►
From YouTube: Towards Ontology and Blockchain Based Measurement, Reporting and Verification for Climate Action
Description
A guest presentation by Tom Baumann and Henry Kim at the Hyperledger Climate Action and Accounting Special Interest Group on January 26, 2021.
Climate action accounting, often referred to as measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) has many challenges that digital solutions can help resolve. Although blockchain in combination with IoT and other digital technologies can help to address climate data track and trace in support of climate finance and resources to support climate actions (e.g. climate-smart agriculture), there remains the basic challenge that MRV standards, and the MRV standards system itself, is fragmented and archaic. This not only a climate issue but is a major problem of “greenwashing” claims. Therefore, digital solutions also need to be leveraged to support a nextgen MRV standards system to (1) improve the interoperability and cohesiveness of the MRV standards and outputs, as well as (2) expedite a qualitity-controlled process of converting (existing and new) plain language MRV standards into MRV “smart standards” (similar to smart contracts), for example via semantic web ontologies and XBRL frameworks to bridge MRV standards with DLT-enabled solutions.
More about the Hyperledger Climate Action and Accounting Special Interest Group is at: https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/CASIG/
----
Hyperledger – Open Source Blockchain Technologies
Hyperledger is an open source community focused on developing a suite of stable frameworks, tools and libraries for enterprise-grade blockchain deployments.
It serves as a neutral home for various distributed ledger frameworks including Hyperledger Besu, Fabric, Sawtooth, Indy, as well as tools like Hyperledger Avalon, Cactus and libraries like Hyperledger Aries, Ursa. Learn more about Hyperledger projects: https://www.hyperledger.org/use
Case Studies: https://www.hyperledger.org/learn/case-studies
Training & Certification: https://www.hyperledger.org/learn/training
Tutorials: https://www.hyperledger.org/use/tutorials
Webinars: https://www.hyperledger.org/learn/webinars
Events: https://www.hyperledger.org/events
Vendor Directory: https://www.hyperledger.org/use/vendor-directory
Subscribe to the Hyperledger Newsletter: https://www.hyperledger.org/newsletter
Follow-us on Twitter @Hyperledger
Learn about Hyperledger Membership: https://www.hyperledger.org/about/join
#Hyperledger #HyperledgerClimateAction&AccountingSIG #Blockchain
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
C
And
I've
been
part
of
startup.
I've
been
part
of
teams,
management
teams
at
one
blockchain
startup,
that
was
in
the
called
lavera
capital,
which,
unfortunately,
we
we
no
longer
aren't
active,
but
we
were
trying
to
get
a
a
bitcoin
investment
vehicle
using
blockchain
application,
blockchain
and
that
was
at
mars
building.
But
that's
actually
sort
of
sort
of
see
that
sort
of
slowed
down
activity.
C
I
guess
if
you
will,
but
anyway
that's
so
that's
some
of
that
of
what
I'm
doing
and
then
again,
I've
worked
with
a
lot
of
different
blockchain
players
in
toronto.
Some
applications.
Again
I
don't
necessarily
code,
but
I've
done
some
work
with
hyperledger.
One
of
my
co-authors
shivam
had
created
a
prototype
for
hyperledger
based
application
for
toronto
region
conservation
authority
on
their
smart
grids
site
in
marco.
C
B
So
everyone,
I
think,
knows
about
the
paris
agreement
and
even
the
kyoto
protocol
going
back
to
the
late
1990s
so
and
I've
been
involved
going
back
that
far
and
at
that
time,
all
of
the
mrv
that
was
starting
to
be
built
often
from
scratch,
was
really
stretched
to
the
limit
and
being
able
to
serve
carbon
markets
and
climate
programs
and
policies.
And
often
we
would
see
verification
reports
being
handed
in
months
and
months
after
the
due
date,
because
they'd
say.
B
Oh,
let's
have
all
the
verifications
report
done
by
the
end
of
march
and
there's
only
so
many
verifiers
who
could
be
able
to
do
all
of
that
and
the
companies
to
record
it.
So
there's
just
not
enough
resources
available
to
do
all
of
the
climate,
accounting
and
auditing
at
a
very
basic
level
and
for
a
program.
The
the
kyoto
protocol,
which
was
relatively
a
lighter
lift
than
the
paris
agreement
is
today
in
terms
of
overall
goal
and
in
terms
of
complexity.
B
The
the
paris
agreement
is
inherently
much
more
complex,
so
we
didn't
have
enough
resources,
then,
and
now,
with
the
paris
agreement,
it's
a
much
higher
ask
or
heavier
lift,
and
yet
we're
still
struggling
not
to
have
adequate
data,
expertise,
standards
and
all
of
the
resources
related
to
the
accounting
and
auditing
to
mobilize
the
resources
have
the
assurance
and
all
of
the
rest
of
it
in
order
to
achieve
the
goals
that
we've
have.
Overall,
you
know
keeping
within
the
global
carbon
budget
and
being
as
economically
efficient
as
possible
and
achieving
sdgs.
B
So
now
we're
even
in
a
bigger
challenge
with
our
limited
resources.
So
it's
crying
out
for
we
need
to
think
outside
of
the
box
and
really
deliver
solutions
that
are
able
to
to
support
the
overall
strategies
and
goals
of
trying
to
tackle
climate
change.
And
we
know
the
paris
agreement
isn't
the
finish
line.
It's
actually
just
the
the
starting
line
towards
a
sustainable
world
and-
and
so
even
though
the
paris
agreement
is
much
more
than
the
kyoto
protocol.
B
You
know
in
terms
of
the
data,
bad
data
and
you're
going
to
get
bad
results
and
with
all
of
the
digital
systems
that
are
available,
and
we
see
data
doubling
very
frequently
and
that
data
is
a
new
asset
class.
It's
the
new
oil,
but
when
the
data
isn't
used
properly,
it
becomes
not
so
much
a
resource
as
it
can
be
a
a
challenge,
or
even
very
dangerous
and
misleading
people
about
what
that
that
data
actually
means.
B
That
problem
is
is
actually
different
than
the
one
that
we're
highlighting
here,
which
is
we're
actually
improving.
