首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Cleaner Production >Carbon accounting approaches and reporting gaps in urban emissions: An analysis of the Greenhouse Gas inventories and climate action plans in Brazilian cities
【24h】

Carbon accounting approaches and reporting gaps in urban emissions: An analysis of the Greenhouse Gas inventories and climate action plans in Brazilian cities

机译:碳核算方法和报告城市排放差距:巴西城市温室气体清单和气候行动计划的分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This paper analyzes the differences among the main existing carbon accounting methodologies for cities and identifies the shortcomings in carbon inventories typically used. Data were collected from the GHG inventories and climate action plans from 24 Brazilian cities using content analysis. All cities developed their GHG inventories using Production-Based Approach (PBA), adding at least electricity and waste emissions that occurred out-boundaries. Several gaps were identified in the cities' greenhouse (GHG) emissions inventories that consequently impacted their climate action plans. Two main types of reporting gaps were identified: incompleteness (Gap 1) and lack of transparency (Gap 2). Seventeen GHG reports presented Gap 1. Brazilian cities' GHG reports do not appropriately reflect emissions occurring as a result of activities and consumption patterns of the city. Twenty reports presented Gap 2 with no transparency about assumptions, input data, source of input data, emission factors, calculation methods or accounting limitations. Sixteen cities measured only (I) stationary energy, including electricity imported by the grid; (II) transport; and (III) waste. Four cities reported also Industrial Process and Product Use (IPPU) emissions and seven, reported Agriculture, Forestry and other Land Use (AFOLU) emissions/removals. Brazilian cities did not measure GHG emissions related to consumption of foods, beverages and imports of manufactured products. As a result, no climate action plan considers actions towards sustainable consumption. The study provides insights for academics and policymakers on how to choose the best methodology and develop more complete inventories and low-carbon plans. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
机译:本文分析了城市现有的主要碳核算方法之间的差异,并确定了通常使用的碳清单的缺点。使用内容分析从巴西24个城市的温室气体清单和气候行动计划中收集数据。所有城市都使用基于生产的方法(PBA)来开发其温室气体清单,至少增加了越界发生的电力和废物排放。在城市温室气体(GHG)排放清单中发现了一些缺口,从而影响了其气候行动计划。确定了报告差距的两种主要类型:不完整(差距1)和缺乏透明度(差距2)。差距1显示了17个GHG报告。巴西城市的GHG报告没有适当反映城市活动和消费模式产生的排放。二十份报告提出了差距2,但在假设,输入数据,输入数据来源,排放因子,计算方法或会计限制方面没有透明性。 16个城市仅测量(I)固定能源,包括电网输入的电力; (二)运输; (三)废物。四个城市还报告了工业过程和产品使用(IPPU)排放,七个城市报告了农业,林业和其他土地使用(AFOLU)排放/清除。巴西城市没有测量与食品,饮料和制成品进口有关的温室气体排放量。结果,没有气候行动计划考虑采取针对可持续消费的行动。该研究为学者和政策制定者提供了有关如何选择最佳方法并开发更完整的清单和低碳计划的见识。 (C)2019 Elsevier Ltd.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号