Posted on

Efficient And Clean Cooking For Households In Somalia

In Somalia, where climate challenges intersect with economic hardship, a cookstove climate project is creating lasting change. BURN Manufacturing’s initiative demonstrates how strategic climate financing can transform communities while combating environmental degradation.

The Challenge: Why Somalia Needs Climate Project Investment

Somalia presents a compelling case for climate financing, with over 90% of its population dependent on biomass fuels for cooking. This dependency drives alarming deforestation rates in an already fragile ecosystem. The economic impact is severe – traditional cooking methods cost Somalian families up to $50 monthly, while three-quarters of the population lives below the poverty line.

A Revolutionary Climate Project Solution: The JIKOKOA Stove

At the heart of this climate project is the JIKOKOA, the world’s most fuel-efficient biomass stove. This innovative technology delivers remarkable results:

  • 64% reduction in charcoal consumption
  • 65% decrease in indoor air pollution
  • Significant reduction in smoke-related health issues

Measurable Climate Project Impacts Since 2016

The success of this climate financing initiative is evident in its impressive metrics:

  • 350,000 stoves distributed
  • 2 million lives positively impacted
  • 1.6 million tons of wood preserved
  • 3 million tons of CO2 emissions prevented

Sustainable Development Goals and Climate Financing Success

This climate project aligns with multiple SDGs, demonstrating the comprehensive impact of well-structured climate financing:

Climate Action

The JIKOKOA’s 64% reduction in fuel consumption directly contributes to limiting CO2 emissions. Since 2016, this climate project has prevented 3 million tons of CO2 emissions while actively combating deforestation.

Poverty Reduction

Independent research by the University of Chicago and UC Berkeley validates the JIKOKOA as an outstanding investment for families. The project’s success in Kenya, where families save $120 annually on fuel (296% IRR), is even more impactful in Somalia due to higher charcoal costs.

Health Improvements

According to the Clean Cooking Alliance, traditional cooking methods cause 3 million premature deaths annually. This climate project addresses this crisis by reducing indoor air pollution by 65%, with documented health improvements among users.

Economic Development

As the world’s only vertically integrated improved cookstove company, BURN Manufacturing operates from solar-powered facilities in Kenya. This climate financing success story has created over 1,500 local jobs while expanding distribution networks across Africa.

The Future of Climate Financing in Somalia

Since 2016, BURN has maintained its position as the sole carbon project in Somalia, highlighting both the challenges and opportunities in climate financing for developing regions. This climate project serves as a blueprint for future initiatives, demonstrating how targeted climate financing can simultaneously address environmental concerns, improve public health, and drive economic development.

Project Verification

This climate project is verified by the Gold Standard Impact Registry, ensuring accountability and transparency in climate financing. Available carbon credits come from the 2023 vintage period.

Posted on

Climate projects reducing greenhouse gases

Projects focusing on reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can be divided into two main types: nature projects and technical projects.

3.1 Nature Projects

These projects include tree planting and conservation of existing forests. They are strongly encouraged by leading climate initiatives such as Science Based Targets and Exponential Roadmap, and are critical in addressing the climate crisis and the perhaps even greater crisis in biodiversity. Trees are a proven method for capturing carbon dioxide and require no new technology or cost-reducing innovations to be effective.

3.1.1 The Reason We Do Not Support This Type of Project (Yet)

Despite the importance of these projects, there are complexities surrounding land use and the durability of biology that must be addressed. Issues such as the alternative use of land, suitability of tree species, and tree growth under changing climate conditions are important. There is also uncertainty about how long the carbon dioxide actually stays stored in the trees. In addition, many previous tree projects have not lived up to their quality expectations. Higher costs per ton of greenhouse gas compared to emission reduction projects is another challenge.

3.2 Technical Projects

According to the IPCC, it is necessary to remove large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the coming years. Technical projects, or ‘removals,’ are a rapidly growing and exciting area where many companies compete to develop the most effective and cost-efficient methods. For example, ClimeWorks uses giant fans similar to technical trees, and other companies are creating biochar for storage in the soil. This type of project is continuously monitored and evaluated by several initiatives.

3.2.1 The Reason We Do Not Support This Type of Project (Yet)

Currently, the cost of removing one ton of CO2e from the atmosphere using these methods is extremely high, for example, ClimeWorks costs about $1,200 per ton CO2e. Cheaper alternatives include biochar, but they are still costly. Critics argue that these technologies have difficulties scaling up to necessary levels and can distract from the main task of reducing emissions. In addition, paying private companies involves a lack of transparency and third-party certification of climate benefits.

