— How to Live in a World Where We’re Asked to Reach “100% Low-Carbon Electricity” by 2040


—

Introduction | When You Read the News and Think: “Okay but… how, exactly?”

Recently I came across a headline that went something like this:

> The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi),
an international body that evaluates corporate decarbonization targets,
has released its second draft of revised Scope 2 criteria.
Under the new proposal, companies must set a target to reach 100% low-carbon electricity by 2040.



Even if you read that, you might honestly think:

> “It sounds important, but… how are we actually supposed to do that?”



I’m exactly one of those people who got stuck on that “Okay but… how?” question.

After becoming severely disabled in midlife
and moving to a mountain region where I now live near hydropower and pumped-storage plants,
energy and electricity news has started to feel like my own business, not just something abstract on TV.

And yet, when I read the SBTi draft, the first thing that came to mind was:

> “I can tell the world is finally getting serious.
But can the real world honestly keep up with this level of speed and strictness?”



This article is:

Not a “perfect technical explanation” by an expert

But an attempt to put into words

The discomfort and questions I feel as an ordinary person

Seen through the eyes of a mid-career, severely disabled blogger


I’m going to try to express that thinking process as clearly as I can.

If you’re someone who has been skimming this kind of news with a vague sense of unease,
I hope this piece gives you even a small sense of “Okay, that makes a bit more sense now,”
or “Maybe I do want to think about this a little.”


—

Table of Contents

1. What Are SBTi and Scope 2 in the First Place?


2. Three Key Points in the New SBTi Scope 2 Draft


3. Four Kinds of Unease Behind “Okay but… how?”


4. Why SBTi Keeps Tightening the Rules Anyway


5. A Different View From a Severely Disabled Person Living in the Mountains


6. Where Japanese Companies, SMEs, and Local Governments Should Start


7. Small Choices Ordinary People Can Make in Daily Life


8. Common Questions About SBTi Scope 2


9. Conclusion | Choosing to Live While Carrying “Okay but… how?” Together




—

<a id=”sec1″></a>

1. What Are SBTi and Scope 2 in the First Place? | Unpacking Why It Feels So Distant

1-1. Who (or What) Is the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi)?

Let’s start by peeling away the jargon, one layer at a time.

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) is:

> An international body that checks whether corporate climate targets
“are scientifically aligned with the 1.5°C goal”
and certifies them if they are.



It doesn’t have the legal authority to command companies.
But in reality:

Investors increasingly look at whether a company has an SBTi-approved target

Large corporations ask their suppliers if they are aligned with SBTi


So in practice, SBTi is turning into:

> A kind of “shadow regulator” that shapes how companies behave.



You could say:

Government laws = the visible rules

SBTi and similar standards = the “hidden rules” that work through markets and finance


1-2. Where Does Scope 2 Sit Among Scopes 1, 2, and 3?

You often see “Scope 1, 2, and 3” in CO₂ discussions.
Very roughly, it looks like this:

Scope 1: Direct emissions from fuel you burn yourself

e.g., fuel for on-site power generation, boilers in factories, company cars


Scope 2: Indirect emissions from the electricity you purchase

e.g., electricity for factories, office lighting, data centers


Scope 3: Emissions across your entire value chain

e.g., suppliers’ manufacturing, logistics, product use and disposal



The topic here is Scope 2, which is basically:

> The CO₂ that comes “hidden inside” your monthly electricity bill.



So reducing Scope 2 means:

Which power sources your electricity actually comes from

How much you can reduce your total electricity use


In other words, it’s about “how you choose and use electricity.”

1-3. Why Do “SBTi” and “Scope 2” Feel So Distant to Most of Us?

For most people, words like:

“Science Based Targets initiative”

“Scope 2”

“100% low-carbon electricity”


are just terms that flash across a news screen and disappear.

That’s totally normal.

In daily life we mostly think about “electricity bills” and “please save power”

It’s hard to keep track of which international rules are changing in the background

Life goes on regardless, and we already have plenty of problems in front of us


That’s exactly why, in this piece, I want to build a bridge between:

> “Rules being written somewhere far away” and
“How it actually feels to live here and now”



and walk across that bridge slowly together.


