This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Key Issues


The increase in emissions in the Nordic 260 as a whole is perhaps not surprising in view of the rapid economic turnaround in 2010. By contrast, a comparison of the emissions of the 103 companies who disclosed data in both 2009 and 2010 suggests that total Scope 1 and 2 emissions fell by 5.5% in the recession year of 2009.


Similarly, total emissions from companies participating in the EU Emissions Trading System rose by 3.2% in 2010 after falling by more than 11% in 2009. Nonetheless, with Nordic governments pushing for the EU to make more ambitious unilateral commitments to reduce GHG emissions, the absolute increase in the Nordic region may still be seen as a disappointment.


Figure 10: Active emissions reduction targets.


… but some Nordic companies remain pioneers in tackling climate change


Despite the rise in emissions during 2010, it is clear from CDP 2011 responses that many Nordic companies continue to pursue an ambitious approach to tackling climate change. Active initiatives to reduce emissions are reported by 89% of respondents.


Over two-thirds of respondents have at least one active emissions reduction target (see Figure 10). Given the previous discussion it is worth noting that more than half of these firms target emissions intensity only – that is, emissions relative to revenue or some


other measure of activity. Intensity targets may spur firms into taking action even when growth falters, as seems to happening again in 2011. However, in periods of faster growth, emissions may rise while still remaining on target, and there is therefore a danger that over-reliance on intensity targets may limit the scope for reducing emissions in absolute terms.


Figure 11 provides an overview of the types of initiative specified, from energy efficiency to product design. Many or most of these initiatives are expected to pay off within three years, which suggests a strong business case for cutting emissions even in the relatively short term.


Figure 11: Types of emission reduction initiatives and payback time. 100 33% 80


Not specified > 3 years 1-3 years < 1 year


60 67%


40


Have target(s) No target


20 16%


52% 33%


0


Intensity target Absolute target


Absolute and intensity target 15


Fugitive emissions reductions Other Low carbon energy purchase Energy efficiency: building fabric Process emissions reductions Product design Transportation: use Low carbon energy installation Transportation: fleet Energy efficiency: building services Behavioral change


Energy efficiency: processes Number of companies


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62