Tools - GreenCalculus

The 2026 simplification of the ESRS topical environmental standards is widely read as a set of deletions, and it was mostly a set of relocations. ESRS E3 was renamed from Water and marine resources to Water, but marine and freshwater ecosystem impacts moved to E4 Biodiversity and Ecosystems and marine resources moved to E5 Resource Use and Circular Economy as a category of resource inflows. Microplastics stayed inside E2-4. Within E4 a large number of previously mandatory datapoints became conditional rather than removed, disclosed where the artefact exists. The version is also a choice rather than a default: ESRS 2026 was adopted on 3 July 2026 and applies to financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2027, and a financial year beginning in 2026 has three routes the undertaking must declare.

ESRS Topical Standard Gap Register

September 8, 2026

The ESRS simplification was mostly relocation, not deletion. Check your position on pollution, water, biodiversity and resource use, and the version route.

ESRS Topical Standard Gap Register Read More »

China's national emissions trading system is not cap-and-trade. The EU scheme fixes a declining quantity of allowances, so its price expresses scarcity under a shrinking ceiling. China issues allowances free in proportion to output against an intensity benchmark, so producing more brings more allowances and total emissions can rise while every participant complies. The obligation ramps in three stages: in 2024 allocation for the sectors added that year equalled verified emissions, giving a zero net obligation by design; through 2025 and 2026 allocation is output-based and roughly neutral across a sector; and from Phase 2 in 2027 allocation is optimised against the advanced intensity level rather than the sector average, which is the point at which a merely typical plant starts to run a real deficit. Coverage attaches to a facility in a named sector above 26,000 tonnes of CO2 a year.

China National ETS Position Checker

September 8, 2026

China’s ETS is not cap-and-trade: allowances are free and proportional to output. Check coverage, your benchmark position and the 2027 step.

China National ETS Position Checker Read More »

The IMO Carbon Intensity Indicator has two thresholds that are routinely confused: the EEXI design-efficiency index applies to ships of 400 gross tonnage and above and is checked once, while the CII operational rating and the Data Collection System reporting behind it apply at 5,000 gross tonnage and above and are recalculated every calendar year. A rated ship receives a letter from A to E, where C is the compliance band, and the required CII that fixes the C-to-D boundary falls every year while the band multipliers stay fixed, so identical operations earn a worse letter over time. The annual reduction factor relative to the 2019 reference line runs 5 per cent in 2023, 7 in 2024, 9 in 2025 and 11 in 2026, then steepens to 13.625 in 2027, 16.25 in 2028, 18.875 in 2029 and 21.5 per cent in 2030. A single E rating, or a third consecutive D, obliges the ship to add a plan of corrective actions to its SEEMP approved by the Administration or a recognised organisation. There is no direct financial penalty under MARPOL Annex VI.

IMO CII Rating Obligation Checker

September 8, 2026

Check whether the IMO CII rates your ship, whether the estimate you steer by is sound, and whether a corrective-action plan is owed. Eight questions.

IMO CII Rating Obligation Checker Read More »

Under ISO/IEC 21031:2024 a Software Carbon Intensity score is a rate, carbon per functional unit of useful work, and not a total for a reporting period. The specification requires marginal grid carbon intensity rather than average, and prohibits market-based measures such as renewable certificates, green tariffs and offsets in both the operational and the embodied term. A score improved by buying certificates, or computed on average intensity, is therefore not a low SCI score but not an SCI score at all. And because the standard does not standardise the choice of functional unit, two scores are comparable only if they share both that unit and the boundary, so a valid score can still be meaningless when components measured per request are added to components measured per user.

Software Carbon Intensity Score Checker

September 7, 2026

An SCI score is a rate, not a total — and offsets are prohibited. Check whether your score satisfies ISO/IEC 21031 and what you may say with it.

Software Carbon Intensity Score Checker Read More »

Under Australia's Safeguard Mechanism a facility that finishes below its baseline earns Safeguard Mechanism Credits, but only if it is not a landfill, not inside a multi-year monitoring period, and not accessing baseline borrowing. Each of those flexibilities is applied for separately, granted separately and documented separately, and none of the applications states that it forfeits crediting. The multi-year monitoring period is applied for to buy time for a capital project; borrowing is applied for to survive a bad year. Neither says on its face that it also cancels the credits. And the two deferrals are not free: borrowing repays the following year with interest, and the two per cent transitional rate covered only the financial years 2023-24 and 2024-25, so from 2025-26 the standard ten per cent applies, repaid into a baseline the emissions reduction contribution factor has already cut a further 4.9 per cent.

Safeguard Mechanism Position Checker

September 7, 2026

A facility below its baseline earns credits — unless it is borrowing or inside a monitoring period. Check which Safeguard Mechanism routes are still open.

Safeguard Mechanism Position Checker Read More »

A greenhouse gas project reduction is not a measurement. It is the difference between what actually happened and a baseline scenario describing what would have happened otherwise — a counterfactual that did not occur, cannot be observed, and is established by the project proponent, which is to say by the party whose credits depend on it being large. Baseline period selection bias sits first on the standard's own list of technical errors: a high-deforestation reference period chosen for a REDD+ project, a high-grid-intensity period chosen for a renewable energy project. Neither involves fabricating data. Both involve selecting, from among real periods, the one that maximises the apparent counterfactual, and the 2019 conservativeness clause exists as the principal counter-text to exactly that practice. Built on top of the baseline is additionality, the central test of whether the project would have happened anyway. That test is answered once, at registration, and the answer then stays on file indefinitely while the market it described continues to move: technology costs fall, policy changes, common practice emerges. The project carries on issuing credits under the original determination, and nothing signals the drift, because the determination remains genuinely correct as a statement about the world at the moment it was made, it was validated by an accredited body against the methodology then in force, no document has expired and no rule has been broken. The process was designed to answer the question once, so no part of the machinery ever asks it again.

ISO 14064-2 Project Accounting Checker

September 6, 2026

Additionality is tested once and assumed forever. Check whether your project accounting assumptions still hold — baseline, leakage, boundary, monitoring.

ISO 14064-2 Project Accounting Checker Read More »

CRREM measures a building against two separate descending pathways, and the two respond to entirely different actions. The carbon-intensity pathway tracks the emissions produced per square metre, so it falls when the electricity grid decarbonises or when clean power is procured. The energy-intensity pathway tracks kilowatt-hours consumed per square metre and is completely indifferent to how those kilowatt-hours were generated, so it falls only when the building actually uses less energy. In jurisdictions with an already-clean grid the energy pathway is the stricter of the two, which produces the position our standards page calls the most common executive misreading: an asset running entirely on certified renewable power that is nevertheless misaligned on energy, because it simply consumes too much of it per square metre. That misreading survives review because nothing about it looks wrong from inside. The carbon intensity genuinely did fall, the procurement contract is real, and the reported number moved in the right direction. What did not happen anywhere is a change in demand. The same shape appears one rung further down in the improvement scenario: the do-nothing projection already contains the declining grid emission factor, so counting grid greening again inside an owner improvement case double-counts supply-side decarbonisation and attributes a national trend to a retrofit programme. Only fabric, systems, heat and demand measures are genuinely additive to what the owner controls.

CRREM Misalignment Year Checker

September 6, 2026

CRREM runs two pathways and only one responds to procurement. Check whether the inputs behind your Misalignment Year actually hold.

CRREM Misalignment Year Checker Read More »

The carbon reduction hierarchy in PAS 2080 is an ordering rule rather than a menu of options, and the order in which its three tiers are asked determines how much reduction is available at all. Avoid asks whether to build the thing and how much of it; Switch asks what to build it from and which systems to specify; Improve asks how efficiently to deliver what has already been decided. The first two dominate the reductions on offer and both are settled before a design freeze, which produces the failure this checker exists to name: a carbon target introduced after the design is fixed can only reach the Improve tier, forfeiting the far larger reductions available at Avoid and Switch. That is a timing failure rather than a failure of rigour or ambition, and it is irreversible in a way that almost no other compliance finding is. It also survives review with unusual ease, because from inside the programme everything looks correct. There are targets. Reductions are reported against them and the reductions are real. Every control around the process reports green. The only thing no control reports is the set of reductions that were never on the table. Beneath that sits the commonest misread of the standard as a whole: teams adopt PAS 2080 expecting it to supply emission factors, discover it contains none, and conclude the document is incomplete. It is not incomplete. It governs the management process, and the numbers come from BS EN 15978 and BS EN 17472 for whole-life assessment with BS EN 15804 for the product declarations underneath.

PAS 2080 Carbon Management Conformance Checker

September 6, 2026

PAS 2080 governs the process and contains no factors. Check which limbs you can evidence — target timing, the hierarchy, procurement and influence.

PAS 2080 Carbon Management Conformance Checker Read More »

The most common error in carbon credit procurement is not buying a poor credit. It is holding a genuine status that describes a different object from the one being bought. The Integrity Council assesses at two separate levels. A crediting programme can be CCP-Eligible, which is assessed against the governance principles covering governance, tracking, transparency and validation, and which tells a buyer only that the programme operates a credible registry and verification regime. A methodology category can be CCP-Approved, which is assessed against the emissions-impact and sustainable-impact principles and tells a buyer that the methodology produces real, durable, fairly counted tonnes. An individual carbon credit is CCP-labelled only where both of those hold at once. It follows that a credit issued by an eligible programme under a category that has not been approved carries no label at all, while the registry continues, entirely correctly, to describe that programme as CCP-Eligible. A conditional approval compounds the same problem: it labels only the subset of credits meeting the Governing Board's stated conditions, so treating every credit under a conditionally approved methodology as labelled is a direct due-diligence error. Nothing about either mistake resembles an error from the buyer's side, because there is no missing document and no false statement anywhere in the chain. The paperwork is real, the seller may have described it accurately, and the whole of the error lies in which level the status attaches to.

Carbon Credit Quality Assessment

September 6, 2026

CCP-Eligible is a programme status, CCP-Approved a category status. Check what your credit evidence actually establishes, and at which level.

Carbon Credit Quality Assessment Read More »

An operational rating is a comparison rather than a measurement, and that distinction decides everything about how one should be read. The building consumes what it consumes; the score changes when the comparison changes. Every error that distorts a Display Energy Certificate does exactly that and nothing else: allocating the building to the wrong TM46 category compares its consumption against a benchmark belonging to a different kind of building; taking a gross floor area rather than the useful floor area defined by the standard inflates the denominator of every intensity figure at once and flatters the result; leaving an atypical load such as a server room or a commercial kitchen inside the benchmark comparison scores the building as though that load were normal for its category; omitting the fifteen point five degree heating degree-day correction reads a cold winter as poor management, while applying that same correction to electricity, which the standard does not weather-correct, inflates the electricity benchmark instead. Not one of those errors alters a single kilowatt-hour of consumption. The separables provision exists precisely to prevent the third of them, and analysis of the national certificate database found only around three certificates in every thousand make any use of it, for want of sub-metering and awareness rather than unwillingness. Separating a qualifying load is one of the few legitimate ways to improve a certificate without changing actual consumption. Underneath all of it sits a structural limit nobody at the building can correct: the benchmark table itself was fixed in 2008 from stock data of that era and has never been revised, while lighting, IT loads and the carbon intensity of the electricity grid have all moved substantially since, so a genuinely efficient modern building can rate merely average because the benchmark did not move with the stock.

Building Energy Intensity (EUI) Position Checker

September 6, 2026

A DEC rating is a comparison, not a measurement. Check which of your TM46 inputs would distort it — category, floor area, separables, adjustments.

Building Energy Intensity (EUI) Position Checker Read More »