Search Results

A large consortium of cosmetics companies, supported by Quantis, has just published the Eco-Beauty Score (EBS) methodology. The aim of this new 'Eco-score' is to enable consumers to make more informed and sustainable choices. The public consultation closes on 9 May 2024. This eco-score is based exclusively on the European approach, the Product Environmental Footprint (#PEF). This is a life cycle assessment (#LCA) method used to evaluate the environmental footprint of a product placed on the market, by calculating 16 impact categories (climate change, acidification, human toxicity, aquatic toxicity, ozone layer, eutrophication, use of resources, etc.). The LCA approach is ideal for considering resource consumption and all the pollutant emissions that occur during all phases of the cycle. Roughly speaking, for a traditional LCA, we are talking about several hundred chemical substances emitted to each air, soil and water compartment, which will contribute to the calculation of the +/- 16 impact categories. The #USEtox method is used to calculate the aquatic toxicity and human health score. This is done using characterisation factors[1] specific to each substance emitted. According to its authors, USEtox makes it possible to identify the 10-20 substances, out of a list of several hundred, that could pose problems for aquatic ecosystems and human health. So far, so good. However, this is not enough to determine whether the formula used for a cosmetic product is sustainable (i.e. environmentally friendly). The LCA and USEtox approach does not ; Identify problematic ingredients: these will rarely appear in the list of 10-20 substances identified by USEtox (their mass being negligible compared with the hundreds of substances emitted over the entire life cycle). Identify substances classified by European regulations as hazardous to human health and the environment (for those in the know: SVHC, PBT vPvb, carcinogenic, mutagenic, etc.) To conclude whether a formula is more respectful of human health and the environment. Direct toxicity - when the product is used - is not taken into account in the model, nor is the local environmental impact when effluent from treatment plants (if any!) is discharged into the adjacent river or lake. To conclude on the level of biodegradability of the formula. To conclude on the naturality and traceability of the ingredients. Relying solely on an LCA and USEtox approach means labelling products as 'sustainable', whereas 'Ecolabel' type schemes will say exactly the opposite. This not only confuses the consumer but also runs the risk of undermining the credibility of these attempts at labelling, which are sorely needed to support more sustainable consumption. If you are interested in this post and would like to find out more, please do not hesitate to contact me: saouter@net-zero-impact.eu You can also read my publications on the subject: 1.     Sala, S., Biganzoli, F., Mengual, E. S. & Saouter, E. Toxicity impacts in the environmental footprint method: calculation principles. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 27, 587–602 (2022). 2.     Erwan Saouter, Fabrizio Biganzoli, Rana Pant, Serenella Sala, Donald Versteeg: Using REACH for the EU Environmental Footprint: building a usable ecotoxicity database (part I). Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 05/2019;, DOI:10.1002/ieam.4168 3.     Erwan Saouter, Deidre Wolff, Fabrizio Biganzoli, Donald Versteeg: Comparing options for deriving chemical ecotoxicity hazard values for the EU Environmental Footprint (part II). Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 05/2019;, DOI:10.1002/ieam.4169 4.     Erwan Saouter, An De Schryver, Rana Pant, Serenella Sala: Estimating chemical ecotoxicity in EU ecolabel and in EU product environmental footprint. Environment International 09/2018; 118., DOI:10.1016/j.envint.2018.05.022 5.     Saouter, E. G., Perazzolo, C. & Steiner, L. D. Comparing chemical environmental scores using USEtoxTM and CDV from the European Ecolabel. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16, 795–802 (2011). DOI:10.1007/s11367-011-0314-6 6.     Serenella Sala, Assumpcio’ Anton, Sarah J. McLaren, Bruno Notarnicola, Erwan Saouter, Ulf Sonesson: In quest of reducing the environmental impacts of food production and consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production 09/2016; 140., DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.054 [1] The European Commission's research centre - the EU-JRC (Joint Research Centre) - has also built a database for use in PEF analyses. It contains characterisation factors for more than 6,000 substances: https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ecotox.html. The consortium does not seem to want to use this database. What a pity!

