A proposal for the design of the successor to the Kyoto Protocol

Mitigating Curtailment and Carbon Emissions through Load Migration between Data Centers

Major US electric utility climate pledges have the potential to collectively reduce power sector emissions by one-third

Executive Summary: The California Climate Action Registry, which was initially established in 2000 and began operation in Fall 2002, is a voluntary registry for recording annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The purpose of the Registry is to assist California businesses and organizations in their efforts to inventory and document emissions in order to establish a baseline and to document early actions to increase energy efficiency and decrease GHG emissions. The State of California has committed to use its ''best efforts'' to ensure that entities that establish GHG emissions baselines and register their emissions will receive ''appropriate consideration under any future international, federal, or state regulatory scheme relating to greenhouse gas emissions.'' Reporting of GHG emissions involves documentation of both ''direct'' emissions from sources that are under the entity's control and indirect emissions controlled by others. Electricity generated by an off-site power source is consider ed to be an indirect GHG emission and is required to be included in the entity's report. Registry participants include businesses, non-profit organizations, municipalities, state agencies, and other entities. Participants are required to register the GHG emissions of all operations in California, and are encouraged to report nationwide. For the first three years of participation, the Registry only requires the reporting of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, although participants are encouraged to report the remaining five Kyoto Protocol GHGs (CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6). After three years, reporting of all six Kyoto GHG emissions is required. The enabling legislation for the Registry (SB 527) requires total GHG emissions to be registered and requires reporting of ''industry-specific metrics'' once such metrics have been adopted by the Registry. The Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) was asked to provide technical assistance to the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) related to the Registry in three areas: (1) assessing the availability and usefulness of industry-specific metrics, (2) evaluating various methods for establishing baselines for calculating GHG emissions reductions related to specific actions taken by Registry participants, and (3) establishing methods for calculating electricity CO2 emission factors. The third area of research was completed in 2002 and is documented in Estimating Carbon Dioxide Emissions Factors for the California Electric Power Sector (Marnay et al., 2002). This report documents our findings related to the first areas of research. For the first area of research, the overall objective was to evaluate the metrics, such as emissions per economic unit or emissions per unit of production that can be used to report GHG emissions trends for potential Registry participants. This research began with an effort to identify methodologies, benchmarking programs, inventories, protocols, and registries that u se industry-specific metrics to track trends in energy use or GHG emissions in order to determine what types of metrics have already been developed. The next step in developing industry-specific metrics was to assess the availability of data needed to determine metric development priorities. Berkeley Lab also determined the relative importance of different potential Registry participant categories in order to asses s the availability of sectoral or industry-specific metrics and then identified industry-specific metrics in use around the world. While a plethora of metrics was identified, no one metric that adequately tracks trends in GHG emissions while maintaining confidentiality of data was identified. As a result of this review, Berkeley Lab recommends the development of a GHG intensity index as a new metric for reporting and tracking GHG emissions trends.Such an index could provide an industry-specific metric for reporting and tracking GHG emissions trends to accurately reflect year to year changes while protecting proprietary data. This GHG intensity index changes while protecting proprietary data. This GHG intensity index would provide Registry participants with a means for demonstrating improvements in their energy and GHG emissions per unit of production without divulging specific values. For the second research area, Berkeley Lab evaluated various methods used to calculate baselines for documentation of energy consumption or GHG emissions reductions, noting those that use industry-specific metrics. Accounting for actions to reduce GHGs can be done on a project-by-project basis or on an entity basis. Establishing project-related baselines for mitigation efforts has been widely discussed in the context of two of the so-called ''flexible mechanisms'' of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol) Joint Implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

Taking Stock of Strategies on Climate Change and the Way Forward: A Strategic Climate Change Framework for Australia

Well-to-wheel greenhouse gas emissions of electric versus combustion vehicles from 2018 to 2030 in the US

Energy-related activities are a major contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A growing body of knowledge clearly depicts the links between human activities and climate change. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil and other human activities has released carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and other heat-trapping GHG emissions into the atmosphere and thus increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 emissions. The main human activities that emit CO2 emissions are (1) the combustion of fossil fuels to generate electricity, accounting for about 37% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 31% of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2013, (2) the combustion of fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel to transport people and goods, accounting for about 31% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 26% of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2013, and (3) industrial processes such as the production and consumption of minerals and chemicals, accounting for about 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 12% of total ...

