Blog

Your CBAM spreadsheet produces a plausible emissions number. The formulas work. The totals look reasonable. The final result appears credible. Then verification begins. The verifier looks behind the number. Production quantities in the ERP do not reconcile with plant production records.

What are my embedded emissions?” A second is becoming important: “If carbon has already been priced at home, how much can legitimately reduce the CBAM burden in Europe?”

A few months ago, I wrote about a reality companies are increasingly facing: One company can legitimately have multiple carbon “truths”. CCF asks what the organisation emits. PCF asks what emissions belong to a product. Carbon Tax / ETS asks what regulated emissions are taxable. CBAM asks what embedded emissions belong to covered goods.

Methanol bunkering, biofuel trials, ammonia readiness studies, digital bunkering and green shipping corridors are progressing. But scaling green marine fuel will require more than proving that a vessel can use a lower-carbon fuel.

Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) has traditionally been seen as an LCA deliverable: calculate product emissions, verify the number, and share it when customers ask.

I had the opportunity to contribute to Malaysia’s Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry (MITI) Green Economy Introductory Course by sharing perspectives

At first glance, these industries appear to have very little in common: Construction Materials, Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS), Batteries, Steel, Maritime Fuels

Across sectors including steel, construction, aviation, maritime, energy and manufacturing, I increasingly believe that three infrastructures are required to scale industrial decarbonisation.

For the past decade, much of the decarbonisation discussion has focused on technology.