Ashley Jones, Communications Specialist at GHG Protocol, sat down with Pieter Gagnon, Research Associate at the Colorado school of Mines and member of Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s Independent Standards Board to discuss how his background in engineering, economics and policy informs his work. They spoke about his leadership on the Cambium Project, the value of both attributional and consequential analysis in emissions accounting and his advice for those starting out in climate and sustainability careers.

What originally drew you to your career specialty?  

I originally studied mechanical engineering. The technical foundation of my current career was always attractive to me, but as I was moving through my studies, I was always drawn to questions that included economics or policy.

I ended up being able to find a job at the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), which is the intersection of all three of those things: technology, economics and policy.

Being in this space, shaping research questions and performing analysis where those three things interact is both fun and impactful work. I can count myself lucky to enjoy my job.

Outside of your professional credentials, how would you describe yourself?  

On my own time, I spend a lot of time with my young son.

My wife and I are both planners, so we like to talk through all sorts of plans for our personal and professional lives. I derive a lot of enjoyment from that.  

When I'm not doing that, I like to build wooden models of ships because it's very satisfying to do meticulous and slow work in my spare time. I use a kit of laser cut wood, and I shape them and bend them. Some people start from scratch, but I’m not at that level. Maybe that’ll be something I’ll get into after retirement.

What inspired you to apply for GHG Protocol’s Independent Standards Board?  

I have been at NREL for 10 years doing research on the electricity sector and emissions, often advising state and federal policymakers. After researching for a decade, it seemed like it was a good time for me to hop over that fence and start being able to take this foundation and apply it to directly make decisions.  

I had been working with the GHG Protocol informally for several years. When the ISB was being set up, I knew the work was going on, and I had been putting a lot of thinking, from the research side, into the questions coming up, so it seemed like a natural fit to apply. It’s an honor to be able to serve in this capacity.

How do you view your role on the Independent Standards Board?  

I am motivated to help the Greenhouse Gas Protocol execute its mission with an eye towards technical rigor and balancing the optimism and skepticism of areas where the existing suite of standards and guidance can be improved.  

I'm also aware that there are some really good ideas out there that just need a little bit more work. I’m trying to focus on a holistic view and execute the mission.

What changes in greenhouse gas accounting have you seen over the course of your career?  

In the electric sector, which is what I know best, there has been an increasing interest in consequential-style impact accounting, which is distinct from a corporate inventory. People have been trying to elevate the method and bring it into more places where it’s appropriate to apply them. It’s a powerful tool to be able to see improvements over time, and it’s a rewarding evolution to watch and participate in. 

Your research focuses on both consequential and attributional impact analysis within the electric sector. How do these two approaches differ in evaluating the environmental impacts of electricity generation?

Attributional analysis is the one that people are most familiar with. It's essentially attributing or assigning emissions to products, processes or activities within a boundary. It's the inventory that you might be familiar with for a corporation. It basically describes the state of the world.

Consequential analysis is different in that it tries to characterize or estimate the consequences of a particular action. In theory, there's no boundary to it, it's just saying how the state of the world is different because of this action that you took relative to a world in which you didn't take that action.

Both of them are incredibly valuable, and they have different uses. Trying to understand which methodology is appropriate for a particular question is a big part of my work at NREL.

What have you read/listened to/watched recently that taught you something new? 

I'm going to cheat a little bit on this one because it was rereading, but I just finished Robert Caro's The Years of Lyndon Johnson, which is a phenomenal series. It was my second read through, and I certainly took away new things about people, the process of making decisions and the history of the United States. This series really elevates the bar, in my mind, of what an author who is dedicated to a particular project can achieve. It’s not short, but if you have the time, I really recommend it to anyone who is interested in U.S. political history.

You lead the Cambium project at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which creates datasets of modeled hourly data for a range of possible futures of the U.S. electricity sector. How does this work inform your work as an Independent Standards Board member?

Being able to perform this work on the Cambium Project has allowed me to be involved in the creation of data that is seeking to describe the evolution of the US electric sector. There is nothing that clarifies the mind so well as sitting down to translate theory into practice and wrestling with the abilities and shortcomings of the models that we use in this space.

That has given me a balanced view of both the optimism and the skepticism of what our analytical tools can help us do, what they can achieve and where they fall short. The ability to put that into action through the Cambium Project has been really valuable.

It has also put me in contact with a wide breadth of people from governments, nonprofits, corporates, academics and other researchers. That has allowed me to hear and engage with a diverse set of views over the years.

What advice do you have for people just starting out who also want to pursue a career in climate or sustainability research?

The first thing that comes to mind is to read broadly and deeply. There's a lot of really good work out there. You don't necessarily have to perpetuate the existing systems. Sometimes they can be improved. Sometimes there can be novel things that are better. But it does help to know what's out there, speak the language and engage with the processes. It's hard to do that if you're not reading and talking to people.