A large consortium of cosmetics companies, supported by Quantis, has just published the Eco-Beauty Score (EBS) methodology for public consultation. The aim of this new 'Eco-score' is to enable consumers to make more informed and sustainable choices. However, the EBS proposal, as presented today, is fraught with major pitfalls and is very likely to give rise to serious concerns on the part of stakeholders. The positive aspect of this ecological score is that it is based on the European approach, the 'Product Environmental Footprint (PEF)', for assessing the sustainable aspect of products placed on the market, using the 16 PEF impact categories. The negative aspect is that it is based solely on the PEF.  While this methodology should indeed be used to assess the life-cycle footprint of products, its developers insist that additional information should be used - and provided - where necessary. For cosmetic products, what is unquestionably 'necessary' is the composition of the formula: does it contain substances of very high concern (SVHC)?  Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances? Endocrine disruptors? What is the overall CLP classification of the product? What volume of water is needed to dilute the formula to reduce its toxicity to a level of no concern? All these aspects (which are generally the cornerstone of any serious eco-label) are absent from the current version of the Eco-Beauty Score. What's more, it's astonishing that the consortium decided to use the results of the 16 impact categories of the PEF, apart from the 'aquatic ecotoxicity' impact category! Yet this is a decisive impact for cosmetic products. The argument put forward is that the use of USEtox, the method recommended by the PEF to assess the score for the aquatic toxicity impact category, is not appropriate for cosmetic products (?!), and that a specific database needs to be built first. On this last point, I would like to remind that the EU-JRC (Joint Research Center) has built a database based on data supplied by industry as part of their REACh regulatory obligations.  This database provides characterization factors for more than 6,000 substances. These data can be used to run USEtox, or any other assessment method the consortium wishes to use. Database is here: https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ecotox.html Publication is here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-022-02033-0 If you are interested in this subject and would like to find out more, please do not hesitate to contact me: https://www.net-zero-impact.eu/contact

NextGen Basel 1 - Next Generation Product Design and Risk Assessment- March 1, 2024 In 2017, the global production of synthetic chemicals amounted to 2.3 billion tons. To date, about 193 million chemicals have been identified[1] , but only 40-60,000 are commercialized. However, it has been estimated that only 6,000 substances account for about 99% of the total volume of substances placed on the market. Recent research suggests that the planetary limit for such substances has been exceeded, i.e., the limits that must not be exceeded in order not to irreversibly disturb the balance of the planet as we have known it for about 10,000 years. This situation is not likely to improve, as the production of substances is expected to double again by 2030. To address this issue, the EU Commissions is proposing a new framework called ‘Safe and Sustainable by design’ chemicals (SSbd), by promoting “a holistic approach that integrates safety, circularity and functionality of chemicals, materials, products and processes throughout their entire life cycle, minimizing their environmental footprint”. It consists into an integration of safety-based with a life-cycle based considerations to ensure sustainability along the value chain. The new framework proposed 6 steps:  hazard assessment, human health and safety aspects at manufacturing and processing of the substance, human health and environment at use phase, life cycle assessment cradle-to-grave, social and economic assessment. Each step leads to a scoring system and all scores are then combined in the final assessment into one single number. To be considered a SSbd-chemical, the substance must have the following characteristic: 1.     Not be classified for human, environment, and safety properties according to the CLP legislation, 2.     All human and environment risk characterization ratios at manufacturing, production and use phase must be below 1, under a 1000 tons per year usage scenario (the Chesar or ECETOC-Tra risk assessment tools are used for this purpose). 3.     The life cycle assessment should demonstrate a 20% benefit (aggregated sustainability score) compared to similar chemicals having the same performance. The life cycle assessment is based on the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) recommendation and the impact of chemicals on human and aquatic ecosystem health is assessed using the USEtox model. The presentation will present the overall SSbd scheme, with a focus on the LCA and the USEtox model. [1] https://www.cas.org/cas-data/cas-registry

According to the WWF, global wildlife populations have fallen by an average of 69% since 1970[1] ! This frightening figure will undoubtedly be picked up by all the media and become THE absolute truth: we (humans) have destroyed 69% of wild animals! If the disappearance of animal species is extremely worrying and undeniable, and if human activity - notably through food production - is indisputably responsible, it is necessary to examine what lies behind this figure, as OurWorldInData has just done in its publication: Living Planet Index: what does an average decrease of 69% really mean[2] ? First of all, what does 'wildlife' mean? It actually covers only a small percentage of species: only 16% of known bird species, 11% of mammals, 6% of fish and 3% of amphibians and reptiles. In addition, many taxonomic groups are not included at all - nothing on insects, fungi, corals or plants. So it is not all wildlife, but only a small part. Secondly, the Living Planet Index is an average, and as everyone knows, an average is very strongly affected by extreme values. Of the 14700 populations selected by WWF, 356 are indeed in a very critical situation. If they are removed from the study, the trend for the remaining 14344 populations shows certain stability, or even a slight increase, as shown in the graph below. Of course, this does not change the fact that some species are disappearing and that we must do everything we can to stop this slaughter. The loss of biodiversity at a global level is undeniable. It is as dramatic as the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the climate and will affect the ability of humankind, and life on the planet in general, to sustain itself and thrive. This analysis is not intended to minimise the problem, but rather to encourage a focus on protection efforts for populations that are actually disappearing, rather than suggesting that 69% of all vertebrate species are extinct. We already have enough reasons to be depressed... Manipulation of figures, known as 'greenwashing' when it comes from the private sector, discredits the message and the bearer of the message and ultimately risks harming the cause it seeks to defend. A little science doesn't hurt. [1] https://www.wwf.org.uk [2] https://ourworldindata.org/living-planet-index-decline

Nearly 60% of CO2 emissions are due to the burning of coal and gas, and the contribution of this sector is unfortunately not about to decrease: in 2022, the construction of new coal and gas power plants added more than 457 and 615 gigawatts of capacity, respectively[1]. With a 50-year lifespan, coal-fired power plants alone will produce 175 Gt of CO2 by 2040[2]. If the emissions from new gas-fired power plants are added, the figure rises to around 300 Gt of CO2. To stay below 1.5°C, our carbon budget is about 400 Gt, barely more than the future emissions from coal and gas power plants! Figure 1 : CO2 emissions from coal and gas power plants in 2020[3] and total carbon capture and storage (CCS)capacity (coal and gas power plants, cement and steel production, hydrogen production from fossil fuels, waste incineration)[4]. However, techniques for capturing and storing the CO2 (CCS[5]) emitted by coal and gas power plants have existed for more than 20 years, with an efficiency of 95% reduction at the end of the stack (60% reduction if the entire life cycle of the capture and sequestration installations is considered)[4]. But these technologies are still underused to combat the climate crisis: from more than 29,000 coal or gas-fired power plants[6]; only 2 are equipped with CCS[2]. How could this solution be neglected when we are trying to reduce our emissions by all means? One reason is of course economic: installing capture and storage systems is very expensive. Massive deployment would cost nearly $1000 billion[2]. It is also regulatory: there are no regulations at global and/or national level requiring that new power plants, or old ones, be equipped with this technology. However, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), CCS can be retrofitted on existing plants[7], which could provide an additional 360 Gt reduction of CO2 over the next 5 decades (with a 60% reduction thanks to CCS). Finally, what has considerably limited the adoption of these technologies is the fierce opposition of certain lobbies who consider that authorizing them is tantamount to giving the right to continue polluting. The bottom line is that the use of gas and coal to make electricity is responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse gases we have emitted over the past 40 years. And if nothing is done to enforce this solution, the contribution of the electricity sector will continue to weigh heavily on our carbon footprint! To achieve significant results, it is not even necessary to impose this technology