hongkongzh

# The CO₂lumnist: Carbon scopes participating at the Tokyo 2021 Olympics

22-07-2021 | 觀點

Investors rely on data to make decisions on climate strategy. But the data is far from perfect, and it doesn’t always add up. In the first of a new series of columns taking a more light-hearted look at the issue, and as the Olympics begins in Tokyo, Robeco data scientist Thijs Markwat draws parallels with trying to figure out the heptathlon.

• Thijs
Markwat
Portfolio strategist

This summer, for the first time in history, the modern Olympic games takes place in an odd year. I am not a big fan of athletics, and I have never ever watched athletics outside of the Olympic games. But for some reason, during every Olympic edition, I always tend to watch parts of the athletic heptathlon.

I find it very impressive for one single person to be proficient in so many different disciplines. The different events that make up the heptathlons are show in the table below. Interestingly, the heptathlon differs quite a bit between men and women.

Climate investing: from urgency to solutions
 Women (outdoor) Men (indoor) Long jump Long jump High jump High jump Shot put Shot put Javelin throw Pole vault 100 meters hurdles 60 meters hurdles 200 meters dash 60 meters dash 800 meters dash 1000 meters dash

The main difference between the men’s and women’s heptathlon is the location – the women’s is outdoors while the men’s is indoors. This also explains a bit the different events between men and women, as javelin throwing in an indoor venue might not be the smartest idea. The indoor location also limits the sprint distances to 60 meters. At the end of the Olympic heptathlon, after all heptathletes have completed the seven events, one athlete receives the gold medal.

But how to decide who the winner is? Clearly, scores of different events cannot simply be summed into a total score. For example, adding a 2-meter high jump to a 22-second 200 meters dash score… would that make sense? Of course it doesn’t. Therefore, a special scoring system was developed by the mathematician Karl Ulbrich to make different events comparable and addable.

For the remainder of this memo I am going to simplify matters and only look at the long jump, the high jump and the shot put, which are the common events in both heptathlons. Let’s now look at the women’s heptathlon records for these three events, as shown in the table below.

 Best Spread High jump 2.0 0.3 Long jump 7.3 1.0 Shot put 17.3 3.1 Total 26.6

These results are all expressed in meters and thus, at least technically, can be added up. But still, we could argue about the meaning of the 26.6 meters. Does adding the outcomes of the high jump, long jump and shot put makes any sense? To get some more insights in the interpretation of this total score, I have added the column ‘spread’.

This number indicates the common range of outcomes. So, high jumps usually vary between 1.7 and 2.0 meters, while shot puts generally vary between 14.2 and 17.3 meters. There is a clear positive relationship between the distance and spread of the events. Thus, events covering a larger distance have more impact on the total score. Therefore, if scores are blindly added in this ‘triathlon’, a top ranking in the shot put seems to be a prerequisite for victory, while the high jump is just in there for show.

## It doesn’t always add up

Does the fact that you can add things up imply that you should add things up? No of course not, but this is exactly what happens with carbon accounting! Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions can technically be added as all are denoted in tons of CO2.

In terms of size and spread it is actually pretty accurate to state that scope 1 emissions are like the long jump, scope 2 emissions like the high jump, and scope 3 emissions like the shot put. Scope 3 emissions are much larger and also have a much larger spread. Therefore, like the shot put in the example, the only thing that really impacts aggregated carbon emissions are scope 3 emissions. And like the high jump, scope 2 (and to a lesser extent scope 1) is just in there for show.

Thus, instead of blindly adding scopes, a method should be developed to make the scopes comparable like they do for heptathlons! Obviously, for carbon accounting, this method should ideally resolve the severe double counting issues in scope 3. However, this will be very difficult to achieve, and therefore an alternative scoring system could be a great (intermediate) solution. But remember, blindly adding all scopes is like only including scope 3.

Read more

## Important information

The contents of this document have not been reviewed by any regulatory authority in Hong Kong. If you are in any doubt about any of the contents of this document, you should obtain independent professional advice. This document has been distributed by Robeco Hong Kong Limited (‘Robeco’). Robeco is regulated by the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong.
This document has been prepared on a confidential basis solely for the recipient and is for information purposes only. Any reproduction or distribution of this documentation, in whole or in part, or the disclosure of its contents, without the prior written consent of Robeco, is prohibited. By accepting this documentation, the recipient agrees to the foregoing
This document is intended to provide the reader with information on Robeco’s specific capabilities, but does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell certain securities or investment products. Investment decisions should only be based on the relevant prospectus and on thorough financial, fiscal and legal advice.
The contents of this document are based upon sources of information believed to be reliable. This document is not intended for distribution to or use by any person or entity in any jurisdiction or country where such distribution or use would be contrary to local law or regulation.
Investment Involves risks. Historical returns are provided for illustrative purposes only and do not necessarily reflect Robeco’s expectations for the future. The value of your investments may fluctuate. Past performance is no indication of current or future performance.

### 免責聲明

1. 一般事項

2. 風險披露聲明

Robeco Capital Growth Funds以其特定的投資政策或其他特徵作識別，請小心閱讀有關Robeco Capital Growth Funds的風險：

• 部份基金可涉及投資、市場、股票投資、流動性、交易對手、證券借貸及外幣風險及小型及/或中型公司的相關風險。
• 部份基金所涉及投資於新興市場的風險包括政治、經濟、法律、規管、市場、結算、執行交易、交易對手及貨幣風險。
• 部份基金可透過合格境外機構投資者（"QFII"）及／或 人民幣合格境外機構投資者 （"RQFII"）及／或 滬港通計劃直接投資於中國A股，當中涉及額外的結算、規管、營運、交易對手及流動性風險。
• 就分派股息類別，部份基金可能從資本中作出股息分派。股息分派若直接從資本中撥付，這代表投資者獲付還或提取原有投資本金的部份金額或原有投資應佔的任何資本收益，該等分派可能導致基金的每股資產淨值即時減少。
• 部份基金投資可能集中在單一地區/單一國家/相同行業及/或相同主題營運。 因此，基金的價值可能會較為波動。
• 部份基金使用的任何量化技巧可能無效，可能對基金的價值構成不利影響。
• 除了投資、市場、流動性、交易對手、證券借貸、(反向)回購協議及外幣風險，部份基金可涉及定息收入投資有關的風險包括信貨風險、利率風險、可換股債券的風險、資產抵押證券的的風險、投資於非投資級別或不獲評級證券的風險及投資於未達投資級別主權證券的風險。
• 部份基金可大量運用金融衍生工具。荷寶環球消費新趨勢股票可為對沖目的及為有效投資組合管理而運用金融衍生工具。運用金融衍生工具可涉及較高的交易對手、流通性及估值的風險。在不利的情況下，部份基金可能會因為使用金融衍生工具而承受重大虧損(甚至損失基金資產的全部)。
• 荷寶歐洲高收益債券可涉及投資歐元區的風險。
• 投資者在Robeco Capital Growth Funds的投資有可能大幅虧損。投資者應該參閱Robeco Capital Growth Funds之銷售文件內的資料﹙包括潛在風險﹚，而不應只根據這文件內的資料而作出投資。

3. 當地的法律及銷售限制

4. 使用此網站

5. 投資表現

6. 第三者網站

7. 責任限制

8. 知識產權

9. 私隠

10. 適用法律