However, we are convinced that the development of this type of project is necessary and are excited to see how the market grows!

Please get in touch at [email protected] if you think we have missed something, we are always open to learning more!

Posted on

Projects Contributing to Reduced Emissions

This is part three of our article series about how we consider the climate projects we support. This part is about the projects that contribute to reduced emissions and covers the projects that GoClimate primarily supports today. 

This category includes, for example, energy-efficient stoves that reduce the need for wood and thus deforestation. There are also projects in renewable energy that reduce the need for coal power plants and those that handle harmful methane gas by converting it into electricity, replacing fossil energy sources. More examples of these climate projects are available here.

2.1 Why We Support This Type of Project

There is scientific consensus that it is urgent to reduce the world’s emissions. Therefore, it is reasonable that at the present time, when there is so much left to do, the focus should simply be on supporting projects that reduce the world’s emissions.

2.1.1 The Technology is Already Here

To reduce emissions, both capital and technology dissemination are required. The necessary technology to cope with climate change already exists to a large extent, but it needs to be spread, financed, and implemented. The type of climate financing that we, our members, and customers contribute to plays a big role here; this is exactly what is needed to speed up the transition. But it’s not just a question of investing money, the projects must be effective and well thought out too.

2.2 Challenges with These Types of Projects

The climate benefit of the projects is often calculated based on hypothetical scenarios, which can be problematic. Changed subsidies, norms, and knowledge levels can affect the projects over time. Some projects may no longer need support due to technical development and price reductions in renewable energy. However, the role of climate financing is crucial. It has historically contributed to economies of scale and price reductions, meaning that some projects no longer need the same support. To manage these dynamic factors, one can choose to support newer projects or specific years.

Despite the complexity of these projects, we are convinced that they can be supported effectively, especially if the right type of project is chosen.

2.3 Projects We Do Not Support in This Category

In this category are projects that we consider to be less efficient or problematic. For example, we do not support the construction of large-scale hydroelectric power plants, as they require large land areas and can have a negative impact on both the environment and local communities.

New renewable energy projects in countries not on the UN’s list of least developed countries are also not certified according to the standard – Gold Standard – that we go by. These projects are often considered to not need financial support to the same extent as they did in the past.

However, it is important to understand the climate credit market and how it affects the lifespan and financing of projects. We still support certain energy projects that would not be certified today, because if we stop supporting certain projects that were certified because climate financing was deemed necessary earlier, it could undermine the confidence in the climate credit market and make it more difficult for future projects to get financing.

We also do not support local projects in Sweden, as the country already has access to financing and relatively low climate emissions compared to other regions. Our strategy is to support projects where they can have the greatest positive climate impact. Even though projects like solar cell support in Sweden can be beneficial, financing does more good when used in other countries, for example, those with a higher mix of fossil fuel sources in their electricity mix.

Please get in touch ([email protected]) if you think there’s anything we’ve missed; we are always open to learning more!

Posted on

Climate Organizations Influencing Society

This is part two in our article series about how we consider the climate projects that we support. This part focuses on climate organizations that influence society.

There are many organizations trying to stop climate change by influencing society in various ways, such as by developing political proposals, organizing demonstrations, or through lobbying. We at GoClimate work for systemic changes just like other climate organizations in this category, but we also support certain other organizations such as Klimatriksdagen (Sweden) and Shado (UK). We choose to support organizations where even small contributions can make a big difference, which ensures that our contributions provide what is called additional climate benefit. This means that we want our money to contribute to a climate benefit that would not have occurred if we had not contributed the money.

In addition, we support projects and individuals where our contribution, in addition to providing direct climate benefit, also indirectly contributes to us getting more funds for further climate work. An example could be sponsoring a climate conference with 10,000 SEK, which not only creates direct climate benefit but also attracts corporate customers who contribute an additional 20,000 SEK to climate projects, effectively more than doubling the climate benefit for the invested money.