on all coal and gas power plants. It would be sufficient to focus on the world's top 5% polluters, which together account for almost 73% of emissions from this sector6. According to the IEA, carbon capture and sequestration could contribute around 15% of the global reduction in CO2 emissions by 2060. It would then be the third most effective lever after energy efficiency (40%) and the development of renewable energies (35%). While CCS techniques should not slow down the large-scale deployment of low-carbon energies, such as renewables, they have a crucial role to play in limiting emissions from emerging economies, which may not have immediate access in large quantities to low-carbon technologies. Let's act local but think global! [1] https://globalenergymonitor.org/report/boom-and-bust-gas-2022/ [2] IEA. The role of CCUS in low-carbon power systems (2020). [3] https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-fuel [4] UNECE. CARBON CAPTURE, USE AND STORAGE (CCUS). (2021) [5] Do not confuse CCS, which consists of capturing CO2 at the end of the chimney of coal and gas power plants, with BECC (Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage) and DACC (Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage). See note 1 for more details. [6] Grant, D., Zelinka, D. & Mitova, S. Reducing CO2 emissions by targeting the world's hyper-polluting power plants. 106. Environ Res Lett 16, 094022 (2021). [7] IEA. Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage. CCUS in clean energy transitions. (2020).

Or how to prevent today's solutions from becoming tomorrow's disasters. After my time at the WBCSD as Climate and Energy Director, I decided to take a year to write a book for the general public, which presents in a simple and concise way the ins and outs of climate change and the energy transition that needs to be put in place. It goes back to the basics that we should all know before we can choose the type of development we want. Basics that many of the actors involved in the definition of the net-zero carbon roadmaps seem to have either forgotten or are not aware of. The 'life cycle analysis' approach is favored: the benefits of the solutions presented are systematically weighed against the possible collateral damage. Want to know more? Download the brochure and do not hesitate to contact me, I will be happy to answer your questions. Net-Zero Impact helps you to define your Net-Zero Impact strategy, find the most appropriate solutions for your sector, comply with current and future compliance with current and future legislation, and save you money by targeting actions that will have a real impact.

Playback time: 2 min max While the use of fossil fuels has been the foundation of civilization for the past 200 years, this has not always been the case, on the contrary[1]. Over 99% of human history has been built on renewable energy (wood and charcoal). Whatever the exact date of the appearance of the human race - between 2 and 3 million years ago - the use of an energy source on a regular basis dates back only 300 or 400,000 years[2]. From then until about minus 10,000 years ago, wood, straw, dried animal dung and anything else that could burn were used as an energy source for heating, cooking, and lighting. This period lasted for about 12,000 generations[3] , or about 4,400 centuries. The first energy transition was then the discovery of fire, which radically changed the lives of our ancestors. Thanks to the cooking of food, which became more digestible, the diet was considerably diversified and improved. They ate better, lived longer, and their brains developed. The second energy transition took place about 10,000 years ago. New sources of energy were used to meet the needs of everyday life: wind to drive boats and turn windmills, water for wheel mills, and to transport goods. This period lasted for about 100 centuries or 450 generations. During this period the world's energy consumption grew slowly and steadily, at the same rate as the world's population (less than a billion people in 1800). Then, just over two centuries ago, came the third energy transition, and everything changed. The credit, or blame, goes to the inventors of the steam engine and its widespread use from 1770. But it was really from 1900 onwards that world energy consumption began to grow significantly: in 1800, it was about 5000 Terra Watt hours (TWh)[4] for a population of 1.5 billion people. 