23.9 Setting Climate And Energy Targets

Why Targets Matter

Setting climate and energy targets gives direction and a clear destination. Without targets, actions stay ad hoc and it is difficult to tell if changes are big enough or fast enough. Targets translate vague intentions such as “we should be greener” into specific commitments that can be planned, managed, and evaluated over time.

For individuals, targets can guide daily choices about travel, heating, and what to buy. For organizations, targets shape investment decisions, product development, and procurement. In both cases, targets are most useful when they are specific, time bound, and linked to measurable indicators.

Targets also signal seriousness to others. A household that commits to a certain percentage reduction in energy use, or a company that sets a clear decarbonization pathway, provides a basis for accountability to family members, employees, customers, and investors.

Types Of Climate And Energy Targets

Climate and energy targets usually fall into a few broad categories. A single person or organization often uses more than one type at the same time.

One common category is greenhouse gas emissions targets, for example a percentage reduction in carbon dioxide or total greenhouse gases compared to a baseline year. These can be absolute, such as cutting total emissions, or intensity based, such as reducing emissions per unit of output.

Another category is energy use or efficiency targets. These relate to how much energy is consumed for a certain activity, such as kilowatt hours per square meter of building area, per manufactured item, or per kilometer driven. They often complement emissions targets, because using less energy usually reduces emissions.

A further group are renewable energy targets. These specify the share of energy that comes from renewable sources such as solar, wind, or geothermal. For an organization, this might involve a target for the percentage of electricity supply that is renewable. For an individual, it might involve a time bound goal to install rooftop solar or to choose a renewable electricity tariff.

Some organizations also set technology specific or sector specific goals. Examples include a date to phase out fossil fuel heating, a target share of electric vehicles in a fleet, or limits on business travel by air. These targets focus on key emission sources within the organization’s control.

Absolute Versus Intensity Targets

A central design choice is whether to use absolute or intensity targets. Absolute targets set a limit on total emissions or energy use, without reference to the level of activity. Intensity targets relate emissions or energy to a unit of activity, such as production, revenue, or floor area.

Absolute targets are more directly linked to climate outcomes, because the atmosphere responds to the total amount of greenhouse gases, not to emissions per unit of activity. A target such as “cut total emissions by 50 percent by 2030 compared with 2018” is an absolute target.

Intensity targets can be useful where activity is changing quickly. A growing company might reduce its emissions per product while total emissions still rise. Intensity targets help track efficiency gains, even though they do not guarantee that overall emissions fall.

For many organizations, a combination is useful. Intensity targets can drive improvements in efficiency, while absolute targets ensure that overall emissions move toward climate safe levels. Over time, climate science and policy trends increasingly push organizations toward absolute targets, especially for long term goals.

Timeframes: Short, Medium, And Long Term

Climate and energy targets typically span different time horizons. Long term targets lay out the destination, for example reaching net zero emissions by a certain year. Medium term targets translate that vision into milestones, such as emissions in 2030 and 2035. Short term targets guide annual or two to three year planning cycles.

Long term targets are important because they align with climate science. To limit global warming, global emissions must reach net zero within a particular timeframe. Organizations and individuals that align their long term targets with these global objectives help ensure that their own pathway is compatible with broader climate goals.

Medium term targets are crucial for credibility. A distant date without near term milestones can lead to delay. Clear medium term targets force action within the current decade and make it hard to rely on undefined future solutions.

Short term targets connect directly to budgets and projects. Examples are annual energy savings goals or the number of buildings to be retrofitted within two years. Meeting these targets builds momentum and gives feedback about which strategies work.

Science-Based And Net-Zero Targets

Science based targets are climate targets that are explicitly aligned with what climate science indicates is necessary to limit global warming to agreed levels. They usually follow global emission pathways consistent with specific temperature limits, then translate these pathways into sectoral and organizational trajectories.

Net zero targets describe the point where an entity’s greenhouse gas emissions are balanced by removals from the atmosphere. In practice, this means rapidly cutting emissions, then neutralizing any remaining, hard to avoid emissions through verified carbon removals.

To be meaningful, net zero targets need clear boundaries and priorities. Most frameworks consider it essential to prioritize emissions reductions within the value chain and to use removals only for the small share of emissions that are not yet possible to eliminate technologically or economically.

For organizations, credible net zero targets usually cover not only direct emissions and purchased energy, but also significant value chain emissions. For individuals, a personal net zero goal can guide lifestyle and purchasing choices, while still recognizing that some remaining emissions may be compensated by supporting high quality removal projects.

Defining The Scope Of Emissions

Organizational climate targets depend heavily on which emissions are counted. Emissions are often grouped into three scopes. One scope covers direct emissions from sources that the organization owns or controls, such as on site fuel combustion or company vehicles. A second scope covers emissions from purchased electricity, heating, or cooling. A third scope includes other indirect emissions along the value chain, such as from purchased goods, transport, use of sold products, and end of life treatment.

Individuals face a similar question about what to include. Some people focus mainly on direct energy use at home and personal transport. Others widen the view to include food, goods, and services they consume. The broader the scope, the more complete the picture of climate impact, but also the more complex the accounting.

When setting targets, it is important to state clearly which scopes are included. Targets that cover only direct emissions can miss significant impacts, especially for organizations whose largest emissions come from purchased materials, transport, or product use. Over time, many organizations increase their scope coverage as data and capacity improve.

Key Quantitative Concepts For Targets

Climate and energy targets often rely on a few basic quantitative ideas. One is the concept of a baseline year. This is the reference year against which reductions are measured. The choice of baseline year affects the stated percentage reduction, so it should be chosen carefully and documented clearly.

If emissions in the baseline year are $E_{0}$ and emissions in the target year are $E_{t}$, the percentage reduction $R$ can be written as

$$
R = \frac{E_{0} - E_{t}}{E_{0}} \times 100\%.
$$

Another important idea is the conversion between energy use and emissions. This depends on emission factors, which express how much greenhouse gas is released per unit of energy for a given fuel or electricity mix.

If $C$ is the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, $A$ is the activity data such as kilowatt hours of electricity or liters of fuel, and $f$ is the emission factor, then

$$
C = A \times f.
$$

For electricity, $f$ depends on the generation mix. For fuels, it depends on the carbon content and combustion efficiency. As the grid becomes cleaner, emission factors for electricity fall, which affects emissions associated with electricity use even if consumption stays constant.

Energy intensity can be expressed as energy use per unit of output. If $E$ is energy use and $Q$ is total output or service, then energy intensity $I$ is

$$
I = \frac{E}{Q}.
$$

Targets can then be expressed as reducing $I$ by a certain percentage relative to a baseline.

Setting Personal Climate And Energy Targets

For individuals, good targets connect lifestyle, values, and what is practically achievable. A starting point is to estimate current emissions or energy use. This can be done through online carbon footprint calculators, household energy bills, and travel records. Even rough estimates can reveal which areas matter most, such as home heating, flying, or car use.

A personal climate target might be expressed as total annual emissions in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, or as a percentage reduction over a set period. For example, someone might aim to halve their emissions within ten years, with specific sub targets for different categories such as transport and heating.

Energy targets at home can focus on total electricity and gas use, or on particular appliances and behaviors. For instance, a household could aim to reduce electricity use by a particular fraction over three years, or to phase out fossil fuel heating by a fixed date and switch to renewable sources.

It is often helpful to break a long term personal target into smaller steps. These steps can be aligned with natural decision points such as moving house, replacing a car, or upgrading appliances, because these moments make low carbon choices easier to adopt.

Organizational Target Setting

Organizations usually need a more structured process to set climate and energy targets. This often begins with an inventory of current emissions and energy use, organized by scope, location, and activity. Reliable data collection is essential because it provides the baseline against which progress will be measured.

