Delivering a Carbon Neutral America s Cup in San Francisco

Delivering a Carbon Neutral America s Cup in San Francisco September 2013

Executive Summary This report sets out to quantify that portion of the carbon footprint for which the America s Cup Event Authority ( ACEA ) and America s Cup Race Management ( ACRM ) are directly responsible (the owned footprint) which relates to events taking place in San Francisco. Secondly, this report quantifies other emissions associated with the staging of the events in San Francisco over which ACEA/ACRM have little or no control or influence. A Reference Footprint was published on the America s Cup website reflecting the estimated emissions associated with the America s Cup event activities in San Francisco. 1 It was a baseline against which current and planned reduction measures could be judged. It was an estimate of greenhouse gas emissions based on assumptions about the event prior to it taking place. This Final Footprint report quantifies emissions based on actual event activities. It also quantifies the emissions reduction measures implemented by ACEA and ACRM, to reduce the overall footprint. Summary of ACEA/ACRM Owned Carbon Footprint ACEA and ACRM owned reference carbon footprint relating to events taking place in San Francisco 10,601 tco 2 e 2 Breakdown of this reference footprint by main impact categories. (the much larger associated emissions are summarised in the main body of the report) Carbon footprint reductions achieved. Reduced carbon footprint 8,674 392 1,536-13.0% of the original reference footprint 9,226 tco 2 e 1 The America s Cup Reference Carbon Footprint document can be found online at: http://www.americascup.com/en/sustainability 2 tco 2 e means tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. 2

Table of Contents 1 Overview... 4 2 San Francisco-Related Carbon Footprint... 5 3 Study Boundaries... 6 4 Categories of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources Included... 7 5 Data Quality... 9 6 Reference Carbon Footprint Results... 9 6.1 Owned Emissions... 10 6.2 Hotspots... 10 6.3 Owned + Associated Emissions... 13 7 Reduction Measures... 13 7.1 Reported emissions by scope (Reduction Footprint)... 16 8 Compensating for the Owned Carbon Footprint... 17 8.1 Declaration of Achievement of Carbon Neutrality... 18 Acknowledgements: ACEA would like to thank the vendors, racing teams and partners who provided the required data to complete the carbon footprint report. We would also like to thank the members of the Carbon Technical Advisory Group for their time and expertise lent to support this effort. Finally, we extend our appreciation to Best Foot Forward for their support and guidance in developing the event carbon footprint. 3

1 Overview Carbon management for an event involves following an hierarchy of actions to reduce the overall carbon impact of event activities. The ACEA s approach to carbon management is outlined below: 1. Define the boundary of the event carbon footprint, and the scope of emissions associated with each phase of the event; 2. Measure event baseline emissions. Identify emission sources included within the event boundary, and estimate baseline emissions from a business-as-usual perspective (i.e., estimate expected emissions without consideration of proactive emission reduction measures other than those required by existing regulations); 3. Set objectives prioritizing reduction measures in areas of greatest impact and opportunity; 4. Avoid emissions. Identify where emissions can be avoided or eliminated, for example through venue design or by encouraging behavior change towards low-carbon alternatives (e.g. promote walking or public transit instead of driving); quantify impacts; 5. Reduce / Replace emissions. Adjust activities or choose alternatives to business-asusual that reduce emissions; this includes increasing energy efficiency or switching to energy sources that are less carbon intensive (e.g. use of low carbon fuels and renewable energy); quantify impacts; 6. Compensate for residual owned event emissions that cannot be avoided or reduced (see below for definition of owned ); 7. Encourage others to reduce and compensate for shared and associated emissions (see below for a definition of shared and associated emissions); and, 8. Review implementation success. Upon event completion, assess the impact of carbon reduction measures and review overall success of carbon management plan. The ACEA/ACRM has measured the event s carbon footprint for activities in San Francisco, and has delineated the organizational boundary of the event into three categories of activities based on the ACEA/ACRM s relative degree of control or influence, as described below: Owned: event activities that are solely funded by or under the operational control of the ACEA/ACRM and its affiliates and contractors. Examples include emissions from construction of facility improvements and installations, event planning and logistics, temporary event energy use, media and spectator facilities, and travel and accommodations for the event workforce. Shared: event activities that are jointly funded and are a direct consequence of hosting the event, but where various partner entities share control. Examples include joint infrastructure improvements or joint venue construction. The ACEA/ACRM s ability to influence these activities is limited. Associated: event activities that are a consequence of the event, but which are not controlled or funded by ACEA/ACRM. ACEA/ACRM may be able to exert some influence over these activities. Examples include the activities of sponsors, media and spectators. America s Cup Carbon Footprint September 2013 4

2 San Francisco-Related Carbon Footprint This report is primarily concerned with calculating the carbon footprint of the San Franciscorelated America s Cup activities for which the ACEA/ACRM are responsible so as to quantify the size of the footprint that must be compensated to deliver a carbon neutral event. Therefore, this report focuses on those emissions from activities owned by the ACEA and ACRM. Impacts attributable to spectators and racing teams, for example, are estimated separately and are not owned by ACEA/ACRM. Furthermore, in accordance with the stated scope, only those impacts relating to events in San Francisco are included. These include the two America s Cup World Series events in August 2012 and October 2012, as well as the Louis Vuitton Cup, the Red Bull Youth America s Cup, the Superyacht Regatta, and the America s Cup Final (all in 2013). Other America s Cup World Series events outside of San Francisco, and impacts attributable to them, are excluded. Where equipment, staff and other resources were used in San Francisco and also used in other America s Cup World Series events outside of San Francisco, a portion (60% 3 ) of their impact has been allocated to this San Francisco event carbon footprint. To provide certainty and credibility around the claim to have achieved carbon neutrality, ACEA has followed the PAS 2060 Specification for the demonstration of carbon neutrality, 4 the only independent carbon neutrality standard. PAS 2060 requires that the organisation claiming carbon neutrality not only purchases sufficient carbon credits to mitigate their footprint but also makes efforts to reduce their emissions first. On 1 st August 2013, ACEA/ACRM posted a declaration of their commitment to carbon neutrality (see Figure 1). Following the completion of this report, and the purchase of the requisite number of carbon credits by Offsetters, the Official Carbon Credit Supplier of the 34 th America s Cup, a declaration of the achievement of carbon neutrality will be signed. Figure 1: Declaration of commitment to carbon neutrality 3 This reflects the fact that 60% of overall event days occur in San Francisco. 4 PAS 2060:2010 Specification for the demonstration of carbon neutrality. Published by the British Standards Institute America s Cup Carbon Footprint September 2013 5

3 Study Boundaries All significant emissions sources arising from expenditure by the ACEA and ACRM on San Francisco events are included. Inevitably, drawing clear boundaries around those emissions for which ACEA and ACRM are solely responsible is problematic. Unlike an established corporate entity, world-class events such as the America s Cup involve numerous interested parties: staff, spectators, competing teams, sponsors, vendors, suppliers and so on. Data collections systems are also likely to be less mature than for an established organization and there is little historical data on which to base any estimates of activity. The America s Cup had never been held in San Francisco. Challenges faced when footprinting an event There is no internationally agreed standard for the carbon footprinting of events. Events involve many interested parties; staff, spectators, sponsors, delivery partners etc. making boundaries difficult to define. The financing of events is often complex with a variety of contractual arrangements and value in kind agreements making ownership and responsibilities unclear. Events are usually discrete one-off occurrences with no historical reference points. Legacy impacts and benefits are difficult to quantify. For this reason, it is important to take a structured, transparent approach to measurement. The methodology followed here is based on that developed for the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, which is, in turn, based on the international Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard 5 adapted for application to events. This methodology is now being used widely for major events worldwide. The methodology distinguishes between owned emissions, for which ACEA/ACRM are wholly responsible, and associated emissions over which ACEA/ACRM have only limited control and influence. Likely sources of owned emissions were identified from perusal of high-level financial budgets (ACEA and ACRM), through structured interviews with key staff department heads, by data survey and from reference sources such as existing public domain and internal documents, plans and strategies. In line with existing international accounting standards, the impact of transporting items to San Francisco from Newport, RI (2012) and Naples, Italy (2013) (sites of America s Cup World Series events) was also included alongside those emissions from activities occurring within San Francisco. As previously mentioned, this study also includes a first estimate of those emissions which are not owned by ACEA or ACRM, but are associated with the staging of the America s Cup San Francisco events; this includes, but is not limited to, the impact of racing teams, spectators and external media. 5 Developed by the World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Available at www.ghgprotocol.org America s Cup Carbon Footprint September 2013 6