5000 TWh is the energy consumed in 2020 by a European city of about 28 000 inhabitants! In 2021, global consumption reached 173,350 TWh, 34 times higher than in 1800. In 2022, 84% of this energy will be supplied by fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), 6% by dams, 4% by nuclear power, and 5% by new renewable energies, mainly solar and wind power[5]. We are on the edge of the fourth energy transition. If it were enough for each of us to make an effort, like hummingbirds bringing a drop of water to put out the fire, it would be simple. Unfortunately, this is not the case. See next article: Access to energy, a glaring inequality [1] For a comprehensive and extremely well-documented history of energy, see Vaclav Smil 2018. Energy and civilization, A history and Vaclav Smil 2017 Energy transitions Global and National Perspectives [2] The discovery of fire probably dates back 1 million years, but its systematic use by homo sapiens to 400-300,000 years ago. [3] To simplify the calculations, an average duration of 25 years per generation was taken, bearing in mind that over the last 300,000 years the duration of a generation has changed. [4] 1 Terra Watt hour = 1,000,000,000,000 Watt hour = 1,000,000,000 KWh [5] https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption

Reading time: 2 min max More than half of the world's energy consumption is accounted for by a few regions in the world: China (23%), the United States (18%), Europe (14%), India (6%) and Russia (5%). In comparison, the African continent, which includes 63 countries and 17% of the world's population, consumes only 3% of the world's energy. China was at the same level of consumption as the African continent only 40 years ago. From 1980 to 2000, it doubled its consumption; between 2000 and 2019 it quadrupled it. If all countries that are currently low energy consumers follow China's example, global energy consumption will explode in the coming decades[1]. Today, the highest energy consumption per capita per year is that of a Qatari with 198,000 KWh, closely followed by an Icelander with 180,000 KWh[2]. This compares with an American (88,000 KWh), a European (31,000 KWh) or an African (4,000 kWh)[3]. An inhabitant of Chad consumes about 98 kWh per year, i.e. 2,000 times less than a Qatari, or 320 times less than a European! In 2019, 13% of the world's population still lacks access to electricity. That is almost 1 billion people, twice the population of Europe (EU 27)[4] . In concrete terms, this means no electricity for lighting, for cooking, for young people to study at night. Without access to electricity, the chances of improving one's living conditions are extremely low. Unthinkable for a European, but this is everyday life for far too many people. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) predicts that global gross domestic product (GDP) will quadruple between 2011 and 2060, with a shift in production and consumption to emerging and developing economies[5] . It also predicts a near doubling of fossil fuel use and hence greenhouse gas emissions, if no significant innovation is introduced in the meantime. Global material use is also expected to more than double. The use of non-metallic minerals, such as sand, gravel and limestone (e.g. for making cement) will continue to grow. A huge amount of sand, iron and other materials will have to be extracted. Without a radical change in our energy mix and our production and consumption patterns, greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impacts will explode. While energy efficiency and "sobriety" are essential levers of action for rich countries (50% of global emissions are generated by 10% of the population, i.e. 750 million people[6] ), they are inappropriate for 90% of the world's population, which aspires to a better quality of life. The energy and ecological transition is an unavoidable reality, but it must above all be egalitarian, with better distribution and management of energy and natural resources. To achieve this transition, Western countries can tighten their belts, but this will not be enough to compensate for the increased needs. We, therefore, need innovation and investment now more than ever. A recent TED talk by Yuval Noah Harari[7] , supported by Sapienship[8], estimated that an annual investment of 2% of global GDP in clean technologies is needed to finance the energy transition. This may sound huge, but in 2008, to save the banking system, the US invested 3.5% of the global GDP. To fight the COVID-19 pandemic, countries invested a total of almost 14% of GDP. 2% of global GDP is also the number of subsidies given to oil companies every 3-4 years, or the amount of losses linked to food waste every two years. According to the same study, tax evasion amounts to 10% of global GDP. So the problem is not financial, but political. And if it is political, it is up to each of us to make the right choices and not fight the wrong battle. It is also necessary to approach the transition with a global vision - a very large part of humanity has still not been able to benefit from the advantages of abundant and cheap energy - and local actions adapted to the specifications and needs of each region of the world. To achieve this transition, all solutions are a priori good to take, but some are more effective than others. We will see this in the next few articles. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. [1] All these figures, and more, are available on the excellent Our World in Data website. [2] Although Qatar and Iceland have roughly the same energy consumption, their energy mix is very different. Qatar's energy mix is mainly fossil fuels (74% gas and 26% oil), which are high CO2 emitters, whereas Iceland gets 80% of its energy from renewable sources (mainly geothermal and hydro). The CO2 footprint of a Qatari is 106 kg per day whereas it is only 30 kg for an Icelander (even if electricity is 100% renewable, Icelanders still need oil to run their cars and factories). [3] https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption [4] That is 447.7 million people according to Eurostat as of 07/2020. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/11081101/3-10072020-AP-FR.pdf/15ed8ebe-82de-05bc-36e9-fef0faae1e33 [5] OECD. Material Resources, Productivity and the Environment. (2015) doi:10.1787/9789264190504-en. [6] https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf [7] Yuval Noah Harari: The Actual Cost of Preventing Climate Breakdown | TED [8] https://www.sapienship.co

The war in Ukraine will have caused tens of thousands of deaths, broken families, ruined a country, and nothing can ever justify or excuse this aggression. It will however have opened the eyes of European leaders and media. In less than a year, the subject of energy and climate change has finally gained the attention needed to radically transform our relationship with our environment, and more particularly its resources. We are finally beginning to understand that our Western way of life is based on an overabundance and exploitation and combustion of fossil fuels and other natural resources and that these are not inexhaustible. The day will come when we will have to do without them, and that day may not be so far away. This summer's particularly virulent heatwave has brought us face to face with our recklessness and irresponsibility. There is a price to pay for having considered the planet as a natural outlet for all our waste. These two events (heatwave and war) have also raised the debate on the subject of energy transition. Faced with the cessation of oil and gas supplies from Russia, the transition models[1] presented as exemplary and virtuous by environmental groups, and blithely taken up by all the media, have shown their inadequacy, or even incapacity, to respond to the crisis. European citizens suddenly realize that their comfort - and their food - is based on a barrel of oil and gas and that it will not be so easy to do without. In a few months, the world has changed. It is amazing, even frightening, that the COVID 19 pandemic[3] , the war in Ukraine, and the recent heatwave have achieved more than 27 years of COP. During my time at the World Business Council for Sustainable Development as Climate and Energy Director, I discovered a world where a constellation of different organisations, NGOs, think-tanks, consulting agencies, revolved around the Conference of the Parties (COP), which is the annual meeting of states to set global climate targets. I knew about the COP and the involvement of states in setting climate targets, but I had no idea how many organisations were involved in these annual masses. The Glasgow COP in 2021 brought together over 30,000 people from all over the world. What amazed me the most when I attended these meetings was the tireless repetition of the same messages, the same recommendations, the same actions, without ever mentioning the material, social and economic feasibility. It was as if it was enough to repeat over and over again that the world would eliminate fossil fuels in the next 30 years, that almost all electricity would be produced thanks to solar and wind power, that all cars on the planet would be electric, that the use of forests to capture carbon from the atmosphere would make a significant contribution to the fight against global warming, for this to become an absolute, indisputable, undeniable truth. I soon discovered that these truths were dogma. That the mere mention of the fact that these alternatives to fossil fuels could also have negative impacts on the planet was seen as a betrayal of the cause. A difficult situation for a scientist to maintain. For many of these pro-climate organisations, the priority is to convince large multinationals to commit to carbon neutrality roadmaps for 2050, rather than requiring these same companies to properly assess and transparently report their carbon footprint[4] . While it is welcome that in 2020 more than 1000 companies have committed to carbon neutrality by 2050, it is regrettable that only a few are able to publish a credible and comprehensive carbon footprint[5] . Surprisingly, very little action has been directed toward the general public and politicians. Without public consent - and that takes time - and without regulatory action - and that takes time - nothing really meaningful will happen. Ironic as it may seem, these annual masses and conferences on sustainable development have done more to