2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- ItemInconsistencies when applying novel metrics for emissions accounting to the Paris agreement(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2019) Schleussner, Carl-Friedrich; Nauels, Alexander; Schaeffer, Michiel; Hare, William; Rogelj, JoeriAddressing emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs) is an integral part of efficient climate change mitigation and therefore an essential part of climate policy. Metrics are used to aggregate and compare emissions of short- and long-lived GHGs and need to account for the difference in both magnitude and persistence of their climatic effects. Different metrics describe different approaches and perspectives, and hence yield different numerical estimates for aggregated GHG emissions. When interpreting GHG emission reduction targets, being mindful of the underlying metrical choices thus proves to be essential. Here we present the impact a recently proposed GHG metric related to the concept of CO2 forcing-equivalent emissions (called GWP*) would have on the internal consistency and environmental integrity of the Paris Agreement. We show that interpreting the Paris Agreement goals in a metric like GWP* that is significantly different from the standard metric used in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report can lead to profound inconsistencies in the mitigation architecture of the Agreement. It could even undermine the integrity of the Agreement's mitigation target altogether by failing to deliver net-zero CO2 emissions and therewith failing to ensure warming is halted. Our results indicate that great care needs to be taken when applying new concepts that appear scientifically favourable to a pre-existing climate policy context.
- ItemUnintentional unfairness when applying new greenhouse gas emissions metrics at country level(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2019) Rogelj, Joeri; Schleussner, Carl-FriedrichThe 2015 Paris Agreement sets out that rapid reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are needed to keep global warming to safe levels. A new approach (known as GWP*) has been suggested to compare contributions of long- and short-lived GHGs, providing a close link between cumulative CO2-equivalent emissions and total warming. However, comparison factors for non-CO2 GHGs under the GWP* metric depend on past emissions, and hence raise questions of equity and fairness when applied at any but the global level. The use of GWP* would put most developing countries at a disadvantage compared to developed countries, because when using GWP* countries with high historical emissions of short-lived GHGs are exempted from accounting for avoidable future warming that is caused by sustaining these emissions. We show that when various established equity or fairness criteria are applied to GWP* (defined here as eGWP*), perceived national non-CO2 emissions vary by more than an order of magnitude, particularly in countries with high methane emissions like New Zealand. We show that national emission estimates that use GWP* are very sensitive to arbitrary choices made by countries and therewith facilitate the creation of loopholes when CO2-equivalent emissions based on the GWP* concept are traded between countries that use different approaches. In light of such equity-dependent accounting differences, GHG metrics like GWP* should only be used at the global level. A common, transparent and equity-neutral accounting metric is vital for the Paris Agreement's effectiveness and its environmental integrity.