Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dealing with Uncertainty in GHG Inventories: How to Go About It?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Coping with Uncertainty

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems ((LNE,volume 633))

Abstract

The assessment of greenhouse gases emitted to and removed from the atmosphere is high on both political and scientific agendas. Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Parties to the Convention publish annual or periodic national inventories of greenhouse gas emissions and removals. Policymakers use these inventories to develop strategies and policies for emission reductions and to track the progress of these policies. However, greenhouse gas inventories (whether at the global, national, corporate, or other level) contain uncertainty for a variety of reasons, and these uncertainties have important scientific and policy implications. For scientific, political, and economic reasons it is important to deal with the uncertainty of emissions estimates proactively. Proper treatment of uncertainty affects everything from our understanding of the physical system to the economics of mitigation strategies and the politics of mitigation agreements. A comprehensive and consistent understanding of, and a framework for dealing with, the uncertainty of emissions estimates should have a large impact on the functioning and effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol and its successor. This chapter attempts to pull together relevant fragments of knowledge, allowing us to get a better picture of how to go about dealing with the uncertainty in greenhouse gas inventories.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The issue of great uncertainty vs. small change also arises for small, intermediate, reduction targets. For instance, the EU discusses annual reduction steps in the context of an overall (EU-wide) GHG emission reduction of 20% by 2020 compared to 2005 [11, p. 7]. These steps follow a linear reduction path and are small ( < 2% per year; not compounded).

  2. 2.

    It is noted that attempts exist to put one of these six techniques to analyze uncertain emission changes, the verification time concept, on a stochastic basis (see Ermolieva et al., herein; and also [27] and [28]). It is correct to say that this technique still undergoes scientific scrutiny and awaits adjustment in order to operate in a preparatory mode.

  3. 3.

    See http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/FOR/unc_overview.html for an overview on IIASA’s monitoring reports and the countries that are monitored.

  4. 4.

    For the authors’ study and numerical results see http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/FOR/unc_prep.html. Referring readers to this website facilitates easy replication for follow-up studies or, as in this case, avoiding duplication.

  5. 5.

    See, for instance, the so-called undershooting (Und) concept: Excel file available via numerical results to [23] at http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/FOR/unc_prep.html: Worksheet Undershooting 4:column C = Kyoto commitments δ KP for country groups 1–8 (see also Table 11.2); column E = the accepted risk α that a country’s true emissions in the commitment year/period are equal to, or greater than, the country’s true Kyoto target (risk α can be grasped although true emissions and targets derived from them are unknown by nature); and columns F–N or U–AC (restricted to rows 14–16) = presumed relative uncertainty ρ of the country’s reported emissions.The Und concept requires undershooting of the countries’ Kyoto targets in the commitment year in order to handle and decrease risk α (see columns F–N, rows ≥ 17, for the required undershooting). Varying δ KP while keeping the relative uncertainty ρ and the risk α constant (e.g., at ρ = 15% and α = 0. 3) exhibits that countries complying with a smaller δ KP are better off than countries that must comply with a greater δ KP (see columns U–AC, rows ≥ 17, for the modified emission limitation or reduction target, which is the sum of the agreed target under the Kyoto Protocol plus the required undershooting). Such a situation is not in line with the spirit of the Kyoto Protocol!

  6. 6.

    See, for instance, the so-called combined undershoot and verification time (Und&VT) concept: Excel file available via numerical results to [23] at http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/FOR/unc_prep.html: Worksheet Und&VT 1: Fig. 1 therein. The Und&VT concept requires a priori detectable emission reductions, not limitations. That is, it requires the Protocol’s emission limitation or reduction targets to be corrected for nondetectability through the introduction of an initial or obligatory undershooting so that the countries’ emission signals become detectable before the countries are permitted to make economic use of their excess emission reductions. This nullifies, de facto, the politically agreed targets under the Kyoto Protocol!

  7. 7.

    The situation would be different if the nonuniformity of the emission limitation or reduction commitments would be the outcome of a rigorously based process resulting in a straightforward rule that applies equally to all countries as would be the case, for instance, under the so-called contraction and convergence approach (e.g., [34, Sect. 2.3.2], [35]).

  8. 8.

    In their recent study [38, Table 1] show that, making use of global carbon budget data between 1959 and 2006, the efficiency of natural carbon sinks to remove atmospheric CO2 has declined by about 2.5% per decade. Although this decline may look modest, it represents a mean net “source” to the atmosphere of 0.13 PgC y − 1 during 2000–2006. In comparison, a 5% reduction in the mean global fossil emissions during the same time period yields a net “sink” of 0.38 PgC y − 1. Thus, deteriorating natural carbon sinks as a result of climate change or man’s direct impact exhibit the potential to offset efforts to reduce fossil fuel emissions. This shows that man’s impact on nature is indeed not negligible and stresses the need to look at the entire system, that is, to develop a FCA system where emissions and removals and their trends are monitored in toto.

