The alternatives analysis weighs the technically and financially feasible, cost-effective ways to cut Project GHG emissions in design, construction and operation: for Scope 1 it seeks the best practicable environmental option, alternative fuels or energy included; it follows a permitting process's method and timing where one requires it; and in high carbon intensity sectors (indicatively oil and gas, cement and lime, thermal power, integrated steel, smelting and refining of base metals, foundries, pulp mills and possibly agriculture) it compares with viable technologies that the same industry uses in that country or region on energy efficiency and GHG efficiency. The client documents the options and why they were not chosen, without lowering the applicable standards such as IFC Performance Standard 3. Emissions are computed consistently with the GHG Protocol (national methods allowed if consistent), Scope 1 and 2 are quantified, and annual public reporting applies above 100,000 tonnes (encouraged above 25,000), which host-country or voluntary reporting such as CDP can satisfy if it is at Project level. The Climate Change Risk Assessment asks at a high level what current and expected TCFD physical and transition risks the operations face and whether the client has plans, processes, policies and systems to manage them, and considers whether the Project fits the national climate pledges of the host country.
The graph holds this control, the 0 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.