The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Editorial. Towards standardization in GHG quantification and reporting

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”
1758-3004
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
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), 223-225. (doi:10.4155/CMT.12.26).

Record type: Article

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”

Full text not available from this repository.

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
ORCID for Ian Williams: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-0121-1219

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 15 Jan 2013 11:34
Last modified: 20 Jul 2019 00:56

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: David Turner
Author: Ian Williams ORCID iD
Author: Simon Kemp
Author: Laurence Wright
Author: Jon Coello
Author: Erin McMurtry

University divisions

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

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×