  9. 9.

    This view of treating subsystems individually and differently runs counter to the approach typically taken. The tendency has been to treat subsystems collectively and equally and to dispose over a wide range of options in order to minimize costs or maximize benefits resulting from the joint emissions reduction of GHGs and air pollutants (e.g., [40], [41, (77)], [42]).

References

  1. FCCC: Report of the conference of the parties on its fourth session, Buenos Aires, 2–14 November 1998. Addendum. Part two: action taken by the conference of the parties at its fourth session. Tech. Rep. FCCC/CP/1998/16/Add.1, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), Bonn, Germany (1999). http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop4/16a01.pdf

  2. Prather, M., Ehhalt, F., Dentener, F., Derwent, R., Dlugokencky, E., Holland, E., Isaksen, I., Katima, J., Kirchhoff, V., Matson, P., Midgley, P., Wang, M.: Atmospheric chemistry and greenhouse gases. In: Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 239–287. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001). http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/index.htm

  3. Solomon, S., Manning, D.Q.M., Alley, R., Berntsen, T., Bindoff, N., Chen, Z., Chidthaisong, A., Gregory, J., Hegerl, G., Heimann, M., Hewitson, B., Hoskins, B., Joos, F., Jouzel, J., Kattsov, V., Lohmann, U., Matsuno, T., Molina, M., Nicholls, N., Overpeck, J., Raga, G., Ramaswamy, V., Ren, J., Rusticucci, M., Somerville, R., Stocker, T., Whetton, P., Wood, R., Wratt, D.: Technical summary. In: Solomon, S., et al. (eds.) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 19–91. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Denman, K., Brasseur, G., Chidthaisong, A., Ciais, P., Cox, P., Dickinson, R., Hauglustaine, D., Heinze, C., Holland, E., Jacob, D., Lohmann, U., Ramachandran, S., da Silva Dias, P., Wofsy, S., Zhang, X.: Couplings between changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry, In: Solomon, S., et al. (eds.) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 499–587. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  5. IIASA: Uncertainty in greenhouse gas inventories. IIASA Policy Brief 01, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria (2007). http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/policy-briefs/pb01-web.pdf

  6. International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association: Greenhouse gas emissions estimations and inventories. Summary Report, Addressing uncertainty and accuracy (2007). http://www.ipieca.org/activities/climate_change/downloads/publications/Uncertainty.pdf

  7. Lieberman, D., Jonas, M., Winiwarter, W., Nahorski, Z., Nilsson, S.: Accounting for climate change: introduction. In: Lieberman, D., et al. (eds.) Accounting for Climate Change. Uncertainty in Greenhouse Gas Inventories – Verification, Compliance, and Trading. Springer, Dordrecht (2007). DOI10.1007/s11267-006-9120-8

    Google Scholar 

  8. Penman, J., Kruger, D., Galbally, I., Hiraishi, T., Nyenzi, B., Emmanuel, S., Buendia, L., Hoppaus, R., Martinsen, T., Meijer, J., Miwa, K., Tanabe, K., (eds.): Good practice guidance and uncertainty management in national greenhouse gas inventories. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan (2000). http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/english/

  9. Penman, J., Gytarsky, M., Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Kruger, D., Pipatti, R., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K., Wagner, F. (eds.): Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan (2003). http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/gpglulucf.htm

  10. Gupta, J., Olsthoorn, X., Rotenberg, E.: The role of scientific uncertainty in compliance with the Kyoto Protocol to the climate change convention. Environ. Sci. Policy 6(6), 475–486 (2003). DOI10.1016/j.envsci.2003.09.001

    Google Scholar 

  11. COM: Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the council amending directive 2003/87/ec so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system of the community. Tech. Rep. 16 final, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium (2008). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0016:FIN:EN:PDF

  12. FCCC: Compliance under the Kyoto Protocol. Secretariat to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), Bonn, Germany (2008). http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/compliance/items/2875.php

  13. FCCC: Report of the conference of the parties on its second session, Geneva, 8–19 July 1996. Addendum. Part two: action taken by the conference of the parties at its second session. Tech. Rep. FCCC/CP/1996/15/Add.1, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), Bonn, Germany (1996). http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop2/15a01.pdf

  14. FCCC: Report of the conference of the parties on its third session, Kyoto, 1–11 December 1997. Addendum. Part two: action taken by the conference of the parties at its third session. Tech. Rep. FCCC/CP/1997/7/Add.1, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), Bonn, Germany (1998). http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop3/07a01.pdf

  15. FCCC: Kyoto Protocol: countries included in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol and their emission targets. Secretariat to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), Bonn, Germany (2008). http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/3145.php

  16. FCCC: Kyoto Protocol base year data. Secretariat to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), Bonn, Germany (2008). http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/kp_data_unfccc/base_year_data/items/4354.php

  17. FCCC: National inventory submissions 2008. Secretariat to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), Bonn, Germany (2008). http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/4303.php

  18. COM: Report from the commission. Assigned amount report of the European Union. Tech. Rep. 799 final, Commission of the European Communities (COM), Brussels, Belgium (2006). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0799:FIN:EN:PDF

  19. EEA: Annual European Community greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2005 and inventory report 2007. Tech. Rep. 7, European Environment Agency (EEA), Copenhagen (2007). http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2007_7/en/

  20. Watson, R., Noble, I., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N., Verardo, D., Dokken, D., (eds.): Land use, land-use change, and forestry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000). http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.htm

  21. Jonas, M., Nilsson, S.: Prior to an economic treatment of emissions and their uncertainties under the Kyoto Protocol: scientific uncertainties that must be kept in mind. In: Lieberman, D., et al. (eds.) Accounting for Climate Change. Uncertainty in Greenhouse Gas Inventories – Verification, Compliance, and Trading, p. 159. Springer, Dordrecht (2007). DOI10.1007/s11267-006-9113-7

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hamal, K.: Reporting GHG emissions: change in uncertainty and its relevance for the detection of emission changes. Interim Report, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria (2008). http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/YSP/2007abstracts.pdf

  23. Jonas, M., Gusti, M., Jeda, W., Nahorski, Z., Nilsson, S.: Comparison of preparatory signal detection techniques for consideration in the (post-) Kyoto policy process. In: 2nd International Workshop on Uncertainty in Greenhouse Gas Inventories, pp. 107–134, Laxenburg, Austria (2007). http://www.ibspan.waw.pl/ghg2007/par.htm

  24. Jonas, M., Nilsson, S., Bun, R., Dachuk, V., Gusti, M., Horabik, J., Jeda, W., Nahorski, Z.: Preparatory signal detection for Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol – a lesson for the post-Kyoto policy process. Interim Report IR-04-024, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria (2004). http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-04-024.pdf

  25. Gillenwater, M., Sussman, F., Cohen, J.: Practical policy applications of uncertainty analysis for national greenhouse gas inventories. In: Lieberman, D., et al. (eds.) Accounting for Climate Change. Uncertainty in Greenhouse Gas Inventories – Verification, Compliance, and Trading. Springer, Dordrecht (2007). DOI10.1007/s11267-006-9118-2

    Google Scholar 

  26. Nahorski, Z., Horabik, J., Jonas, M.: Compliance and emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol: rules for uncertain inventories. In: Lieberman, D., et al. (eds.) Accounting for Climate Change. Uncertainty in Greenhouse Gas Inventories – Verification, Compliance, and Trading. Springer, Dordrecht (2007). DOI10.1007/s11267-006-9112-8

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hudz, H.: Verification times underlying the Kyoto Protocol: consideration of risk. Interim Report IR-02-066, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria (2003). http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-02-066.pdf

  28. Hudz, H., Jonas, M., Ermolieva, T., Bun, R., Ermoliev, Y., Nilsson, S.: Verification times underlying the Kyoto Protocol: consideration of risk. Background data for IR-02-066. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria (2003). http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/FOR/vt_concept.html

  29. Gusti, M., Jeda, W.: Carbon management: a new dimension of future carbon research. Interim Report IR-02-006, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria (2002). http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-02-006.pdf

  30. Dachuk, V.: Looking behind the Kyoto Protocol: can integral transforms provide help in dealing with the verification issue? Interim Report IR-02-046, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria (2003). http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-02-046.pdf

  31. Nahorski, Z., Jeda, W.: Processing national CO2 inventory emissions data and their total uncertainty estimates. In: Lieberman, D., et al. (eds.) Accounting for Climate Change: Uncertainty in Greenhouse Gas Inventories – Verification, Compliance, and Trading. Springer, Dordrecht (2007). DOI10.1007/s11267-006-9114-6

    Google Scholar 

  32. Smirnov, A.: Attainability analysis of the dice model. Interim Report IR-05-049, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria (2005). http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-05-049.pdf

  33. Pivovarchuk, D.: Consistency between long-term climate targets and short-term abatement policies: attainability analysis technique. Interim Report IR-08-017, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  34. WBGU: Climate protection strategies for the 21st century: Kyoto and beyond. Special report, German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), Bremerhaven, Germany (2003). http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_sn2003_engl.html

  35. Pearce, F.: Saving the World, Plan B. New Sci. 180(2425), 6–7 (2003). http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4467-greenhouse-gas-plan-b-gaining-support.html

  36. CANA: Scorecard of the Bali climate talks. Climate Action Network Australia, Ultimo, NSW, Australia (2007). http://www.cana.net.au/international/Bali_scorecard_back_page_final.pdf

  37. FCCC: Report of the conference of the parties on its thirteenth session, Bali, 3–15 December 2007. Addendum. Part two: action taken by the conference of the parties at its thirteenth session. Tech. Rep. FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), Bonn, Germany (2007). http://www.unisdr.org/eng/risk-reduction/climate-change/docs/Bali-Action-plan.pdf

  38. Canadell, J., Le Quere, C., Raupach, M., Field, C., Ciais, P., Conway, T., Gillett, N., Houghton, R., Marland, G.: Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks. PNAS 104(47), 18866–18870 (2007). DOI10.1073/pnas.0702737104

    Google Scholar 

  39. Pearce, F.: Kyoto promises are nothing but hot air. New Sci. 190(2557), 10–11 (2006). http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025574.000-kyoto-promises-are-nothing-but-hot-air.html

    Google Scholar 

  40. McCarl, B., Schneider, U.: Climate change: Greenhouse gas mitigation in US agriculture and forestry. Science 294(5551), 2481–2482 (2001). DOI10.1126/science.1064193

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hansen, J.: Defusing the global warming time bomb. Sci. Am. 290(3), 68–77 (2004). http://www.columbia.edu/∼jeh1/hansen_timebomb.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  42. APD: Air pollution and greenhouse gases. Atmospheric Pollution and Economic Development (APD) Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria (2008). http://www.iiasa.ac.at/rains/ghg.html

  43. Monni, S., Syri, S., Pipatti, R., Savolainen, I.: Extension of EU emissions trading scheme to other sectors and gases: consequences for uncertainty of total tradable amount. In: Lieberman, D., et al. (eds.) Accounting for Climate Change. Uncertainty in Greenhouse Gas Inventories – Verification, Compliance, and Trading. Springer, Dordrecht (2007). DOI10.1007/s11267-006-9111-9

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ermoliev, Y., Michalevich, M., Nentjes, A.: Markets for tradeable emission and ambient permits: a dynamic approach. Environ. Res. Econ. 15(1), 39–56 (2000). http://www.springerlink.com/content/x7385ul217736h24/fulltext.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  45. Godal, O., Ermoliev, Y., Klassen, G., Obersteiner, M.: Carbon trading with imperfectly observable emissions. Environ. Res. Econ. 25(2), 151–169 (2003). http://www.springerlink.com/content/r7wl2242j0725354/fulltext.pdf

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Daniel Lieberman

    Present address: Chevron Corporation, 6001 Bollinger Canyon Rd, K2339, San Ramon, CA, 94583, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Schlossplatz 1, 2361, Laxenburg, Austria

    Matthias Jonas & Sten Nilsson

  2. Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, 506 West Burnside Road, Victoria, BC, Canada, V8Z 1M5

    Thomas White

  3. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Bethel Valley Road, Building 1509, 2008, Oak Ridge, TN, 37831-6335, USA

    Gregg Marland

  4. ICF International, 1725 Eye St. NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC, 20006, USA

    Daniel Lieberman

  5. Systems Research Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Newelska 6, 01-447, Warsaw, Poland

    Zbigniew Nahorski

Authors
  1. Matthias Jonas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gregg Marland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel Lieberman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zbigniew Nahorski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sten Nilsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Jonas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Aerospace Engineering and, Technology, Federal Armed Forces University Munich, Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 39, Neubiberg/München, 85577, Germany

    Kurt Marti

  2. Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), International Institute for, Schloßplatz 1, Laxenburg, 2361, Austria

    Yuri Ermoliev

  3. Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), International Institute for, Schloßplatz 1, Laxenburg, 2361, Austria

    Marek Makowski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jonas, M., White, T., Marland, G., Lieberman, D., Nahorski, Z., Nilsson, S. (2010). Dealing with Uncertainty in GHG Inventories: How to Go About It?. In: Marti, K., Ermoliev, Y., Makowski, M. (eds) Coping with Uncertainty. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 633. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03735-1_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation