Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 68, Issue 1–2, pp 11–19 | Cite as

PPP Correction of the IPCC Emission Scenarios – Does it Matter?

  • Bjart J. Holtsmark
  • Knut H. Alfsen
Article

Abstract

Ian Castles and David Henderson have criticized IPCC’s Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (IPCC: 2000, Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 595 pp. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/index.htm) for using market exchange rates (MER) instead of purchasing power parities (PPP), when converting regional GDP into a common denominator. The consequence is that poor countries generally appear to be poorer than they actually are. An overstated income gap between the rich and poor countries in the base year gives rise to projections of too high economic growth in the poor countries, because the scenarios are constructed with the aim of reducing the income gap. Castles and Henderson claim that overstated economic growth means that greenhouse gas emissions are overstated as well. However, because closure of the emission-intensity gap between the rich and the poor parts of the world is another important driving force in the scenarios, we argue that the use of MER in the SRES scenarios has not caused an overestimation of the global emission growth because, as far as global emissions are concerned, the overstated income gap is effectively neutralized by the overstated emission-intensity gap.

Keywords

Economic Growth Emission Scenario Poor Country Intergovernmental Panel Common Denominator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Castles, I. and Henderson, D.: 2003a, ‘The IPCC Emission Scenarios: An Economic-Statistical Critique’, Energy Environ.142–3, 159–185.Google Scholar
  2. Castles, I. and Henderson, D.: 2003b, ‘Economics, Emissions Scenarios and the Work of the IPCC’, Energy Environ.144, 415–435.Google Scholar
  3. The Economist: 2003, Hot Potato. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Had Better Check Its Calculations, Feb 13th 2003 print edition.Google Scholar
  4. IPCC: 2000, Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, Working Group III,Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 595 pp. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/index.htm.Google Scholar
  5. Manne, A. and Richels, R.: 2003, Market Exchange Rates or Purchasing Power Parity: Does the Choice Make a Difference to the Climate Debate? Unpublished paper. Google Scholar
  6. Nakićenović, N., Grübler, A., Gaffin, S., Jung, T. T., Kram, T., Morita, T., Pitcher, H., Riahi, K., Schlesinger, M., Shukla, P. R., van Vuuren, D., Davis, G., Michaelis, L., Swart, R., and Victor, N.: 2003, ‘IPCC SRES Revisited: A Response’, Energy Environ.142–3, 187–214.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research DepartmentStatistics NorwayOsloNorway
  2. 2.CICERO—Centre for International Climate and Environment ResearchOslo

Personalised recommendations