The editorial on climate change and biodiversity published in over 220 health journals in September had two main demands: keep global temperature increases below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels to avoid catastrophic damage to health; and accept that this can be achieved only by rich countries making bigger cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and transferring substantial resources to the countries most vulnerable the effects of climate change.1 Neither demand was fully met at COP26 in Glasgow. The editorial was also aiming to make the voice of the health community more prominent in global discussions on climate change and environmental destruction. Some progress was made with this aim, but again not enough. Although the mantra of COP26 was “keep 1.5°C alive,” the pledges made by countries to reduce emissions are insufficient to keep the temperature rise to below 1.5°C. Before COP26, the United Nations estimated that current pledges will lead to an increase of 2.7°C, a level that would lead to devastating effects on health through extreme weather events, crop failure, water shortages, forced migration, conflict, and a rise in sea level that will mean the disappearance of some island countries.2 Even with the additional pledges made at COP26, temperatures are expected to rise well above 2°C.3 Christina Figueres, the head of the UN climate change convention in 2015 that achieved the Paris agreement, argues, however, that COP26 has made the aim of 1.5°C widely accepted, removing the aim of “below 2°C” that emerged in Paris.4 Countries are now required to review their pledges—called Nationally Declared Contributions (NDCs) in UN speak - every year rather than every five years as at present. There is, however, no system of enforcement, and countries often fail to meet the pledges they make. Promises are easy; implementation is hard. For the first time the final COP26 agreement mentioned fossil fuels, the source of most of the greenhouse gases.5 Countries agreed to accelerate “efforts towards the phasedown of unabated coal power and phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.” Countries like India and China that depend heavily on coal for their energy supply insisted on the word “phasedown” of coal rather than the original “phase out.”6 It is a small success to have coal and fossil fuels mentioned in the final agreement, but at the same time the weak wording is a sign of the absolute failure of the world to adequately address the crisis. The $100bn support for low income and other vulnerable countries, which was promised back in Paris, did not materialise in Glasgow. It is now expected by 2023, deepening antagonisms between rich and vulnerable countries over the inequity of the global response to phasing out fossil fuels. There was, however, a greater emphasis on the need for more adaptation funding, as the editorial in the journals requested. Countries and their people are recognising that climate change is here now not in the future. Vulnerable countries wanted a "Glasgow loss and damage facility," which would see funds passing from rich countries to vulnerable countries as compensation for the damage the rich countries have caused and continue to cause. Rich countries squashed this facility, greatly angering the vulnerable countries. The editorial in the health journals sought to connect the climate element of the environmental crisis with other damage to nature, including biodiversity loss, deforestation, harm to the oceans, and soil destruction. COP26 did see $20bn committed for forest protection, and more than 100 countries, including those with the largest forests, pledged to reverse deforestation by 2030 at the latest – though a similar pledge had already been made in 2014. Generally, however, broader damage to nature did not feature, which is partly because the UN process largely creates a separation between climate change, the focus of COP26, and biodiversity, which is being considered next year at a conference in China. Business featured prominently at COP26. If the world is to reach net-zero then business—like every other activity—will have to play its part. Many businesses have committed to reach net-zero and, perhaps more importantly, investors have discovered that there is money to be made from investing in genuinely green projects and money to be lost by investing in fossil fuels, which are rapidly becoming stranded assets. However, net zero pledges made by businesses have attracted considerable doubts – and many remain full of loop holes, including allowing for continued investment in fossil fuels - leading the climate activist Greta Thunberg to call the conference “a global north greenwash festival, a two-week long celebration of business as usual and blah blah blah.”7 In response, the UN Secretary General has committed to establishing a “greenwashing” watchdog.8 Health was more prominent in COP26 than in any previous COPs in that the WHO had a health pavilion for the first time and health had an hour-long session with ministers in the main part of the meeting. The health pavilion featured dozens of sessions, most of which are available online. Patricia Espinosa, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, was expected to appear alongside the UK’s senior health minister at the health session in the main part of the meeting, but neither attended. The meeting did, however, feature two British ministers, representatives of Fiji and Egypt governments, a former British prime minister, a senior official from the US government, the chief executive of GSK, and others. The representative from Fiji said that in his region more people are already dying from climate change that any other cause, and the US representative told the audience that the US accounts for a quarter of all global emissions from health systems, which if they were a country would be the fifth largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Most health systems currently have rising emissions.9 Fifty countries committed at COP26 to “take concrete steps towards creating climate-resilient health systems.”10 Argentina, Fiji, Malawi, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, the US, and 39 others will achieve low-carbon, sustainable health systems, while Bangladesh, Ethiopia, the Maldives, the Netherlands, and 45 others have committed to enhance the climate resilience of their health systems. Nobody knows how to achieve net zero within a health system, but we do know that everything, including clinical practice, will have to change; about two thirds of the emissions come from suppliers, meaning that they too will have to reach net zero; and research and innovation will be essential. Funding for research on climate change and health has been small, but the UK minister announced a new fund for research on climate change and health. Despite greater attention to health, the word health appeared only once in the final document agreed at the meeting: "[countries,] when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on…the right to health.”5 John Kerry, the US climate envoy who was at the original earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and deeply involved in negotiating the agreement at the Paris COP, acknowledged that COP26 was never going to solve the climate crisis completely. But, he said, “Paris built the arena, Glasgow starts the race…When we leave Glasgow, our password will be implementation, follow-up and follow-up.”11 His words ring true for the health community. Restricting the rise in global temperature to 1.5°C is still possible with emergency action, and we must continue to emphasise the extreme danger to health from temperatures rising above 1.5°C and the great benefits to health that can result from countries decarbonising their economies. We must encourage countries to be bolder in cutting emissions, promoting adaptation, supporting vulnerable countries – and do more to hold them to account. We must also concentrate on implementation, particularly within health systems where we have most influence.

