Notes on carbon markets and industrial transition
Freight carbon numbers rarely arrive clean. A haulier sends a diesel figure, a planner sends a load sheet, and somewhere between them sits a corridor assumption nobody wrote down. This is the sequence we follow before anything goes into the weekly dispatch.
A reader flags something odd: an N3 leg burning more than the fleet average, or a Richards Bay container flow reported against the wrong factor. We log the corridor, the operator type and what data already exists.
We ask for telematics pulls, fuel slips and load sheets covering a full month. If a haulier only has weekly summaries, we say so up front and adjust the method rather than filling gaps with assumptions.
Diesel litres get matched to tonne-kilometres using a stated factor set. Where two operators on the same rail spine use different factors, we show both results side by side instead of picking a winner.
The working spreadsheet, the assumptions and the gaps all get written down. This is the part most reporting skips, and it is usually where an audit claim falls apart.
The fleet engineer or sustainability officer reads the draft before publication. Corrections on route splits, depot consolidation or driver context are folded in, and disagreements are noted rather than smoothed over.
The note goes out with its sample size, time window and known weaknesses attached. Readers can reuse the method on their own corridor, or tell us where it does not hold.
The full sequence, including what we ask for at each stage, sits on the workflow page. If you want to see how a finished method note reads before sending anything, start with the editorial background.
Corridor tips, method questions and data corrections all land in the same inbox. If you are sending a tip about a specific route, include the corridor name, the reporting period and whether the figures come from telematics or a manual log. That saves a round of back and forth before anything gets checked.
We read everything, but we do not publish unverified numbers. Anything that touches emission factors or tonne-kilometre claims gets a second look before it goes into a dispatch.
Corridor tips
Reviewed within two working days. We reply if we need the source data.
Method questions
Factor selection and baseline queries usually get an answer inside a week.
Corrections
If a published figure is wrong, say so plainly and we will check it against the source.
Before writing, the FAQ covers the questions we get most often, and the contact page lists the current editorial desk hours.
Every dispatch on this site follows the same working order. It is not a marketing funnel. It is the sequence we use to turn a raw corridor tip into a number a fleet engineer can defend in a review meeting.
Week 1
Tip intake
A haulier, depot planner or sustainability officer sends a lead: a fuel anomaly on the N3, a factor mismatch at Richards Bay, a coaching cycle that quietly worked. We log the source, the route and the reporting period before anything else.
Week 2
Data pull
We request the underlying telematics exports, fuel slips and tonne-kilometre figures. Gaps, duplicate trips and idling time that never made it into the monthly report are flagged here, not later.
Week 3
Method note
Which factor set was used, why, and what changes if a reviewer picks another. This is the part most reporting skips, and the part that tends to fail an audit.
Week 4
Review
An editor with fleet experience reworks the arithmetic and questions any claim that leans on a single data source. If the figure cannot be reproduced, it does not go out.
Ongoing
Corrections
When a factor update or a new corridor dataset changes the picture, the original piece is amended with a dated note rather than quietly replaced. Readers can trace what shifted and when.