I broadly agree with the CISL definition, seeing successful decarbonisation programmes as those which implement emission reductions which are:

• Measurable
• Permanent
• 1.5dC aligned

As 1.5 degree pathways are adjusted through time this will affect the level of outcome required to be justified as “successful”. NB Contrary to The Economist I don’t think we should encourage any sense of abandonment from 1.5dC.

Energy-Field Services – Initiative Success/Failures

• Best-in-class organisations are making ambitious, proactive scope 1 and 2 commitments/initiatives that are realisable, measurable and often draw on their own energy supply suggesting permanence – they are typically the starting point for their relative ease of implementation and where data quality is best and control over permanence is best
• Best-in-class organisations are also succeeding by complying – or getting close to compliance – with 1.5 degree scenarios by fundamentally accepting that reliance on fossil-fuels is a long-term threat to business models starting to crystalise today, thereby pivoting their business model more substantially towards renewables (Orsted, Baker Hughes, etc), in turn requiring deep, senior commitment
  

Challenges

• Wider-spread recognition of the urgent existential threat to existing business models is needed
• Better quality, more accessible data for all stakeholders on total value-chain emissions and sources

– Callum White, UK