Counting in Cities City-Scale Greenhouse

IIIEE EMP ARSCP REPORT 2012
COUNTING IN CITIES:
City-Scale Greenhouse Gas Inventory Standards
and Indirect Emissions
Jessika Luth Richter
Course teachers
Andrius Pleypus
Philip Peck
Advisor
Nora Smedby
Course Paper
ARSCP
Master of Science in Environmental Management and Policy
Lund, Sweden, March 2012
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................................4
1
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................5
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
PROBLEM DEFINITION ............................................................................................................................................... 6

RESEARCH QUESTION ................................................................................................................................................ 7
METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................................... 7
DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................................................................................... 8
LIMITATIONS AND SCOPE .......................................................................................................................................... 8
AUDIENCE .................................................................................................................................................................... 9
OUTLINE....................................................................................................................................................................... 9
THE DEVELOPMENT OF GLOBAL CITY-SCALE GHG ACCOUNTING ................................ 10

2.1
GHG ACCOUNTING IN NATIONAL AND CORPORATE CONTEXTS ................................................................... 10

2.1.1 Global National Guidelines ................................................................................................................................ 10
2.1.2 Global Corporate Standard ................................................................................................................................. 10
2.2 GLOBAL STANDARDS FOR CITIES ........................................................................................................................... 10
2.2.1 European Commission Covenant of Mayors (CoM) Baseline Emissions Inventory (BEI) guidelines .................... 11
2.2.2 ICLEI International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol (IEAP) ...................................... 11
2.2.3 International Standard for Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Cities (ISC) .............................................. 12
2.2.4 Global Protocol for Community Scale GHG Emissions (GPC) .......................................................................... 12
3
INDIRECT EMISSIONS IN CITY-SCALE STANDARDS .............................................................. 14

3.1
3.2
COMPARISON OF FRAMEWORKS: INCLUSION OF INDIRECT EMISSIONS .......................................................... 14

BEI .............................................................................................................................................................................. 15
3.2.1 Energy ................................................................................................................................................................. 15
3.2.2 Aviation and Marine........................................................................................................................................... 15
3.2.3 Waste .................................................................................................................................................................. 15
3.2.4 Other Indirect emissions ....................................................................................................................................... 16
3.3 IEAP ........................................................................................................................................................................... 16
3.3.1 Energy ................................................................................................................................................................. 16
3.3.2 Aviation and Marine Transport .......................................................................................................................... 16
3.3.3 Waste .................................................................................................................................................................. 17
3.3.4 Other indirect emissions........................................................................................................................................ 17
3.4 ISC ............................................................................................................................................................................... 17
3.4.1 Energy ................................................................................................................................................................. 17
3.4.3 Waste .................................................................................................................................................................. 18
3.4.4 Other Indirect Emissions ..................................................................................................................................... 18
3.5 GPC ............................................................................................................................................................................. 18
3.5.1 Energy ................................................................................................................................................................. 19
3.5.3 Waste .................................................................................................................................................................. 19
3.5.4 Other Indirect Emissions ..................................................................................................................................... 19
4
INCLUDING INDIRECT EMISSIONS IN INVENTORIES ......................................................... 20
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................... 21
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................................... 22
APPENDIX A: FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN CITY-SCALE INVENTORYING ........................... II
APPENDIX B: ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES AND METHODS ..................................................... IV
APPENDIX C: MAJOR FRAMEWORKS ANALYSIS MATRIX ................................................................. I
1
APPENDIX D: INDIRECT EMISSIONS ISSUE MATRIX..................................................................... VI

APPENDIX E: INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................................. XIII
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Basic approaches of GHG inventories............................................................................. 6
Figure 1-2 Outline of research methodology ...................................................................................... 7
Figure A-1 King County: GHG Sources and Scopes ........................................................................ ii
List of Tables
Table 2-1: IPCC Sectors....................................................................................................................... 10
Table 2-3 BEI Categories and Sectors ............................................................................................... 11
Table 2-4 IEAP Sectors ....................................................................................................................... 11
Table 2-5 Community scale scopes .................................................................................................... 12
Table 2-6 Sectors of the Global Protocol for Communities .......................................................... 13
Table 3-1 Comparison of global city scale frameworks: indirect emissions................................. 14
Abbreviations
AFOLU
agriculture, forestry, and other land use
BEI
baseline emission inventory
C40
C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group
CBEI
consumption based emission inventory
CCP
Cities for Climate Protection
CHP
combined heat and power
CoM
Covenant of Mayors
CO2
carbon dioxide
CO2e
CO2 equivalent emissions
EIO
Environmental Input Output
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency (USA)
EU
European Union
GHG
greenhouse gas
GRIP
Greenhouse Gas Regional Inventory Protocol
I/O
Input/Output
ICLEI
International Council for Local Environmental Initiative
IEA
International Energy Agency
IIIEE
International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISO
International Organization for Standardization
LCA
life cycle assessment
MFA
material flow analysis
SEAP
Sustainable Energy Action Plan
SEI
Stockholm Environment Institute
TFI/IPCC
Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories of the IPCC
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
WARM
Waste Reduction Model (EPA)
WBCSD
World Business Council for Sustainable Development
WRI
World Resources Institute
WTP
Wells to pump emissions
Abstract
This paper focuses on GHG methodologies presented by international city-scale frameworks,
namely European Commission Covenant of Mayors Baseline Emission Inventory (BEI), the ICLEI
International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol (IEAP), as well as the World
Bank/UNEP/UN HABITATs International Standard for Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Cities
and the yet to be publicly released draft of the Global Protocol for Community Scale GHG Emissions
(GPC) from ICLEI and C40. These four major global city-scale frameworks are examined and
compared by the prescribed methodologies for indirect emissions (associated with energy,
aviation and marine transport, waste and embodied emissions in urban materials). For the most
part these frameworks incorporate some flexibility, allowing policymakers and those in local
governments responsible for city inventories to make choices about including indirect emissions
and methods for doing so. Including indirect emissions can significantly increase total GHG gas
emissions and more accurately reflect the citys carbon dependence. Inclusion of certain indirect
emissions can also diversify policy approaches to include behaviour change policies. However,
including these emissions can also come with the cost of time, resources, and comparability. The
choices made should reflect the priorities of the city policymakers in characterizing greenhouse
gases. This paper informs these choices.
1 Introduction
The ARSCP assignment is designed as a learning experience in writing a research paper and in
preparation for writing a Masters thesis. Additionally, the paper is an opportunity to explore an
area of interest to researchers at the IIIEE. One area of expertise at IIIEE is urban transitions.
Cities mitigation and adaptation strategies for climate change are part of these transitions.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that global warming is
unequivocal. This warming is very likely due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas
(GHG) concentrations (IPCC, 2007, p 5-10). The contribution of cities to global emissions is
often emphasised1. Beyond emissions, cities are important in relation to climate change because
they can pursue ambitious climate change targets, offer potential of sustainable lifestyles, are
sources of innovation, and because of the increasing trend of urbanization (Dodman, 2009).
The IPCC states that the two major forms of climate risk management are the mitigation of
climate change through the abatement of greenhouse gas emissions and GHG sequestration, and
adaptation to the consequences of a changing climate (Carter, et al, 2007). However, taking
these actions on the city scale begins with understanding and inventorying urban greenhouse gas
emissions (Hoornweg, Sugar, & Gomez, 2011). There are many issues with inventorying and
attributing GHG emissions to cities, including large differentials within cities in per capita
emissions (Satterthwaite, 2009), different boundaries of space and time, as well as differing
methodologies (Kennedy et al, 2009).
In general, GHG emissions can be measured from a production approach, a consumption
approach, or an approach combining aspects of both. The last approach is often referred to as a
hybrid method (Ramaswami, Hillman, Janson, Reiner, Thomas, 2008) or geographic plus
method (SEI, 2012). There are advantages and disadvantages to each of these approaches.
Production based approaches at the city scale are similar to reporting to the IPCC guidelines
approach. Only GHG emissions that are the result of production within the city boundaries are
considered, regardless of where the output of the production is consumed (Larsen, & Hertwich,
2009). The methods used for calculation are more standardized and allow easier comparison
between cities for benchmarking (Blackhurst, Scott Matthews, Sharrard, Hendrickson, &
Azevedo, 2011). This approach focuses on local GHG emissions, which have been shown to
have a significant impact on local air quality and arguably should be the first target for
accounting and action (Jacobson, 2010). However, this approach excludes any indirect emissions
and thus does not provide a comprehensive picture of a citys GHG emissions (Hoornweg,
Sugar, & Gomez, 2011). It is also likely to be misrepresentative of the true responsibility of these
emissions (Dodman, 2011).
Figures of up to 80% of anthropogenic gases attributed to cities are cited, for example by the Executive Director at UN-
HABITAT (Tibaijuka, 2007) and New York City Mayor Bloomberg (2007) among others (see Satterthwaite, 2008). The UN
Habitat states that it remains unclear just how accurate existing figures on GHG emissions by cities are (UN Habitat, 2011, p.
10) Sattertwaite (2008) estimated 30-40% on a production based method and 60-70% on a consumption based method, but both
he and UN-HABITAT stress that [a]ny blanket statements about city contribution need to be treated with caution (p. 51).
A pure consumption based model looks at the life cycle GHG emissions from the production of
goods and services that are consumed by a city, regardless of where that production occurred2.
This approach includes the widest scope of a citys GHG emissions and can be a useful way of
communicating the impact of consumption choices. However, data (e.g. Input/Output tables)
are often not available for small scale communities or those in developing countries and/or their
application to the city-scale level is limited (Dhakal, 2010, Ramaswami et al., 2008). Some
activities, like local production where output is exported, are not represented even when local
governments have influence (Ramaswami, Chavez, Ewing-Thiel, & Reeve, 2011).
A hybrid model starts with a production based approach and
includes selected indirect emissions, which yields a more
comprehensive picture of a citys carbon emissions, though not
quite to the scale of a pure consumption based approach
(Ramaswami, Chavez, Ewing-Thiel, Reeve, 2011). In recent
years, this approach has been adopted by large-scale city
networks in developing global standards.
Consumption based
Hybrid
Production based
There was a need for global city-scale accounting standards to