4 Categories of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources Included Figure 2 below illustrates the main categories of emissions sources. Items marked with an asterisk (*) are partially allocated to San Francisco. Items in orange marked with a ª are part of the San Francisco associated footprint. America s Cup Carbon Footprint September 2013 7

AC34 Venues OperaWons Boats (producwon) Associated impacts Rented items (SF) Staff travel & offices * Support boats * ACOCª Fitouts and refurbs (SF) Freight containers & contents * AC45 (AC owned) * Teamsª New build (SF) Merchandise * Teams Red Bull YACª Moorings (SF) Vehicle fleet (SF) Spectatorsª ACTV (SF) Superyachtsª Ceremonies (SF) External mediaª Workforce (SF) Workforce & Volunteersª Freight (to SF) Partnersª Energy use (SF) Onwater spectator experienceª Waste (SF) Onwater spectator experienceª AC Magazine Medical and security Superyacht rega`a Figure 2: Categories of emissions sources included in the carbon footprint analysis (owned and associated footprints) America s Cup Carbon Footprint September 2013 8

5 Data Quality It is good practice (as recognised in the GHG Protocol and ISO 14064 1) to provide an assessment of data quality. This helps to guide interpretation of the results and highlight areas for future improvement. Each piece of data used in the footprint was rated as being either of high (H), medium (M) or low (L) quality. Data gaps were also highlighted to demonstrate completeness. These were defined as follows: High: estimates of consumption are available in physical units, which are considered to be reasonably reliable. For example, estimates of biodiesel use are considered to be of high quality. Medium: estimates of consumption are available in physical units but these are subject to considerable uncertainty. This is typically where it has been necessary to use proxy data to plug data gaps. Low: only financial data is available with no physical units requiring the use of input output analysis. In many cases financial data was only available in a highly aggregated form, further degrading quality. For example, the impact of providing security services was estimated from financial expenditure data. Figure 3 below presents the owned carbon footprint, split by data quality. 60% of the emissions estimates were derived from high quality data, with emissions calculated from medium and low quality data representing about a fifth of the footprint each (21 and 20% respectively) Figure 3: Data Quality (Note, data is presented in kg CO2e) America s Cup Carbon Footprint September 2013 9

6 Reference Carbon Footprint Results 6.1 Owned Emissions The ACEA/ACRM owned footprint for San Francisco-related activities (before reduction measures are included) was calculated to be 10,601 tco 2 e. Figure 4 below shows the breakdown of this footprint. Note that operations are the most impactful area making up 82% of the footprint. The hotspots analysis in Figure 5 provides more insight into the specific activities that most contribute to the footprint. Figure 4: Breakdown of ACEA/ACRM owned footprint for San Francisco (kg tco 2 e) 6.2 Hotspots Note that just seven categories of emission sources account for more than half (60%) of the San Francisco owned reference footprint (see Figure 5): Staff air travel (1,648 tco 2 e): This includes flights for ACEA and ACRM staff, as well as the ACTV staff. Note that this represents only a portion of the total impact of staff air travel (60% is allocated to San Francisco-related activities and the remaining to America s Cup World Series activities outside of San Francisco where staff travelled to deliver those event activities). America s Cup Carbon Footprint September 2013 10

Container contents (1,269 tco 2 e): This relates to the furniture and equipment transported by container for use in all America s Cup World Series events but which are also being used in San Francisco. Note that only 60% of the total impact of the container contents is allocated to the San Francisco footprint, as the equipment was also used during events based in other locations. This figure excludes the container contents owned by sponsors and racing teams as well excluding all the boats, which are accounted elsewhere. Vehicle fleet (918 tco 2 e): This includes the fuel consumed by the support boats, helicopters and the land-based vehicles. Most of the fuel was attributable to the support boats. Freight: o o From Newport, RI to San Francisco in 2012 (714 tco 2 e): this relates to the transportation of items from Newport to San Francisco. In the Reference Footprint, it is assumed that this is undertaken by road with the exception of the larger boats, which are shipped as deck cargo to Ensenada and then motored under their own power to San Francisco. From Naples, Italy to San Francisco in 2013 (447 tco 2 e): as above, this comprises the emissions from shipping the containers, boats, sponsors and team equipment from Naples to San Francisco. Waste generated during the America s Cup World Series events in 2012 (56 tco 2 e) and America s Cup events at the America s Cup Park and America s Cup Village, as well as the Pier venues managed by ACEA/ACRM (655 tco 2 e). Pier 27/29 structures including the steel piling, floating docks and gangways (612 tco 2 e). America s Cup Carbon Footprint September 2013 11

Figure 5: Breakdown AC34 owned footprint for San Francisco showing hotspots in red (kgco 2 e) America s Cup Carbon Footprint September 2013 12

6.3 Owned + Associated Emissions Those emissions over which ACEA/ACRM have little control or influence, but which are linked to the staging of the 2013 America s Cup in San Francisco, are referred to as associated emissions. These are far larger than the owned emissions, which constitute just 4.1% of the total (Owned + Associated = 245,150 tco 2 e). 79.4% of the total associated carbon footprint (203,145 tco 2 e) is attributable to spectators; most of this being due to emissions from international air travel. The racing teams also have an impact. A rough estimate of their footprint put emissions at 10% of the total (24,188tCO 2 e). The figure below shows the breakdown of the total estimated San Francisco reference footprint, including both owned and associated emission sources. Figure 6: Owned and Associated Carbon Footprint for San Francisco activities (tco 2 e) 7 Reduction Measures A number of interventions were put into place to actively reduce the carbon footprint of the America s Cup event. This document, detailing the evidence for achievement of reductions (against the reference footprint), forms a core part of the Carbon Management Strategy. The methodology employed to quantify reductions is the same as that used to quantify the reference (or baseline) carbon footprint. America s Cup Carbon Footprint September 2013 13

The reductions methodology follows the structure and terminology used in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol for Project Accounting 6. Each Project Activity aimed at delivering reductions is documented in the following way: Description of Project Activity: a summary of the actions or interventions intended to deliver a greenhouse gas reduction including boundary description. Emission sources: the emissions sources that will be impacted by the intended greenhouse gas reduction measures. Baseline scenario: emissions that would most likely have arisen without the intended actions/interventions to mitigate emissions. Primary Greenhouse Gas effects: intended quantum of emission reductions compared to the baseline arising from the planned actions/interventions. Secondary Greenhouse Gas effects: any unintended greenhouse gas emissions (side effects) due to the planned actions/interventions. Note these are split into one-off and recurring changes. Data quality/materiality threshold: a summary of the data quality and materiality thresholds applied. As a result of the planned reduction measures, an estimated 1,375 tco 2 e, representing 13% of the reference footprint, was avoided. The final reduced carbon footprint is expected to be 9,226 tco 2 e (owned footprint). See Figure 7. Individual reduction measures are listed in Table 1. 12000 10601 10000 9226 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Reference ReducWon Figure 7: Reference and Reduction Footprints (tco 2 e) 6 The Greenhouse Gas Protocol for Project Accounting is available at: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghg_project_protocol.pdf America s Cup Carbon Footprint September 2013 14

Table 1: Summary list of reduction measures (includes reductions to Associated footprint). Reduction Commitments Owned footprint Estimated savings (tco 2 e) Percentage of reference owned footprint Hybrid vehicles 72 0.7% Electric golf carts 5 0.05% ACRM carbon fiber support boats (RIBs) 116 1.1% Recycling during events (improvement over average rate for events in San Francisco) 355 3.3% Freighting by rail 490 4.6% Measures on generator use at AC Village (Marina Green) Solar powered security lighting at AC Village (Marina Green) Recycled PET used for official America s Cup apparel (portion allocated to owned footprint) Use of low embodied carbon material for venues thin film plastic/steel frame walling system 166 1.6% 12 0.1% 21 0.2% 75 0.7% Steel pipe piles design 56 0.5% Recycled paper in AC Magazine 7 0.1% Total carbon savings (estimated to date) 1375 13.0% Other reductions Associated footprint Estimated savings (tco 2 e) Compostable food and drink packaging 34 Connecting superyacht berths to shore power 763 Recycled PET used for official America s Cup apparel (portion allocated to the associated footprint - spectators) 117 A number of reduction measures could not be quantified in terms of their carbon savings. It is therefore likely that the reductions claimed are a conservative estimate. These measures included: Sourcing policy preferring rental rather than buying Sourcing of local products Containers reused as temporary infrastructure during the events (e.g., office space and TV broadcast) Use of bikes by event staff and volunteers No phone systems in offices America s Cup Carbon Footprint September 2013 15

Data storage in the cloud Promotion of public transportation for event workforce and spectators Bike parking for the public Re-use and recycling of branded materials 7.1 Reported emissions by scope (Reduction Footprint) The WRI / WBCSD Greenhouse Gas Protocol 7 classifies greenhouse gas emissions by broad scope. For an event, all emissions could in theory be assigned to Scope 3 emissions; in theory the ACEA and ACRM are renting their equipment for the time of the event and contracting most of the work. In order to provide a meaningful result, the following division is applied: Scope 1 emissions: direct emissions of greenhouse gases from all sources owned or controlled by the ACEA/ACRM, including generation of electricity, transportation of materials, etc. Scope 2 emissions: indirect emissions of greenhouse gases resulting from the generation of purchased electricity, heat or steam. Scope 3 emissions: other indirect emissions, such as business travel. This will also include all associated emissions. Section Sub-section Scope 1 2 3 Boats All items (construction) Operations Staff travel and office AC Discovered (weekly magazine show) Containers and contents Merchandise Energy (diesel, electricity, solar power, propane) Freight Vehicle fleet Media (ACTV) Ceremonies and culture Workforce Waste AC Magazine (hard copies) Superyacht Regatta (fuel used by support boats) Other (medical, security etc.) Venues All items 7 World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, available at www.ghgprotocol.org America s Cup Carbon Footprint September 2013 16

The figure below presents the owned footprint split by scope (reduced footprint). Most of the footprint, 88%, falls into the Scope 3 category, with Scope 1 and 2 representing respectively 10% and 2% of the footprint. Figure 8: Owned emissions by scope (reduced footprint) 8 Compensating for the Owned Carbon Footprint The ACEA/ACRM committed to compensating for the residual greenhouse gas emissions from their owned footprint from San Francisco related events and activities. This will be done through the acquisition of a portfolio of high quality carbon credits used to make the 2013 Americas Cup carbon neutral. These carbon credits have strong links to marine benefits and the sport of sailing. Offsetters is the Official Carbon Credit Supplier of the 34 th America s Cup. Offsetters will acquire and retire high quality carbon credits on behalf of the ACEA in the amount of the ACEA/ACRM owned residual carbon footprint. Each carbon credit project will be validated and verified in accordance with best practice internationally, and will comply with the International Carbon Reduction and Offset Alliance (ICROA) Code of Practice. The required number of carbon credits will be retired. This will happen no later than December 31, 2013. The details of the retirements will be publically available on the Markit Registry 8, which is a third party registry ensuring transparency for the voluntary carbon market. 8 The Markit Registry is available at: http://www.markit.com/en/ America s Cup Carbon Footprint September 2013 17

8.1 Declaration of Achievement of Carbon Neutrality Once the carbon credits have been retired, the following statement will be executed in accordance with PAS 2060. Signing this Declaration will make the 34 th America s Cup the first world-class event to demonstrate carbon neutrality using an independent standard. Disclaimer The America s Cup Event Authority ( ACEA ) contracted Best Foot Forward to prepare this report for ACEA s sole use. Best Foot Forward is a multi-award-winning sustainability consultancy that specializes in carbon and ecological footprinting. It has worked on carbon management strategies for world-class events including Wimbledon (tennis), FIFA World Cup 2014 (football), Sochi 2014 (Winter Olympic Games) and London 2012 (Summer Olympic Games). Best Foot Forward has exercised due and customary care in preparing this report but has not, save as specifically stated, independently verified information provided by others. No other warranty, express or implied, is made in relation to the contents of this report. The use of this report, or reliance on its content, by unauthorised third parties without written permission from the ACEA shall be at their own risk, and Best Foot Forward accepts no duty of care to such third parties. Any recommendations, opinions or findings stated in this report are based on facts and circumstances, as they existed at the time the report was prepared. Any changes in such facts and circumstances may adversely affect the recommendations, opinions or findings contained in this report. America s Cup Carbon Footprint September 2013 18