BackgroundPolicies to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can yield public health benefits by also reducing emissions of hazardous co-pollutants, such as air toxics and particulate matter. Socioeconomically disadvantaged communities are typically disproportionately exposed to air pollutants, and therefore climate policy could also potentially reduce these environmental inequities. We sought to explore potential social disparities in GHG and co-pollutant emissions under an existing carbon trading program—the dominant approach to GHG regulation in the US and globally.Methods and findingsWe examined the relationship between multiple measures of neighborhood disadvantage and the location of GHG and co-pollutant emissions from facilities regulated under California’s cap-and-trade program—the world’s fourth largest operational carbon trading program. We examined temporal patterns in annual average emissions of GHGs, particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, and air toxics before (January 1, 2011–December 31, 2012) and after (January 1, 2013–December 31, 2015) the initiation of carbon trading. We found that facilities regulated under California’s cap-and-trade program are disproportionately located in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods with higher proportions of residents of color, and that the quantities of co-pollutant emissions from these facilities were correlated with GHG emissions through time. Moreover, the majority (52%) of regulated facilities reported higher annual average local (in-state) GHG emissions since the initiation of trading. Neighborhoods that experienced increases in annual average GHG and co-pollutant emissions from regulated facilities nearby after trading began had higher proportions of people of color and poor, less educated, and linguistically isolated residents, compared to neighborhoods that experienced decreases in GHGs. These study results reflect preliminary emissions and social equity patterns of the first 3 years of California’s cap-and-trade program for which data are available. Due to data limitations, this analysis did not assess the emissions and equity implications of GHG reductions from transportation-related emission sources. Future emission patterns may shift, due to changes in industrial production decisions and policy initiatives that further incentivize local GHG and co-pollutant reductions in disadvantaged communities.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study to examine social disparities in GHG and co-pollutant emissions under an existing carbon trading program. Our results indicate that, thus far, California’s cap-and-trade program has not yielded improvements in environmental equity with respect to health-damaging co-pollutant emissions. This could change, however, as the cap on GHG emissions is gradually lowered in the future. The incorporation of additional policy and regulatory elements that incentivize more local emission reductions in disadvantaged communities could enhance the local air quality and environmental equity benefits of California’s climate change mitigation efforts.