encourage consistency and comparability among city
inventories (Bader & Bleischwitz, 2009,Christopher Kennedy,
Steinberger, et al., 2009; World Bank, UN-HABITAT, & Figure 1-1 Basic approaches of
UNEP, 2010). Attempts to address this issue were seen in the GHG inventories
development of an international protocol by Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) in
2009 and a draft of the international standard from the World Bank in 2010 that are publicly
available, as well as a forthcoming international standard from ICLEI and the C40 Cities Climate
Leadership Group (C40). In addition, the European Commission Covenant of Mayors (CoM)
introduced another major standard framework in 2010 with their Baseline Emissions Inventory
(BEI) guidelines.
While these frameworks all represent a hybrid methodology by including some transboundary
and embodied emissions (both referred to in this paper as indirect emissions), there are
differences between them in the degree to which they do this as well as the methodologies
prescribed. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the current state of standard
global city-scale greenhouse gas accounting by examining the approaches to indirect emissions in
current major frameworks.
1.1 Problem definition

An in-depth analysis of the methodologies within global city-scale GHG standard frameworks is
currently lacking. An understanding of greenhouse gas inventorying is fundamental to mitigation
efforts and effective adaptation strategies (UN Habitat, 2011) and ensures that these inventories
serve the purposes of urban policymakers (C. A. Kennedy, Ramaswami, Carney, & Dhakal,
2009). More careful analysis of greenhouse gas attribution is needed than has been provided by
literature thus far to inform to help cities address climate change (Bulkely, 2010). Researchers
and organizations stress a need to acquire more knowledge about indirect emissions (Arikan, et
al., 2011; UN Habitat, 2011; Dodman, 2011; Satterthwaite, 2009, Larsen & Hertwich, 2009) to
form a comprehensive view of the greenhouse gas emissions arising from an urban system for
decision makers (Hoornweg, Sugar, & Gomez, 2011, p. 224, see also Dodman, 2011).
City policymakers need to make choices about what to include in inventories, with resulting
implications for comparability and policy (Larsen & Hertwich, 2009). The academic literature
also supports the inclusion of more indirect emissions (Ramaswami et al., 2008; Kennedy, et at.,
2009; World Bank, 2010; UNEP, WB, UN-HABITAT, & UNEP, 2010), however, which
indirect emissions should be added is still a matter of debate (Hillman & Ramaswami, 2009;
Dodman, 2011). Little attention has been given to analyzing what guidance major frameworks
give to cities in this regard and how these standards are developing to address these needs.
Indeed, urban level studies are utterly limited to understand and illustrate the various
complexities in indirect emission and responsibility attribution (Dhakal, 2010, p. 279). A more
detailed analysis of city-scale global standards and their methodologies for including indirect
emissions will help to address this issue.
1.2 Research question

How are indirect emissions dealt with by global city-scale frameworks?
-
What policy implications are associated with these methods?
1.3 Methodology
Comparative design is used in this paper, with four frameworks compared on the issue of
indirect emissions. First the frameworks general approaches (scope and sectors) are compared
to give a background context for the reader, then compared in relation to indirect emissions, and
finally, compared for what and how indirect emissions are specified (e.g. are they mandatory or
optional), how inclusion of indirect emissions is specifically dealt with by each framework (i.e.
prescribed methodologies for calculations), and possible policy implications. Overall impressions
of general policy implications were derived from these initial analyses.
Background
literature analysis
Analyses of global
frameworks
Output of analyses
BEI
Identify major approaches
and issues in city-scale
GHG accounting
IEAP
Indirect
emissions
Overview of standard
methodologies
Policy Implications
ISC
Trends
GPC
What indirect emissions are included or excluded?

How are they included (mandatory, optional)?
Choice of calculation methodologies?
What are the implications of these choices for policymakers?
Figure 1-2 Outline of research methodology
1.4 Data Collection

Data was collected mainly through literature analysis. This was conducted in the following steps:
1. Background literature review to identify general state of cities, climate change, and in
particular city-scale greenhouse gas accounting (the last five words and synonyms such as
local, measuring were useful for key word searches in Lund Universitys Summon
database). This step served to give a general knowledge in this area regarding the
different approaches (i.e. production based, hybrid, and consumption based) and identify
a research gap.
2. A more in-depth literature analysis was then conducted focusing on the identified global
frameworks (primary sources) supplemented by secondary peer-reviewed academic
sources focussing on specific methodology of indirect emissions (often found as part of
articles about hybrid methodologies). Examples of data gathering matrices can be found
in Appendix C.
3. The third step of literature analysis focussed on articles that included references to
possible policy implications involved with indirect emissions. For the most part, peerreviewed articles had already been identified in the previous steps for this purpose.
Where possible, data was sought from multiple sources (e.g. primary sources of
methodology, peer-reviewed articles and interviews) to confirm the validity of findings.
Much of the development in this topic is currently taking place. In order to gain insight into
current developments in the global city-scale GHG accounting frameworks, semi-structured
interviews were also conducted with the following experts in the field:
-
Pete Erickson, Senior Scientist at Stockholm Environment Institute in Seattle,

researching and applying city-scale methodologies in the United States (King County)
Dan Hoornweg, Lead Urban Specialist, World Bank, working directly with developing
global standards for cities
Ronald Piers-de-Raveschoot of Joint Research Centres Covenant of Mayors Team,
working directly with the development of the BEI and SEAP
Interviews were also sought with ICLEI representatives working with the new standard, but the
key people were too heavily involved in releasing it to conduct interviews at this time. The
interview information complemented the literature regarding development and drivers behind
standardised approaches and methodologies in city GHG accounting (additional insight into
trends was also gained; this is included in Appendix A). Interestingly, these interviews provided
perspectives that were not expressed in any academic literature reviewed.
1.5 Limitations and scope

The scope of this paper pertains to methodologies of inventorying greenhouse gases at a cityscale. National and corporate frameworks are only considered in giving background how cityscale methodologies were developed. The methodologies compared at the city-scale are limited
to the city as a community rather than a corporate entity (some standards deal with both).
The main analysis is of frameworks released with the intention of being widely used by
international organizations representing a large number of cities around the world (e.g. C40,
ICLEI, Climate Alliance, etc.). The European Commission Covenant of Mayors Baseline
Emission Inventory (BEI) guidelines are also examined, despite their focus on the EU rather
than international cities, because these were also stated as being one of the three major existing
8
frameworks to be incorporated into a (fourth) global standard to be released on the 16th of

March (ICLEI, 2011). An advanced copy of the draft of this new standard was provided for use
in this paper, but it must be noted that changes may still be made between the draft analysed in
this paper and the draft publicly released for comments on the 16th of March. The four major
standard frameworks used in this paper are:
European Commission Covenant of Mayors Baseline Emission Inventory (BEI), 2010

