Estimating the potential of greenhouse gas mitigation in Kazakhstan

Climate-smart livestock production at landscape level in Kenya

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

Better information on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigation potential in the agricultural sector is necessary to manage these emissions and identify responses that are consistent with the food security and economic development priorities of countries. Critical activity data (what crops or livestock are managed in what way) are poor or lacking for many agricultural systems, especially in developing countries. In addition, the currently available methods for quantifying emissions and mitigation are often too expensive or complex or not sufficiently user friendly for widespread use.The purpose of this focus issue is to capture the state of the art in quantifying greenhouse gases from agricultural systems, with the goal of better understanding our current capabilities and near-term potential for improvement, with particular attention to quantification issues relevant to smallholders in developing countries. This work is timely in light of international discussions and negotiations around how agriculture should be included in efforts to reduce and adapt to climate change impacts, and considering that significant climate financing to developing countries in post-2012 agreements may be linked to their increased ability to identify and report GHG emissions (Murphy et al 2010, CCAFS 2011, FAO 2011).

Español

The 15-minute city offers a new framework for sustainability, liveability, and health

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol established reporting requirements for Parties. This has resulted in comprehensive and timely information on national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Annex I Parties, periodic reporting of other information from Annex I Parties and irregular provision of GHG emissions and other information from non-Annex I Parties. Thus, the current reporting framework does not enable a complete or up-to-date assessment of current global GHG emissions, goals, projected future emission trends or mitigation actions and their effects. This paper explores options for the functions, form, timing and content of future national reports under the UNFCCC, focusing on national communications. It suggests that reporting guidelines for future national communications could be “tiered”. This could allow countries to produce national communication “updates” on a frequent (e.g. biennial) basis – focusing the information in these updates on information of most relevance to the international community. “Full” national communications would also continue to be produced, but less frequently than “updates”. Different tiers could be established according to the type of country (e.g. Annex I or non-Annex I); type of mitigation pledge (e.g. nation-wide emissions limit, sectoral goal, mitigation action); and/or the frequency with which changes in particular parameters occur. Such a tiered approach could also provide flexibility for countries to improve the content and frequency of information that they report as their capacities allow. “Updates” to national communications, containing more targeted information on key elements, could be more user-friendly and could focus on the core elements in which national and international users are interested. Streamlined “updates” to national communications could therefore focus on parameters that either change frequently and/or are not currently reported or systematically included in national communications or other climate reports under the UNFCCC. This includes: regular information on historical GHG emissions (including calculation methodology and transfers of units) for many countries, as well as on financial support from Annex I countries; short or medium-term mitigation goals and strategies (e.g. to 2020); progress in implementing such goals and strategies; and improved information on financial needs in terms of GHG mitigation and adaptation activities (by non-Annex I countries).

Introduction and overview COP21 (1) is the latest in the annual Conference of Parties, which began in Berlin in 1995, with a main aim to review the implementation of the Convention--the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (2) (UNFCCC)--which entered into force on the 21 March 1994. The UNFCCC was adopted at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit of 1992, and sets out an overall framework intended to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GFIGs) so to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The UNFCCC membership is now practically universal and, as of December 2015, consists of 197 parties. Some of the more significant conferences (and their associated actions) include COP3 (Kyoto Protocol adopted), COP 11 (Montreal Action Plan agreed), COP 15 in Copenhagen (agreement not achieved to implement the Kyoto Protocol) and COP 17 in Durban (Green Climate Fund agreed). COP21 stands out from all previous conferences (1), in that it aimed to limit the rise in global temperatures to well below 2 [degrees]C above pre-industrial levels (with the background target being 1.5 [degrees]C), by establishing a universal agreement on climate, among all the nations of the world, that is legally binding. The negotiations at COP21 led to the Paris Agreement3 being adopted on 12 December 2015, which governs measures for climate change reduction from 2020, and concluded the work of the Durban platform, which was set out as part of the activities of COP 17. However, it is required (3) that 55 countries which produce at least 55% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions (Figure 1) ratify the Agreement, in order for it to enter into force and become fully binding. The Agreement must be signed in New York between 22 April 2016 and 21 April 2017, by these parties, who must also assimilate it, as appropriate, within their own legal systems, via ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession. However, it is speculated that some parties, particularly the United States, may not agree to do so. Indeed, although it is a requirement that each country that ratifies the agreement must set a target for its reduction in emissions, there is no compulsory amount for this (4). Moreover, there is to be no means to compel the setting of a target by a specific date nor penalty measures imposed should a set target not be met (4) (in contrast with the more specific and draconian Kyoto Protocol). Any noncompliant countries will merely be named and shamed, which has contributed to severe criticism of the whole enterprise, e.g. by such eminent figures as James Hansen, who is quoted (5) as saying: [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] a fraud really, a fake. just bullshit for them to say: 'We'll have a 2 [degrees]C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.' It's just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned. At COP21, particular focus has been given to two primary issues: namely, whether the critical temperature limit should be set at 1.5 [degrees]C or 2 [degrees]C above preindustrial levels; and the appropriate level of funding that should be awarded by developed nations to developing countries that are potentially vulnerable to sea-level rise, and to expectedly more severe weather events (5). In Hansen's view, all of this carries little weight without taxes for greenhouse gas emissions being imposed equally and globally, being of the belief that this is the only strategy that can drive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at the relatively rapid rate that is necessary to mitigate the worst possible scenarios of climate change (5). However, the United States Secretary of State, John Kerry has opposed Hansen's criticisms of COP21, and is adamant that the deal will auger in a global replacement of fossil fuels by renewable energy sources (6). …

Greenhouse gas emission mitigation potential of rice husks for An Giang province, Vietnam

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are a significant cause of climate change, and municipal solid waste (MSW) is an important source of GHG emissions. In this study, GHG emissions from MSW treatment in Beijing during 2006–2019 were accounted, basing on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) inventory model; the influencing factors affecting GHG emissions were analyzed by the logarithmic mean Divisia index (LMDI) model combined with the extended Kaya identity, and the GHG mitigation potential were explored based on different MSW management policy contexts. The results showed that the GHG emissions from MSW treatment in Beijing increased from 3.62 Mt CO2e in 2006 to 6.57 Mt CO2e in 2019, with an average annual growth rate (AAGR) of 4.68%, of which 89.34–99.36% was CH4. Moreover, the driving factors of GHG emissions from MSW treatment were, in descending order: economic output (EO), GHG emission intensity (EI), population size (P), and urbanization rate (U). The inhibiting factors were, in descending order: MSW treatment pattern (TP) and MSW treatment intensity (TI). Furthermore, compared with the BAU (business–as–usual) scenario, the GHG mitigation potential of the MSW classification and the population control scenario were 35.79% and 0.51%, respectively, by 2030.

Determining comparability of effort between mitigation actions and targets proposed by different countries is an ongoing issue for international climate negotiations. A number of indicators have been proposed to reflect comparability of effort and differences in national circumstances; key amongst these are greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (per capita), GDP per capita, as well as GHG mitigation potential. This paper focuses on mitigation potential to provide a comparative assessment between six OECD member economies: Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, Mexico and the US. GHG mitigation potential is defined to be the level of GHG emission reductions that could be realised, relative to the projected emission baseline in a given year, for a given carbon price. Data for the selected countries were obtained across the time horizon of 2005-2050 from a total of 19 models, including models that are used to inform climate policy-makers in each of these economies. The paper examines the implications of model structure, and assesses how baseline scenarios vary between the models, before analysing the GHG mitigation potential estimates. GHG mitigation potential is compared for carbon prices of USD 20, 50 and 100/tCO2e. For an assumed carbon price of USD 50/tCO2e, mitigation potential in Japan is estimated to be relatively lower than for the other five economies, ranging from 5-20% emission reduction from baseline in 2020. Although noticeably fewer models report data for Mexico at this price level, the models show deeper potential reductions in the range of 25-37% at the same carbon price. Mitigation potential estimates for Australia, Canada and the US show a wider range of 14-39% reduction relative to 2020 baselines. The EU shows a relatively tighter range of 16-29% emission reductions to 2020. The results of this study show greater emission reduction potentials in the year 2050 than in the year 2020 across the six economies examined, reflecting structural and technical changes that occur over time, including the availability of carbon capture and storage from 2030. In general, the paper finds closer agreement across the models for mitigation potential in 2020 than for later years, reflecting greater uncertainty as projections extend into the future.

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.

Mitigating the greenhouse gas emissions from urban roadway lighting in China via energy-efficient luminaire adoption and renewable energy utilization

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 complexity of climate change and its global nature as a problem affecting the international community necessitates a variety of measures deriving their authority from different international regimes. Acknowledging the global and complex nature of shipping activities, the Kyoto Protocol entrusted the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from marine bunker fuels to the International Maritime Organization (IMO). 1 Since 1997, the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) has been actively engaged in discussions concerning the reduction of GHG emissions from ships and the elaboration of a legal framework for energy efficiency in the shipping industry as a means of tackling climate change. In what was heralded as a historic decision, the MEPC adopted mandatory measures to reduce GHG emissions from ships at its sixty-second session in 2011. These measures form the first legally binding, multilateral climate change-related agreement since the Kyoto Protocol. Despite some progress in the recent MEPC and the adoption of a resolution on the promotion of technical co-operation and the transfer of technology, progress in the IMO is slow. In this framework, the European Union (EU) is considering a variety of options such as the inclusion of ships emissions in its GHG reduction commitment, the elaboration of a monitoring, reporting, and verification system based on fuel consumption, and market-based mechanisms with the view to contributing to global efforts and the IMO process. The negotiation process at the IMO for the adoption of measures to reduce GHG emissions from ships has demonstrated a number of challenges and uncertainties stemming from regime interaction between the IMO regime and the principles and institutional framework of the UN Framework Convention on

Spatially explicit database on crop-livestock management, soil, climate, greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential for all of Bangladesh