A
B
comparison to the benchmark
Click on A or B to compare the companies' trajectories
2050
Emissions in tCO2e
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2040
2030
2020
1.6°C
Company A
5.0°C
3.0°C
2.0°C
1.6°C
2.0°C
3.0°C
5.0°C
Company B
2050
2040
2030
2020
0
60
120
180
Emissions in tCO2e
comparison to the benchmark
Scope 3
downstream
Scope 3
upstream
Scope 2
Scope 1
projection of emissions company A
B
A
1%
3-4°C
>4°C
Relevance
Past trend
Target
2%
<2°C
<1.5°C
6%
>4°C
no target
91%
>4°C
no target
Scope 3
downstream
Scope 3
upstream
Scope 2
Scope 1
33%
>4°C
<1.5°C
60%
2-3°C
<1.5°C
3%
>4°C
<1.5°C
3%
<2°C
<1.5°C
Relevance
Past trend
Target
projection of emissions company B
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
4.0°
2.0°C
carbon budget analysis and temperature score
B
A
1.0°C
Company
Budget
3.0°C
4.0°C
5.0°C
6.0°C
5.4°
Food products
Company
5.4°C
1.6°C
5.0°C
3.0°C
2.0°C
Company A has an ITR of 5.4°C.
This means it would not be classified as a climate-aligned company.
We would call this company a
'burning log' as it will heat up a portfolio by having no credible plans for decarbonisation.
Emissions in tCO2e
Company
1.6°C
Budget
1.6°C
2.0°C
3.0°C
5.0°C
0
1,000
2,000
4,000
Emissions in tCO2e
1.0°C
2.0°C
3.0°C
4.0°C
5.0°C
6.0°C
4.0°
1.6°
Food products
Company
Company B has a much lower ITR of 1.6°C. It is projected to meet the Paris Agreement goals.
This means it would be classified as a climate-aligned company in our portfolios.
We would call this company an
'ice cube' because it is cooling the portfolio by plotting a credible path to meet the net-zero emissions target.
carbon budget analysis and temperature score
5,000
3,000
analysis
benchmark
emissions