After establishing the baseline, organizations typically analyze which emission sources are most significant and which are most manageable in the near term. This helps identify priority areas such as buildings, transport, industrial processes, or purchased goods and services.

Organizational targets are then shaped by several factors. These include applicable regulations and policies, expectations from customers and investors, technological possibilities, and internal capacity. For example, a company might set distinct targets for its own operations and for its supply chain, recognizing different levels of control and influence.

In practice, energy managers and sustainability teams often develop target proposals, which are then approved by senior leadership. Involving operational staff, finance, and procurement in this process increases the likelihood that targets are realistic and that they will be supported during implementation.

Aligning Ambition With Global Goals

To be meaningful in a broader context, climate and energy targets should be consistent with global climate objectives. International agreements and scientific assessments provide estimates of how fast emissions must fall globally to limit warming to particular temperature thresholds.

Organizations and individuals can use these global trajectories as reference points. For example, they can compare their planned emission reductions with typical reduction rates required in sectors or regions. Many guidance frameworks for science based targets provide such sector specific benchmarks.

Ambition also has a fairness dimension. Entities in wealthier regions or with more resources may consider faster reductions, since they often have greater historical emissions and more capacity to invest in low carbon solutions. This does not mean that less resourced actors do nothing, but rather that ambition is distributed according to capability and responsibility.

From Targets To Implementation

Targets are only useful if they lead to concrete actions. Once climate and energy targets are defined, the next step is to design measures that can deliver the required changes. This involves choosing technologies, redesigning processes, adjusting behaviors, and updating procurement criteria.

For personal targets, this might involve planning investments such as home insulation, replacing a fossil fuel car with an electric vehicle, changing diet, or switching to low carbon services. For organizations, it can include energy efficiency projects in buildings and industrial processes, fleet electrification, renewable power purchases, and engagement with suppliers.

It is important to connect each target with specific actions, responsibilities, and timelines. This can be formalized through action plans, budgets, and performance indicators. Without this link, targets risk remaining aspirational statements rather than operational commitments.

Monitoring, Review, And Adjustment

Monitoring progress toward climate and energy targets involves regular data collection and comparison with the baseline and the planned trajectory. For emissions, this means updating emission inventories. For energy, it involves tracking consumption and, where relevant, the share of renewable sources.

Periodic reviews are an opportunity to evaluate whether targets remain appropriate. If performance is ahead of schedule, targets can sometimes be strengthened. If external circumstances change significantly, targets may need adjustment while still maintaining or increasing overall ambition.

Transparency plays a role in both personal and organizational contexts. Individuals who share their targets and progress with peers or communities often feel more accountable and supported. Organizations that report their targets and performance publicly allow external stakeholders to assess credibility and encourage continuous improvement.

Over time, experience with implementation can improve the quality of data and the design of targets. Early targets might be somewhat approximate, especially in smaller organizations or for individuals. As understanding grows, targets can become more refined and better aligned with both science and practical constraints.

Common Pitfalls And Good Practices

There are recurring challenges in setting climate and energy targets. One is setting targets that are either too vague or not connected to measurable indicators. Another is relying excessively on future technologies or external offsets, instead of prioritizing reductions in actual energy use and emissions today.

A further pitfall is ignoring significant emission sources outside the narrowest boundary of control. For many organizations, excluding major value chain emissions can give a misleading impression of progress. For individuals, focusing only on electricity use while ignoring high impact activities such as frequent flying can have a similar effect.

Good practice involves designing targets that are specific, measurable, time bound, and clearly documented. It also includes covering a broad scope of emissions over time, prioritizing reductions before compensation, aligning with scientific guidance, and linking targets to detailed plans and regular monitoring.

By approaching target setting in this structured way, both individuals and organizations can ensure that their climate and energy commitments contribute meaningfully to a sustainable and low carbon future.