united kingdomen

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

22-07-2021 | Column

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
Researcher

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.

### Disclaimer

Please read this important information before proceeding further. It contains legal and regulatory notices relevant to the information contained on this website.

The information contained in the Website is NOT FOR RETAIL CLIENTS - The information contained in the Website is solely intended for professional investors, defined as investors which (1) qualify as professional clients within the meaning of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), (2) have requested to be treated as professional clients within the meaning of the MiFID or (3) are authorized to receive such information under any other applicable laws. The value of the investments may fluctuate. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Investors may not get back the amount originally invested. Neither Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V. nor any of its affiliates guarantees the performance or the future returns of any investments. If the currency in which the past performance is displayed differs from the currency of the country in which you reside, then you should be aware that due to exchange rate fluctuations the performance shown may increase or decrease if converted into your local currency.

In the UK, Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V. (“ROBECO”) only markets its funds to institutional clients and professional investors. Private investors seeking information about ROBECO should visit our corporate website www.robeco.com or contact their financial adviser. ROBECO will not be liable for any damages or losses suffered by private investors accessing these areas.

In the UK, ROBECO Funds has marketing approval for the funds listed on this website, all of which are UCITS funds. ROBECO is authorized by the AFM and subject to limited regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority. Details about the extent of our regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority are available from us on request.

Many of the protections provided by the United Kingdom regulatory framework may not apply to investments in ROBECO Funds, including access to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and the Financial Ombudsman Service. No representation, warranty or undertaking is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information on this website.

If you are not an institutional client or professional investor you should therefore not proceed. By proceeding please note that we will be treating you as a professional client for regulatory purposes and you agree to be bound by our terms and conditions.

If you do not accept these terms and conditions, as well as the terms of use of the website, please do not continue to use or access any pages on this website.