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.

引用

Eduardo Baltar de Souza Leão, Luís Felipe Machado do Nascimento, José Célio Silveira de Andrade, José Antônio Puppim de Oliveira. (2020). Carbon accounting approaches and reporting gaps in urban emissions: An analysis of the Greenhouse Gas inventories and climate action plans in Brazilian cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 245, 1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118930