Read on Twitter
This is not at all surprising, and while sobering, it's good to have a look at how miscalculations get made. Cities follow an imperfect protocol to measure emissions from identified sectors, and rely on overstretched staff to make the calculations. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/climate/cities-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html?smid=tw-share
Any sort of analysis that identifies, imperfectly, sources of GHGs and then calculates those GHGs based on real & assumed energy use is going to rely on estimates. This doesn't mean these analyses aren't useful - they attempt to measure and offer opportunities to reduce GHGs.
Interestingly, these miscalculations don't even get to consumption-based emissions or fugitive methane, which have both been identified in recent months/years as missing from city GHG inventories, nor to actual measurements of what's in our air (cc. @roseAtmos)
I hope this paper can serve as an invitation to refine the GHG inventory process.
Cities are leaders in these efforts to measure, set goals & hold themselves accountable to those goals.
Let's not lose sight of that just b/c the protocol they've been asked to follow is imperfect
Cities are leaders in these efforts to measure, set goals & hold themselves accountable to those goals.
Let's not lose sight of that just b/c the protocol they've been asked to follow is imperfect
PS. For those curious about how cities reach their GHG emissions calculations, generally they follow the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories, linked here. We may take issue with the calculations, but the protocol...
https://ghgprotocol.org/greenhouse-gas-protocol-accounting-reporting-standard-cities
https://ghgprotocol.org/greenhouse-gas-protocol-accounting-reporting-standard-cities
...offers cities actual, concrete guidance as to how to make these complicated calculations, measure GHG reductions over time and compare to other peer cities on a mostly apples-to-apples basis.
