41–50 of 99 posts
Will you make a contractual promise that you will NEVER sell the financial data that you scoop up?
So what's the carbon impact of paying employees? Is there a Co2 kg/$ ratio?
So what's the carbon impact of paying employees? Is there a Co2 kg/$ ratio?
In contrast, if your company paid for your metro card or reimbursed for mileage or gas on your commute, we would estimate the carbon intensity for those expenses.
Can we stop with the nonsense footprint, token, credit system. Having a single data scientist unfortunately does not a fix make it just stalls the whole thing and leads to bad over engineered, overly technical solutions. Companies would be better investing in encouraging people to behave better on compus if they were serious, and I mean by actually investing to make using eco friendly things pleasent, not using brown…
How’d you arrive at this pricing? This seems like too expensive (and frankly irrelevant) for small companies and absurdly cheap for a large enterprise.
We picked a price that opens up the addressable market beyond late stage and public companies. As startups, you have an unfair advantage — it’s much easier to build good carbon habits early, vs. retooling your business after having already invested large amounts of capital in carbon-intensive practices and depreciating assets. We do offer enterprise pricing for API access for larger customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ya, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol — https://ghgprotocol.org/ — is the universally accepted way for companies to measure their emissions. It's been around for about a decade. That being said, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol reporting has been pretty inconsistent in the past. Companies cherry-pick and leave out important info, or define their 'reporting boundary' in inconsistent ways. One of our goals is to help 'debug' thes…
Thanks I'm joining a start up in this space soon too. Good luck.
Good luck to you too!
So what's the carbon impact of paying employees? Is there a Co2 kg/$ ratio?
We treat payroll as zero emissions. The responsibility boundary of a company doesn't include the personal consumption decisions of employees. The spend-based approach makes this pretty straightforward — if the company is buying, those are company emissions. If an individual is buying, those are individual emissions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We treat payroll as zero emissions. The responsibility boundary of a company doesn't include the personal consumption decisions of employees. The spend-based approach makes this pretty straightforward — if the company is buying, those are company emissions. If an individual is buying, those are individual emissions.
Not trying to put you in a 'gotcha' situation, but GHGP Scope 3 Category 7 (Employee Commuting) is entirely related to employee actions outside the bounds of the company. Commutes and also home-office energy choices (heating, cooling, use of renewable energy credits, ...) are typically chosen (and paid for) by individuals outside of work but are components of an organization's value chain.
Setting the GHGP aside, my own personal opinion about how we interpret GHGP data is that it's important to make a clear distinction between upstream emissions and downstream emissions. For example, 'use of sold products' (Category 11) is also not something you can determine from spend data. But I'd argue that 'use of sold products' is a very different thing than upstream emissions (even though they're all lumped under Scope 3).
Commuting is a less clear-cut case, but I think of commuting (that is paid for by employees) as more of a downstream emissions category.
We wrote up some notes on this here: https://bend.green/faq/downstream-emissions
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We treat payroll as zero emissions. The responsibility boundary of a company doesn't include the personal consumption decisions of employees. The spend-based approach makes this pretty straightforward — if the company is buying, those are company emissions. If an individual is buying, those are individual emissions.
Not trying to put you in a 'gotcha' situation, but GHGP Scope 3 Category 7 (Employee Commuting) is entirely related to employee actions outside the bounds of the company. Commutes and also home-office energy choices (heating, cooling, use of renewable energy credits, ...) are typically chosen (and paid for) by individuals outside of work but are components of an organization's value chain.
Hey, this is an interesting and emerging market, what will maybe be called 'carbon analytics' or 'GHG analytics'. There are definitely lots of opportunities in this space. Without letting perfect be the enemy of good here... I have some questions. It seems nice to have a backstop for what GHGP calls "Corporate-level data" which is the lowest level and least specific for purchased goods and services in GHGP's Scope 3…
Hey, good questions! You know your stuff. Re: do you have any concerns that your users might shortcut the work to produce high quality estimates of their Scope 3 emissions when you have made it so easy to get lower quality estimates? > I think the high order bit here is that 99%+ of companies don't measure their emissions at all. This is for a good reason — measuring your emissions historically has been quite labor-i…
On your belief that actionable data _trumps_ perfectly attributed data, I'm not entirely convinced. I think actionable data _complements_ attributable data. But you need the attributable data to accurately measure the impact and learn what specific actions caused that impact.
I think all companies want to make actions that are well-informed, 'the right choice', and have the potential to demonstrate it was 'the right choice'. My concern is that when someone takes a 'good action' such as replacing high intensity animal protein with low intensity plant protein there is no evidence from your side that it made any difference. You are divorcing the actual choice that was made from what is perceived as the outcome.
The dollars-to-emissions relationship is just not as simple as is being represented, and for those who are not specialists there might be a false sense of progress.
"We cut our daily emissions from transport by having employees purchase Uber rides in off-peak times."
"We cut our emissions for business travel by setting up a policy that flights must be purchased at least 2 months in advance."
"We cut our emissions from our regular food purchases by looking at the local newspaper for coupons and signing up for a customer loyalty account."
"Maybe we all should fly to Las Vegas (tickets are cheap) rather than have Linda fly to NYC (an expensive ticket)."
Each of these might be smart business choices, but they have absolutely no real world effect on emissions that should be attributable to a company, but that isn't what the company is being told.
As a first pass to estimate sense of scale and where to look into unsustainable practices and prioritize better data collection, Bend seems to be valuable.