The
availability
and
the
quality
of
data
as
iot
devices
and
sensors
of
all
types
make
data
much
more
real
time,
accessible,
quality
and
so
on,
but
we
can
take
that
good
data
and
put
it
through
a
system
of
sustainability
standards
or
climate
standards
that
have
not
been
optimized,
which
I'll
explain
later
on
in
this
presentation
and
turn
good
going
in
through
bad
standards
equals
bad
going
out.
B
And
so
it's
not
enough
just
to
address
the
data
portion.
We
need
to
look
at
the
whole
standards
in
that
governance
system
to
ensure
that
the
what's
coming
out
is
reliable
and
has
the
utility
and
cohesiveness
and
other
characteristics
necessary
to
enable
all
of
the
stakeholders
to
mobilize
resources
and
participate
effectively
and
and
everybody
helping
to
get
to
the
climb
or
the
paris
agreement,
climate
cools
and
sdgs.
More
broadly
speaking.
B
Otherwise-
and
this
is
one
of
the
reasons
back
in
2017
when
the
u.n
had
suggested-
we
create
the
climate
change
coalition.
There
was
already
concerns
about
greenwashing
and
whether
carbon
credits
are
really
benefiting
the
atmosphere
and-
and
then
we
looked
at
the
general
perception
of
digital
solutions.
B
You
know
are
those
tools
for
troublemaking
sorts,
or
are
they
problems
themselves?
Combining
those
two
concerns
really
had
the
potential
to
turn
off
a
lot
of
stakeholders
about
the
the
potential
value
that
they
could
bring,
because
they're
just
worried
that
they
could
be
misused,
and
so
really
we
we
really
don't
want
to
see
digital
solutions.
End
up
making
grain
washing
look
like
we're,
putting
green
lipstick
on
a
pig,
so
the
key
messages.
B
B
Lastly,
here
in
this
introductory
section,
the
blue
area,
the
top
part
of
this
diagram
is
where
we're
focused
on
the
the
semantic
layer,
the
natural
language
standards,
layer
and
smart
contracts.
How
do
we
create
a
new
architecture
and
some
mechanisms
that
will
then
enable
those
those
rules
and
standards
to
be
more
easily
operationalized
within
distributed,
ledger
technology
platforms
for
different
types
of
climate
actions
in
particular,
because
there
are
so
many,
so
I
will
fly
through
some
of
these
slides
because
we're
limited
on
time.
B
B
Back
in
2009.
I've
been
talking
about
this.
This
issue
going
back
at
least
that
long
ago,
and
I
did
a
presentation
to
the
united
engineering
foundations,
which
are
the
ieee,
the
mechanical
engineering,
civil
engineering,
chemical
engineering
and
so
on
about
this,
this
landscape.
What
what
standards
are
available
in
terms
of
these
levels
of
application
or
areas
here,
whether
they're
generally
applicable
standards
or
they've,
been
made
specific
to
project
types
or
technology
types
and
how
many
standards
are
available.
B
B
This
this
figure
here
is
from
a
recent
communication
by
a
group
of
sustainability
standards
organizations
and
really
helps
to
illustrate
how
standards
and
related
governance
tools
relate
to
the
the
various
actors
and
tools,
so
the
recorders,
the
auditors
and
the
various
digital
solution
providers.
So
it's
really
throughout
that
whole
system
again
in
the
interest
of
time.
I'll
be
very
quick
on
that
slide,
because
there
are
so
many
standards
that
are
that
exist.
B
Many
of
them
are
very
synergistic
to
be
clear
about
that
that
not
all
of
them,
not
even
by
a
long
shot.
I
wanted
to
give
an
example
of
how
these
standards
relate
to
each
other.
This
is
from
the
assessing
low-carbon
transition
initiative,
which
is
jointly
by
the
french
government
they're
a
dem
agency
and
cdp,
and
you
can
see
looking
at
this
diagram
following
the
arrow
from
left
to
right.
B
I
consider
the
the
act
initiative,
which
is
a
composite
of
methodologies
to
be
best
practice,
and
if
you,
if
you
haven't,
made
yourself
familiar
with
the
act
methodologies
and
their
frameworks
and
their
approach,
I
highly
recommend
taking
the
time
to
take
a
look
at
it.
There's
a
few
slides
here
that
talk
about
how
the
differences
of
the
types
of
climate
action
standards
are
referred
to,
so
there's
guidelines
and
metrics
and
scenarios
methodologies
rating
systems.
I'm
going
to
do
this
very
quickly:
physical
risk
and
transition
risk.
We've
only
really
talked
about
mitigation.
B
So
these
slides
are
really
here
to
help
illustrate
how
the
there
is
this
variability
of
different
types
of
climate
action
standards
and
how
that
can
be
challenging
to
navigate
through
and
to
understand
how
they
work
together,
conceptually
operationalizing
them
all
in
terms
of
all
the
data
flows
and
making
that
user
friendly,
cost
effective,
et
cetera,
is
a
major
challenge
that
still
exists
and
then,
of
course,
sort
of
all
of
those
flights.
They
still
don't
come
close
to
covering
off
the
standards.
This
is
just
a
few
more
examples
of
major
standards.
B
B
How
very
I
think
it
was
in
the
last
six
months
for
sure
less
than
that,
the
sustainability
and
climate
standards
programs
that
are
shown
at
the
top
agreeing
to
work
together
to
help
harmonize
the
standards
and
the
frameworks
and
to
work
with
established
professional
associations
like
the
in
the
accounting
and
financial
space,
so
ifrs
to
to
support
that
process.
To
do
to
harmonize
those
standards
and
address
this
issue
that
I've
been
talking
about.
B
B
I
mentioned
I
had
been
working
in
this
space
since
at
least
2009
and
showed
one
of
the
slides,
but
we
talked
about
this.
This
issue
we're
talking
about
today
it
in
the
u.n
process
that
cop
21,
so
that's
2015,
and
I've
talked
about
this
with
the
world
bank
in
one
of
their
reports.
As
a
co-author,
the
blockchain
research
institute,
where
actually
I
know,
henry's,
also
active
as
one
of
the
the
researchers
there.
