Carbon-CAP Tool

 

Carbon-CAP compound score

20.25

Food

Voluntary - Product location at sale

Potential impact

  Carbon-CAP scores Carbon-CAP weights My scores My weights
Scope 1
Effectiveness 1

Feasibility

Carbon-CAP scores Carbon-CAP weights My scores My weights
Distributional Impact 1
Legal 1
Political 1
EU admin 1
Back Start over Reset

Compound Score

This is the multiplicative score that combines all criteria used in the evaluation.

Carbon-CAP Compound score

Calculation based on Carbon-CAP scores and weights values.

My compound score

Calculation based on My scores and/or My weights values, adapted by user.

Potential Impact

The judgments are:

  • LOW (Red): the instrument is likely to yield a less than 10% reduction in carbon associated with demand for the product/service category due to its effectiveness and scope
  • MEDIUM (Yellow): between 10 and 30% reduction
  • HIGH (Green): >30% reduction

An initial judgment is formed of the potential level of success of the instrument in reducing consumer demand for high carbon goods and services, and the embodied carbon and usage emissions.

The judgments are categorical rather than fully quantitative.

The judgments here are therefore LOW (the instrument is likely to yield a less than 10% reduction in carbon associated with demand for the product/service category due to its effectivness and scope); MEDIUM (between 10 and 30% reduction) and HIGH (>30% reduction).

Scope

Depending on the percentage of carbon associated with a product in a particular sector, a Scope score was assigned between 1 and 3:

  • 1 if scope was 20% or less of carbon of that product in that sector
  • 2 if scope was 20-40% of carbon of that product in that sector
  • 3 if the scope was more than 40% of carbon of that product in that sector.

Effectiveness

An Effectiveness score of 1 to 3 was assigned as follows:

  • 1 if the instrument was likely to produce 10% or less conditional reduction in carbon. This assignment was given to instruments that rely primarily on consumer information to drive behavioural change.
  • 2 if the instrument was likely to produce 20-40% conditional reduction in carbon. This assignment was given to instruments that rely primarily on price signals and voluntary trade sector programes to drive behavioural change.
  • 3 if the instrument was likely to produce more than 40% conditional reduction in carbon. This assignment was given to instruments that rely primarily on regulation and infrastructure to drive behavioural change.

Potential impact

  • Low (red): the instrument was likely to yield a less than 10% reduction in carbon associated with demand for the product/service category due to its effectiveness and scope
  • Medium (yellow): between 10 and 30% reduction
  • High (green): more than 30% reduction.

An initial judgment was formed of the potential level of success of the instrument in reducing consumer demand for high carbon goods and services and the embodied carbon and usage emissions.
The judgments were categorical rather than fully quantitative.
The judgments here were therefore LOW (the instrument is likely to yield a less than 10% reduction in carbon associated with demand for the product/service category due to its effectivness and scope); MEDIUM (between 10 and 30% reduction) and HIGH (>30% reduction).

The scoring system was as follows. An instrument/sector combination was first assessed for Scope.
Depending on the percentage of the carbon associated with a product in a particular sector, a Scope score was assigned between 1 and 3:

  • A Scope score of 1 if scope was 20% or less of the carbon of that product in that sector
  • A Scope score of 2 if scope was 20-40% of the carbon of that product in that sector
  • A Scope score of 3 if the scope was >40% of the carbon of that product in that sector

The instrument/sector was then assessed as to conditional effectiveness (i.e. effectiveness at reducing carbon associated solely with that product in that sector). An Effectiveness score of 1 to 3 was again assigned:

  • An Effectiveness score of 1 if the instrument was likely to produce 10% or less conditional reduction in carbon. This assignment was given to instruments that rely primarily on consumer information to drive behavioural change
  • An Effectiveness score of 2 if the instrument was likely to produce 20-40% conditional reduction in carbon. This assignment was given to instruments that rely primarily on price signals and voluntary trade sector programes to drive behavioural change
  • An Effectiveness score of 3 if the instrument was likely to produce >40% conditional reduction in carbon. This assignment was given to instruments that rely primarily on reguation and infrastructure change to drive behavioural change.

 

Feasibility

Judgements of the acceptability of the instrument for its implementation. The evidence base for judgments of acceptability is based on literature reviews, analysis of existing legal frameworks including the World Trade Organization (WTO), economic analysis of the impacts of policy instruments on different socio-economic groups, and experience within the European Union when applying similar instruments.

Distributional Impact & Flexibility

Does the instrument place the economic burden on members of society best able to bear that burden, or onto the poorest members.

A score of 1 to 3 is again assigned:

  • 1 (a significant barrier to adoption)
  • 2
  • 3 (not a significant barrier)

Legal Acceptability

Is the instrument likely to face legal challenges it will be unable to withstand?

A score of 1 to 3 is again assigned:

  • 1 (a significant barrier to adoption)
  • 2
  • 3 (not a significant barrier)

International Political Acceptability

Will the instrument raise trade concerns that may affect international political acceptability?

A score of 1 to 3 is again assigned:

  • 1 (a significant barrier to adoption)
  • 2
  • 3 (not a significant barrier)

EU Admin - Policy Feasibility

Will the instrument encounter administrative challenges due to constraints on institutional capacity?

A score of 1 to 3 is again assigned:

  • 1 (a significant barrier to adoption)
  • 2
  • 3 (not a significant barrier)