Claims

Wit the above explorations in mind, we can summarize findings regarding the claims as follows:

Systems:

No real problem, usually the borders of the system are clear, and when not should be detailed. For instance when a building is referred to, it's the total site that acts as the system border. If only the building envelope is meant, it should be mentioned. In case of cities, the administrative border is referred to, unless else described. In case of a country it's the passport border, including the internationally agreed territorial waters.

Its also assumes that everything in the system is accounted for. If not, it should be detailed or the description changed: built environment in stead of city, if only buildings are referred to, for example.

Resources

Carbon and climate, regularly interchangeably used with CO2 should be excluded. There is no example found that really implies more then CO2 alone. , besides, Carbon and climate imply more then energy related issues, as we will argue at the end of this paper. Emissions is possible, ( similar as Fossil fuels), if all is included and specified what exactly is meant.

This also goes for 'energy'. All others: renewable energy, fossil fuels (if not only oil) , autarkic are possible .

Regarding "energy" : Discussion can be what is meant for instance in the case of (0-)energy: is that "(only) renewables ? or (0- ) Fossil fuels for instance? The arguing for this starts from another point of departure: The actual targets is not to use no energy, which is impossible, life itself requires energy, but from avoiding disturbing the balance in the global overall system: either Climate change (impact) or depletion of a resource ( impact by itself , and cause for Climate change) . Therefore in the case of energy both are addressed: no depletion and no CC impacts. This implies that from the (sub-)system no contribution to either depletion nor CC emissions is expected. This is however theoretical. And with Nuclear fission regarded as depleting resources (ie fossils) , in fact 0-energy is both o-fossils as well as only renewables.

Targets:

So far the discussed targets are usable in most found combinations: we can distinguish three types: 0 versus neutral, and explicit (100%) And the term autarkic is a stand alone claim.

The main item to explain here is what is the difference between 0 and neutral?

This in fact relates to either solving the issue within the addressed system itself, or to rely on outside system resources or offsets to establish the target. And as explained previously, importing or exporting ( resources or offsets) should be established in a secured way, ie with a second controlled system. ( think also of the make and buy scenarios previously described)

Timeline, and partial targets

A 0- or neutral target can never be established at once, so there should always be a timeline developed for when the result actually could be reached. At the moment its very common, especially on National levels, to specify a partial tareget. For instance 20 % CO2 reduction by 2020. The arguing here should be similar , in the way that should be specified is this is established with the 0 or neutral approach ! It seems from a first observation that most countries in fact operate with a neutral scenario in mind.

definitions:

A definition , accompanying the summarised claim, should specify the claim, and include, if not all, references to:

" System borders

" Consumers and sectors

" Sources

" Time

" Space

" Outside system relations/conditions (offsets, imports/exports)

The detailing of systems and demand is here not further detailed, it should be stated what exactly is included. Similar to reduction of demand: that is a general strategy for all approaches.

This leaves us with resources and targets in the following combinations further described:

100% RE / 0 - energy / Energy-neutral / CO2 neutral / 0-CO2 / Fossil Fuel Free

They are grouped this way since they show the two extremes: From the choice for full RE to full refraining of FF . Which is a different choice at two ends of the spectrum. In between the two, are the gradual choices, based on choosing to move toward a renewable alternative to fighting only impacts of non renwables.

The difference between neutral and 0 is detailed as described before with systems borders: 0 relates to solving issues in principle within the system,(compare the make scenario) , neutral relates to interaction with outside system sources and offsets ( compare buy scenario)

100% RE:

complete real-time coverage by renewables, from in or outside system

All is driven by RE: no fossil or nuclear allowed, can be produced in or outside, if outside: RE production is safeguarded, for all system based consumption. (Should in fact only include streaming RE, and exclude biomass: to be elaborated upon in a separate paper)

0-energy:

net coverage over year by in-system RE production

All energy consumed is fuelled by RE production from within system, balancing over time with outside system demand and supply possible, (fossil fuel is literally not completely excluded in mix, due to the working of the balancing mechanism )

energy neutral:

Gross coverage of consumption by RE production: in or outside system, averaged over year

All energy consumed is compensated by RE production, in or outside system. All however only in safeguarded settings. That is, the production or offset is owned by the system, or part of a deal with another system that applies the same energy neutral approach. Consumption can still be fossil fueled ; the system takes care RE is produced at least as much as is consumed by all activities fueled with different resources together.

CO2 neutral:

No gross contribution to global CO2 : In or outside system compensation alternatives and offsets

All CO2 produced within the system boundaries is either reduced or compensated by RE production (is kind of offset by reducing CO2 related energy use somewhere else) , in or outside the system, or offset (by CO2 storage or forestry), following the same rules as energy neutral.

0-CO2 :

no net contribution of CO2 to outside system : in-system compensation and offsets

All CO2 emissions are either avoided or compensated within the system itself , possibly balanced over a limited time period, 1 year, to balance differences in production an d storage,

Here a system approach is addressed: the region/subsystem can compensate in itself, having no net addition to the main system /global scale)

FossilFuel Free:

Full real time refraining of fossil fuels, from in or outside system (energy consuming) activities and products

No fossil fuels are consumed by any activity within the system or by any consumer within the system. The non fossil fuel energy used can come from inside or outside the system, applying the system exchange rules as described before. Offsets for any fossil fuel use are not allowed.

In the table below, we have summarized this, and arranged from left to right. The two extremes are clear choices, either choosing for renewable only or absolute 0 fossil fuels. In between are the gradual steps.

System borders can be set at different levels, and include the whole demand or consumption, or a particular sector, to be defined separately and expressed in the claim.

New and existing built and living environments

Its obvious that in general these claims will be more easily established in a new development as in a existing environment. For a neighbourhood, 0-energy or 0-CO2 can be the target from the start, and examples exist already. For existing environments this requires a long term approach, to improve and compensate for the already existing load. But it is clear from this distinction that all new developments should be 0 or neutral from the beginning, or any attempt to improve existing areas will be made impossible at all: If new areas are not 0 but increase the load, which then has to be compensated by the existing activities, is a sheer impossible task, and makes the claims, if posed , a farce. Any system that uses a claim as here described, should realise that all new developments should be 0, neutral or even contributing, instead of increasing the load.

In other words:

Reducing the load of a certain kind of a system ( city/region) can only be established by improving on the performance of existing activities, or to create a positive balance in the new to develop parts in the system.

Or to import to that system, from a region controlled by the own system ( which is in fact a "new development" with a positive balance, added to the original system). This implies for instance that new construction should always be 0-energy or even producing energy.

Partial targets, like 20%

This applies not only for the 100 % or 0 targets: if a partial target is set, as for instance the 20 pct reduction and 20 % renewables like in the EU, it applies in the same way: any new extension not meeting 0 or neutral, increases the load, that has to be compensated by the existing sector, making it increasingly more difficult and expensive.

Back to practice:

Back to the definitions and claims, introduced by many systems in the beginning of this paper. Without evaluating each of these in detail, it can be summarised that they should be able to answer the following questions, as the most important ones:

Is the system defined, does it include all contributions or from a limited amount of activities?

Is the (re-)source aimed at the same as the (re-)source measured?

Is there a timeline developed for reaching the claim?

Is it stated how possible imports and/or offsets are guaranteed and exclusively?

Is specified what is included, in the case of "renewables" or "Climate" or "Carbon"?