B
Looking
at
the
body
of
knowledge
and
the
strategies
for
developing
the
the
types
of
standards
which
I
think
will
become
digitally
implemented
in
the
very
near
future
and
and
how
they're
to
be
managed
in
order
to
get
the
most
value
out
of
these
these
standards,
because
it
is
there's
billions
of
dollars
spent
every
year
developing
standards,
millions,
but
they
do
contribute
a
significant
value
to
the
overall
economy
into
society.
So
how
do
we
use
the
digital
tools
to
go
beyond
say?
B
Web
2.0
or
web
tools
like
on
the
wikis
document,
management
systems
and
surveys
and
shared
calendars
and
so
on,
which
are
very
valuable
but
don't
get
us
to
where
we
need
to
be
in
and
of
themselves.
So
how
do
we
pair
up
some
of
those
solutions
with
with
using
artificial
intelligence
to
aid
standards,
developers
and
domain
experts
not
only
on
a
per
standard
basis,
but
looking
at
a
system
of
standards
related
to
a
value
chain
in
a
particular
sector,
for
example?
B
And
how
do
we
then
look
at
the
use
of
iot
and
aei
and
distributed
ledger
in
the
application
of
those
standards?
How
do
we
then,
which
will
be
the
next
part
of
the
section
of
the
presentation?
Pardon
me
which
I'll
invite
henry
to
talk
about
in
the
next
minute
or
two?
How
do
we
then
use
semantic
web
ontologies
and
standards
and
etc
to
bridge
the
the
system
of
natural
language
domain?
B
C
B
C
C
Just
gonna
the
this
paper
that
was
written
and
it's
on
ssrn
for
you
to
look
at,
I
think,
there's
a
link
to
it.
It
just
sort
of
lays
the
overall
framework.
So
let
me
just
talk
about
specifically
tom
spent
a
lot
of
time
talking
about
the
importance
of
standards
and
how
we
consume
and
how
they
could
be
used
in
future
new
generation
information
systems,
and
what
I
want
to
do
is
outline
go
into
a
little
bit
more
detail
into
the
concepts.
C
Imagine
this
is
just
sort
of
a
general
level
architecture,
it's
still
quite
preliminary,
so
we
still
need
to
you
know
interface
with
folks,
like
yourselves,
try
to
get
this
more
concrete.
But
let
me
just
talk
about
the
architecture
itself,
so
there
are
standard
development
tools
like
a
really
good
one
is
is
scribe
which
tom
has
is
great
the
wayne
over
and
he,
but
that's
a
natural
language.
So
the
idea.
So
what
we
know
is
this:
let
me
start
from
the
top
and
the
bottom.
C
The
idea
is,
and
because
I
come
from
the
blockchain
world,
the
idea
is
that,
if
data
that's
used
for
quantification,
that
used
for
calculating
carbon
credits
come
from
blockchain,
then
we
know
that
that
data
is
immutable.
We
know
that
that
data
is
is
recorded.
We
know
we
can
believe
we
can
have
more
faith
in
the
fidelity
of
that
data,
so
we
know-
and
if
I
think,
of
establishing
preaching
to
acquire
I'm
sure
with
this
group
that
we
believe
that
blockchain
has
a
role
in
in
climate
science
and
climate
change.
C
How
do
we
take
that
data?
Be
meaningful
data?
That's
pulled
I'll,
be
meaningful,
not
just
meaningful,
for
an
audit
for
the
calculation
quantification
of
carbon,
but
done
in
a
more
standardized
way
so
that
it's
not
just
not
so
that
not
every
single
implementation
of
use
of
blockchain
for
quantification
is
a
one-off
kind
of
can
make
it
general.
How
can
we
make
it
more
standardized
and
that's
the
whole
idea
again?
C
Thomas
p,
who's
speaking
about
standards
right,
so
the
this
this
architecture
says
this
is
possibly
one
way
in
which
we
could
actually
make
this
data,
be
standardized,
make
it
more
relevant
and
then
actually
make
it
relevant
for
the
high
level
natural
language
standards
that
people.
Think
of
so
what
this
architecture
says
is:
let's
create
these
different
modules
that
sort
of
connect
these
natural
language
standards
to
the
specific
data,
that's
coming
out
of
blockchain
and
they
could
be
different
implementations
of
blockchain.
C
So
what
we
then
do
is
take
a
tool
like
a
a
scribe
hub
which
puts
constraints
and
which
actually
allows
standards
to
be
developed
in
a
more
constrained,
more
systematic
way
and
then
take
that
a
step
further
and
convert
these
these,
which
are
natural
language
to
different
types
of
ontologies.
What
ontologies
are
and
they're
going
to
use
as
intermediate
means
they
are
computational
expressions
oftentimes
in
things
like
first
order
logic
or
different
semantic
web
ontologies.
C
But
the
point
here
is
that
they
express
concepts
or
what
the
standards
are
in
a
way
that
actually
leads
to
unambiguous
interpretation.
So
this
is,
this
is
natural
language.
This
is
computer
code.
An
expression
here
requires
a
human
being
to
sort
of
interpret
using
judgment.
An
expression
here
leads
to
a
usually
sort
of
very
black
and
white
answer.
Yes,
this
is
true.
No,
this
is
not
true.
C
So
somehow
we
have
to
we're
still
working
on
this
convert
these
natural
language
expressions
into
ghg
ontologies,
and
I
separate
them
into
two
methodology:
ontologies
that
actually
constrain
how
an
audit
would
take
place
and
verification
ontologies
that
actually
are
used
to
they're
they're,
actually
used
to
determine,
for
instance,
the
calculation
of
of
carbon
credits.
So,
oh
sorry,
sorry,
I
have
that
backwards.
C
The
verification
the
methodology
ontologies
are
used
to
actually
this
to
see
these
ontologies
be
used
to
actually
calculate,
for
instance,
how
much
the
carbon
credits
were,
and
this
is
what
basically,
what
a
someone
who
quantifies
output
would
actually
what
what
they
use
in
their
heads.
This
would
sort
of
express
computation.
This
is
almost
like
an
expert
system.
The
verification
ontologies
are
actually
used
to
discern
whether
those
audits
occur,
whether
the
systems
in
place
are
actually
appropriate.