maintain the status quo than to prevent future climate and ecological disasters. There is unfortunately more communication than science in these events. A more positive interpretation is that without all these events, things would have been worse. While societal choices are for citizens and politicians to make, it is crucial that they are made in an informed way. That we realise that all of them have advantages and disadvantages and that these must be rigorously quantified, based as far as possible on life-cycle assessment, in order to prevent today's solutions from being tomorrow's disasters. Most European countries, strongly motivated by the European Commission with its green deal and green package[6] , have now put the energy and ecological transition at the top of their agenda. This is a historic moment, but our decision-makers must be aware of the orders of magnitude we are facing (turning off your WIFI at night is not going to save the planet, not using your car is). Replacing fossil fuels will be long and painful, especially for the most vulnerable social classes. And none of the alternatives available today are 'green'. It is also imperative that scientific facts are given a prominent place in the analysis of the options considered. Through this blog, I want to contribute to the understanding of the issues at stake in the directions we are being led to take and to prevent hasty, poorly documented choices from leading to tomorrow's disasters. I will give an important part to the presentation of facts, to calculated and verified data. All the figures that will be presented in the articles to come are taken either from the most recent reports of international organisations (IPCC, UNEP, IEA, FAO, OECD, etc.)[7] , or from scientific publications published in peer-reviewed journals and themselves synthesising the most recent research on the subject. All references will be presented in footnotes as they are read. I will also share my views, so these will be very personal and contestable To be continued...... I am of course at your disposal to answer your questions if you wish. [1] Like, for example, the one implemented by Germany for more than 20 years, with more than 500 billion invested in renewable energies, total abandonment of nuclear power, but massive recourse to coal and gas to compensate for the intermittence of these energies. [2] https://www.radiofrance.com/presse/radio-france-engage-un-tournant-environnemental [3] The pandemic resulted in about a 5% reduction in greenhouse gases worldwide, a benefit that has unfortunately since been canceled. To avoid a warming of more than 1.5 to 2°C, we would need to implement 5% per year for 30 years. [4] Carbon footprint or carbon footprint is the sum of GHG emissions from scopes 1, 2 and 3 as defined in the GHG https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Climate-and-Energy/Climate/Resources/A-corporate-reporting-and-accounting-standard-revised-edition. [5] https://www.cdp.net/en/companies/companies-scores [6] https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/delivering-european-green-deal_fr [7] IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme; IEA: International Energy Agency; FAO: Food and Agriculture Organisation; OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

Welcome to the Net-Zero Impact blog The objective of this blog is to introduce my consulting activity and how I can concretely help you in your transition towards a net-zero carbon and net-zero impact world (zero pollution, zero impact on biodiversity, zero discharge of toxic substances, zero waste, etc.). After more than 30 years of professional activity in the private, non-profit, and public sectors (notably with the European Commission), I have worked on a large number of subjects: climate and decarbonization, carbon capture and storage, environmental footprint, chemistry and toxicity, plastic pollution, food waste which are now in the news and have become the major concerns of citizens worldwide. Check my profile here To get started, I am going to use extracts from the book [1] I wrote after I left the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) where I was Director of Climate and Energy (2019-2021) to share with you my analysis of the energy and ecological transition that we must implement, including : Why do we use so much energy? Why will it be very difficult to move away from fossil fuels quickly? What solutions are available to us? Why do we need all the solutions together (and above all, stop opposing them in useless debate)? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the different options? How can we ensure that the choices we make will not create the crises of tomorrow? I will also be publishing articles on the above topics with the aim of sharing my views on how we can move more quickly and effectively towards a world without impact. Feel free to share, like, or republish... Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions