{"id":555883,"date":"2021-11-30T04:02:28","date_gmt":"2021-11-30T04:02:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/enterpriseam.com\/egypt\/goinggreens\/to-lower-emissions-we-need-better-science-not-pledges\/"},"modified":"2021-11-30T04:02:28","modified_gmt":"2021-11-30T04:02:28","slug":"to-lower-emissions-we-need-better-science-not-pledges","status":"publish","type":"goinggreen","link":"https:\/\/enterpriseam.com\/egypt\/goinggreens\/to-lower-emissions-we-need-better-science-not-pledges\/","title":{"rendered":"To lower emissions we need better science, not pledges"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a> Countries are underreporting their annual CO2 emissions, even as they pledge to <\/strong>reduce them<\/strong>, an independent investigation by the Washington Post<\/a> has found. The Post\u2019s analysis, which compared countries\u2019 reported and predicted numbers to independent global emission measurements, found that 8.5 bn-13.3 bn tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions went unaccounted for. The Post based its analysis on scientific and atmospheric data from the Global Carbon Project<\/a>, the World Meteorological Organization<\/a>, and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization<\/a> (FAO).<\/p>\n

Why is this a problem? <\/strong>UNEP\u2019s Emissions Gap Report<\/a>, released last month ahead of COP26, found that new and updated Nationally Determined Contributions<\/a> offered for 2030 would lead to a 2.7\u00b0C temperature rise in this century \u2014 1.2\u00b0C higher than the 1.5\u00b0C set out in the Paris Agreement. So even if emissions reporting were 100% accurate, the planet would continue to warm at a faster rate than we want it to.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a huge emissions data gap: <\/strong>Of 196 countries, only 45 (mostly developed) countries reported their emissions to COP in 2019, which is required<\/a> of parties to the convention. The UNFCCC\u2019s reporting system allows developed countries and developing countries to use different standards, creating an unbalanced reporting system. Developed countries, particularly the G20, are the world\u2019s largest emitters, and have more tools and technical knowledge to measure and report emissions. But that doesn\u2019t mean they necessarily report more accurate numbers, just that they report them at all.<\/p>\n

And developing countries \u2014 including Egypt \u2014 are way behind: <\/strong>Many large emitters, including large oil and gas producers like Iran, Qatar and Algeria, haven\u2019t filed reports for over a decade and war-torn gas producers like Libya have never reported emissions. Around 45 countries have not reported any numbers since 2009. In a previous edition of Hardhat<\/a>, we looked at Egypt\u2019s most-polluting sectors, but found that there was no consolidated data and the most recent figures available are several years old.<\/p>\n

Egypt ranks third behind Saudi Arabia and Iran in MENA when it comes to emissions<\/strong>, according to the World Resources Institute CAIT database (pdf)<\/a>, producing 310 mn tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas emissions in 2016. Egypt\u2019s emissions grew by 140% between 1990 and 2016 \u2014 an average compound annual growth rate of 3.5%, which is three times faster than the global average.<\/p>\n

Some 57-76 mn tonnes of human-caused methane emissions go unreported <\/strong>in UN country reports, according to The Post. Methane leaks through pipelines in the oil and gas industry, and is emitted through the burps and dung of cows, as well as from human waste in landfills. Cows are notorious emitters of greenhouse<\/a>gases<\/a>, contributing to 60% of total livestock emissions, with 40% of those being methane, while artificial fertilizers<\/a> release nitrogen into the soil, which is then turned into nitrous oxide. Fluorinated gases from air conditioners, refrigerators and electricity, are also underreported, or not reported at all.<\/p>\n

Nobody wants to claim responsibility for international air travel and shipping, <\/strong>which together account for more than 1 bn tons of emissions. This amounts to 2%<\/a> of all human-induced carbon emissions. The Environmental Defense Fund<\/a> is one organization working to reduce emissions from international air travel through its Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, or CORSIA, with 81 nations agreeing to participate in its first voluntary phase.<\/p>\n

Fossil fuels are not the only sector under the microscope: <\/strong>Burning fossil fuels accounts for the greatest emissions of greenhouse gases \u2014 and the most measurable \u2014 but other sectors are also problematic, partly because of how difficult it is to measure their impact. Some of the fallacies of reporting include not accounting for encroaching megafires<\/a>, as is the case with Australia, or underplaying the impact of draining peatlands<\/a> to make way for palm oil plantations, as is the case with Malaysia. It is more difficult to calculate emissions from chopping down forests, wildfires, draining peatlands or use of nitrogen fertilizers than it is to calculate emissions from burning fossil fuels.<\/p>\n

A combination of unclear metrics, partial reporting and \u201cwillful mistakes\u201d are creating gaps in our understanding of our carbon footprint. <\/strong>The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change\u2019s (UNFCCC) guidelines<\/a> rely on bookkeepers to tally different emissions-producing activities such as the number of cows in a given country or the amount of fertilizer used, and then multiply them by an emission factor \u2014 all of which are subject to human error. The absence of atmospheric or satellite measurements in country reports means that many countries are underestimating their emissions and overestimating the impact of the measures being taken to reverse climate change.<\/p>\n

At least 59% of the discrepancy comes from how countries account for their emissions from land use. <\/strong>One of the most controversial reporting practices is how countries are using carbon offsets to get closer to net zero, claiming that their emissions are offset by carbon sinks \u2014 landmassess that absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than they produce. These can potentially offset the emissions produced by countries, but due to approximate reporting, countries often miscalculate and misreport the scale of the offset.<\/p>\n

That said, carbon offsets provide one way for countries and companies to slash their emissions. <\/strong>Carbon offsetting through carbon markets, detailed in Article 6<\/a> of the Paris Agreement, allows countries and companies to fund emissions cuts elsewhere, (preventing deforestation, for example) to contribute towards their emission reduction goals. The UNEP Emissions Gap Report highlights carbon markets as one mechanism that can help slash emissions, provided that \u201crules are clearly defined and target actual reductions in emissions, while being supported by arrangements to track progress and provide transparency.\u201d Although the EU established the world\u2019s first carbon market in 2005 \u2014 the Emissions Trading System<\/a> (ETS) \u2014 COP26 marked the first time that some 200 countries reached an agreement that set out rules to regulate global carbon markets<\/a>. The global carbon market<\/a>, which some experts estimate could be valued at USD 22 tn by 2050, allows countries to purchase emissions reductions, effectively accumulating carbon credits.<\/p>\n

Experts have estimated that developing robust reporting systems and improving <\/strong>transparency<\/a><\/strong> in climate reporting might take until 2030 \u2014 the same time frame over which scientists say emissions must be halved. <\/strong>Unverified by independent scientific and atmospheric data, the science of reporting continues to be inexact. The Post\u2019s findings indicate that it is only by relying on hard data and sound data collection methodologies that countries can begin to make meaningful pledges and report their progress toward achieving them.<\/p>\n

\n

Your top climate stories for the week:<\/strong><\/p>\n