ICLEI International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol (IEAP), 2009
International Standard for Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Cities (ISC)3, 2010 (draft)
Global Protocol for Community Scale GHG Emissions (GPC), 2012 (draft not publicly released)
Indirect emission approaches are the main focus of analysis because it is in relation to these that
the widest disparities exist between city-scale standards. Examples of individual cities methods
or results were used only to demonstrate policy implications.
1.6 Audience
This paper is meant for researchers and policymakers involved in climate change and urban
settlements who may encounter city-scale greenhouse gas measurements in their work. Policymakers and researchers more directly involved with city-scale GHG accounting may still find the
overview helpful for a big-picture perspective and references to the most recent research in this
area.
1.7 Outline
The outline of this paper closely follows the process of analysis. Chapter 2 presents background
information introducing the reader to the global city-scale GHG accounting frameworks and
their major aspects. Chapter 3 presents a comparative analysis of the frameworks regarding
indirect emissions. This is followed by a discussion of how inclusion of indirect emissions is
specifically dealt with by each framework and the policy implications. This discussion is
structured in the context of each individual framework, but also develops throughout the chapter
as a whole. Chapter 4 presents a more general discussion of the policy implications of the
framework methodologies. Final conclusions are presented in Chapter 5.
Some literature has made references to this standard (see Dodman, 2011; Dhakal, 2011; and Hoornweg, Sugar & Gomez) as
simply the international standard. This was before the introduction of the GPC, with its own international standard. To
avoid confusion and for ease in referring to it, the International Standard for Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Cities has been
assigned the acronym ISC by this author, as no official acronym has been suggested by other literature or the standard itself.
2 The Development of Global City-Scale GHG Accounting

This section presents the findings from the literature analysis. There exist different global
standards to greenhouse gas accounting based on different levels of reporting. This section
begins with global standards at the national and corporate levels because much of the principles,
approaches, and methodologies used in city-scale inventory standards and guidelines are derived
from these.
2.1 GHG Accounting in national and corporate contexts

2.1.1 Global National Guidelines
A comprehensive system of reporting for the national level is guided by the IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006). These guidelines provide detailed methodologies
for countries to calculate and report production based (geographic) greenhouse gas emissions
resulting from the six main gases outlined in the Kyoto Protocol: Carbon dioxide (CO2);
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); Methane (CH4);
Nitrous oxide (N2O); Perfluorocarbons
Table 2-1: IPCC Sectors
(PFCs); and Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). The
Sectors
Subsectors
IPCC guidelines require reporting only direct
Energy
Stationary
emissions and by sectors and subsectors
Transportation
shown in Table 2-1.
Fugitive emissions
Industrial
Data quality in IPCC standard calculations and
reporting is designated by tiers: Tier 1 denotes Agriculture
LULUCF
the simplest method of data collection which is
Waste
Solid waste disposal
available to all countries (e.g. IPCC default data
Biological waste disposal
and estimates); Tier 2 denotes the use of a
technology-specific emission factor; and Tier 3
Incineration and open burning of waste
denotes use of more detailed or locally-specific
Wastewater treatment and discharge
methods. In general, countries identify key
Source: IPPC (2006)
categories and attempt to use the highest tiered
data for these (IPCC, 2006). The very basic methodology uses data on the total fuel/energy
consumption of a particular (sub)sector and multiplies this by an emission factor to reveal the
total GHG emissions. In general, the accuracy of these estimates increases with the higher tier,
however the feasibility of doing such calculations might lessen.
2.1.2 Global Corporate Standard

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard was first published in 2001
as a joint initiative of the WRI and WBSCD. ISO adopted the corporate standard as a basis of
its ISO 14064-I for corporate greenhouse gas accounting and reporting (The Greenhouse Gas
Protocol, 2011). This standard also introduced the concept of scopes for differentiating direct
(scope 1) and indirect (scope 2 and 3) emissions as well as providing flexibility to serve different
organizational needs (WRI/WBSD, 2009). Emissions are reported in sectors including: energy,
chemicals, minerals, waste, and pulp & paper. A supplement to this standard, the Corporate Value
Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard was released in 2011.
2.2 Global standards for cities

Before 2009, cities and local governments largely relied on guidance from the global standards at
the national and corporate levels in developing their own inventories. However, the need was
identified for communities to have their own standard (Hoornweg, Sugar and Gomez, 2011;
10
World Bank, 2010; WB, UN-HABITAT, & UNEP, 2010; ICLEI, 2009). Cities have different
needs and capabilities in compiling inventories than nations or corporations, so standards were
needed that reflected the opportunities and challenges for city-scale inventories (ICLEI, 2009).
Organisations of cities and local government networks began developing guidelines, protocols,
and standards to address these needs.
2.2.1 European Commission Covenant of Mayors (CoM) Baseline

Emissions Inventory (BEI) guidelines
The CoM has over 3,500 signatories of local and regional governments committed to exceeding
the EUs 2020 CO2 reduction targets. The first step in this process involves establishing a BEI as
first step in forming a Sustainable Energy Action Plan (SEAP) (Covenant of Mayors, 2010).
The BEI guidelines prescribe to a
predominantly production-based hybrid
approach, measuring direct GHG gases
produced within the territory. However, it is
hybrid with the inclusion of indirect
emissions due to heating, cooling, and
electricity production consumed within the
geopolitical boundaries.
Measuring and
reporting pertains to two main categories and
(if possible) nine sectors (shown below). The
BEI also specifies that if possible, the data
should also be reported by energy type (CoM,
2010)
Table 2-2 BEI Categories and Sectors

Categories
Sectors
Buildings,
equipment/faci
lities and
industry
Municipal buildings and equipment

Tertiary non-municipal buildings
Residential buildings
Municipal public lights
Industry (not compulsory)
Transport
Municipal fleet
Public transport
Private and commercial transport
The methodology specified in the BEI is to Source: Covenant of Mayors, 2010.

follow the IPCC guidelines. However, the
BEI guidelines allow a few notable exceptions to the IPCC guidelines in only requiring the
reporting of one GHG CO2. The guidelines state that the importance of other GHG emissions
at the local scale is small. Another exception is that local governments may use either the
standard IPCC default emission factors or an LCA emission factor in their calculations and they
may voluntarily report any other GHG emissions separately in an additional category (CoM,
2010).
2.2.2 ICLEI International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis

Protocol (IEAP)
ICLEI is an international association of over 1220
local and regional governments from over 70
countries. The first milestone of ICLEIs Cities for
Climate Protection (CCP) campaign requires cities to
measure their community emissions. Also part of
ICLEIs mission is to provide technical training and
guidance to support local government in this
endeavor. After years of providing this support to
cities around the world, the need for standardization
was recognized, hence the development in 2009 of
the International Local Government GHG Emissions
Analysis Protocol (IEAP) (ICLEI, 2008). The IEAP
also follows the IPCC guidelines to a large degree
Table 2-3 IEAP Sectors
IPCC Sectors
Energy
Industrial
Processes
Agriculture
LULUCF
Waste
Community Sectors
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Transport
Agriculture
Waste
Source: ICLEI, 2009
11
regarding direct emissions and methodology. It covers the Kyoto GHGs as well as the same
main sectors for reporting. In addition, there are suggested community sectors to distinguish
emissions to facilitate decision making.
Like the WRI/WBCSD standard, this protocol relies on the concept of scopes. All emissions
from electricity production are included in Scope 2, regardless of where the production occurs.
The use of separate scopes for reporting is meant to avoid issues of double counting (ICLEI,
2009).
2.2.3 International Standard for Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions

for Cities (ISC)
The World Bank, UN-Habitat and UNEP worked collaboratively with other groups like the
Climate Alliance, Clinton Climate Initiative and ICLEI to release a common standard in 2010 to
help cities calculate GHG in a way that could facilitate consistency and comparability (World
Bank, 2010a). The standard is meant to be used by cities with a population over 1 million, but
can be applied by any local government (World Bank, UN-HABITAT, & UNEP, 2010).
Table 2-4 Community scale scopes
Scope 1
GHG emissions within territorial boundary of city
Scope 2
Indirect emissions occurring outside city boundary as a result of electricity

consumption, district heating, steam and cooling.
Indirect
and
embodied
emissions
resulting
from
electrical
transmission/distribution, solid waste disposal, waste incineration, wastewater,
aviation, marine, embodied emissions in: power plants, fuels, construction
material, imported water and food.
Scope 3
Source: World Bank, UN-HABITAT, & UNEP, 2010
The international standard is largely based on the preceding national and corporate global
standards as well as the IEAP. It uses the same IPCC/community sector outline, coverage of
Kyoto gases, and scope based approach as the IEAP. What the standard mainly adds to the
IEAP is more clarification regarding items that should (or in the case of scope 3, could) be
included in the scopes. For the most part, rather than including details for methodology, the
standard refers either to the IEAP or to academic literature with most recent methodology in key
areas like transportation, waste, etc. While indirect emissions are more clearly defined in this
document, they are still optional components for accounting and reporting.
2.2.4 Global Protocol for Community Scale GHG Emissions (GPC)

