carbon offsetting and buying carbon credits to reach carbon-neutral status.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Project Drawdown's mission is to help the world stop climate change-as quickly, safely, and equitably as possible.

We do this by advancing effective, science-based climate solutions and strategies; fostering bold, new climate leadership; and promoting new climate narratives and new voices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Project Drawdown's mission is to help the world stop climate change-as quickly, safely, and equitably as possible. We do this by advancing effective, science-based climate solutions and strategies; fostering bold, new climate leadership; and promoting new climate narratives and new voices.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Issie
I understand the big push for a reduction in Carbon however we are never going to not be consuming carbon.
Do you talk about how we achieve net zero as a business in terms of offsetting the carbon we do use?  Are we doing this now?

# data[].attributes.body
Before the session, we invite you to engage with:

Thought-provoking 1 hour David Attenborough documentary, Climate Change: The Facts (available on BBC iPlayer – you will need to log on/make an account to access this)

Calculate your personal carbon footprint using the WWF calculator

A brief article focused on climate change

Learn more about the Carbon Literacy Project

# data[].attributes.headline
Steps we need to take to become a Net Zero society by 2040

# data[].attributes.subject
Steps we need to take to become a Net Zero society by 2040

# data[].attributes.body
Detailing what we need to do as a society to reach Net Zero

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Seventh Carbon Budget - Climate Change Committee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Presented to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 34 of the Climate Change Act 2008. Footnotes have…

# data[].attributes.headline
Offsetting: greenwashing or a Net Zero necessity? (Jan 2023) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Offsetting: greenwashing or a Net Zero necessity? (Jan 2023) 

# data[].attributes.body
What are your thoughts?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To offset or not to offset? We asked three prominent climate scientists what they think of the murky world of offsetting.

Johan Rockstr öm, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and chief scientist at Conservation International, which manages a number of carbon offsetting projects, says that offsetting can be valuable but only if companies are already cutting their carbon emissions by at least half each decade, from now to reaching net zero in 2050. They can buy offsets as an additional effort, beyond those reductions, but the offsets cannot be used as a substitute for those stringent emission-reduction requirements.

Prof Johan Rockström, a climate crisis academic and speaker. Photograph: Christopher Hunt/Christopher Hunt / The Observer

Rockström told the Guardian: "On the one hand, carbon offsetting is necessary, and has positive potentials of providing incentives and thereby generating much-needed investments, for example in nature climate solutions [such as forests]. On the other hand, there is a large risk of misuse of offsetting, if used (as often is the case) to compensate for the inability to follow the scientifically defined mitigation pathway." He argues that a sound pathway requires cutting emissions by half each decade. This is now the requirement of the Science Based Target initiative (SBTi), which certifies whether companies are in line with the Paris agreement.

While companies should not use carbon offsets as a substitute for making real emissions reductions, they should still be encouraged to buy offsets, he argues. That is because the world is doing badly at keeping its existing forests standing, even though these are vital if we are to stay within 1.5C of global heating.

Only by ensuring that forests remain intact, by protecting the oceans so they can still act as a carbon sink, and by growing new forests and changing our agricultural practices so that soils store carbon instead of releasing it, can we hope to stay within a 1.5C limit.

Offsets, correctly managed, can help to achieve these goals, and therefore can be a wise investment for the good of the planet. "Carbon offsetting is important but can only be an additionality - we need to get off fossil fuels, and do carbon offsets," he said.

Dr Simon Lewis, professor of global change science at UCL, speaking alongside Raoul Monsembule, Greenpeace DRC campaigner. Photograph: Pierre Gleizes/Greenpeace

Simon Lewis, professor of global change science at UCL, says carbon offsetting can bring benefits, particularly in funding forest protection, but with strong caveats.

"We are clearly not doing a good job of getting cash to our forests," he says. "We need to think about that, particularly forests in the tropics - we should be funding these global assets. Ideally that should be separate from the carbon markets - through a levy on fossil fuels, or on international financial transactions, for example. But there are ways of funding forests through offsets. There should be a debate about all this."

He said generating high quality credits was possible. "We want there to be more good credits that are really beneficial, and less scam credits. The problem with the carbon markets is that they're a wild west, they're unregulated."

He said: "I think the carbon markets have a place, as we do not have other mechanisms, but they really have to be highly regulated, otherwise people are buying hot air, and things they don't know the true value of. I think scientists are quite sceptical of the carbon markets."

People should also look behind the carbon markets to the reasons why forests are under threat. "One of the biggest drivers [of forest destruction] is agriculture. So people should be eating less meat, as that would free up space for nature."

Prof Kevin Anderson, deputy director of the Tyndall centre for climate change research at the University of Manchester. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian

Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester, says that offsets are actively dangerous. "My take on offsets, even supposedly good ones, is that from a climate perspective they are worse than doing nothing."

This is partly owing to the "rebound" effect, he says. Essentially, if people think their carbon-emitting activities are covered by offsetting, they have no incentive to really reduce their emissions, and this encourages the continuation and even expansion of high-carbon activities.

Think of flying - if you believe that your flights are carbon-neutral, you will continue to take more of them.

Another issue is the time lag between the emissions and the impact of the offset. Each flight you take is pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, where it will continue to heat the planet, even though the trees you consider to be offsetting your journey are taking up to a century to grow.

For Anderson, there are also equity issues - offsets are often used to cover for high-carbon activities in richer nations, without really benefiting the poor countries they are often bought from.

Anderson says: "The timeframe for cutting CO ₂ associated with "pursuing ... 1.5C" and "well below 2C" [the requirements of the Paris agreement] is now so tight that there is no emissions space for companies to use offsetting as a means of further locking in high-carbon activities, technologies, norms and practices, even under the heroic assumption that offsetting actually works. Put simply, we need to pull every mitigation level to its max level; there is no longer any give or flexibility in the system."

He adds: "Trees, and temporary CO ₂ sequestration, are not an offset for an essentially permanent transfer of carbon from the lithosphere into the atmosphere."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Greenwashing or a net zero necessity? Climate scientists on carbon offsetting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Carbon offsets can help achieve emissions goals, some experts argue, while others say they are actively dangerous

# data[].attributes.body
Quiz created by Greenpeace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's wild out there. Greenwashing is everywhere. It's in its golden age. But how well do you know a greenwasher's tactics? If you think you've got to grips with greenwashing, this quiz is for you.

Are you a greenwash-spotting master or will the greenwashing tricks get the better of you?

Text-based image descriptions are included in each question.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's wild out there. Greenwashing is everywhere. Try our quiz to see if you can spot what's greenwash and what's not.

# data[].attributes.headline
How are climate change and rising food prices linked?

# data[].attributes.subject
How are climate change and rising food prices linked?

# data[].attributes.body
As resources become scarcer, they become more expensive as they are in higher demand than supply.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Record temperatures in May in the UK led to the publishing of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) 's report stating the world is now likely to exceed the 1.5 degrees warming threshold in at least one year between 2023 and 2027. This was harrowing news to wake up to and shows the impact Anthropogenic (that is, human) induced climate change already has on weather systems, pushing global temperatures into uncharted territory. Living in the UK, we are privileged to have not yet felt the effects of climate change as badly as other countries, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the crisis affecting others. Furthermore, the effects of climate change are now affecting everyone, not just the most vulnerable global majority.
In the UK
We have seen the effect that global warming has on our crops, food accessibility, and the rising prices of food. Human-induced climate change is already altering weather patterns in the UK - like the heatwaves we've had this May and the blazing summer just last year. The ONS has published research that shows the 2013-22 decade has seen a 25% increase in the annual average number of summer days and a 16% decrease in icing days (that is, where air temperature does not go above freezing) in comparison to the 1991-2020 average. We are now going to see more frequent and intense extreme events, like heatwaves, droughts and floods-the February and April heatwaves are just one example of how we see these effects in our day-to-day life.

Impacts on the Environment
Extreme weather events disrupt agricultural systems and increase the likelihood of crop failure. Warmer temperatures and altered precipitation patterns affect crop growth and, thus, yield potential-through increased water stress for crops, these prolonged heatwaves damage plant health. Furthermore, changes in rainfall patterns disrupt planting and harvesting schedules, leaving plants with water scarcity in critical stages of their growth, thus depleting and decreasing quality and quantity. When intense rain falls, flash floods destroy crops and do not penetrate the soil fully, causing excess rainwater runoff. This runoff causes soil erosion and carries pollution into water systems and surrounding areas. Just last month, we saw flash flooding in Devon damage hundreds of homes-showing the climate crisis is no longer a distant concern for the future but a pressing reality already affecting the UK.
Thus, prices rise
When crop failures become more frequent, the pressures on the agricultural industry intensify, and prices of staple foods like wheat, corn and vegetables rise accordingly-when supplies dwindle or decrease, availability decreases; demand remains constant or increases, and prices increase. For example, farmers face increased costs for irrigation, pest control and replanting; additional expenses can also further the impact of agricultural products as farmers attempt to cover costs and maintain profits. This significantly impacts the cost of living, which is particularly pertinent given the UK's current cost of living crisis.

Climate-caused decline in crop yields is driving inflation, amongst other things, and soon there will be difficulty accessing rice, chocolate, coffee and beans. Our economic models of climate change may have substantially underestimated the costs of continued warming, given that food represents a significant component of household expenditure. The rising food prices contribute to overall inflation, putting upward pressure on prices in the broader economy and disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations, exacerbating food insecurity, poverty and inequality.

What can we do?
Whilst this impact on crop yields and inflation are significant concerns, there are proactive measures and sustainable solutions to mitigate the challenges. Of course, our number one priority should be reducing our carbon emissions and putting pressure on businesses and governments to enact systemic changes. As individuals, we hold the power to make a change.

Community farming and increasing our green spaces should be a priority, and something individuals can organise without relying on major businesses or governments to make decisions. By embracing sustainable solutions alongside policy changes, we can effectively mitigate the challenges.

Growing our own vegetables through community food-growing networks can be a sustainable and cost-effective solution to reduce our reliance on imported food. Localising our communities to be more self-sufficient within smaller economies and social groups can reduce our dependence on huge super-chains to meet our needs. Tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers were some of the goods affected by extreme weather in Spain and the North in February, yet, as Tim Lang puts it, it is 'absurd' to rely on fresh produce grown more than 1000 miles away. For example, the Gaskell Garden Project is a permaculture project based in Manchester that organises surplus food and community gardening. Similar projects include Incredible Edible, showing anyone can garden and eat from their backyard.

Similarly, more efficient resource use is something anyone can do, for example, through rainwater harvesting, composting at home or even a wormery. Behaviour change starts with our own actions, and the government can support us through policies and practices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Food Poverty and the Climate Crisis - The Carbon Literacy Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Record temperatures in May in the UK led to the publishing of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) 's report stating the world is now likely to exceed the 1.5 degrees warming threshold in at least one year between 2023 and 2027. This was harrowing news to wake up to and shows the impact Anthropogenic (that [...]

# data[].attributes.body
Take the quiz to test yourself on climate change basics!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join the worlds largest environmental movement

# data[].attributes.headline
Why would China’s carbon emissions be low- when everything is made in China?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why would China’s carbon emissions be low- when everything is made in China?

# data[].attributes.body
Includes all sources used within the training.

If you come across any other interesting resources let us know so they can be added!

# data[].attributes.headline
Potential climate change threats Robinsons (to be added to following discussion)

# data[].attributes.subject
Potential climate change threats Robinsons (to be added to following discussion)

# data[].attributes.body
Comment your group thoughts and ideas below

# data[].attributes.headline
Pledge form (online version) - to be completed only after Taking Action

# data[].attributes.subject
Pledge form (online version) - to be completed only after Taking Action

# data[].attributes.body
https://forms.office.com/e/3byZXbyhuA

# data[].attributes.headline
Leave anonymous feedback to help us improve

# data[].attributes.subject
Leave anonymous feedback to help us improve

# data[].attributes.body
https://forms.office.com/e/mLMUdSKuZA

# data[].attributes.headline
Can you reach net zero? A climate change simulation game

# data[].attributes.subject
Can you reach net zero? A climate change simulation game

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Climate Game - Can you reach net zero?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
See if you can save the planet from the worst effects of climate change

# data[].attributes.headline
How to realistically reduce your carbon footprint

# data[].attributes.subject
How to realistically reduce your carbon footprint

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to reduce your carbon footprint...without being a martyr

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate vulnerabilities in the UK (video)

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate vulnerabilities in the UK (video)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate activism failing to represent BAME groups, say campaigners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Black people and those from minority backgrounds are being left out, some campaigners say.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why flight free?

In 2016 airlines carried 3.7 billion passengers. This is set to rise to more than 8 billion by 2035. At the same time, climate scientists are warning that we have less than 12 years to make a significant reduction in our emissions in order to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Flying less is one of the best ways to reduce your carbon footprint. Could you pledge to be flight free in 2020?

More about the campaign

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2016 airlines carried 3.7 billion passengers. This is set to rise to more than 8 billion by 2035. At the same time, climate scientists are warning that we have less than 12 years to make a significant reduction in our emissions in order to avoid catastrophic climate change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The fight for a habitable planet is the fight for our lives. But while we look at ways to make our lives more sustainable, most of us are also funding environmental catastrophe.

During the 7 years following the Paris Agreement, the world's top 60 private-sector banks pumped $5.5 trillion into fossil fuels.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Find Ethical & Sustainable Banks In Your Area - Bank.Green

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bank.Green is sounding the alarm on the climate-destroying activities of banks while recommending sustainable alternatives and empowering consumer action.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Keir Starmer will pledge to "throw everything" at net zero and the overhaul of the UK's energy system and industries, promising new jobs in "the race of our lifetime" to a low-carbon future.

The Labour leader will seek to regain the initiative on his plan for green growth on Monday, having rowed back earlier this month on a pledge to invest £28bn in a green industrial strategy, a figure that will not now be reached until the second half of a Labour parliament, as well as damaging rows with trade unions over the future of the North Sea.

Announcing a package of policies designed to decarbonise the energy system and industry, Starmer will say: "We're going to throw everything at this: planning reform, procurement, long-term finance, R&D, a strategic plan for skills and supply chains ... Pulling together for a simple, unifying priority: British power for British jobs."

Labour's plans include sweeping changes to the planning system that will allow onshore wind farms, electricity lines, transport links and other low-carbon infrastructure to be built quickly. All regulators will be given instructions to prioritise low-carbon projects, and companies will be given assurances on long-term policy to encourage investment.

Speaking in Scotland, Starmer will contrast the opportunities for investing in a low-carbon economy with the devastation of the UK's industrial heartlands under Margaret Thatcher. "This cannot be a re-run of the 1980s," he will say. "This is the race of our lifetime, and the prize is real."

Labour's plans for renewable energy, including a ban on new oil and gas exploration and development in the North Sea, have come under attack, from the Conservatives and trade unions. Grant Shapps, the energy secretary, accused the Labour leader of being "the political wing" of Just Stop Oil.

Starmer will counter by arguing net zero is vital to the UK's safety. "We live in an increasingly volatile world. The twin risks of climate change and energy security now threaten the stability of nations," he will say. "So we've got to ground everything we do in a new insight - that clean energy is now essential for national security."

His team also rebuffed suggestions of a U-turn on the North Sea oil ban. Rescinding permission for projects that have cleared all regulatory hurdles before the general election would be costly and legally complex, so the party's proposed ban on new oilfields will not cover projects that have achieved all three levels of consent, for exploration, development and production.

It is unlikely that many of the more than 100 North Sea licences the government is mulling would fall into that category, though one of the biggest - the Rosebank oil and gas field - could clear the final regulatory hurdles soon.

Labour's plans also include insulating 19 million homes, setting up a national energy company, decarbonising electricity supply by 2030 and a national wealth fund to invest in green infrastructure.

Ed Miliband, the shadow secretary for climate change and net zero, told the Guardian the package would transform the UK's economy. "This is a transformative agenda to bring lower bills, more jobs, energy security and climate leadership," he said. "Labour is seizing the future, in stark contrast to the Tories, who have abandoned the pitch on this agenda."

New analysis by Carbon Brief found less gas would be imported by 2030 under Labour's plans than under Tory policies, despite the proposed ban on new North Sea drilling.

skip past newsletter promotion
The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion

Planning policies for onshore wind and pylon construction are devolved to the Scottish and Welsh governments: in Wales, the Labour-led government is likely to be willing partners on this strategy. In Scotland, Labour needs to negotiate with the Scottish National party and Scottish Green government in Edinburgh, but would expect its support.

Labour's plans met approval from Sam Richards, former Tory party adviser to Boris Johnson. "It's great news that Keir Starmer has put reforming our broken planning system at the heart of Labour's plans to deliver the clean energy infrastructure that can cut our energy bills and create jobs," said Richards, the founder of the campaign group Britain Remade. "I'm delighted that Labour have adopted many of the recommendations set out in [our March] report, from ending the senseless ban on new onshore wind farms to speeding up the time it takes to get offshore wind farms up and running."

Starmer's choice of Edinburgh for the launch reflects Labour's need to win seats from the SNP as well as the Tories in England. A new Panelbase poll for the Sunday Times put the SNP and Labour neck and neck on 34%, suggesting Labour is on course to win 26 Westminster seats in Scotland. It currently holds one in Scotland.

The headquarters of the new state-owned energy company GB Energy promised by Labour is to be based in Scotland, in a signal to Scottish voters the country would benefit directly from a UK Labour government.

Starmer will say: "Neither [SNP nor Tories] are truly invested in Scotland's success. For the SNP, any Scottish triumph in Britain is a threat to the ultimate prize. While the Tories welcome such division because they think it works for them, politically."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Keir Starmer to 'throw everything' at plan to get UK to net zero

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Labour leader will use speech in Scotland to lay out new green strategy for energy industry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Accept additional cookies Reject additional cookies View cookies

Cambridge Architectural Research, November 2012

Documents

PDF, 246 KB, 31 pages

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.

Request an accessible format.

If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email enquiries@beis.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

MS Excel Spreadsheet, 824 KB

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.

Request an accessible format.

If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email enquiries@beis.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Details

Cambridge Architectural Research (CAR) was commissioned by The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to estimate the potential energy savings that could be achieved by households adopting everyday 'behaviours'. Some of the 45 behaviours examined describe a change in the way people use energy in their homes (e.g. 'turn the thermostat down'), while others describe a technical upgrade (e.g. 'insulate hot water tank'), and a small number describe both a technical upgrade and a change in behaviour (e.g. 'install water efficient shower head and use twice every day').

Thank you for your feedback

Report a problem with this page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How much energy could be saved by making small changes to everyday household behaviours?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cambridge Architectural Research, November 2012

# data[].attributes.headline
How Bad Are Bananas?: The Carbon Footprint Of Everything - Mike Berners-Lee (PDF)

# data[].attributes.subject
How Bad Are Bananas?: The Carbon Footprint Of Everything - Mike Berners-Lee (PDF)

# data[].attributes.body
OneDrive Shared file

# data[].attributes.body
To convert your kWh or litres of fuel to carbon equivalents.
The government update this document annually.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Accept additional cookies Reject additional cookies View cookies

These emission conversion factors are for use by UK and international organisations to report on 2023 greenhouse gas emissions.

Documents

MS Excel Spreadsheet, 1.74 MB

MS Excel Spreadsheet, 1.76 MB

MS Excel Spreadsheet, 502 KB

Details

There are 3 sets of conversion factors:

condensed set: this abridged version of the full set is easiest to navigate and most frequently requested. Recommended for most, and new, users of conversion factors

full set: contains all available factors for the selected year. Recommended for advanced users only due to the volume of information

flat file set (only available from 2014): contains same data as the full set but designed for use in automated processes. Not recommended for most users

The methodology paper explains how the conversion factors are derived.

New users: read the introductory worksheet in the latest condensed set of conversion factors, and the guidance at the top of each individual worksheet.

Regular users: read the 'what's new' sheet which highlights the significant changes for that update: this will ensure consistent and comparable reporting year-on-year.

Defra's Environmental reporting guidelines provide more detail.

Thank you for your feedback

Report a problem with this page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These emission conversion factors are for use by UK and international organisations to report on 2023 greenhouse gas emissions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using scientific research and data, we break down the most effective strategies each of us can take to shrink our carbon footprint.