Supporting society-influencing organizations is complex. We do not want to support any concrete party politics and do not support specific political parties. But we believe it is crucial to show, among other things through debate articles, to politicians that the climate crisis is urgent and that political solutions are an essential part of the answer

When we support different climate organizations, we believe it is important to carefully evaluate them and try to calculate the benefit they provide, something we think the organization Giving Green does well. The challenge in evaluating these organizations lies in how to calculate the climate benefit they achieve in terms of tons of carbon dioxide. Giving Green uses a method where they calculate backwards from previously achieved results and make a series of assumptions about what proportion of the result for a specific action is thanks to the organization.

A simplified example: An organization drives a political proposal that leads to the U.S. reducing its emissions by 1%. When the proposal is implemented, 1% of the U.S.’s annual emissions equals an incredible 63 million tons of CO2e. To calculate the organization’s share of this, one can assume that the organization expedited the proposal by six months. This means that the organization may have contributed to 31.5 million tons of CO2e climate benefit in half a year. If the organization achieved this with a budget of 10 million dollars, it means that each dollar contributed to eliminating 3.2 tons of CO2e, which corresponds to a cost of 0.3 dollars per ton CO2e. This is a cost-effective result, but the calculation also contains some uncertainties.

1.1 The reason we do not exclusively support such projects

We believe that it is possible to achieve significant climate benefit through these types of organizations. In fact, it can be one of the most cost-effective ways to make a climate impact. As an example, the article’s author gives 50% of their donations to GeEffektivt’s recommended climate organizations and 50% to GoClimate’s measurable and certified climate projects.

1.1.1 Uncertainty in the assumptions

Despite this, there are uncertainties in these calculations. It is not always certain that the organization actually contributed or that they could do more good with additional funding. However, we are strong advocates of trying to evaluate the benefit, even if it poses challenges. The efficiency of charitable organizations can vary greatly, so we recommend supporting organizations that GeEffektivt and Giving Green highlight.

1.1.2 By definition political

Moreover, support for certain proposals driven by these organizations often involves a political stance. This can be problematic for some of our corporate clients. Therefore, it is important to be aware of these aspects when supporting politically influencing organizations.

1.1.3 Measurability

At GoClimate, we value being able to specify the exact climate benefit that each contribution provides. We have seen that both individuals and companies appreciate traceability and are willing to contribute more when they know exactly what their money accomplishes. Therefore, we focus on climate projects where the benefit is measurable, clear, third-party audited, and transparently reported.

We also believe that there is strength in each individual and company taking responsibility for their own emissions. This means that those who emit more carbon dioxide should contribute more to climate work. If someone has caused 10 tons of CO2e in emissions during a year, they should pay proportionally more than someone who has only caused 1 ton of CO2e. This principle places high demands on the measurability of the climate projects we support and it is not at all certain that a specific sum of money will prevent or neutralize an exact amount of CO2e moving forward through these organizations.

However, it is important to emphasize that uncertainty exists in all types of climate projects. In the case of the projects we are discussing here, the uncertainty and traceability can be particularly high, even though the potential benefit can also be very significant.

Please feel free to contact us at [email protected] if you think there is anything we have missed on this topic, we are always open to learning more!

Keep an eye out for the next part in this article series which will be about climate projects that contribute to reduced emissions.

Posted on

A survey on the view of the individual carbon footprint, climate action taken and GoClimate

During the summer 2021, we conducted a survey among all our members who offset their carbon footprint with GoClimate. 552 people participated, corresponding to 12% of our members at that point in time.

GoClimate members are truly active climate change fighters

25-30% of GoClimate members take climate action that goes far beyond their own lifestyle changes and climate funding contributions. In response to the question “In the last three years, have you done any of the following?”, this is the result:

30% of GoClimate members state that they have participated in climate protests, 71% have signed climate petitions, 27% have been in contact with politicians or their municipality with climate-related issues, 25% have asked their workplace or school about their climate work, 21% have contacted a store or a brand about their sustainability work and 77% has made a major lifestyle change like swapping to a more climate-friendly diet, stopped flying or switching fossil cars to electric ones or bicycles.

This is climate action taken by our members on top of their monthly contribution to important climate financing to move away from fossil based energy systems among others.

The view of one’s own climate footprint

In response to the question of how our members view their personal carbon footprint, 74% states that they are working actively to reduce their footprint. 8% say that they would like to, but don’t know how. Another 7% say that they already have a low footprint and have a hard time lowering it more. 8% say that they are not working actively with reducing their footprint. Several members state that it is difficult to change diet and travel habits completely.