A draft of this protocol has recently been completed (will be released 16 March 2012) by ICLEI
in collaboration with C40, World Bank, UNEP, UN-HABITAT, and WRI. It includes the new
2012 Accounting and Reporting Standard. This framework was developed to harmonize the
existing city-scale frameworks examined already in this section by addressing four identified
needs of local governments in performing community inventories: policy development (for
addressing key sources of GHG emissions), comparison (for benchmarking between
communities), behavior management (for understanding of local consumption habits linked to
GHG emissions), and aggregation (for the purpose of facilitating national government reporting
while avoiding double counting) (ICLEI/C40, 2012).
12
The GPC presents a different approach to sectors shown in Figure 2.5. This presentation of
sectors is meant to reflect the unique nature of city structures and their primary emission
sources. The reporting matrix using these sectors also includes references to the corresponding
IPCC categories as well as the corresponding scopes (the same as scope allocations in previous
frameworks).
Table 2-5 Sectors of the Global Protocol for Communities
SECTORS
Stationary Units
Mobile Units
Waste
IPPU
Other
SUBSECTORS
Residential Buildings
Commercial/Institutional Facilities
Energy Generation
Energy Use in Industrial Activities
On-road Transportation
Railways
Water-borne navigation
Aviation
Off-road
Solid Waste Disposal
Biological Treatment of Waste
Incineration and open burning
Wastewater Treatment and discharge
Industrial Process and Product Use
Other indirect emissions not
accounted above
Source: ICLEI/C40, 2012
13
3 Indirect emissions in city-scale standards

The indirect emission methodologies in existing major city-scale frameworks are compared in
this section.
3.1 Comparison of frameworks: inclusion of indirect emissions

Figure 3-1 shows a summary comparison of the framework methodologies in regard to indirect
emissions. The approaches and possible policy implications for each framework are discussed in
the following sections. For more information about the specific methodologies used in
calculation of selected indirect emissions, see Appendixes B, C and D.
Table 3-1 Comparison of global city scale frameworks: indirect emissions
Frame
-work
BEI
2010
Included mandatory/
highly recommended
indirect from electricity
consumption, district heating,
steam and cooling
IEAP
2009

steam and cooling, transport
indirect emissions from
waste and wastewater
ISC
2010

cooling, transport (including
transmission/distribution loss)
aviation and marine
GPC
2012
Included - optional
Excluded/Not
mentioned
LCA emission factors for energy aviation and
marine explicitly
indirect waste emissions
recommended
to be excluded
indirect emissions from aviation embodied
emissions* in:
and marine transport
imported
embodied emissions* in:
food
upstream of power plants
imported
construction
fuels
fertilizer/pesticide manufacture materials
imported
water
embodied emissions in:
embodied
emissions* in:
upstream of power plants
fertilizer/
fuels
pesticide
imported construction materials
manufacture
imported water
imported food

other indirect emissions can
be reported under Other
cooling, transport ( including
transmission/distribution loss)
aviation and marine
*Embodied emissions include the upstream emissions of materials and
indirect as opposed to direct emission source.
14
Other sources
explicitly not
included
thus are also an
3.2 BEI
3.2.1 Energy
The BEI includes only energy-related indirect emissions, however, gives an option for a more
comprehensive picture of emissions with the option to use LCA emission factors. The
guidelines detail the difference between LCA (factors provided in the BEI are from the
European Reference Life Cycle Database) and standard emission factors (from the IPCC, 2006)
to inform policymakers choice. Choosing LCA rather than standard emissions factors will
expand the picture captured by the inventory to include emissions in the supply chain of the
energy carrier inventoried regardless of where the use stage occurs (CoM, 2010). It has been
suggested that for fossil fuels, upstream GHG emission rates can be as high as 25% of direct
emissions from a power plant while for renewable energy technologies, they can account for
over 90% of the total emissions from the source (Weisser, 2007).
Choosing LCA emission factors also makes the city inventory less compatible with standardized
reporting, for example with the EUs 2020 target reporting and with other global frameworks.
Specific LCA factors may also be harder to find in some cases (though guidelines supply a list of
many country-specific factors) (CoM, 2010). Ultimately, the choice depends on the priority of
the policymaker, whether that is ease and comparability of the inventory or a more
comprehensive picture of the communitys emissions. The priority for the developers of the BEI
is to maintain this flexibility for the policymaker (R. Piers-de-Raveschoot, personal
communication, 7 March 2012).
3.2.2 Aviation and Marine

However, even with LCA factors for energy, the picture is not comprehensive without inclusion
of other major indirect emissions like air travel and marine transport. These are explicitly not
recommended by the guidelines. Aviation and maritime emissions have been shown to increase a
citys per capita GHG emissions by nearly 20% (World Bank, 2010) though. Other figures have
varied, for example in Denver aviation was shown to contribute 6% of the citys GHG inventory
while studies of London have shown that if aviation were incorporated into the citys inventory,
it would have raised the total GHG emissions from 44.3 million tonnes to 67 million tonnes
(Mayor of London, 2007 as cited in UN-HABITAT, 2011, p. 82). Since these airports serve a
large international community, it has been suggested that including them in a city inventory
would be misleading (UN-HABITAT, 2011).
A city may also have little policy control over airport and port emissions and if they dominate a
GHG inventory, it can make it difficult to reach reduction targets (R. Piers-de-Raveschoot,
personal communication, 7 March 2012). For small municipalities, the effort involved in
gathering and tracking data could outweigh the benefits of characterizing these reductions.
However, not including aviation transport also means that some city initiatives aimed at citizen
behavior in this areas (e.g. to reduce airline travel and associated emissions by teleconferencing)
would only show up as an increase in electricity consumption in the city inventory rather than an
overall reduction (Ramaswami, & Chavez, 2010).
3.2.3 Waste
Indirect waste emissions are optional for inclusion by the BEI guidelines and no specific
methodologies are outlined. Methodologies and policy implications discussed in the next section
are also relevant to cities following the BEI guidelines (other possible general methods to
characterising waste are discussed in Appendix B).
15
3.2.4 Other Indirect emissions

The priority of the BEI is clearly on characterizing the energy consumption of a city rather than
gaining a full energy balance. Other direct emissions are not mentioned for inclusion. This
omission and focus solely on energy serves the goal of encouraging cities to develop measuring
and monitoring plans that lead to action, including transition to renewable energy production
and emission reductions (R. Piers-de-Ravaschoot, personal communication, 7 March 2012). The
energy consumption focus still targets the main source of emissions as it has been demonstrated
in 8 US cities that the direct and indirect energy consumption in a city can account for
approximately 68% of the average emissions (Hillman, 2009) and a similar study of the Carbon
Disclosure Project estimated scope 1 and 2 emissions to account for 67% of total emissions
(2011). Further implications of including or not including other indirect emission sources will be
discussed in the context of other frameworks and in the general discussion of this section.
3.3 IEAP
3.3.1 Energy
Standard emissions (can be local, regional, state/province or national) are specified for
characterizing energy in the IEAP, no LCA emission factors are mentioned. Indirect upstream
emission from power plants may also be included and the implications of these have been
discussed in section 3.2.1.
3.3.2 Aviation and Marine Transport

The IEAP states that aviation and marine transport should be included in city inventories if they
are in the city boundary because they represent significant sources of GHG emissions. It details
two mutually exclusive methods either counting air travel originating in the city or air travel
serving the needs of the city. The first is calculated using data of fuel used by flights originating
in the city or (more often) by fuel loaded on planes at the airport, multiplied by a standard
emission factor (for global warming potential at ground level only) (ICLEI, 2009).
The second method of air travel demand involves apportioning the total GHG (calculated in the
first method) to travelers from the city only. This can be based on data of city resident trips to
the airport as a proportion of the whole regional residents trips to the airport (Kennedy, et al,
2009a). Choosing this demand method requires more complicated data but also more accurately
reflects the citys actual demand of local airports and it can also be used to calculate demand by
city residents who use a regional airport not within city boundaries (Ramaswami, Hillman,
Janson, Reiner, & Thomas, 2008). Marine transport methodologies employed at the city level
closely resemble those used for air travel. Fuel loaded or sold in the port city is used to assess
the emissions originating in the city and these can be apportioned by the demand method.
The difference between the two methods can be significant. For example, Denver city residents
demand was found to represent only 22% of the total demand of the Denver Airport in
Colorado (Kennedy et al., 2010). The choice for policy makers depends on whether the priority
in inventorying is to reflect the carbon dependence of a citys economy or to accurately
characterize GHG emissions from community behaviour. The latter can promote policies like
the proposal to offer air travel off-set programs. This was the case when airline emissions by this
method were included in the GHG inventory of Denver and San Francisco (Kennedy,
Ramaswami, Carney, & Dhakal, 2009; Ramaswami, A. & Chavez, A., 2010). As mentioned
previously, airports and ports can also be significant for a small citys inventory but the local
government may have little influence over it so this may also be a consideration for inclusion.
16
3.3.3 Waste
The IEAP provides guidance for the optional inclusion of indirect waste emissions. Cities first
need to collect data about disposal methods, quantity and composition of waste in the
community. Then GHG emissions from waste disposal locations (landfills, incinerators if not for
energy, etc.) are characterized and apportioned to the communities using the facilities based on
the initial data.
For charactering GHG from landfills, the IEAP recommends using a local application of the
IPCCs methodology ( first order decay) called total yields gas approach in which emissions are
calculated for the inventory year based on historic waste deposited over previous years (by
contrast the standard IPCC method ideally involves over 20 years of data). This inventory year
waste is then multiplied by the methane GWP, the methane generation potential, the fraction of
waste methane recovered (generally assumed 0.75) and an oxidation factor. The methane
recovery rate is a large source of uncertainty, with estimated rates ranging from 10-85%
(Kennedy et al., 2010).
Methane recovery technology is main determinant for the significance of emissions from waste.
With advanced recovery technology, waste may represent a small contribution to a citys overall
GHG inventory (Kennedy, et al., 2009). Nonetheless, the IEAP stresses the inclusion of waste
for a complete analysis of all activities that result in the emission of greenhouse gases (ICLEI,
2009, p. 13). Again, the ability of the local government to control activities will be a determinant,
but many cities may already be monitoring waste as part of a waste reduction program and thus
can expand this to include GHG information as well.
3.3.4 Other indirect emissions

The IEAP specifies indirect emissions related to the IPCC sectors. As such, odd inclusions like
that of pesticides/fertilizers are seen listed. This is odd because it is unlikely that this particular
type of indirect emission would be a significant contributor of GHG emissions in most cities
(Kennedy, Ramaswami, Carney, & Dhakal, 2009). Additionally, the IEAP incorporates a de
minimus rule, exempting emissions that do not result in an increase of at least 5% in the GHG
emissions (ICLEI, 2009).
Fuel refining emissions are optional in the IEAP and can also be a significant contributor to
GHG emissions. It has been estimated that WTP (wells to pump emissions) is 20-25% of the
emissions associated with fuel combustion in vehicles (PTW - pump to wheel
emissions)(Kennedy, Ramaswami, Carney, & Dhakal, 2009). Fuel processing has been shown to
represent 6.4% of the average GHG inventories in 8 US cities (Hillman & Ramaswami, 2010).
Estimated transmission and distribution losses are also recommended for inclusion in the GHG
inventory (ICLEI, 2009).
3.4 ISC
3.4.1 Energy
As in the IEAP, LCA emission factors are not specified, but rather standard emission factors
should be used (can be local, regional, state/province or national). Indirect upstream emission
from power plants may also be included and the implications of these have been discussed in
section 3.2.1.
17

The ISC largely follows the same specifications of the IEAP, differing in a few key ways: it
makes aviation and marine transport mandatory and it contains a more specific list of optional
urban materials to inventory. The ISC also clearly dictates a policy goal for city inventories to
reflect the carbon dependence of urban economies in line with the multi-level governance
approach required for city-scale GHG reductions (WB, UN-HABITAT, & UNEP, 2010, p.3).
The mandatory inclusions of air/marine transport reflect this policy, and both previously
discussed approaches (by total originating flights and by demand) are included.
3.4.3 Waste
The ISC refers cities to the IPCC guidelines for calculation of waste. This would refer them to
the methodology previously discussed in section 3.3.3.
3.4.4 Other Indirect Emissions

The ISC states that it is impractical to quantify all the emissions associated with the myriad of
goods and materials (UNEP, WB, UN-HABITAT, & UNEP, 2010, p.2) and researchers
suggest indirect emissions should be limited to less than six major categories (Hillman &
Ramaswami, 2010; Kennedy et al., 2010; Ramaswami et al., 2011). The ISC gives a list derived
from the work of Ramaswami, Hillman, Janson, Reiner, & Thomas (2008) suggesting the key
materials to be included in inventory report (they are reported in separate categories). The
rationale behind inclusion of embodied emissions in these materials is that they are intensively
used by cities (Ramaswami, Hillman, Janson, Reiner, & Thomas, 2008).
The inclusion of key urban materials also has policy benefits. Showing the contribution of these
emissions connects city residents to their emissions (Kennedy, Ramaswami, Carney, & Dhakal,
2009). They can also highlight significant sources of GHG emissions, for example in 8 US cities,
food production were found to contribute to an average of 14.4% of the total city GHG
inventory. Policies suggested to address these emissions include healthier diet promotions
(Hillman & Ramaswami, 2010). Simply raising public awareness to this contribution may
influence behavior change.
Key building materials like cement represented 2.2% of total city inventories in the same study.
In Denver, inclusion of cement GHG emissions in the inventory lead to a green concrete policy
(using concrete with fly ash and recycled aggregate) to reduce the overall GHG emissions from
this source (Ramaswami, & Chavez, 2010).
In calculating consumption based indirect emission, the standard recommends the use of
physical flows. It also suggests emission factors may be obtained from Environmental Input
Output (EIO) models. Applying EIO/LCA at the city scale may be difficult if data is not easily
obtainable (Ramaswami, Hillman, Janson, Reiner, & Thomas, 2008). Also, the method of
downscaling national I/O tables may not be available to all cities, particularly in developing
countries (Hillman & Ramaswami, 2010). Another barrier is the complexity added by inclusion
of these emissions. Careful attention must be given to consistent boundaries and avoiding
double counting (Larsen & Hertwich, 2009). Much of a policymakers decision to characterize
urban materials will depend on how comprehensive they want to be, their access to good data,
and how much time and resources they can allocate to this endeavor.
3.5 GPC
The GPCs goal is to harmonise the previous frameworks analysed. As such, most of the policy
implications related to these issues have already been discussed in previous sections. However,
18
despite its efforts to harmonize the preceding frameworks, the GPC also departs from them in a
few key areas. These are briefly highlighted.
3.5.1 Energy
Standard emission factors only should be used and there is no mention of upstream power plant
emissions (implications of these have been discussed in section 3.2.1).

In dealing with the included air and marine travel indirect emissions, the GPC recommends
using fuel sales data to characterize the emissions from an airport/port within the city
boundaries only. It does not recommend apportioning demand. The justification is that the
simpler method avoids double counting between city inventories (GPC, 2012).
3.5.3 Waste
However, in dealing with the issues of waste, the GPC does recommend apportioning between
communities and the total yields gas approach, in complete agreement with the IEAP and ISC
methodologies previously described.
3.5.4 Other Indirect Emissions

The omission of other indirect emissions is also a departure from the optional inclusion in the
IEAP and the ISC). However, there remains an other category where these emissions could
technically be reported. Omitting other indirect emissions is justified by the argument that
accounting methodologies for these emissions are still evolving (ICLEI & C40, 2012).
19
4 Including indirect emissions in inventories

As evidenced by the differences between methodologies for indirect emissions, there are many
choices involved in inventorying even according to standard frameworks. In some cases, the
choices concern the quality of data used and the amount of time and resources used to obtain
the highest quality data. In other cases, the differences involve apportioning responsibility for
emissions. The comparative analysis indicated that more significant than how any specific indirect
emission is considered is the choice of whether it is considered in the first place.
An underlying issue in the framework approaches is that indirect emissions other than those
associated with energy, heat and cooling production are not mandatory and rarely reported
(Carbon Disclosure Project, 2011). This has been partially addressed by inclusion of some
mandatory indirect items in the ISC and GPC, but the fact that the most recent standard does
not give any guidance for including urban material emissions could be a point of contention
about the development of these standards. After all, much of the literature analysed considered
exclusion of consumption based indirect emissions equating to policymakers not considering a
comprehensive picture of the citys carbon dependence (Kennedy, Ramaswami, Carney &
Dhakal, 2009) Indeed, indirect emissions together can account for approximately 45% of a citys
total GHG emissions (Ramaswami, et al., 2008).
There is also an issue of policy responsibility because upstream emissions inform systematic
consequences of climate change actions(Hoornweg, Sugar, & Gomez, 2011, p. 224). Without
consideration, cities may choose to meet reduction targets simply by shifting the GHG emissions
elsewhere, for example the use of zero emission hydrogen fuel cars shifts the emissions out of
the city to the production site. Characterizing indirect emissions can capture shifts in the
provision of services; e.g. the purchase of transportation services instead of fuel in a municipality
(Larsen & Hertwich, 2010). Considering more indirect emissions also allows city policies that not
only focus on the production side, but also the nature of materials demand in cities (Hillman
& Ramaswami, 2010, p. 1908).
On the other side of the argument, indirect emissions require significant resources to calculate so
improvements to inventorying direct emissions may be a higher research priority (Blackhurst et
al., 2011). Even if all suggested direct and indirect emissions are calculated for a city, this figure
is still only likely to represent 80-85% of a citys full carbon footprint (Ramaswami et al., 2011).
Some indirect emissions, particularly consumption based, present challenges to policymakers. It
is argued that there is little they can actually do beside policies of moral persuasion (D.
Hoornweg, personal communication, 27 February 2012). It has been observed that policymakers
have not been keen to set limits on consumption (or even GHG reduction), but rather prefer to
make policy providing for what city dwellers want (Sovacool & Brown, 2010). Policy is much
more about what cities need to do than about not what they should stop doing (Newman, 2006).
Overall, the inclusion of optional indirect emissions can also make comparability more difficult,
and thus it is arguable whether they should be included in efforts to standardize city inventories.
Standardization not only allows benchmarking, but also studies in how urban structures and
policies can influence a cities GHG emission. The choices local governments will make will
depend on their priorities in using the inventories.
20
5 Conclusion
This paper focused on GHG methodologies presented by international frameworks and
standards that were deemed a necessary development by researchers in the field (Hoornweg,
Sugar & Gomez, Bader & Bleischwitz, 2009; Kennedy, Ramaswami, Carney, & Dhakal, 2009;
Ramaswami et al., 2008). Major global city-scale frameworks were compared by their inclusions
and methodologies dealing with indirect emissions (associated with energy, aviation and marine
transport, waste and embodied emissions in urban materials). This provided an overview as to
how these frameworks deal with indirect emissions and the associated policy implications.
The CoMs BEI guidelines only recommend inclusion of indirect emissions associated with
energy production (required) and waste (optional). However, the guidelines maintain flexibility a
wider life cycle scope by the use of LCA emission factors. Energy consumption represents the
largest part of most cities GHG inventory and activities under city influence, so this method
allows policymakers to focus on areas where policies can have the largest impact. The main goal
of the guidelines is to capture most of a citys energy consumption, not a comprehensive picture
of its carbon dependence or total footprint.
ICLEIs IEAP by contrast, is more focused on providing guidance for cities choosing to
characterize indirect greenhouse gas emissions. It is still largely optional, but methods are
described for most calculations. Incorporating air travel emissions can significantly increase a
citys inventory and lead to policies like carbon offset programs or teleconferencing. Some
embodied emission sources are also listed that can also lead to more behavior change policies.
The International Standard for Greenhouse Gas reporting largely builds on the concepts in the
IEAP, and its major contribution is in its specific list of embodied emission sources that are
intensively used by cities. Accounting these emissions listed can lead to city policies not only
targeting production activities, but also consumption activities (e.g. food was found to be a
significant source of emissions and could lead to raising public awareness about diets).
The new Global Reporting Protocol from ICLEI and C40 is more focussed in its suggestion of
indirect emissions to definitely include (energy, waste, aviation and marine transport) and in the
methods suggested for calculating these. The GPC suggests that guidance about the inclusion of
other indirect emissions should wait until there is a larger consensus in this area. This protocol
also represents the latest most recent development in standardising city-scale inventorying.
For the most part these frameworks incorporate some flexibility, allowing policymakers and
those in local governments responsible for city inventories to make choices regarding how to
include indirect emissions. The most important of these is whether to include them at all.
Including indirect emissions can significantly increase its total GHG gas emissions and more
accurately reflects the citys carbon dependence. However, including these emissions can come
with the cost of time, resources, and comparability. Further research in this area can be done to
reveal how local governments are actually using these standards in practice.
The goal of the GPC to standardise city emissions inventories may not be a goal shared by all
cities inventorying. It remains to be seen how this new standard is received by local governments
and how the hybrid methodology develops. Cities may still choose to develop their own method
of inventorying that suits their priorities and abilities in policymaking. This paper may serve to
inform such choices in regard to indirect emissions.
21
Bibliography
Bader, N., & Bleischwitz, R. (2009). Measuring Urban Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Challenge of Comparability.
SAPI EN. S. Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society, (2.3)
Blackhurst, M., Scott Matthews, H., Sharrard, A. L., Hendrickson, C. T., & Azevedo, I. L. (2011). Preparing US
community greenhouse gas inventories for climate action plans. Environmental Research Letters, 6, 034003.
Bulkeley, H. (2010). Cities and the Governing of Climate Change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35(1),
229253. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-072809-101747
Carbon Disclosure Project. (2011). CDP Global Report on C40 Cities. Retrieved February 16, 2012 from
https://www.cdproject.net/Documents/CDP-Cities-2011-Report.pdf
Carter, T.R., R.N. Jones, X. Lu, S. Bhadwal, C. Conde, L.O. Mearns, B.C. ONeill, M.D.A. Rounsevell and M.B.
Zurek. (2007) New Assessment Methods and the Characterisation of Future Conditions. Climate Change 2007:
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E.
Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 133-171.
Covenant of Mayors. (2010). SEAP Guidelines. European Union. Retrieved February 16, 2012, from
http://www.eumayors.eu/IMG/pdf/seap_guidelines_en.pdf
Covenant of Mayors (2011) The Covenant Step by Step STEP-BY-STEP TOWARDS -20 % CO2 BY 2020.
Retrieved March 6, 2012, from http://www.eumayors.eu/about/covenant-step-by-step_en.html
Croci, E., Melandri, S., & Molteni, T. (2011). Determinants of cities GHG emissions: a comparison of seven global
cities. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 3(3), 275300.
Dakhia, K., & Berezowska-Azzag, E. (2010). Urban institutional and ecological footprint: A new urban metabolism
assessment tool for planning sustainable urban ecosystems. Management of Environmental Quality: An International
Journal, 21(1), 7889. doi:10.1108/14777831011010874
Dhakal, S. (2010). GHG emissions from urbanization and opportunities for urban carbon mitigation. Current Opinion
in Environmental Sustainability, 2(4), 277283. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2010.05.007
Dodman, D. (2009). Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban greenhouse gas emissions inventories.
Environment and Urbanization, 21(1), 185 201. doi:10.1177/0956247809103016
Dodman, D. (2011). Forces driving urban greenhouse gas emissions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,
3(3), 121125. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2010.12.013
Gentil, E., Christensen, T. H., & Aoustin, E. (2009). Greenhouse gas accounting and waste management. Waste
Management & Research, 27(8), 696706. doi:10.1177/0734242X09346702
Hertwich, E. G., & Peters, G. P. (2009). Carbon footprint of nations: A global, trade-linked analysis. Environmental
Science & Technology, 43(16), 64146420.
Hillman, T., & Ramaswami, A. (2010). Greenhouse gas emission footprints and energy use benchmarks for eight US
cities. Environmental science & technology, 44(6), 19021910.
Hillman, Tim. (2009). Greenhouse Gas Accounting, Characterization and Mitigation at the City Scale (Ph.D.). University of
Colorado at Denver, United States -- Colorado.
Hoornweg, D., Sugar, L., & Trejos Gomez, C. L. (2011). Cities and greenhouse gas emissions: moving forward.
Environment and Urbanization, 23(1), 207227. doi:10.1177/0956247810392270
ICLEI. (2009a). Cities in a post 2012 policy framework. Retrieved from:
http://ccsl.iccip.net/cities_in_a_post_2012_policy_framework.pdf
ICLEI. (2009b). International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol. Retrieved from
http://www.iclei.org/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Global/Progams/CCP/Standards/IEAP_October2
010_color.pdf
ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability: Global Standard on Cities Greenhouse Gas Emissions - C40 &
ICLEI MoU. (n.d.). Retrieved March 5, 2012, from
http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=1487&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=4643&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=9
83&cHash=712a8184bb
22
ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability: Global Standard on Cities Greenhouse Gas Emissions - C40 &
ICLEI MoU. (n.d.). Retrieved March 5, 2012, from
http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=1487&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=4643&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=9
83&cHash=712a8184bb
ICLEI/C40. (2012). Global Protocol for Community GHG Emission (GPC) Version 0.9 16 March 2012 (not
publicly released at time of writing).
IPCC. (2006). Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volumes 1-5. Retrieved from http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs4.html
IPCC (2007) Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M.
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Jacobson, M. (2010). Enhancement of Local air pollution by urban CO2 domes. Environmental Science and Technology,
44, 24972505.
Kennedy, C. A., Ramaswami, A., Carney, S., & Dhakal, S. (2009). Greenhouse gas emission baselines for global cities and
metropolitan regions. Paper presented at the World Banks Fifth Urban Research Symposium: Marseille, France,
June 28 30, 2009. Retrieved from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/3363871256566800920/6505269-1268260567624/KennedyComm.pdf
Kennedy, C., Pincetl, S., & Bunje, P. (2011). The study of urban metabolism and its applications to urban planning
and design. Environmental Pollution, 159(8-9), 19651973. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2010.10.022
Kennedy, C., Steinberger, J., Gasson, B., Hansen, Y., Hillman, T., Havrnek, M., & Pataki, D. (2010). Methodology
for inventorying greenhouse gas emissions from global cities. Energy Policy, 38(9), 48284837.
Kennedy, Christopher, et al. (2009). Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global Cities. Environ. Sci. Technol., 43(19),
72977302. doi:10.1021/es900213p
Kennedy, S., & Sgouridis, S. (2011). Rigorous classification and carbon accounting principles for low and Zero
Carbon Cities. Energy Policy.
Larsen, H., & Hertwich, E. (2009). The case for consumption-based accounting of greenhouse gas emissions to
promote local climate action. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7), 791798. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.07.010
Larsen, H.N., & Hertwich, E. G. (2010). Identifying important characteristics of municipal carbon footprints.
Ecological Economics, 70(1), 6066.
Larsen, Hogne N, & Hertwich, E. G. (2010). Implementing CarbonFootprintBased Calculation Tools in Municipal
Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(6), 965977. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00295.x
Monni, S., & Syri, S. (2011). Weekly greenhouse gas emissions of municipalities: Methods and comparisons. Energy
Policy, 39(9), 47554765. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.051
Newman, P. (2006). The environmental impact of cities. Environment and Urbanization, 18(2), 275 295.
doi:10.1177/0956247806069599
Pandey, D., Agrawal, M., & Pandey, J. S. (2010). Carbon footprint: current methods of estimation. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment, 178(1-4), 135160. doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1678-y
Ramaswami, A., Chavez, A., Ewing-Thiel, J., & Reeve, K. E. (2011). Two Approaches to Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Foot-Printing at the City Scale. Environ. Sci. Technol., 45(10), 42054206. doi:10.1021/es201166n
Ramaswami, A., Hillman, T., Janson, B., Reiner, M., & Thomas, G. (2008). A Demand-Centered, Hybrid Life-Cycle
Methodology for City-Scale Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(17), 6455
6461. doi:10.1021/es702992q
Ramaswami, A., & Chavez, A. (2010). Are We There Yet? Presented at the Low Carbon Cities, UC Denver.
Retrieved from
http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/Engineering/research/CenterSustainableUrbanInfrastructure/
LowCarbonCities/Documents/Ramaswami/ARamaswami_Are_We_There_Yet.pdf
Satterthwaite, D. (2009). The implications of population growth and urbanization for climate change. Environment and
Urbanization, 21(2), 545567. doi:10.1177/0956247809344361
23
Satterthwaite, David. (2008). Cities contribution to global warming: notes on the allocation of greenhouse gas
emissions. Environment and Urbanization, 20(2), 539 549. doi:10.1177/095624780809612
SEI. (2012). King County Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Retrieved from
http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/dnrp-directors-office/climate/2008-emissions-inventory/ghginventory-full.pdf
Sovacool, B. K., & Brown, M. A. (2010). Twelve metropolitan carbon footprints: A preliminary comparative global
assessment. Energy Policy, 38(9), 48564869.
UN Habitat. (2011). Cities and Climate Change: Global Report on Human Settlements. Retrieved from:
http://www.unhabitat.org/content.asp?typeid=19&catid=555&cid=9272
US EPA, O. (n.d.). Developing a Greenhouse Gas Inventory | State and Local Climate and Energy Program | US
EPA. Choose from the 8 types, choose only 1. Retrieved February 25, 2012, from
http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/state/activities/ghg-inventory.html
Villalba, G., & Demiesse, E. (2011). Estimating GHG emissions of marine portsthe case of Barcelona. Energy Policy.
Weisser, D. (2007). A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies. Energy,
32(9), 15431559.
World Bank, UN-HABITAT, & UNEP. (2010). International Standard for Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Cities.
Version 2.2: October 4, 2010. Retrieved from:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUWM/Resources/GreenhouseGasStandard.pdf
WRI/WBCSD. (n.d.). About the GHG Protocol | Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative. Retrieved March 1, 2012,
from http://www.ghgprotocol.org/about-ghgp
WRI/WBCSD (2004). The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard; World Resources
Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development: Washington, DC, 2004.
WRI/WBCSD (2011). Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard: Supplement to the GHG Protocol.
Retrieved from http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/scope-3-standard
Interviews:
Pete Erickson, Senior Scientist at Stockholm Environment Institute US
7 March 2012
Dan Hoornweg, Lead Urban Specialist, World Bank
27 February 2012
Ronald Piers-de-Raveschoot of Joint Research Centres Covenant of Mayors Team
7 March 2012
24
Appendix A: Future developments in city-scale inventorying

