Comparing Absolute and Intensity Targets

Reduce absolute emissions over time (Example: reduce CO2 by 25 percent below 1994 levels by 2010).

Advantages

Designed to achieve a reduction in a specified quantity of GHGs emitted to the atmosphere
Environmentally robust as it entails a commitment to reduce GHGs by a specified amount
Transparently addresses potential stakeholder concerns about the need to manage absolute emissions

Disadvantages

Target base year recalculations for significant structural changes to the organization add complexity to tracking progress over time
Does not allow comparisons of GHG intensity/efficiency
Recognizes a company for reducing GHGs by decreasing production or output (organic decline)
May be difficult to achieve if the company grows unexpectedly and growth is linked to GHG emissions

Reduce the ratio of emissions relative to a business metric over time (Example: reduce CO2 by 12 percent per tonne of clinker between 2000 and 2008).

Advantages

Disadvantages

No guarantee that GHG emissions to the atmosphere will be reduced—absolute emissions may rise even if intensity goes down and output increases
Companies with diverse operations may find it difficult to define a single common business metric
If a monetary variable is used for the business metric, such as dollar of revenue or sales, it must be recalculated for changes in product prices and product mix, as well as inflation, adding complexity to the tracking process.

From the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development GHG Protocol.