—

<a id=”sec2″></a>

2. Three Key Points in the New SBTi Scope 2 Draft | What’s Actually Changing?

The SBTi Scope 2 draft contains lots of detailed provisions,
but from an everyday-person perspective, three points matter most.

2-1. Point ①: “100% Low-Carbon Electricity by 2040” Becomes Mandatory

The most impactful change is this:

> By 2040, companies must set a target
to cover 100% of their Scope 2 electricity consumption with “low-carbon electricity.”



Here, “low-carbon electricity” broadly refers to:

Renewable energy sources like solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal

Possibly nuclear and other very low-emission sources, depending on conditions and definitions


The key is that this isn’t just:

> “Let’s reduce total electricity use a bit”



It’s about:

> “What kind of power sources are behind the electricity you use?”



We’re moving into an age where the contents of your electricity mix are what really matter.

2-2. Point ②: “Location-based” and “Market-based” Targets Become Optional

Up to now, companies have had two main ways to calculate Scope 2:

1. Location-based method

Uses the average grid emission factor of the region



2. Market-based method

Uses renewable energy certificates (RECs, non-fossil certificates, etc.)
so that part of the electricity is “counted as renewable”




In the new draft:

Numerical targets using these methods are optional

What becomes mandatory is a target for the percentage of low-carbon electricity in the mix


In other words:

> From now on, companies won’t just be asked
“How many tons did you reduce?”
but also
“How much of your electricity have you actually switched to cleaner sources?”



2-3. Point ③: The Era of “Just Buy Certificates and You’re Done” Is Ending

Another big shift is how certificates are treated.

Up to now, globally we’ve seen:

RECs and other renewable certificates

In Japan, non-fossil certificates and J-Credits


used to justify claims such as:

> “We’re effectively using all renewable electricity.”
“This power is effectively CO₂-free.”



But under the new rules:

Certificates must come from the same power market (grid)

Future rules will pay more attention to hourly matching

The key question becomes:
“Was this electricity actually being generated at the time you used it?”


So:

> The old “buy a bunch of cheap certificates and make your figures look like zero” trick



will become harder and harder to pull off.


—

<a id=”sec3″></a>

3. Four Kinds of Unease Behind “Okay but… how?” | What’s Really Bothering Us

This is the part I most wanted to write.

When I read the SBTi Scope 2 draft,
four kinds of unease popped up in me at the same time.

You might have some of these too.

3-1. Unease ①: Is There Even Enough Renewable Energy, Physically Speaking?

In a country like Japan, with lots of mountains and a lot of distance between cities and remote areas:

There’s a limit to how much land is suitable for solar

Good wind sites are geographically limited

Geothermal and hydro both face environmental and local-consent hurdles

Building new transmission lines is neither cheap nor easy


On top of that, the rule says:

> “Within the same power market, reach 100% low-carbon electricity by 2040.”



When you hear that, it’s hard not to think:

> “Wait, isn’t this just going to turn into a scramble over limited renewables…?”



In an ideal world, energy would be something we share and support each other with,
not something we fight over.

If we mis-handle how the rules are rolled out,
it could easily start to look like a raw “competition for clean power.”

3-2. Unease ②: Won’t SMEs and Developing Countries Be Left Behind No Matter What?

SBTi rules apply globally.

But the reality is all over the map:

Europe has relatively mature renewables markets

Some countries still depend heavily on fossil fuels

Others struggle with conflict or political instability

Some regions lack robust grid infrastructure entirely


For SMEs with limited money and people,
or companies in developing countries,
the sentence:

> “Reach 100% low-carbon electricity by 2040.”



has a completely different weight
than it does for a large multinational based in a wealthy nation.

Under the banner of “protecting the planet,”
we might be creating a structure where:

> Those with the fewest resources
are forced to shoulder the heaviest assignment.



I can’t shake that discomfort.

3-3. Unease ③: Is It Realistic to Chase “Clean Electricity” 24/7?

Hourly matching sounds perfectly logical on paper.

Don’t claim “100% solar” at midnight

Don’t say “100% wind” when the air is still

Align actual generation and consumption times as closely as possible


It’s a crucial step in avoiding greenwashing.

But from the viewpoint of people on the ground in companies:

Energy procurement managers would have to juggle renewables, batteries, pumped storage, and demand response 24/7/365

Production planning would have to be constantly coordinated with the behavior of the sun, wind, and water


That’s a pretty hard-mode world.

The question is:

> How do we bridge the gap between “ideal” and “reality”?



If we skip the conversation about how to build that bridge
and let the ideal run too far ahead by itself,
people on the front lines are going to burn out.

3-4. Unease ④: There’s Only So Much You Can Fix by Pushing Responsibility onto Companies

My last unease is about where responsibility lies.

No matter how strict SBTi rules become:

Power plants are built by utilities and developers

Transmission lines are built and operated by grid operators and governments

Carbon pricing and energy policies are set by governments


So even if companies shout:

> “We need more clean electricity, please!”



Nothing changes if policy and infrastructure don’t keep up.

At some point you start to wonder:

> “Are we giving companies all the homework
so that politicians have an excuse to avoid doing the hard work themselves?”



If we say “Just leave it to companies,”

Employees get exhausted

Operations become chaotic

And the deeper structure of society doesn’t really change anyway


That’s the kind of future I want us to avoid.

Which is why I think it’s essential that:

> As we tighten rules for companies,
governments, infrastructure providers, and finance
also show the same level of seriousness.




—

<a id=”sec4″></a>

4. Why SBTi Keeps Tightening the Rules | Rule-Making as a Detour Strategy

Up to this point I’ve stayed close to the discomfort and doubts.
But I also have a sense of why a body like SBTi would:

> Deliberately keep making the standards stricter.



4-1. “If Politics Won’t Move, Let’s Move Markets and Companies First”

In many countries and regions:

Energy policy is slow because too many interests collide

Carbon pricing is endlessly debated and rarely implemented

Short election cycles clash with the long timelines of climate action


Faced with that, some climate experts, NGOs, and companies
seem to have started thinking:

> “If we wait for governments, we’ll miss our window.
So let’s change the rules for companies and investors first.”



That’s one way to read institutions like SBTi:
as part of a “detour strategy”.

SBTi drafts the standards

Investors start using “SBTi-aligned or not” as a key metric

Big companies pressure suppliers to align with SBTi

Eventually, generators and governments feel compelled to follow


For better or worse, what’s happening is:

> An attempt to reshape society
starting from markets and corporate sustainability targets.



4-2. Quiet Despair and Small Hope

Watching this unfold, I feel two emotions at once.

One is a kind of quiet despair.

> “Have we really reached a point where
humans can’t protect their own future
unless we lock ourselves into rigid rules like this?”



Voluntary efforts weren’t enough.
“Please be environmentally friendly” hit its limits.
So we ended up needing rules this detailed.

That reality sits heavy in my chest.

The other is a small hope.

Somewhere, right now:

People are reading IPCC reports in detail

Power system and market design experts are debating

Companies, NGOs, and governments are giving feedback

And someone is trying to draw up what they believe is the
“bare minimum standard we need”


When I picture those people, I feel:

> “The rules aren’t perfect.
But there are still people who haven’t given up
on trying to write a better blueprint for our future.”



That fact alone is strangely comforting.


—

<a id=”sec5″></a>

5. A Different View From a Severely Disabled Person Living in the Mountains

From here on I’ll shift into a more personal lens.

5-1. How Physical Disability Taught Me to Appreciate Infrastructure

After becoming severely disabled in midlife,
I moved away from the big city and started living in a mountainous area.

Nearby, there are:

A dam quietly holding back water

Hydropower plants stepping down along a river valley

Transmission lines that hum softly in the night


I can’t walk freely the way I used to.
Just going outside can be a major effort.

Precisely because of that, I’ve come to think:

> “It’s these dams, plants, and transmission lines
that allow me to turn on the light, use my PC,
and write these words today.”



When I was younger, I thought:

> “You plug something into a socket and electricity comes out—obviously.”



But once my body stopped moving freely
and simply going out required planning and help,
I started to feel much more clearly:

> “There are people, systems, and landscapes quietly supporting that ‘obvious’ thing.”



The feeling is more real now than it ever was.

5-2. The Quiet Tailwind for Pumped Storage, Hydro, and Geothermal

As I read through the SBTi Scope 2 draft,
one thought kept surfacing in my mind:

> “These rules might end up giving a quiet tailwind
to the hydropower plants, pumped-storage plants,
and geothermal plants working away in the mountains.”



Hydropower and pumped storage can be low-carbon
and also play a role in storing and adjusting electricity.

Geothermal can be a relatively steady baseload source,
less dependent on weather than solar and wind.


In a world that cares about hourly matching,
you naturally start needing combinations like:

Solar during the day

Wind and hydro in the evening

Geothermal, pumped storage, and batteries at night and in winter


If:

> “The global corporate demand for ‘clean electricity’”



ends up channeling money toward:

> “Investments in hydropower, pumped-storage, and geothermal in rural areas,”



then as someone living out here,
I can’t help thinking:

> “That wouldn’t be such a bad future.”



Of course, that also brings:

Environmental impact questions

Complex conversations with local residents

Land use and landscape concerns


None of it is simple.

Still, deep down I feel:

> “If we’re going to spend huge amounts of money anyway,
I’d rather see it go into infrastructure
that uses water and earth wisely
than into prolonging old coal plants.”



That feeling just won’t go away.


—

<a id=”sec6″></a>

6. Where Japanese Companies, SMEs, and Local Governments Should Start | Practical First Steps

So far I’ve talked a lot about emotions and worldview.
Let’s now shift gears a bit and touch on some practical steps.

6-1. Step ①: Make “Your Own Electricity” Visible

For any company, local government, or organization,
the first step is surprisingly simple:

> “Where, how much, and what kind of electricity are we using?”



This needs to be made visible.

For example:

Contract details with your power provider

Seasonal and hourly patterns in electricity use

How different sites use electricity (factories, offices, shops, etc.)


Without this, any discussion of:

Where to focus energy efficiency

Where renewables or PPAs might fit


quickly turns into an abstract “air war”
with very little impact.

6-2. Step ②: Energy Efficiency Is “Unsexy but the Strongest Scope 2 Measure”

Reading the SBTi Scope 2 draft,
your attention naturally gets drawn to the electricity mix.

But the most effective, timeless measure is still:

> “Reduce the amount of electricity you use in the first place.”



That can mean:

Replacing outdated equipment and HVAC

Improving insulation

Using sensors and IoT to cut wasteful lighting and idle loads

Rethinking production processes


Energy efficiency:

Directly cuts costs

Helps reduce Scopes 1, 2, and 3 in various ways


So for SMEs and local governments,
it’s often the most accessible and high-impact strategy.

6-3. Step ③: Consider On-Site Renewables and PPAs “Within Your Limits”

Once you’ve made consumption visible and pursued efficiency,
you can start looking at:

On-site solar on your own roofs or land (including PPA models)

Roof-lease or solar over parking areas

Local PPAs or joint projects near your demand centers


The key here is:

> Don’t “jump on the hype”
but calmly assess your own capacity and risk,
and then start from what’s realistically doable.



The phrase “100% low-carbon electricity by 2040!”
can be intimidating in isolation.

But you could think in phases:

2025–2030: Focus on efficiency and modest on-site renewables

2030–2035: Scale up PPAs and renewables in your portfolio

2035–2040: Refine your mix with hourly matching and storage in mind


A step-by-step roadmap like this is entirely possible.


—

<a id=”sec7″></a>

7. Small Choices Ordinary People Can Make in Daily Life

“Corporate decarbonization” sounds like something far away,
but it’s actually intertwined with the choices we make every day.

7-1. Take a Tiny Interest in What’s Behind Your Electricity Bill

Whenever you:

Choose a power company

Review your electricity plan


you can add a tiny extra question:

> “What kinds of power sources are behind this electricity?”



