Editorial. Towards standardization in GHG quantification and reporting
Editorial. Towards standardization in GHG quantification and reporting
The requirement to tackle anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has become increasingly urgent as understanding of the risks of climate change has advanced. The scientific community has been developing mechanisms to bring about a reduction in the quantities of anthropogenic GHG emissions in order that responsibility for anthropogenic climate forcing may be equitably assigned and specific, pragmatic emissions reduction targets can be set and progress measured. The ‘carbon footprint’ is increasingly being recognised as a valuable indicator in the field of GHG emissions management. For ease of application the definition the “carbon footprint” has been limited to the inclusion of emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) by Wright et al. (2011). However, in some cases a more complete measure is needed that includes the full array of Kyoto “basket” GHGs – CO2, CH4, nitrous oxide (N2O), sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Outside of the academic literature the conventional approach is to term this metric a “GHG inventory” (UN, 1998; Ranganathan et al., 2004). However, in the academic literature the term “GHG inventory” has been used to account for various different collections of GHGs and other climate-influencing gases, leading to confusion over the definition of the “GHG inventory”. Consequently, an alternative term, the “climate footprint”, has been proposed (Wiedmann and Minx, 2008; Wright et al., 2011) which aims to eliminate this confusion. The question is: should we continue using the commonly-used term, “GHG inventory”, and endeavour to impose and promote a strict definition or should we introduce a new, rigorously defined term, the “climate footprint”
223-225
Turner, David
39dc4dc8-88b4-4950-8bbd-c647ff110ec9
Williams, Ian
c9d674ac-ee69-4937-ab43-17e716266e22
Kemp, Simon
942b35c0-3584-4ca1-bf9e-5f07790d6e36
Wright, Laurence
e57bb51d-a89a-4d49-aaa5-0fe1c6457329
Coello, Jon
7192f0a9-5f88-4fa2-b414-67dc9cebb616
McMurtry, Erin
fd88642c-1bf1-4a47-b47a-06fb389fc22f
June 2012
Turner, David
39dc4dc8-88b4-4950-8bbd-c647ff110ec9
Williams, Ian
c9d674ac-ee69-4937-ab43-17e716266e22
Kemp, Simon
942b35c0-3584-4ca1-bf9e-5f07790d6e36
Wright, Laurence
e57bb51d-a89a-4d49-aaa5-0fe1c6457329
Coello, Jon
7192f0a9-5f88-4fa2-b414-67dc9cebb616
McMurtry, Erin
fd88642c-1bf1-4a47-b47a-06fb389fc22f
Turner, David, Williams, Ian, Kemp, Simon, Wright, Laurence, Coello, Jon and McMurtry, Erin
(2012)
Editorial. Towards standardization in GHG quantification and reporting.
Carbon Management, 3 (3), .
(doi:10.4155/CMT.12.26).
Abstract
The requirement to tackle anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has become increasingly urgent as understanding of the risks of climate change has advanced. The scientific community has been developing mechanisms to bring about a reduction in the quantities of anthropogenic GHG emissions in order that responsibility for anthropogenic climate forcing may be equitably assigned and specific, pragmatic emissions reduction targets can be set and progress measured. The ‘carbon footprint’ is increasingly being recognised as a valuable indicator in the field of GHG emissions management. For ease of application the definition the “carbon footprint” has been limited to the inclusion of emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) by Wright et al. (2011). However, in some cases a more complete measure is needed that includes the full array of Kyoto “basket” GHGs – CO2, CH4, nitrous oxide (N2O), sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Outside of the academic literature the conventional approach is to term this metric a “GHG inventory” (UN, 1998; Ranganathan et al., 2004). However, in the academic literature the term “GHG inventory” has been used to account for various different collections of GHGs and other climate-influencing gases, leading to confusion over the definition of the “GHG inventory”. Consequently, an alternative term, the “climate footprint”, has been proposed (Wiedmann and Minx, 2008; Wright et al., 2011) which aims to eliminate this confusion. The question is: should we continue using the commonly-used term, “GHG inventory”, and endeavour to impose and promote a strict definition or should we introduce a new, rigorously defined term, the “climate footprint”
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: June 2012
Organisations:
Centre for Environmental Science
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 346368
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/346368
ISSN: 1758-3004
PURE UUID: b3b1f927-89b1-41b8-a79e-fc9810965eb1
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 15 Jan 2013 11:34
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 03:22
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
David Turner
Author:
Laurence Wright
Author:
Jon Coello
Author:
Erin McMurtry
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics