Progress toward low carbon cities: approaches for transboundary GHG emissions’ footprinting

Location of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions from thermal power plants in India along the urban-rural continuum

“…Methodological differences and inconsistencies are highlighted in research for city emissions (Dhakal, 2010;Kennedy et al, 2009b;Chavez and Ramaswami, 2011) and specifically in tools & methodologies (Bader and Bleischwitz, 2009;Kennedy et al, 2009a). Amongst various factors like gases measured, sector definitions and emission sources covered, global warming potential IPCC tiers considered, methodical difference in these inventories in general, and for GHGs from electricity particularly, is how one allocates the emissions; where it is produced or where its products and services are being used.…”

Technologies, policies and measures for GHG abatement at the urban scale

“…air travel) within a community's political border may reduce that community's (production-based) GHG inventory, but could simply shift that emission-causing activity elsewhere, causing emissions leakage Peters & Hertwich, 2007). The focus on global emissions also enables the inclusion of activities implemented within an urban area, such as electricity savings programmes or support for low-GHG diets, that may reduce GHG emissions largely outside the urban area itself (where electricity is generated or food produced) (Chavez & Ramaswami, 2011;Dhakal & Shrestha, 2010;Grubler & Fisk, 2013;Kennedy et al, 2010;UN-Habitat, 2011). 2 We do not explicitly consider economic costs or benefits as a criterion for inclusion, but note that we have excluded especially high-cost or speculative technologies or practices (such as carbon capture and storage), instead relying on options that are routinely included in abatement studies and are generally well under 100 US$ per tCO 2 e; many, especially energy efficiency measures, are cost-negative.…”

Response to: Low-carbon cities, GHGs and ‘footprints’

“…Wright et al suggest that both their paper defining carbon footprints in general [2] (cited as reference 11 in the article under discussion [1]), as well as their paper defining footprints in the context of cities [3] (cited as reference 22 in the article under discussion), should have been cited in a particular section of our paper (page 472, left column, last paragraph). We agree, we cited both their papers extensively already in our paper, but instead of [2] on page 472, we should have had both [2] and [3], which explicitly addresses city-scale footprints.…”

“…Response to: Low-carbon cities, GHGs and 'footprints' Abel We thank Wright and colleagues for their letter in response to our recent paper in Carbon Management [1]. Wright et al suggest that both their paper defining carbon footprints in general [2] (cited as reference 11 in the article under discussion [1]), as well as their paper defining footprints in the context of cities [3] (cited as reference 22 in the article under discussion), should have been cited in a particular section of our paper (page 472, left column, last paragraph).…”