Even that small curiosity can lead to:

Picking plans with more renewables

Switching to more efficient appliances


Those are small, but real, actions.

7-2. Receive News Not as “Good/Bad” but as “How Do I Feel About This?”

When you see SBTi in the news,
or hear about an electricity price hike,
it’s easy to jump straight to:

“Good / bad”

“For / against”


But if you pause for a moment and ask:

> “When I heard this, what emotions moved inside me?”



you might notice things like:

Anxiety about the future

Worries about financial burden

Hopes for your children’s or grandchildren’s world

A wish to protect the nature around you


These are your own core values quietly surfacing.

Simply noticing and giving words to those feelings
is already a form of “participating in society,”
at least in my view.


—

<a id=”sec8″></a>

8. Common Questions About SBTi Scope 2

To wrap up the more technical side,
here are some likely questions and simple answers.

Q1. Is the SBTi Scope 2 draft already final?

A. No. It’s currently published as a draft,
with public consultation and feedback ongoing.
The final version will be adjusted based on comments.

However, the overall direction—
“100% low-carbon electricity” and stricter rules on certificates—
is unlikely to change dramatically.

Q2. Will SMEs also be required to reach 100% low-carbon electricity by 2040?

A. The rules SBTi applies can differ depending on company size and sector.
However, SMEs in the supply chains of large global companies
may still face indirect pressure through supplier requirements.

Q3. If I choose a “100% renewable” or “virtually CO₂-free” plan, is that enough?

A. Under Japanese regulations, “virtually CO₂-free” plans are recognized as such.
But under SBTi and other global frameworks,
how much these plans count as “low-carbon electricity”
can depend on things like:

What kind of certificates are used

Which power market they come from

How closely generation time matches consumption


So there may be a gap between domestic labeling and global criteria.

Q4. Is nuclear power counted as “low-carbon electricity”?

A. In international discussions, including those involving SBTi,
there is ongoing debate about how to treat nuclear.
It interacts deeply with national energy policies and public opinion,
so it’s likely to remain a “moving target” for some time.

Q5. As an ordinary person, how am I supposed to engage with SBTi-related news?

A. You don’t need to understand everything in detail.

For example:

Pay a bit of attention to what your own employer is doing

Make small, sustained efforts on energy saving and your power plan

Share your unease or questions with people around you


Even those “small engagements”
are meaningful first steps, I believe.


—

<a id=”sec9″></a>

9. Conclusion | Choosing to Live While Carrying “Okay but… how?” Together

At first glance, the SBTi Scope 2 draft
looks like a purely technical story for corporations.

But behind it lie questions like:

What kinds of power sources are we investing in?

Which regions will see jobs and money flow in—or out?

Who will end up carrying which burdens?


In other words, this is about the basic conditions of our lives.

And in the design blueprint being sketched out,
one powerful line is being penciled in:

> “By 2040, the electricity you use should be almost entirely low-carbon.”




—

When I read that draft,
I ended up right back where I started:

> “Honestly… how are we supposed to do that?”



Will there really be enough renewables?

How will we support SMEs and developing countries?

Can Japan’s power system adapt in time?

How much do we ask of companies,
and where do policy and society step in?


There’s no way to produce
a perfectly correct answer here and now.

Even so, I think the only way forward is to:

Ask what worldview these standards are built on

Compare that worldview to the reality of the places we actually live

Notice where they fit and where they don’t


And to keep doing this
with our own minds, in our own words.

As a mid-career, severely disabled blogger
who lives looking up at hydropower and pumped-storage plants in the mountains,
I’ve decided to give myself this role:

> To keep asking, stubbornly and honestly,
“Okay but… how are we actually going to do this?”



I suspect that this question
will bounce back not only at companies and investors
but also at each of us, as a question about how we want to live.

If this article made it even a bit easier
for you to give words to your own curiosity or unease,
then that alone makes writing all of this worthwhile.

Because if you’ve read this far,
I’d say there is already a quiet connection between us:

> We’re now companions
who are carrying the same question forward.



And that, in its own small way,
feels like the right place to start.