There are two types of approaches for analyzing various aspects related to green-house gas (GHG) emissions, i.e., top-down and bottom-up approaches. Although the top-down approach focuses on macro-economic perspectives, the bottom-up approach is more suitable to investigate GHG emissions at an industry level utilizing domain-specific knowledge. For example, a bottom-up analysis requires a wide variety of data such as energy demands, conversion factors, and energy efficiency, which may be obtained by analyzing industrial process data. This study aims to provide a bottom-up approach for analyzing GHG emissions from shipbuilding processes in Korea. Reference energy system and energy balance for shipbuilding processes are derived for bottom-up modeling. Based on the midterm forecast on energy demands of the Korean shipbuilding industry, it is shown that the business-as-usual GHG emissions may be obtained. Relevant mitigation measures are then investigated to analyze their mitigation potentials for low-carbon ship production. 1. Introduction Global climate change has recently drawn an increasing attention due to its adverse effects on our environment. Since the inception of Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Frame-work conventions on climate change, local and international experts have long called for more international cooperation in coping with global warming. The main idea of international cooperative efforts is to impose binding obligations for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on participating countries. Even though some countries have withdrawn their commitment and others have been reluctant to adopting definite targets for emission reduction, many countries have already established a designated national authority to manage their GHG emissions. Korea has also established a national authority called "GHG Inventory and Research Center (GIR)" in 2010. One of the most important roles of GIR is to manage the national GHG emission levels and set the abatement target of various sectors through an efficient and integrated management of GHG-related information. Recently, GIR has conducted a series of research projects to analyze GHG emissions of industrial sectors in cooperation with a group of experts. This study presents the results from the analysis of GHG emissions and mitigation potentials for the shipbuilding processes in Korea. It should be noted that the scope of this study is limited to constructions processes in a shipyard even though the shipbuilding industry may encompass a broader range of industrial sectors such as steel production and transport. Adopting Model for Energy Supply Strategy Alternatives and their General Environmental Impacts (MESSAGE) developed by International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in 1980s (Messner 1997), a bottom-up mathematical programming model is generated to derive the business-as-usual (BAU) GHG emissions in the construction processes in a shipyard. Abatement potentials of several technical abatement measures are also analyzed to help shipbuilders effectively cope with the issue of climate change.

Rivers play an important role in greenhouse gas emissions. Over the past decade, because of global urbanization trends, rapid land use changes have led to changes in river ecosystems that have had a stimulating effect on the greenhouse gas production and emissions. Presently, there is an urgent need for assessments of the greenhouse gas concentrations and emissions in watersheds. Therefore, this study was designed to evaluate river-based greenhouse gas emissions and their spatial-temporal features as well as possible impact factors in a rapidly urbanizing area. The specific objectives were to investigate how river greenhouse gas concentrations and emission fluxes are responding to urbanization in the Liangtan River, which is not only the largest sub-basin but also the most polluted one in Chongqing City. The thin layer diffusion model method was used to monitor year-round concentrations of pCO2, CH4, and N2O in September and December 2014, and March and June 2015. The pCO2 range was (23.38±34.89)-(1395.33±55.45) Pa, and the concentration ranges of CH4 and N2O were (65.09±28.09)-(6021.36±94.36) nmol·L-1 and (29.47±5.16)-(510.28±18.34) nmol·L-1, respectively. The emission fluxes of CO2, CH4, and N2O, which were calculated based on the method of wind speed model estimations, were -6.1-786.9, 0.31-27.62, and 0.06-1.08 mmol·(m2·d)-1, respectively. Moreover, the CO2 and CH4 emissions displayed significant spatial differences, and these were roughly consistent with the pollution load gradient. The greenhouse gas concentrations and fluxes of trunk streams increased and then decreased from upstream to downstream, and the highest value was detected at the middle reaches where the urbanization rate is higher than in other areas and the river is seriously polluted. As for branches, the greenhouse gas concentrations and fluxes increased significantly from the upstream agricultural areas to the downstream urban areas. The CO2 fluxes followed a seasonal pattern, with the highest CO2 emission values observed in autumn, then successively winter, summer, and spring. The CH4 fluxes were the highest in spring and the lowest in summer, while N2O flux seasonal patterns were not significant. Because of the high carbon and nitrogen loads in the basin, the CO2 products and emissions were not restricted by biogenic elements, but levels were found to be related to important biological metabolic factors such as the water temperature, pH, DO, and chlorophyll a. The carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus content of the water combined with sewage input influenced the CH4 products and emissions. Meanwhile, N2O production and emissions were mainly found to be driven by urban sewage discharge with high N2O concentrations. Rapid urbanization accelerated greenhouse gas emissions from the urban rivers, so that in the urban reaches, CO2/CH4 fluxes were twice those of the non-urban reaches, and all over the basin N2O fluxes were at a high level. These findings illustrate how river basin urbanization can change aquatic environments and aggravate allochthonous pollution inputs such as carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus, which in turn can dramatically stimulate river-based greenhouse gas production and emissions; meanwhile, spatial and temporal differences in greenhouse gas emissions in rivers can lead to the formation of emission hotspots.

Greenhouse Gases and Human Well-Being: China in a Global Perspective

Anthropogenic climate change, caused by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, will have negative if not catastrophic consequences for the livelihoods of many across the globe. With the Paris Agreement in 2015, most countries have pledged to reduce territorial GHG emissions. Per-capita emission levels are highest in today's rich countries, and many have started reducing their emissions. Current middle-income economies such as China, Ghana, India or Indonesia have experienced rapid economic, population, and emission growth in recent years, and today's poor countries are projected to be responsible for the lion's share of growth in energy demand and emissions in the coming decades. As of 2019, middle-income countries were responsible for over half of global GHG emissions. While the implementation of climate policies in middle-income countries is crucial for global mitigation efforts, the same is difficult to defend for low-income countries due to justified growth ambitions and very low historical and current emission levels. Besides switching to renewable energy sources for electricity generation, carbon pricing – either through taxes or trading schemes – as well as fossil fuel subsidy removal are arguably the most important mitigation policy tools available. These policies increase energy prices at least in the short term, thus incurring costs that may harm sustainable development goals. People and firms adapted their behaviour to low and often subsidized fossil energy. Many firms rely on generators powered by cheap diesel, while large parts of the population rely on cheap transportation and buy LPG cookstoves due to subsidized fuel prices. Clean cooking fuel adoption objectives may be hampered by taxing the fossil fuel LPG – the only viable clean cooking fuel in many regions of the world. Rising energy prices come with negative welfare consequences for households that may directly threaten poverty reduction efforts. Further, potential competitiveness losses of firms can dampen economic development prospects. Economic development has always been associated with both an increase in per-capita emissions and a decrease in poverty rates, although considerable country-level heterogeneity exists. For instance, China's and Thailand's growth have been associated with steep rises in per-capita emissions (and steep declines in poverty rates), while India's, Indonesia's, and Ghana's emission trajectories are much flatter. South African and Mexican growth rates and per-capita emissions have been relatively stagnant in the past 30 years, but these countries achieved considerable reductions in poverty rates. The trade-offs between climate policy and economic development may explain why only few middle-income countries (and no low-income country) have implemented carbon pricing to date. Those countries that have implemented carbon pricing have done so at very low price levels. The removal of fossil fuel subsidies, labelled as "second-best" climate policy for developing countries, has been more frequent. In addition to public welfare and economic growth concerns, the implementation of policies raising energy prices is frequently met with public protests – be it in China, Ecuador, France, Kazakhstan, Kenya or Mexico. These incidences are likely related to in some cases considerable short-term costs of such policies, which are clearly important from a political economy perspective, irrespective of long-term gains. Policy design needs to take into account these costs in order to avoid adverse consequences and to increase public acceptance. For instance, well-designed social transfer schemes can in theory compensate for welfare losses among the poorer population, and reforms can be phased in gradually to avoid sudden price shocks. This dissertation investigates the impact of rising energy prices, caused by different policies, on different segments of society in two lower-middle-income countries – Ghana and Indonesia – and an upper-middle income country, that is, Mexico. The analyses shed light on the short-term impacts of an increase in energy prices on the performance of small firms in Mexico and on large manufacturing firms in Indonesia, on household welfare impacts and consumption-based GHG emission reduction potential of carbon taxes in Mexico, and on the impact of fossil fuel subsidy removal on clean cooking fuel objectives in Ghana. These analyses hence provide evidence on the effects of climate policies in developing countries and their immediate trade-offs with sustainable development goals. This empirical basis can inform decision makers on how to design complementary policies aimed at mitigating adverse impacts for sustainable development, and thus may also contribute to a more rapid introduction of mitigation policies.

Inter vi e w w i t h P h i l i p p e D e lh a i s e , D i r e c t o r o f C a r b o n M a n a g e m e n t C o ns u l t i n g (1)Q: In a few words, could you describe how the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), as provi- ded for in the Kyoto Protocol, actually work s?The greenhouse gases that lead to climatic warming are in the atmosphere, so the effect they have is not restricted to the states that emit them. This makes them quite different from more local forms of pollution, such as water pollution. We are dealing here with the pol- lution of the global environment, which requires political solutions at the global level. Although the rich countries are the main polluters, their existing technology is less polluting than that available to the developing countries. In India, for one unit of production, four times the quantity of green- house gases are emitted on average than in the United States. Thus, the thinking behind the CDM is that we take money from the West and give it to the developing world. European, Canadian or Japanese firms can thus cut the emission of greenhouse gases, not in their own factories, but by buying pollution rights in Indian, Bolivian or Chinese factories while investing in technology projects designed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The global effects of atmospheric pollution can thus be reduced more quickly.Q: Let's look at the details. How do countries share their responsibilities ?To participate in the Kyoto Protocol, naturally, countries must ratify the agreement. Most developing countries- known as "Non-Annex 1 Countries"-have signed up, of course, including North Korea: it's in their own interests that they should receive technological and financial transfers. Thailand is the only country to have refused, on the grounds that Kyoto allows rich countries to continue polluting while buying off the poor countries at negligible cost.So companies in "rich" countries-known as Annex 1 Countries-may buy polluting rights in the "poor" countries. This classification is open to criticism. Some countries could be considered "rich" and yet be listed as Non-Annex 1: South Korea, for example and, to a lesser extent, China.As for the rich countries, intergovernmental agreements impose quotas on greenhouse gas emissions, quotas that are shared out between the various economic sectors at the national level. Let's take as an example a French company that has to reduce its gas emissions. It has three options: cut down its volume of production, introduce new technology or seek out a firm in a developing country-a Non-Annex 1 country signed up to Kyoto. The reduction is estimated then certified by the Executive Board of the CDM (2). This cer- tificate can in due course be presented by the company in the industrialised country as justification for not having reduced its own emissions.Q: Can you give us some concrete examples of projects that you are working on with enterprises in developing countries?Let's take the typical case of a sugar refinery we're working with. At the end of the production process there remains a 37% residue of sugar cane waste, which is used as a fertiliss- er, dumped or burned. In all three cases, the CO2 contained within this residue is released into the atmosphere. This is where we come in, to arrange for a furnace to be built, one that will burn the residue and generate electricity for the sugar refinery. There'll even be an energy surplus that the refinery can sell. The reduction in greenhouse gases is meas- ured by the difference between the energy consumed before the furnace is installed and that consumed after the new technology is introduced. It's the same story with a paper mill where, as often happens in developing countries, the wood waste is dumped.Further examples are cement works and steel-making plants: with their blast furnaces, they consume large amounts of energy in producing high temperatures, around 1,200°C. …