The next focus of GoClimate

We gave eleven suggestions on what the GoClimate team could focus on in the future. The suggestions that got the most votes were a carbon budget tool for individuals (57%), that GoClimate increase the focus on influencing politicians and society through creating opinion, petitions and debate articles (55%), a feature that displays exactly which climate projects a member personally has supported and with how much (53%), individualized tips to help reduce a member’s footprint (48%) and the possibility to compare climate footprints from year to year (39%).

Growing the GoClimate community

The majority of the respondents found out about us via recommendations and social media. So please keep discussing the climate with friends, tell them about us and share blog posts and our infographics on Instagram.

Here you can find the results of the 2019 and 2020  member survey on carbon footprint, carbon offsetting and GoClimate.

Posted on

Petitions

Supporting different causes by signing petitions can be a very powerful and easy way of creating change. We have collected active petitions in different areas of the world – browse our suggestions below and get ready to make a difference!

Europe
– Bundesbank, don’t stand against climate action! (350.org)
– Stop big polluters from suing our governments (Wemove.eu)

Global

– Protect the oceans (Greenpeace)
– Raise your voice for Climate Justice – (Greenpeace International)
– Support a #justrecovery (350.org)

–Support making Ecocide an international crime

– Deutsche Bank: Drop EACOP!

Sweden

– Våra Barns Klimat- bli ditt barns röst för klimatet!

– Skydda våra världshav (Greenpeace)

– Skydda svensk skog (Greenpeace)

– Så kan du stoppa naturförstörelse från att hamna i din varukorg – och skydda vår natur – Greenpeace Sweden

UK

– Tell Tesco: Stop forest destruction (Greenpeace)

– Put pressure on the fossil fuel industry by joining the call for climate justice (Greenpeace)

US
– Tell President Biden: Ban New Oil and Gas Permits on Public Lands and Waters – (Greenpeace)

– Demand an end to human rights violations and the destruction of the Amazon rainforest (Greenpeace)

– Big oil polluters should pay, not people (Greenpeace)

Posted on

Untangling the climate vocabulary

There are currently multiple terms floating around regarding the climate and our relation to our emissions. This can be especially complicated for companies, who want to communicate their efforts to do good for the climate, but want to avoid confusion and even being accused of greenwashing. Therefore, it is important to use the right terminology with the right intent. Let’s figure this out!

The way forward for companies include some balancing

What does carbon neutral mean?

“Carbon neutral” is something (like a product or a company) where the carbon emissions it causes are balanced, or compensated for, elsewhere. The result is that no additional CO2 reaches the atmosphere because of this product/company.

In order to call something carbon neutral, we must first measure the emissions that it causes, and make a careful documentation on this (GoClimate uses the GHG Protocol to measure the carbon footprint of companies). Then, efforts to reduce the emissions are implemented. This is obviously important because all emissions need to be drastically lowered to save the climate, but also to demonstrate commitment and integrity. Finally, the emissions that for some reason cannot be immediately abated are compensated for by offsetting (see our previous post of types of offsets). It is also important to note that all emissions throughout the life cycle and value chain should be included, not just the emissions from your own chimney.

There are two international standards which define carbon neutrality – ISO 14021 and PAS 2060.

Climate neutral is often used interchangeably with carbon neutral. Some argue that climate neutral distinguishes itself by including all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and not only carbon. However, the common practice is that non-carbon GHG emissions are converted into CO2-equivalents, to make for a fair comparison and easier overview. Therefore, carbon neutral is in practice usually also climate neutral.

Which direction should your company go in?

What does Net Zero mean?

The IPCC defines net-zero as that point when “anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere are balanced by anthropogenic removals over a specified period”. The Paris Agreement sets out the need to achieve this balance by the second half of this century.

The process for becoming Net Zero is therefore fundamentally similar to being carbon neutral – emissions need to be measured, reduced and balanced. The difference lies in the level of ambition and as a consequence, the execution. The reductions should follow a serious plan to be aligned with the Paris Agreement, which implies reducing emissions by at least 50% every decade. The offsets to compensate for the remaining emissions need to be of the type called permanent removals, which actually binds atmospheric carbon dioxide and stores it with confidence in its stability (see our previous post of types of offsets).

The requirements for what can be classified as Net Zero is an ongoing work, currently driven by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). Their comprehensive paper Foundations for Net Zero gives a solid description of the common ground, and which challenges still need to be resolved regarding this concept.