C
So
these
these
there
are
two
different
types
of
ontologies,
but
they
both
need
to
exist
because
there
are
two
different
types
of
standards,
one
that
says:
how
should
an
auditor
do
the
quantification
and
one
that
says,
was
this
audit
appropriate?
Do
they
have
systems
in
place?
So
I
discern
there
are
two
different
types
of
ontologies
that
are
required.
C
The
idea
that
is
to
take
this
intermediate
step
from
natural
language
to
computational,
ontologies
and
then,
furthermore,
take
those
complementation,
computational
ontologies,
which
are
in
not
necessarily
which
is
in
the
language,
not
necessarily
specific
to
a
particular
domain
and
then
convert
them
into
platform
dependent
smart
contracts.
So
the
idea
is
that
we
would
actually
have
a
methodology
that
would
be
expressed
in
an
ontology
based
language
and
then
convert
them
into
use
that
to
convert
into
iota
smart
contracts
or
use
that
and
then
manually
convert
into
energy
web
chain
or
a
fabric.
C
C
What
would
happen
is
that
every
implementation,
every
quantification,
using
these
blockchains
using
iota
or
energy
web
chain
or
a
hyperledger
fabric,
would
lead
to
some
knowledge
being
gleaned
from
this
and
then
being
converted
back
into,
and
embellishing
these
specific
ontologies
at
the
next
iteration
when
an
audit
would
occur,
quantification
would
occur.
These
ontologies
would
then
actually
have
more
knowledge
more
data,
and
they
would
in
turn
be
converted
into
smart
contracts.
So.
C
Is
quite
you
know,
I'm
not
entirely
sure
how
this
would
occur
and
this
would
probably
be
very
manual,
but
the
thinking
that
is
that
this
intermediate
step
of
having
these
ontologies
makes
these
standards
more
computational
right,
as
opposed
to
taking
a
standard
and
immediately
converting
using
the
you
know,
picking
the
brains
of
the
auditor
and
converting
it
into
a
tango
code
or
hyperledger
fabric
code
that
actually
helps
with
the
quantification
or
the
audit.
You
convert
them
into
platform,
independent
ontologies,
which
then
are
more
persistent
and
mature
right.
C
C
And
here
was
actually
the
other
again,
I'm
assuming
that
some
of
you
are
technical,
and
this
is
more
thinking
about.
How
would
that
work?
How
would
I
take
ontologies
that
are
expressed
in
a
platform,
independent
language
and
that
express
rules
and
logic
and
convert
them
into
blockchain?
So
I
we've
sort
of
thought
about
four
processes
for
the
interest
of
time.
I
think,
if
you
want
to,
I
could
have
a
separate
discussion,
it's
in
the
paper,
but
that's
one
of
the
things
that
we
looked
at,
but,
what's
I
think,
more
relevant?
C
Is
this
model
here?
What
we
need
to
do
in
order
to
get
this
going
is
so
right
now,
if
you're
a
blockchain
person,
I'm
assuming
many
of
you
are
right
now,
when
you
talk,
think
about
blockchain,
you're,
really
interested
in
a
very
low
level,
syntactic
level,
so
you're
interested
in
ibc
and
atomic
swaps,
people
that
are
looking
at
blockchain
interoperability,
they're
concerned
at
the
very
low
level.
The
syntactic
level
at
the
structural
level
is
the
platform
itself.
C
In
order
for
this
vision
that
we
just
laid
out
to
occur,
we
need
to
start
developing
data
models
so
supply.
You
know
I've
said
at
the
semantic
layer,
supply
chain
data
models,
agriculture,
data
models,
payment
data
models,
so
here,
if
you,
if
you're
going
to
realize
this
vision,
one
of
the
first
things
we
probably
have
to
do
is
not
just
have
a
standard
is
also
develop.
C
None
of
this
actually
every
single
layer
is
quite
difficult
and
I
think
it
just
needs
and
and
the
more
you
do
it,
the
more
reusable
it
becomes,
but
one
of
the
things
I
want
to
point
to
what
I'll
leave
with
you,
because
many
of
your
hyperledger
people
is
what
you
know
if
you're,
if
you're
thinking
as
a
hyperledger
person,
what
we
have
to
figure
out
is
how
does
this
occur?
What
do
these
verification
ontologies
look
like?
Are
there
existing
industry,
specific
data
models
and
then
can
we
effectively?
C
You
know,
do
an
iteration
of
this
process
where
we
take
these
ontologies.
You
know,
write
smart
contracts
or
chain
code
for
hyper
ledger.
Have
it
not
be
hey?
I
thought
about
something
I
just
wrote
the
chain
code
for
it
today,
but
have
it
be
into
a
modular
approach?
Here's
ghg
methodology
ontology
here's
a
class
of
smart
contra,
here's
a
ghg
methodology,
ontology,
here's,
a
hyperledger,
specific
oil
and
gas
industry
model.
Putting
those
together
write
some
apis
or
interfaces
so
that
we
start
writing
chain
code
that
actually
apply
the
chain
code.
C
That
embodies
the
methodology
anthologies
for
oil
and
gas,
and
that
is
then
usable,
as
is
for
a
blockchain
that
uses
hyperledger.
That
actually
does
the
quantification
and
the
verification
I'll
stop
there,
because
it's
probably
lots
of
unclear
things.
I
said
I'm
assuming
we
still
need
to
to
work
on
that,
but
you
know
I'll
leave
it
there,
it's
probably
as
technical
as
I'm
gonna
get
today.
B
Thanks
very
much
henry
and
it
is
there's.
I
hope
there
is
a
lot
of
questions
that
we
could
that
maybe
have
some
time
and
we're
over
time
already
to
tackle
while
we're
on
the
the
zoom
together,
although
we
could
also
do
it
via
the
list
serve
afterwards.
I
wrote
a
pretty
plain
language
explanation
of
the
presentation
posted
it
on
linkedin,
but
and
it's
generated
some
good
discussion.
B
A
D
Anyone
else
have
questions.
I
see
that
mark
has
his
hand
up.
I
was
mostly
just
gonna
ask
a
question
to
see
if
you
can
create
a
an
example
of
how
you
go
from
the
so
that
we
know
what
some
of
these
layers
would
look
like
on
the
standards
natural
language
process
at
the
top
layer,
and-
and
some
of
them
are
the
computational
ontologies.
C
B
Yeah,
so
to
the
some
of
the
points
that
you
had
raised,
henry
like
having
an
appropriate
taxonomy
and
data
models
at
the
climate
action
in
the
climate
action
space
and
then
more
particular
to
specific
types
of
of
climate
action.
So
what
we've
done
in
a
different
project
with
digital
mrv
is
very
simple:
landfill
gas,
methane
capture
and
utilization
for
electricity.
B
That
type
of
specific
climate
action
we
would
have
to
there
are
already
certain
taxonomies,
because
that
type
of
activity
relates
not
just
carbon
credits,
which
this
project
is,
but
also
how
the
waste
sector
and
landfills
contribute
to
the
national
greenhouse
gas
emissions
inventory
and
then
there's
all
the
climate
finance
with
it
as
well.
So
we
would
first
need
to
create
at
an
example
at
that
level,
and
then
how
do
each
of
the
sort
of
taxonomical
terms?
How
does
it
fit
in
that
that
hierarchy
relate
to
the
existing
standards?
B
C
D
C
What
I
would
do
is,
I
would
take
statements,
paragraphs
from
the
standards.
Okay,
which
are
natural
language,
place
some
constraints
on
it,
and
I
would
develop
an
ontology
that
has
specific
terms
and
draws
relationships.
So
let's
say,
if
the
you
know,
I
I
I
would
take
a
statement
and-
and
I
create
sort
of
first
order
logic
or
some
very
unambiguous,
if-then
statement
from
this
natural
language
statement
right
that
would
be
coded
in
what
would
be
considered
cementogramentology
language.
First,
there
are
logic,
sparkle,
I
think
owl.
C
We
then
take
that,
and
I
would
then
take
that
make
some
assumptions
and
develop
smart
contracts
if
it's
ethereum,
that's
easy
if
it's
chain
code
convert
smart
contracts
and
and
and
in
the
language
of
the
specific
platform.
Okay.
So
what
are
the
things
one
would
have
to
consider?
Well,
how
do
you
do
that,
because
what
an
ontology
does
is
it
actually
does
it's
an
if-then
statement
or
this
causal
reasoning?
C
Okay,
so
very
technically
one
of
the
things
we've
considered
is
how
do
you,
when
you
actually
have
an
audit
right
and
some
data
come
in
and
you
have
you
know
you're
trying
to
do
quantification?
Are
you
trying
to
do
find
out?
If
quantification
is,
I
think,
the
big
one
but
find
out
if
some
constraints
have
been
satisfied?
Does
this
site
have
these?
Does
this
side
have
these
particular
procedures
in
place?
C
Has
this
standard
been
satisfied
and
getting
the
data
from
the
blockchain
right
and
then
running
inference
to
find
out
if,
if
certain
constraints
like,
for
instance,
running
inference
here,
for
instance,
to
figure
out
the
quantification
of
a
carbon
outcome
right
again,
I
get
a
little
bit
too
wonky.
I
apologize,
but
let
me
step
back
what
we're
saying
is
that
the
data
come
in
at
the
blockchain
and
because
it's
blockchain,
you
can't
do
computation.
You
can't
necessarily
do
high
scale
compliance
checking
here.
C
The
idea,
then,
is
that
that
would
be
done
by
the
ontologies
and
that
will
be
done
off-chain.
So,
what's
not
shown
here
is
probably
some
implementation,
which
is
some
on-chain
right,
which
would
be
directly
on-chain
blockchain
platform
that
would
be
directly
interfacing.
With
these
data
generation
at
the
individual
facilities
and
some
off-chain
complications
computations
that
are
probably
occurring
using
ontologies.
B
A
Yeah,
thank
you
very
much.
I
was
just
presenting
actually
on
itu
forum
and
looking
at
the
development
of
the
erc
standards
that
have
led
to
all
this
tokenization
and
I
was
kind
of
exploring
their
approach
on
just
github
and
thinking
around
how
blockchain
could
be
used
in
having
more
decentralized
standard
making.
C
Fully
on
chain,
thank
you
ever
so,
and
then
difficulty
conceptual
difficulty
of
using
blockchain
for
decentralized
consensus
for
standards
is
that
the
domain
space
is
very
large,
like
when
you're
talking
about
consensus,
for
instance,
or
something
straightforward
as
bitcoin
or
ethereum
you're,
drawing
a
consensus
on
the
state
of
the
system.
Like
it's
basic,
it's
a
pretty
easy.
C
It's
a
pretty
easy
algorithm
to
run
to
discern
that
right.
Whereas
if
you're
talking
about
running
blockchain
it'd
be
it's
so
it
would
be
computationally
inefficient
to
run
the
blockchain
to
achieve
consensus.
There's
other
means
of
achieving
consensus
than
using
a
very
expensive
blockchain
to
do
that.
What
tom
has
in
place
with
scribe
hub?
That
is
a
way
of
achieving
consensus,
which
is
which
is
tractable,
because
it's
basically
saying
hey
lots
of
people.
Have
you
looked
at
this?
B
B
C
Yeah
yeah,
thank
you
for
yeah
point
out.
So
blockchain
is
overkill
to
achieve
consensus
on
information
like
consensus
to
to
have
an
organic
development
of
a
document.
It's
just
it's
not
necessarily
and
of
itself
necessary
for
that,
so
it
just
you
know.
I
think
there
are
better
ways
of
doing
that.
I
think
what
tom
talks
about
as
a
fair
point
is
once
that
artifact
is
is
developed
jointly
is.
Can
you
find
some
mechanism
by
which
you
could
you
can
tokenize
that
artifact
based
upon
the
quality,
the
input
into
it?
C
That's
which
and
then
once
you've
done
that
then,
if
the,
if
the
standard
itself
is
used
and
it's
monetized,
then
you
can
actually
allocate
correctly
based
upon
the
contribution
of
that
and
that
for
for
doing
that,
time's
absolutely
correct,
and
I
think
it's
a
great
vision.
You
could
actually
use
the
blockchain
and
and
do
that
and
that's
an
example
of
tokenizing,
that
information
asset
relative
to
value
the
contribution
of
the
people.
E
Okay,
hi
hi
everybody.
Yes,
I
just
okay.
My
name
is
marco,
I'm
calling
from
brussels,
and
can
you
hear
me
it's
okay?
Yes,
okay,
yes
calling
from
brussels
and,
first
of
all,
thank
you
very
much.
I
think
it
was
a
very,
very
interesting
discussion,
I'm
not
a
technical
expert
on
blockchain.
So
perhaps
I
missed
a
lot
of
technical
details,
but
just
to
introduce
myself,
I'm
a
guy
who
has
been
working
for
many
years
on
traditional
mrv,
monetary
reporting
and
verification.
E
I
work
in
the
european
commission.
I
work
in
dg
climate,
of
course,
I'm
here
only
in
my
personal
capacity,
but
it's
really
fascinating
to
look
all
the
potential
all
these
possibilities
that
these
application
of
blockchain
could
really
bring
to
climate
policy.
I
just
would
like.
I
just
have
a
comment
and
perhaps
a
question,
a
comment.
E
My
question,
of
course,
not
being
a
technical
expert.
I
really
anyhow,
I
really
see
the
importance
of
what
we
are
going
to
do
putting
together
here.
No
just
my
question
is
really:
if
you
look
at
the
real
world,
I
mean
we
all
know
that
technical
standards
are
not
just
the
result
of
technical
discussion.
E
Technical
standards
also
a
kind
of
compromise
among
extremely
powerful
and
strong
economic
interests,
political
interest,
geo
geopolitical
interest
as
well,
and
just
look
at
what
what
china
is
doing
in
isil,
I
mean
just
to
see
how
they
are
progressing
really
in
trying
to
be.
You
know
the
most
important
tc
committee
I
mean
so
I
mean
looking
at
the
real
world
situation.
B
I
know
I
so
that
my
understanding
of
iso,
having
been
involved
there
for
20
years
almost
is
that
it's.
It
is
conformant
with
the
wto's
technical
barrier
to
trade,
annex
and
setting
up
standards
so
that
they
aren't
trade
barriers,
non-technical
trade
barriers
and
that
the
standards
were
and
then
such
organizations
were
set
up
to
avoid
trade
wars
and
trade
regulations
that
introduce
so
much
inefficiencies
to
the
global
economy.
B
So
there's
certainly
an
understanding
of
that
dimension
that
you
talked
about,
at
least
from
my
perspective,
in
in
how
standards
are
created
and
their
role.
But
again,
if
we
can
separate
out
to
the
extent
possible
the
the
technical
elements
that
could
be
facilitated
with
these
digital
solutions
and
have
minimal
pressure,
non-technical
pressure
on
them
as
scientists
or
you
know,
realists
in
order
to
help
us
achieve
our
goals
of
you-
know
sustainable
planet
within
carbon
budgets
and
water
budgets
and
everything
else.
B
E
If,
if
I
may,
I
see
your
port,
but
myself
being
a
regulator,
I
mean
working
working
with
standards.
Of
course
I
can
really
see
the
beauty
of
your
technical
scientific
approach,
but
then
I
mean,
let's
be
frank-
I
mean
standards
are
the
result
of
economic
interest,
are
not
only
of
technical
specification
because
I
don't
know
the
u.s
or
I
put
as
china,
but
all
the
most
strategic
oriented
countries
in
the
world.
B
Oh,
I
fully
expect
to
be
hunted
down
for
trying
to
disrupt
the
current
system
because
of
the
economic
interest
that
you
speak
to
and
some
of
them.
Those
interests
are
totally
understandable,
like
equity,
but
we
know
that
that's
not
the
way
the
world
is
right
now
and
then
people
who
are
benefiting
are
going
to
be
upset
by
any
changes
to
that
status
quo,
but
I
think
standards
are
also
being
developed
for
consumer
safety.
We
don't
want
something
to
blow
up
on
us
or
human
health.
How
do
we
define
that?
Is
it?
B
E
E
C
B
B
A
A
What
what
are
the
I
guess,
what
what
do
you
anticipate
will
be
the
next
steps,
because
obviously
there's
some
sort
of
structural
group
that
you
want
to
spin
up
to
support
this
or
release
karate
existing
groups
together
to
start
thinking
about
this,
and
so
you
know
as
again
it's
still
early,
but
it's
it
sounds
like
it
could
be
a
great
initiative
to
get
behind,
and
so
what
would
be
the
the
weight
in
which
to
do
that?
At
this
point,.
B
Tom
thanks
connor,
I
think
that's
a
great
question
and
point
to
raise
and
that
there
are
parallel,
multiple
parallel
ways
forward
sort
of
at
a
technical
level
in
terms
of
the
solution
helping
to
flesh
that
out
in
more
details.
What
are
the
options
and
pros
and
cons,
and
all
of
that
and
then
there's
sort
of
the
non-technical
social
buy-in
that
marco
helped
to
highlight.
B
B
What
does
that
sort
of
scenario
look
like
and-
and
so
there's
going
to
be-
I
guess
a
third
pathway,
I'm
sort
of
getting
to
is
coming
up
with
some
of
those
sort
of
endpoints
or
visions
that
we
would,
I
think,
are
mutually
agreeable
to
work
towards
and
then
more
tactically.
How
do
we
get
their
technical
non-technical
eyes?
A
C
So
technically,
actually
I
just
put
this
into
to
sort
of
getting
at
the.
I
thank
you
very
much
time
because
I
think
to
sort
of
implement
that
what
tom
just
said
in
a
technical
level.
I
think
this
is
what
I
would
probably
probably
want
to
do,
but
with
the
top
down
and
bottom
up
so
bottom
up.
What
I
mean
is
you
have
to
exist,
particularly
if
there's
code?
That
actually
does
some
of
this
I
mean,
especially
since
this
is
a
hyperledger
group
that
would
be
useful,
so
a
bottom-up
approach
right
so
getting
together.
C
People
with
knowledge
who've
done
this
before,
especially
if
they've
used
hyper
ledger
and
to
see
what
what
their
code
looks
like
or
what
issues
they
had
to
counter
and
then
top
down
would
be
to
what
I
just
started
to
do.
A
bit
started
with
tom
is
to
take
a
look
at
existing
standards
and
then
start
converting
them
into
ontologies.
Ultimately,
to
say
how
would
a
standard
that
exists?
Natural
language
look
like
as
hyper
letter
chain
code
right
so
do
those
simultaneously,
so
you
get
a
sense
of
what
that
scale
is.
I.
C
D
Know
yeah,
if
I
may
kind
of
follow
to
connor's
comment
and
well,
you
have
a
slide
up.
Henry
is
my
first
question
was:
was
whether
there
was
exhibits
so
that
we
can
show
what
does
it?
What
does
this?
The
the
natural
language
standard
look
like
in
scribe
hub?
What
does
it
look
like
as
a
methodology,
ontology
and
and
and
and
in
in
a
smart
contract
language
a
bit
of
a
rosetta
stone
of
expressing
it
in
different
ways
without
exhibits?
D
Perhaps
one
thing
that
I
that
I'd
be
think
would
be
interesting
for
us
to
do
here
at
the
sig,
is
use
this
framework
and
and
run
through
the
process
and
take
one
example:
either
with
a
project.
That's
already
using
a
fabric
like
like
henry
mentioned
and
start
using
scribe
hub
to
it
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
be
a
a
full
already
deployable,
but
but
almost
like
a
tutorial
on
on
the
different
steps
of
going
through
it
just
so
that
we
could
show
how
that
vertical
integration
would
would
work.
D
Thinking
also
on
alex's
comment
on.
You
know
ideas
for
the
standards
working
group
here,
I'm
wondering
if,
if
tom
you
and
and
henry
would
would
find
that
of
use,
we
would
just
look
at
either
existing
project
or
a
mock
project
that
we
could
use,
select
the
standard
from
there's
so
many
to
choose
and
and
see
if
we
can
work
in
an
open
way
using
the
sig
to
to
charge
through
all
those
steps
top
down
bottom
up
in
parallel
or
even
chronologically
going
going
top
down.
D
C
Well,
that's
an
excellent
idea,
in
fact:
that's
that's.
That
was
the
next
step
with
the
tom,
and
I
are
going
to
work
on
in
the
development
is
to
flesh
this
out,
because
again,
this
is
conceptual,
so
I
think
I
think
to
be
able
to
do
that
in
in
a
very
popular
blockchain
like
five
hyperlapse
fabric
would
be,
you
know
would
be
great.
B
And
how
does
this
system
operate
so
that
to
your
your
point,
martin,
are
we
sort
of
conforming
to
such
a
new
next-gen
standards,
development
process
and
system?
Does
it
meet
all
of
our
our
criteria?
Is
it
you
know
the
openness,
the
auditability
or
transparency
of
what
we're
doing,
at
the
same
time,
sort
of
thinking
ahead
to
be
prepared
for
that
next
step,
not
trying
to
do
everything
at
once.
B
So
I
think,
by
having
such
a
process
articulating
or
a
standard
for
developing
a
standard
and
engaging
others
that
may
not
be
the
technical
folks,
but
the
standards,
users
and
the
digital
technology
users,
so
that
they
feel
yeah.
What
we're
doing
really
helps
to
address
their
concerns
in
in
and
which
is
a
long
list
of
concerns.
D
Yes
and
and
correct
me,
if
I'm
wrong,
what
would
we
have
the
opportunity
of
doing?
Is
you
know
if
we
would
have
to
set
this
for
operation
in
the
near
future
with
all
the
right
bodies?
It
would
be
very
bureaucratic
and
it
may
take
time
eventually.
We
need
to
do
that,
but
doing
as
a
a
demonstration
process
internally
it
would.
It
would
really
kind
of
flesh
out
the
pedagogical
process
or
like
we
would
learn
from
from
that
process.
D
I'm
yeah,
and-
and
just
I
don't
know,
we
could
use
solar
wrecks
or
something
or
something-
that's
quite
quite
standard
and
run
through
it
with
a
with
an
example
and
we
could
probably
walk
through
it
faster
and
I'm
sure,
there's
probably
some
lessons
learned
that
we'll
we
can
come
up
with
to
better
improve
the
process
itself,
which
could
be
like
you
say,
as
we
are
improving
and
testing
and
improving
the
standards
for
standards,
which
would
be
a
specific
kind
of
scribe.
Hub
implementation.
B
Yeah,
I
follow
you,
I
I
think
if
I
understand
correctly
or
follow
correctly,
the
modularizing
this
overall
plan
and
tasks
so
that
we
do
these
proof
of
concepts
where
there's
continual
this
helps
improve
this
part
of
the
overall
puzzle
of
the
solution.
I
I
agree
with
wholeheartedly,
as
I
think,
the
most
rapid
agile
development
approach
to
get
us
to
what
I
think
is
the
idea,
that's
being
discussed
here.
C
If
tom
was
involved
in
it,
that's
pretty
good
right,
but
you
want
to
be
able
to
say
one
implementation
of
this
or
two
or
n.
Implementations
of
this
is
based
upon
some
standards
and
as
it
stands
right
now,
the
only
standards
that
exist
are
natural
language
standards
and
even
then
they're
subject
to
political
wins,
as
tom
said,
but
nothing
in
the
middle
right
other
than
some
auditor
like
or
someone
an
expert
like
tom
working
with
some
implementer
like
iota,
which
is
great
for
one
implementation.
C
But
how
powerful
is
that
and
how
it
and
how?
How
do
you
demonstrate
that?
It's
not
that
idiosyncratic.
If
you
had
this
middle
layer,
which
is
what
we're
endeavoring
towards,
we
could
demonstrate
that
there's
a
certain
amount
of
rigor
concerned
by
reusability
and
certain
amount
of
credibility
in
what's
been
created.
D
Just
vertically
with
one
example
would
be
great
and,
and
some
of
the
things
of
the
work
that
we've
done
could
also
bring
in
value
add
to
to
the
process
as
as
ways
to
create
a
more
ease
of
interoperability
by
creating,
for
example,
a
registry
for
schemas
for
data
models.
So
the
data
models
are
are
registered
in
the
network,
and
so
you
can
easily
go
in
and
query
them
and
as
they
adjust
themselves
and
creating
compatibility
among
among
the
different
schemas
and
a
whole
bunch
of
other
other
things
like
that.
D
That
could
be
good.
Compliments
just
just
wanted
to
say
that,
yes,
I'm
fully
on
board
to
to
help
work
with
you,
tom
and
henry
and
everyone
else
in
the
call
interested
in
and
work
in
and
walking
through
a
full
implementation
of
this
as
a
demonstration
process,
I
noticed
that
alex
has
his
hand
up
I'll
pause
there
thanks.
A
Yeah,
sorry,
I
know
we
are
running
a
bit
like
long
in
this
session,
but
I
was
just
asking
or
wondering
about
something-
and
perhaps
this
actually
relates
to
mark
lebron's
question
as
well
earlier.
I
mean,
of
course,
there's
a
certain
urgency
to
get
all
of
this
done
because
it
is,
I
mean
climate
action
is
long
overdue
and
we
are
behind
scheduling
anyway,
and
the
sooner
we
can
digitize
well.
A
Standards
and
stuff
like
that
I
mean
the
sooner-
we
can
scale
up
operations
all
around
the
world
in
a
trustworthy
way,
but
so
I
was
just
thinking
you
know
the
usual
approach
to
to
developing
something.
Well
I
mean
I'm
I'm
I
I'm
not
part
of
the
community
developing
standards
really,
but
from
an
outsider's
perspective.
At
least.
Please
correct
me.
A
You
know
having
these
set
points
of
interaction
in
developing
standards
and
it's
quite
a
tedious,
long
process,
and
I
think
that
is
exactly
also
what
tom
has
been
referring
to,
that
we
need
to
speed
things
up,
because
it's
it
takes
too
long
to
develop
these
kind
of
standards.
But
so
my
question
really
is:
what
is
the
possibility
of
actually
establishing
a
kind
of
open
source
community
to
develop
this
like
a
global,
open
source
community,
where
participation
is
kind
of
engaged
by
the
reputation
that
each
participant
has?
A
A
A
These
very
centralized
models
that
are
usually
having
you
know
very
very
you
know,
non-representative
groups,
or
only
state
state-approved
delegations
that
are
going
to
be
setting
these
standards
and
sort
of
decentralizing
that
by
potentially
the
token
holders
of
the
ecosystem
that
you're
building
for
those
standards.
Thank
you.
C
C
C
Sorry,
sorry,
I
think
I
understand
what
you're
saying,
okay,
which
is
a
little
bit
different.
I
think
the
difficulty
there
is
what
tom
encountered
that
there
are
very
few
people
in
the
world
if
at
all
that
could
actually
understand
change,
solidity
and
actual
context
of
smart
contracts.
There's
probably
nobody
in
frankly.
So
at
some
point,
if
you
want
to
do
this,
and
it's
actually
kind
of
what
we're
saying,
if
you
do
want
to
do
this,
then
you
still
need
this
middle
layer.
C
And
then
you
then
at
that
point
you
have
to
trust
that
middle
layer
right,
because
what
we're
talking
about
once
that's
done
see
what
you
can
do,
I
think,
is
true.
If
that
middle
layer
exists,
then
people
with
a
certain
amount
of
information
can
then
actually
have
consensus
about.
Is
this
a
correct,
smart
contract?
Are
the
parameters
correct
and
that
I
actually
agree
with
you?
B
B
That's
quick
and
cost
effective!
Well,
no
right,
it
doesn't
apply.
So
how
do
we
look
at
all
those
pain
points
come
up
with
a
better
system
that
reaches
as
many
simultaneous
goals
as
possible
and
then
improve
that
for
efficiency
of
the
people
working
on
it
and
then
translating
that
into
the
digital
solutions.
B
It's
a
lot
of
work
to
try
to
come
up
with
some
new
models
that
satisfy
that
many
pain
points
and
requirements
so
that
we
have
a
legitimate
rules,
development
and
implementation
system.
That
has
you
know
honestly
the
benefits
that
we
all
aspire
to
see
it
happen
and
the
actual
impacts
that
we
need
to
see
happen
right.
C
Actually
so
now
I
just
realized
tom
and
mark.
I
just
realized,
you
are
both
actually
talking
about
the
same
thing.
It's
just
that
tom's
you.
I
think.
If
you
wanted
to
do
it
the
the
way
the
dow
does
it
tom
or
mark
is
so
you're
right,
I
mean
what
you
want
to
do.
Is
you
want
consensus
on
the
definition
of
smart
contract
and
the
people
that
get
it
right
should
be
rewarded
for
having
that
right
and
further,
and
once
that
smart
contract
is
used,
they
should
be
rewarded
for
it.
C
C
That's
difficult,
but
I
can
tell
you
if
you
do
want
to
do
that.
You
need
the
scientology
layer
to
work.
The
other
way
downtown's
layer
has
been
described
is
actually
going
down
from
natural
language
to
smart
contracts.
What
you're
talking
about
is
probably
an
order
magazine
more
difficult,
which
is
re-engineering
for
smart
contracts
back
up
to
natural
language,
either
way,
if
you're
going
to
do
something
like
that,
you
need
this
middle
layer,
ontology
yeah,
yeah,
yeah,.
B
A
A
D
I
also
got
to
run,
but
I
said
I
I
very
turning
this
into
a
concrete
exercise
that
we
could
do
in
an
open
way
as
part
of
a
group
that
maybe
that
helps
say:
okay.
Well,
here's
the
the
the
theory
and
the
framework
that
that
henry
and
tom
presented
now
we've
tested
it
and
lessons
learned
and
that
may
be
a
good
segue
to
kicking
off.
C
C
D
It's
it's
an
open
source
process
and-
and
I
think,
as
a
working
group,
we
we
all
want
to
move
more
to
a
doing.
We've
been
facilitating
a
lot
of
really
good
discussions,
but
I
think
this
is
a
you
know,
because
it's
hosted
within
linux
great
platform
to
to
to
do
things
and
and
publish
them
in
in
in
demonstrations
and
pocs,
and
then
obviously
it
really
depends
on
where
it
spins
off.