For many cities, the priority is not to compare but to be relevant in using their inventories to
plan actions. Accommodating the individual needs of cities necessitates flexibility, yet with
the process of harmonization, the GPC limits flexibility. Indeed, it is not surprising to find
that the CoM had very little communication about or input into the development of the
GPC. The CoM also has no plans to update the BEI guidelines to align with the GPC at any
time in near future (R. Piers-de-Ravaschoot, personal communication, 7 March 2012).
Increasing attention and development of methodologies dealing with indirect emissions is
also seen outside of the city-scale standards within the corporate standards and within
research institutes working with cities. WBCSD and WRI recently released a new corporate
global protocol for dealing specifically with scope 3 indirect emissions. It details
methodologies for companies to collect information about the GHG emissions arising from
upstream and downstream processes (WBSD/WRI, 2012). Corporate protocols have had a
significant influence on city-scale standards and this development is likely to influence refinements of the GPC (indeed it is mentioned that the developers will look at this standard in
the near future to assess if and how elements may be used in the GPC (ICLEI & C40, 2012).
Lastly, a focus on indirect emissions is also evidenced by research institutes working with
cities. The Stockholm Environment Institute in United States recently applied and assessed
both a hybrid model (very similar to the IEAP discussed) and a consumption based model in
King County (Seattle area)4. They developed a tracking framework recommended for cities
based on the concept. The basic approach is to conduct a consumption based inventory to
highlight the major contributors to GHG
Figure 0-1 King County: GHG Sources and Scopes
emissions.
These then
determine which indirect
emissions are included in the
hybrid
inventory.
The
consumption based method
used in King County was
complex, but Pete Erickson,
senior scientist on the
project, suggests that a
simpler consumption based
inventory, even one using
free software like Berkeleys
CoolClimate would still be
useful for a city to get an idea
(personal communication, 7
March 2012).
With this
approach, a citys inventory
approach
might
look
something like Figure A-1
and can result in focused
Source: King County, 2012
policy planning decisions and actions.
(used with permission from Pete Erickson, SEI-US)
ii
According to Dan Hoornweg of the World Bank, it has recently produced the most developed inventory for dealing with
consumption based indirect emissions (D. Hoornweg, personal communication, 27 February, 2012).
iii
Appendix B: Alternative Approaches and Methods

