What would have happened without the campaign?
A favourable decision after collective action is not automatically an effect caused by that action. This methods note develops a counterfactual evaluation for a fictional workplace transport coalition, drawing on the Magenta Book, the GHG Protocol Policy and Action Standard, and the IPCC demand-side assessment. A pre-existing employer plan illustrates bounded contribution rather than exclusive credit, while invented arrival counts expose the assumptions behind before-and-after and comparison-group arithmetic. The analysis distinguishes mobilisation, decisions, implementation, sustained operation, and downstream climate effects. Participant protection and ethical constraints remain part of the design. No campaign result or emissions saving is claimed. The proposed approach supports honest learning from shared influence, partial gains, and unresolved demands without converting signatures into unsupported carbon totals.
When sharing changes demand: a rebound audit for community services
Shared ownership can change demand as well as the resources required for a fixed service. This methods note uses a fictional equipment library to examine purchase substitution, newly enabled activity, collection journeys, indirect spending, and organisational expansion. Its selective synthesis draws on Martin and Shaheen’s original carsharing survey, the GHG Protocol Policy and Action Standard, and the IPCC demand-side assessment. It distinguishes household purchasing decisions from individual loans and explains why membership cannot carry an identical avoided-production credit. Improved access remains an independent public objective rather than an accounting failure. No rebound percentage or climate saving is estimated. The resulting evaluation approach prioritises credible alternatives, follow-up evidence, and transparent limits instead of assuming that all sharing either succeeds or fails environmentally.