INTERPRETING EMISSIONS PLEDGES THE NEED FOR A COMMON ACCOUNTING FRAMEWORK

The paper examines the complexity of comparing national emissions pledges due to inconsistent base years, varying scopes of greenhouse gases, and divergent accounting methods for LULUCF. It analyzes the specific pledges of Annex I countries (Australia, Canada, EU, Japan, Russia, Kazakhstan) and non-Annex I countries (China, India), highlighting how 'cherry picking' accounting systems can make targets appear more ambitious than they are. The authors recommend a common accounting framework where countries provide scenarios showing how energy-related emissions, LULUCF, and international offsets contribute to their total commitments.

• The lack of a common accounting basis for post-2012 targets makes it extremely difficult to compare country targets and their collective global impact, creating a risk that countries may 'cherry pick' systems to make targets appear more ambitious.
• LULUCF accounting is a primary factor complicating 'like for like' comparisons of emissions pledges, as it is integrated into targets in radically different ways across countries.
• Current pledges by Annex I countries are unlikely to meet the IPCC's estimated requirement of aggregate reductions of 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 to maintain trajectories towards 450ppm.
• Australia's 2020 targets (ranging from 5% to 25% below 2000 levels) are heavily dependent on LULUCF, specifically reforestation, afforestation, and deforestation, which are subject to high uncertainty due to fire and climate effects.
• The United States' emissions reductions under the H.R. 2454 bill are highly sensitive to the additionality of international forestry offsets; the most conservative scenario projects a reduction of only 2.3% below 1990 levels by 2020.
• Canada's pledge of a 17% reduction below 2005 levels by 2020 excludes LULUCF because forest management is currently a net source of emissions due to natural disturbances like forest fires and pine beetle infestations.
• Russia has proposed a 'bar-to-zero' approach for LULUCF with a reference level of -177.8 Mt CO2e/yr, which would prevent the accounting of carbon losses as debits unless the sector becomes a net source.
• The European Union's proposed LULUCF reference level is significantly lower than historical levels, incorporating a planned 20% increase in harvesting rates by 2020, which could allow for a decrease in carbon sinks without being registered as an emission.
• China and India rely on emission intensity targets rather than absolute caps, meaning their total emissions may still increase significantly depending on economic growth scenarios.
• Kazakhstan's pledge to reduce emissions by 15% below 1992 levels by 2020 is considered ambitious given its history of high energy and carbon intensity, though it may be offset by the carry-over of assigned amount units (AAUs).

APA

Baker, A., Baigarin, K., Brewer, T., Dasgupta, S., Grubb, M., Hoogzaad, J., Jotzo, F., Kimura, H., Korppoo, A., Laing, T., Macintosh, A., McDaniels, D., Roy, J., Roychowdhury, S., Spencer, T., Streck, C., von Unger, M., Ward, M., & Xie, H. (2010). INTERPRETING EMISSIONS PLEDGES THE NEED FOR A COMMON ACCOUNTING FRAMEWORK. Climate Strategies. https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/cs-interpreting-emissions-pledges-final-may2010.pdf

Chicago

Baker, Antonia, Kanat Baigarin, Thomas Brewer, Shyamasree Dasgupta, Michael Grubb, Jelmer Hoogzaad, Frank Jotzo, et al. INTERPRETING EMISSIONS PLEDGES THE NEED FOR A COMMON ACCOUNTING FRAMEWORK. Climate Strategies, 2010. https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/cs-interpreting-emissions-pledges-final-may2010.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Baker |first1=Antonia |last2=Baigarin |first2=Kanat |last3=Brewer |first3=Thomas |last4=Dasgupta |first4=Shyamasree |last5=Grubb |first5=Michael |last6=Hoogzaad |first6=Jelmer |last7=Jotzo |first7=Frank |last8=Kimura |first8=Hitomi |last9=Korppoo |first9=Anna |display-authors=etal |title=INTERPRETING EMISSIONS PLEDGES THE NEED FOR A COMMON ACCOUNTING FRAMEWORK |publisher=Climate Strategies |date=May 2010 |url=https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/cs-interpreting-emissions-pledges-final-may2010.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{baker2010interpreting, author = {Baker, Antonia and Baigarin, Kanat and Brewer, Thomas and Dasgupta, Shyamasree and Grubb, Michael and Hoogzaad, Jelmer and Jotzo, Frank and Kimura, Hitomi and Korppoo, Anna and Laing, Tim and Macintosh, Andrew and McDaniels, Devin and Roy, Joyashree and Roychowdhury, Shreya and Spencer, Thomas and Streck, Charlotte and von Unger, Moritz and Ward, Murray and Xie, HongXing}, title = {{INTERPRETING EMISSIONS PLEDGES THE NEED FOR A COMMON ACCOUNTING FRAMEWORK}}, institution = {Climate Strategies}, year = {2010}, month = may, url = {https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/cs-interpreting-emissions-pledges-final-may2010.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }