Difference between revisions of "PACTA versus PCAF"
From Open Risk Manual
Wiki admin (talk | contribs) |
Wiki admin (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== PACTA versus PCAF == | == PACTA versus PCAF == | ||
A carbon footprint approach involves estimating the total amount of CO2 emissions associated with a portfolio. As an output, carbon footprinting gives a single-figure indicator (CO2 emission of the portfolio) and an estimate of which sectors are carbon-intensive versus those that are not. While this approach is useful to help a bank to identify the ‘hotpots’ in the portfolio that need action first, the top-down estimates make the approach a means to arrive at an estimated measurement, not a methodology for target-setting or portfolio steering | A carbon footprint approach involves estimating the total amount of CO2 emissions associated with a portfolio. As an output, carbon footprinting gives a single-figure indicator (CO2 emission of the portfolio) and an estimate of which sectors are carbon-intensive versus those that are not. While this approach is useful to help a bank to identify the ‘hotpots’ in the portfolio that need action first, the top-down estimates make the approach a means to arrive at an estimated measurement, not a methodology for target-setting or portfolio steering | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Absolute Emissions Challenges == | ||
+ | Limitations inherent in carbon footprint approaches for credit portfolios that concern the aggregation of absolute emissions (or volumes of emissions) at portfolio level<ref>Credit Portfolio Alignment, An application of the PACTA methodology by Katowice Banks in partnership with the 2 Degrees Investing Initiative, 2020</ref>: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Aggregating absolute emissions across portfolios is challenging and often time incomplete | ||
+ | * Allocating absolute emissions to a portfolio introduces volatility, which makes it unfit for steering | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Relative Emissions Challenges == | ||
+ | |||
== See Also == | == See Also == | ||
* [[Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials]] | * [[Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials]] | ||
* [[Paris Agreement Capital Transition Assessment]] | * [[Paris Agreement Capital Transition Assessment]] | ||
+ | |||
+ | == References == | ||
+ | <references/> | ||
+ | |||
[[Category:PCAF]] | [[Category:PCAF]] | ||
[[Category:PACTA]] | [[Category:PACTA]] | ||
[[Category:X versus Y]] | [[Category:X versus Y]] |
Revision as of 14:36, 15 November 2021
Contents
PACTA versus PCAF
A carbon footprint approach involves estimating the total amount of CO2 emissions associated with a portfolio. As an output, carbon footprinting gives a single-figure indicator (CO2 emission of the portfolio) and an estimate of which sectors are carbon-intensive versus those that are not. While this approach is useful to help a bank to identify the ‘hotpots’ in the portfolio that need action first, the top-down estimates make the approach a means to arrive at an estimated measurement, not a methodology for target-setting or portfolio steering
Absolute Emissions Challenges
Limitations inherent in carbon footprint approaches for credit portfolios that concern the aggregation of absolute emissions (or volumes of emissions) at portfolio level[1]:
- Aggregating absolute emissions across portfolios is challenging and often time incomplete
- Allocating absolute emissions to a portfolio introduces volatility, which makes it unfit for steering
Relative Emissions Challenges
See Also
References
- ↑ Credit Portfolio Alignment, An application of the PACTA methodology by Katowice Banks in partnership with the 2 Degrees Investing Initiative, 2020