Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines how financial institutions can apply the Greenhouse Gas Protocol's Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard to develop GHG inventories. It emphasizes that inventories should drive emissions reductions and serve business imperatives, such as managing reputational and fiduciary risks. The brief suggests specific accounting approaches for investments, including equity share methods and the reporting of relevant indirect emissions.

The paper addresses widespread errors in the emission factors used to account for indirect greenhouse gas emissions from purchased electricity at the organizational level in China. It argues that inappropriate factors lead to inaccurate accounting and distorted signals for GHG mitigation decisions, noting that incorrect factors used in 2010 could have resulted in over-estimating emissions by up to 49 percent. To resolve this, the document provides detailed calculation processes and default emission factors for regional grids in China, aligned with the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard and ISO 14064-1:2006.

The analysis concludes that biomass is a limited resource that should play a minor role in energy production, with priority given to carbon removal, chemicals production, and next-generation fuels over crop-based biofuels. It warns that demand for biomass could exceed sustainable supply, potentially leading to land use changes that increase greenhouse gas emissions, and recommends accelerating electrification and energy efficiency to reduce biomass demand.

The document introduces the U.S. Public Sector Protocol, which adapts the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard for government entities. It addresses specific public sector challenges, such as shared resources and leasing arrangements, to help federal, state, regional, and municipal organizations create transparent and consistent GHG inventories.

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard provides a standardized framework for organizations to inventory and report indirect GHG emissions. Its primary goal is to enable companies to identify the most significant emission reduction opportunities within their value chains to inform sustainable business decisions. The standard aims to ensure inventories are 'true and fair' and cost-effective, support the development of emission reduction strategies, and ensure transparent public reporting. It is designed to be flexible, allowing companies to adopt a phased implementation approach to improve data quality over time.

The paper assesses the transparency of GHG emissions targets for eight top-emitting economies—Brazil, China, the EU, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, and the US—using the World Resources Institute's Open Book framework. While these parties generally followed the Lima Call for Climate Action, significant transparency gaps remain, particularly regarding land-sector accounting and market mechanisms. The analysis finds that absolute/base-year targets are generally presented more transparently than other target types. The document provides emissions trajectories through 2030 to quantify uncertainties caused by these gaps and recommends that parties provide more detailed assumptions, methodologies, and expected emission trajectories to improve accountability.

The paper offers guidance on accounting for mitigation targets within NDCs under the Paris Agreement, utilizing approaches from the World Resources Institute's Greenhouse Gas Protocol Mitigation Goal Standard to fill gaps in UNFCCC guidance.

The briefing argues against the simple extrapolation of financial discount rates to physical carbon flows when assessing the emissions impact of land-use change for biofuels. It proposes distinguishing between the 'project horizon' (cultivation period) and the 'impact horizon' (atmospheric effect period), suggesting the latter be treated as a rolling target. The document further recommends that salvaged carbon from future revegetation be excluded from initial conversion accounting and suggests that if discounting is necessary, a range of values—including zero or negative rates—should be considered.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) provides as-delivered CO2 emissions rates to directly-served customers since 2012 and local power company (LPC) customers with demand over 5 MW since 2017. Unlike standard annual consumption rates, TVA uses hourly electric consumption profiles compared to the annual hourly TVA system CO2 emission rate to determine supplier-specific figures for market-based Scope 2 reporting. To support these customers, TVA developed a spreadsheet tool that allows users to compare the cost and Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) consumption differences between renewable energy goals and clean energy goals, with options to customize generation sources such as biomass and nuclear.

The GHG Protocol has launched the Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) and Product Life Cycle Standards to enable businesses to account for emissions beyond their direct operations. The Corporate Value Chain Standard allows companies to assess 15 categories of upstream and downstream activities, which often constitute the majority of a firm's total emissions. The Product Life Cycle Standard focuses on emissions from raw materials through disposal to improve product design and efficiency. These standards were developed over three years with input from 2,300 participants across 55 countries.

The document features endorsements from executives at companies such as UPS, Alcoa, PepsiCo, S.C. Johnson, Tesco, Walmart, Kraft Foods, and the Carbon Trust regarding the utility of the GHG Protocol standards. These leaders emphasize that the new standards provide a harmonized, globally consistent methodology for measuring and managing greenhouse gas emissions across corporate value chains and product life cycles, which in turn informs strategic business decisions and customer education.

The Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (GPC) provides a consistent international standard for cities and other subnational entities to account for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Developed by WRI, C40, and ICLEI, the GPC addresses previous inconsistencies in city-level reporting to enable credible comparisons and aggregation at national levels. The framework requires cities to define a geographic boundary and categorize emissions into three scopes: Scope 1 (territorial emissions within the boundary), Scope 2 (grid-supplied energy), and Scope 3 (emissions occurring outside the boundary due to city activities). It offers two reporting approaches: a 'Scopes framework' for total emissions and a 'City-induced framework' (with BASIC and BASIC+ levels) focusing on key emitting sources. The GPC covers six main sectors: stationary energy, transportation, waste, industrial processes and product use (IPPU), agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU), and other Scope 3 emissions. While it does not mandate specific calculation methodologies, it recommends alignment with 2006 IPCC Guidelines and suggests annual inventory updates to track mitigation progress.

The document provides a comprehensive overview of the Paris Agreement Rulebook, which operationalizes the Agreement's long-term goals through a continuous cycle of planning, implementing, and reviewing Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). It details key outcomes from COP24 in Katowice, including the adoption of guidelines for the Enhanced Transparency Framework, the Global Stocktake, and projected finance information. The guide also identifies unresolved issues, such as the specific length of common timeframes for NDCs and the rules governing cooperative implementation and carbon markets.

The document explains the 'Rulebook' of the Paris Agreement, which provides the detailed guidelines for the cycle of planning, implementation, and review of climate actions. It highlights key outcomes from COP24, including the adoption of common timelines for Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) starting in 2031, enhanced transparency frameworks, and the modalities for the Global Stocktake. It also identifies remaining negotiation gaps, particularly regarding carbon market mechanisms and the specific duration of common implementation periods.

The document details the rules for implementing the Paris Agreement, focusing on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), transparency frameworks, and the global stocktake. It outlines key decisions from COP24, such as the requirement for common timelines for NDCs starting in 2031 and the establishment of biennial transparency reports due by December 31, 2024. It also identifies remaining negotiation gaps regarding carbon markets and the specific duration of common timelines.

Corporate GHG inventories are management tools used by companies to quantify emissions, identify sources, and track reductions. Following standards like the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, companies categorize emissions into Scope 1 (direct), Scope 2 (indirect from purchased energy), and Scope 3 (other indirect). These inventories differ from national or regional inventories, which use proxy data for entire sectors, but they feed into GHG registries such as The Climate Registry and the Carbon Disclosure Project.

The analysis finds that combined Annex I pledges could reduce emissions by 12% to 19% below 1990 levels by 2020, which is significantly lower than the 25% to 40% reduction identified by the IPCC as necessary to stabilize CO2e concentrations at 450 ppm. The paper highlights that the perceived ambition of these pledges depends heavily on accounting assumptions, specifically the use of international offsets and the inclusion of land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF) emissions. For instance, including LULUCF and using a 1990 base year for Canada's pledge allows for significant emissions growth. The author recommends that developed countries implement the higher ranges of their pledges and that the Copenhagen Accord's science review process mandate more ambitious commitments if global pathways remain misaligned with science.

The GHG Protocol for Project Accounting establishes a framework for project developers to credibly quantify GHG reductions by comparing project emissions against a counter-factual baseline. It details two primary baseline procedures—project-specific and performance standard—and emphasizes the importance of defining a GHG assessment boundary that includes both primary and significant secondary effects. The guide outlines six core accounting principles (relevance, completeness, consistency, transparency, accuracy, and conservativeness) and provides detailed requirements for monitoring and reporting reductions to ensure environmental integrity and transparency.

The document clarifies the distinctions between corporate-level and product-level greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting. It defines Scope 3 emissions as indirect emissions in a company's value chain and explains how the Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard and Product Standard enable businesses to identify 'hot spots' and reduction opportunities. The standards were developed through a multi-stakeholder process involving WRI, WBCSD, and 60 road-testing companies.

The report highlights how disparate product-level GHG accounting tools and frameworks undermine climate mitigation efforts, especially in agriculture. It identifies key areas of variability—system boundaries, allocation methods, and data requirements—that lead to incomparable results and potential greenwashing. The author advocates for globally standardized methodologies, improved quality control, pre-competitive collaboration, and increased transparency to ensure that corporate Scope 3 emissions reductions are real and verifiable.