Climate positive

There is currently no common standard definition of climate positive, and sometimes the expression climate negative is even used to define the same idea. This is however built upon the concept of carbon neutral (climate neutral), and means that what it refers to (a product, usually) has been compensated for with more offsets than it actually causes. This means that the product comes with added climate benefits.

Business as usual

In this context, business as usual means to continue operations as if climate change didn’t concern you at all. We can all do better than this!

Hopefully this breakdown made these concepts clearer to you. If there are other terms you come across and would like to see included here, please leave us a comment below!

Posted on

Different kinds of carbon offsets – a quick guide

Since the start of carbon offsetting, a lot has happened. We have learned more about how we can efficiently and effectively finance the transition to a sustainable society, and these insights have allowed for the offsets to develop in several aspects. Here, we will explain the different kinds of offsets that one can choose from.

Avoided emissions

At GoClimate, we offer carbon offsetting in a type of projects that are referred to as Avoided Emissions. The idea is to prevent emissions which would have been released if it had not been for this project.

To explain with an example: in a village, everyone is cooking over open fires and collect firewood in the forest nearby. The project developer supplies improved cookstoves, which contains the heat and reduces the amount of firewood needed. The savings in firewood (reduced deforestation) is measured, and then converted into a common unit – tonnes of CO2, which can be purchased by those who want to support this project.

Perhaps the most common type of projects that can be categorized as avoided emissions are renewable energy projects. The current (polluting) energy production is compared to the installation and production of clean energy, and the difference is considered avoided emissions.

You can read more about climate projects in this previous post, and on our project page.

One kind of improved cookstove

Another type of project that avoids emissions can be natural resource management, or the protection of forests. Areas which are in danger of being deforested are identified and the protection of them is financed, to make sure that they keep storing (and capturing) carbon dioxide. This has additional benefits of biodiversity protection, but it can be hard to prove that the flora would be degraded without the protection.

Removals

Another type of offsets is referred to as removals. There are two main types of removals, where the simplest form is tree planting (reforestation or afforestation*). Tree planting can have additional benefits for the biodiversity and local populations, and is definitely needed to restore damaged ecosystems. However, although the trees bind CO2 while they grow and live, this will be released at the end of their life. This can happen unintentionally in a forest fire or naturally after 80 years, but this does not guarantee a permanent removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Are there permanent removals of CO2 from the atmosphere? Yes, but it’s costly and energy intensive. These technologies are sometimes called Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), or Direct Air Capture (DAC). The most well-known initiative for this is probably the Swiss company Climeworks, whose technology aims to “vacuum clean” the air from CO2. Another pioneer is Project Vesta, which will use natural wave energy to capture CO2 into rocks (weathering). These technologies are under development, and need to scale up to be really useful.

Climeworks aim to suck CO2 from the air

What should you choose?

What should we focus on? We at GoClimate believe that “if your faucet is running, you should turn it off before you start mopping the floor”, which is why we are offering offsets in the form of avoided emissions. We urgently need to stop emitting CO2, and offsetting is effectively a way to help finance the transition to renewable energy globally. But the scary truth is that as we are not doing this fast enough, we will need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere to keep global warming from spinning out of control. And to invest in it now is necessary for the research and development to happen fast enough for the technologies to scale. If these methods are only available in 50 years, it will simply be too late.

Therefore, GoClimate is currently investigating how we can also support removals as a way to stop climate change. Stay tuned to find out more and be part of the movement!

* Afforestation is the establishment of a forest or stand of trees (forestation) in an area where there was no previous tree cover

Posted on

Capturing methane from manure and saving energy – Biogas project in China

We have now offset another 25,000 ton CO2eq in a Gold Standard certified project! Thank you for taking part in this!

This is our project

In the province Shuicheng in China, this project aims to help small-scale pig farmers to build methane digesters. In these digesters, organic matter (including manure and wastes) are decayed an aerobically. According to the preparatory study, there are on average 4.3 pigs in every peasant household. Therefore, and a standard biogas digester with a volume of 8m3 is constructed. This anaerobic digester can fully handle the manure of these pigs, and collects the biogas generated during the treatment process for heat supply. This meets the thermal demands of the households themselves, by using the biogas stove with rated power 2.33kW each unit. 18 934 of these methane digesters were installed, to the benefit of an equal amount of small-scale farmers and their families.

Cooking on new gas stoves

What was the situation before?

Before the project construction, all the swine manure was stored in an uncovered anaerobic mature management system (i.e. deep pit). Large amounts of methane was emitted to the atmosphere during the manure storage, due to the anaerobic condition in the deep pit. Methane is a greenhouse gas that has an impact on the climate change some 25 times worse than CO2! Moreover, according to the preparatory investigation, the householders were using coal for cooking and heating. This was also releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, and caused indoor air pollution from particulate matter (soot), which is harmful to human health.

The outcomes of the project

The project thus results in a reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in these two ways: on the one hand, the recovery and utilization of biogas from digested slurry in the biogas digester, which reduces methane emissions that would otherwise have aroused from the deep pit storage. It prevents methane emissions by changing the management practice of manure in order to achieve the controlled anaerobic digestion, equipped with methane recovery system. Moreover, the biogas is used as thermal energy to replace the fossil fuel (coal) currently used to meet the households daily energy needs for cooking and heating. The heat generated from burning biogas effectively replace an equal amount of the heat which would otherwise be generated by a coal stove. The combined annual GHG emission reductions for both components of the project is estimated at 50,113 tCO2e annually.

The proposed project will have positive environmental and economic benefits and contribute to the local sustainable development in the following aspects:

  1. To recover methane and substitute the consumption of fossil energy,
  2. To increase employment for the local people through the construction of methane pools and the follow-up service,
  3. To improve the living and cooking conditions and the health of the local people,
  4. To popularize practical energy technology.

Read more about the project in the Gold Standard Registry

A big thanks to all of you for enabling this development!

Do you want to contribute to this, and other similar projects? Calculate your carbon footprint and start your offsetting today!

Posted on

Climate-proof your business

Why should a company act on climate change?

We are all part of the problem, so we can all be part of the solution! Since the causes of climate change are deeply rooted in our way of living, change needs to happen on all levels in society. From the governments setting the right direction, all the way to end consumers who choose what to purchase. In the middle, companies should align with the global goals, and provide products and services which are truly sustainable and don’t harm the planet.

What should companies actually do?

The first step is to understand how the company is contributing to climate change. The best way to do this is to analyze its operations and find out where greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions arise (in production, from energy consumption, or in the value chain?), and quantify the impact on the climate. GoClimate helps companies follow the international reporting standard to accurately measure the GHG emissions.

Once the company knows their climate impact, it is time to set a goal in line with the Paris Agreement to keep the increase of global temperature below 1,5°C. Knowing what emissions are caused in our base year (the first year we measure), we can set the ambition to reduce the emissions. At this point, we also know which part of the business is causing the most emissions, and GoClimate offers guidance on how to reduce these emissions in the most efficient way possible. Then, we can follow up on a yearly basis if the company is successful in reaching these goals.

A way to take responsibility for the emissions that cannot be abated immediately, is to offset the emissions. This is done by purchasing a corresponding amount of carbon credits from projects that avoid emissions elsewhere, or in some cases capture carbon from the atmosphere. GoClimate offers offsetting from high-quality projects certified by Gold Standard. 

Sidrap Wind Energy Park in Indonesia
With carbon offsetting, we make sure that this wind farm is being paid for, to the benefit of the local population in South Sulawesi, Indonesia

What are the benefits of doing this?

First and foremost, we do our part in ensuring a livable planet for ourselves and our children. As if this wasn’t enough, we simultaneously risk-proof our own business by understanding if we are currently a part of the problem, and how we can be part of the solution.

Some other positive effects are:

·      Attracting more talent – employees care about the company they work for! This is true for new hires as well as for retention of the existing team.

·      More customers – this gives an advantage over competitors, as sustainability becomes a key parameter when choosing suppliers and service providers

·      Sustainability efforts also offer a marketing advantage

GoClimate is your partner

Reach out to us, and we can help you understand what this would look like for your  company and offer support based on your needs. GoClimate will be there to answer any and all questions, and make this journey as smooth as possible for you. Get in touch by sending us an email at [email protected]

READ MORE: 

The 1.5°C Business Playbook helps organizations to set a 1.5°C aligned strategy and move to action. It focuses on simplicity and speed and is anchored in the latest science

Science-based targets show companies how much and how quickly they need to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to prevent the worst effects of climate change.