Aquaculture is a major source of protein in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), a region experiencing rapid population growth, changing lifestyles and preferences, and increased health awareness. However, the industry is still underdeveloped and is of a subsistence nature. Climate change has impacted aquaculture production (AQUAP) in SSA because of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, AQUAP activities also results in GHG emissions. In SSA, the causal effect of GHG emissions and AQUAP has not yet been empirically established and quantified. The objective of the study was to determine the relationship between GHG emissions and AQUAP in SSA. The parsimonious vector autoregressive (VAR) model was used in the study, with annual time series data of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), meat production (MP), GHG emissions, and AQUAP from 1970 to 2020. The findings demonstrate that AQUAP in SSA was suppressed until 2006 when it suddenly increased. Western and Central Africa have dominated AQUAP in SSA. GHG emissions were dropping sporadically until 1991 when they began to rise gradually. In both the long and short run, GHG emissions had a negative influence on AQUAP, while AQUAP had an asymmetric impact on GHG emissions. AQUAP impacts GDP positively in both the long and short run, and GHG emissions had an asymmetric impact on GDP. In conclusion, GHG emissions negatively affect AQUAP. In addition, AQUAP reduced GHG emissions in the short run but however increased it in the long run. This indicates the infancy of the sector in SSA, the initial phase of the Environmental Kuznets Curves (EKC). Furthermore, GDP is positively affected by both GHG emissions and AQUAP. This also cements the initial stages of the EKC, with economic development also powered by GHG emissions, with also the positive contribution of AQUAP to economic growth. Overall, the study concludes of initial economic, and aquaculture sectoral development powered by GHG emissions. However, this is also leading to increased emissions. The study recommends upscaling AQUAP in SSA given its infancy, huge economic potential, sustainability and low GHG emission potential but should be grounded on environmentally sustainable practices.

BackgroundSocietal pressures exist to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from farm animals, especially in beef cattle. Both total GHG and GHG emissions per unit of product decrease as productivity increases. Limitations of previous studies on GHG emissions are that they generally describe feed intake inadequately, assess the consequences of selection on particular traits only, or examine consequences for only part of the production chain. Here, we examine GHG emissions for the whole production chain, with the estimated cost of carbon included as an extra cost on traits in the breeding objective of the production system.MethodsWe examined an example beef production system where economic merit was measured from weaning to slaughter. The estimated cost of the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) associated with feed intake change is included in the economic values calculated for the breeding objective traits and comes in addition to the cost of the feed associated with trait change. GHG emission effects on the production system are accumulated over the breeding objective traits, and the reduction in GHG emissions is evaluated, for different carbon prices, both for the individual animal and the production system.ResultsMultiple-trait selection in beef cattle can reduce total GHG and GHG emissions per unit of product while increasing economic performance if the cost of feed in the breeding objective is high. When carbon price was $10, $20, $30 and $40/ton CO2-e, selection decreased total GHG emissions by 1.1, 1.6, 2.1 and 2.6% per generation, respectively. When the cost of feed for the breeding objective was low, selection reduced total GHG emissions only if carbon price was high (~ $80/ton CO2-e). Ignoring the costs of GHG emissions when feed cost was low substantially increased emissions (e.g. 4.4% per generation or ~ 8.8% in 10 years).ConclusionsThe ability to reduce GHG emissions in beef cattle depends on the cost of feed in the breeding objective of the production system. Multiple-trait selection will reduce emissions, while improving economic performance, if the cost of feed in the breeding objective is high. If it is low, greater growth will be favoured, leading to an increase in GHG emissions that may be undesirable.