Consumption- based approach
The major frameworks described above all entail some degree of hybrid methodology. As
mentioned a consumption-based approach only considers the consumption within city
boundaries, regardless of where production occurred. The basic methodology entails
multiplying demand (usually from tracked material or financial flows from different sources)
by an emissions intensity factor (found in available databases) to calculate overall CO2e for
the city (SEI, 2011). This information is also usually expressed in different themes
including private services, consumables, food, transport, housing, direct emissions from
travel, direct emissions from housing, etc. However, a wide variety of methods exist for
calculating carbon footprints and there is not one accepted global standard (Pandey, Agrawal,
& Pandey, 2010). While this approach is not one taken by any of the global city-scale
frameworks in this paper, it is still an approach widely used at the municipal level (SEI,
2012).
Waste
The WARM method (from the US EPA) uses lifecycle accounting (EPA, 2010). This has the
advantage of showing credit for recycling of waste but there is also a problem with this
because paper and plastics are not currently accounted in the GHG inventories of most cities
(Kennedy, et al, 2009). It is also difficult to apply lifecycle reductions to the annual and
sector-based reporting required by the global inventory standards because reductions occur
across different sectors and over varying amounts of time. However, to fully consider
implications of producing, consuming, disposing, and/or recycling of paper, a lifecycle
perspective is needed (EPA, 2010) and LCA methods are the preferred way to develop this
area (Kennedy, et al, 2009).
Urban Materials
Calculating the embodied emissions from these materials can be done using a top down
approach (scaled from national I/O table tracking financial flows), a bottom up (LCA data
for products then made representative of wider range) or a hybrid approach combining both
of these (Tucker, et al, 2006). Such a hybrid approach, using a city-specific method to track
flows and multiplies this by an I/O in combination with LCA emission factor) is preferred
(Ramaswami, Hillman, Janson, Reiner, & Thomas, 2008; Kennedy, et al, 2010; Tucker, et al,
2006; Larsen and Hertwich, 2009)
There are also variations to what data can be used. City-specific financial flows can be based
on household or municipal expenditures (Larsen and Hertwich, 2010). National expenditure
figures can then be normalized with this to convert monetary to mass flow (e.g. amount of
material kg/ $ activity reported) (Hillman & Ramaswami, 2009). It is recognized that
financial flows may entirely equal physical flows (Ramaswami et al., 2011). Emission factors
can be obtained from databases. Outcomes from use of figures from different databases
have been compared and revealed some are more in agreement than others for specific
regions (e.g. GHG Genius and GREET are generally in agreement and preferred for North
America while Ecoinvent is preferred over MEET in Europe). Interesting though, there are
still unexplained disparities between regional databases (e.g. European databases are typically
5-10teCo2/TJ lower than the North American databases) (Kennedy, et al, 2010).
iv
Appendix C: Major Frameworks Analysis Matrix

Stan
dard
Used by
Principles
2006
Designed with
efficiency in
mind and
relying on data
that should be
available to all
nations.
Common
framework,
documentation
standards and
uncertainty
assessment.
Geographic
Boundary
Basic
Methodology
GHG Gases
Inventories should
include greenhouse
gas emissions and
removals taking
place within
national territory
or in the country's
jurisdiction
Geographic/pr
oduction based
6 IPCC gases:
Carbon dioxide
(CO2)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs)
Perfluorocarbons
(PFCs
Sulphur
hexafluoride (SF6)
Administrative
boundary of local
authority
(geopolitical
boundary)
Geographic/
production based
COM does not
refer to scopes.
The level of detail
in the description
of each measure/
action is to be
decided by the
local authority.
Focus on demand
side of energy
consumption.
"it is sufficient to
report only CO2
emissions, because
importance of other
greenhouse gases is
small." Equivalants
from IPCC (1995) or
later can be used.
LCA emission
factors can be used.
Sectors
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
NA
Energy
Industrial
Processes
Solvent and Other
Product Use
Agriculture
Land-Use Change
and Forestry
Waste
All direct
emission from
sectors
NA
2 main categories
are buildings and
transportation.
Industrial sector not
a key target of SEAP
and its inclusion is
optional.
Optional to include
also landfills and
other sources.
Final energy
consumption is
split into 2
mandatory
sectors,:
buildings;
transport
Includes all
direct fuel
emissions
Indirect
emissions due to
production of
electricity, heat
and cold
consumed in the
territory
Other comments
Double Counting
IPCC
National
Government
Year
SEAP
Covenant
of Mayors
2010
"proper CO2
emissions
inventory as
this is vital.
What you do
not measure
you will not
change"
LCA emission
factors may be
used
Other emissions
can be reported
on a voluntary
basis.
LCAs of biofuels
encouraged
Scopes are reported
aggregated = some
problems with double
counting
2009
Meet need to
analyze
greenhouse gas
emissions at a
local community
level with a
combination of
national and local
information
geopolitical should apply to all

cities over 1 million
Out-ofboundary
emissions from
the generation of
electricity and
district
heating
consumed in
cities, waste
Also: aviation
and marine,
food, water, fuels
and building
materials
consumed in
cities
UNFCC sectors:
energy (stationary,
transport, fugitive),
industrial processes,
agriculture, LULUCF,
Waste (solid, water).
Community sectors:
residential,
commercial,
industrial, transport,
agriculture, waste
Kyoto protocol 6
greenhouse gases
Use IPCC
guidelines for
identifying and
reporting on key
categories of
emissions to
represent at least
95% of total
emissions. AFOLU
and IPPU emissions
could be too
insignificant to
include. Community
sectors: residential,
commercial,
industrial, transport,
agriculture, waste
Includes use
of fuels such as
heavy fuel oil,
natural gas or
propane used
for heating.
Includes
greenhouse
gases emitted at
the power plant
as a result of
purchased
electricity used
within
the geopolitical
boundaries of
the jurisdiction.
Not mandatory
Includes methane
emissions from
solid waste
generated within
the community,
which
decomposes at
landfills outside of
the communitys
geopolitical
boundary.
GHG
emissions that
occur within
the territorial
boundary of
the city or local
region
Indirect
emissions
outside
boundary
resulting from
activities within
city, limited to
only:
electricity
consumption *
district heating,
steam and
cooling*
Not mandatory
transportation,
waste, personal
consumption
International Standard for Determining GHG Emissions for Cities
IEAP
ICLEI
Relevance,
completeness,
consistency,
transparency
and accuracy
emissions
generated by a lgs
internal operations)
and with
community
(geopolitical
boundary)
6 IPCC gases.
IPCC 1995 factors
listed. De minimis
emissions may be
excluded (refer to
one or more
emission sources,
for gases which
represent less than
5% of total CO2e
emissions)
World
Bank/ UNHABITAT/
UNEP
ii
2010
completeness,
consistency,
transparency,
comparability,
and accuracy
also: use most
recent data,
report annually,
uncertainty
assessed and
quality assured
Biogenic emissions and

other indicators which
may be relevant to a
complete
Scopes avoid issues of
double counting. Also,
separate CHP. Aware
that scope 1 in one
locality may be the scope
2 of another locality
electricity, heating,
cooling should be tracked
and recorded seperately
to avoid been counted
twice (i.e. in scope 2 by
users of grid energy)
Avoid policies that lower
emissions inside of city at
the expense of more
emissions somewhere
else. Should reflect
carbon dependence of
the urban economy
No double-counting in
for single city. Scope 2
and some scope 3
emissions (marked by *)
should be reported such
that no double-counting
occurs between cities.
Production emissions
should be subtracted
from the citys total
emissions. Other scope 3
emissions may involve
double counting between
cities; these are reported
as information items (not
included in total
emissions)
Pure Consumption based approach
Cool
Climate
Berkeley &
Stockholm
Environment
Institutes
2010
Reflects all
consumption
activities of a
community
regardless of
where
production
occurs
none for
production,
consumption within
geopolitical
boundary
Input-output +
local energy data
Emissions (CO2e)
= Demand ($) X
Emissions
Intensity
(CO2e/$)
any in database
Expressed as
"themes", e.g.:
Capital investment
and other Public
services
Private services
Consumables
Food
Transport
Housing
Direct emissions
from travel
Direct emissions
from housing
Corrections made for

double counting.
All scopes considered together
Issues identified with global standards
Tool
Energy
Transportation
Waste
Personal
Consumption
Data Quality
Other issues
s
suppor
Sources
ting
iii
SEAP
Local production and

green electricity purchases
of the local authority can be
taken into account following
specific rules. Amounts of
imported
heat
and
electricity are calculated as
consumption minus local
production,
=
ignores
transportation losses.
iv
The activity data for the road

transportation sector is the amount of
fuel consumed in the territory. Fuel
used has to be based on estimates of:
Mileage driven in the territory of the
local authority [km]
No aviation or marine included
In the case of other

sectors, the emissions of
which are not related to fuel
combustion,
the
local
authority recommended to
use methodologies developed
by specialised organisations.
In the case of other

sectors, the emissions
of which are not
related
to
fuel
combustion, the local
authority
recommended to use
methodologies
developed
by
specialised
organisations.
Data should be
accurate
as
possible, or "at
least represent a
vision of reality"
Fugitive
emissions,
Industrial Processes ,
Agriculture not to be
included in reporting
LCA emission factors may
be used, but drawbacks of
this approach should be
noted
(incompatible
withUNFCCC and EU 2020
target reporing)
ICLEI
Protoco
l
Heat+
GRIP
tool
ECOreg
ion
(metho
dology
transpo
rt/
energy
sectors
=
modific
ation)
Bertoldi, P, Cayuela, D.B.,

Monni,
S.,
de
Raveschoot, R.P. Existing
Methodologies and Tools
for the Development and
Implementation
of
Sustainable
Bertoldi, P, Cayuela, D.B.,
Monni,
S.,
de
Raveschoot,
R.P.
GUIDEBOOK "HOW TO
DEVELOP A SUSTAINABLE
ENERGY ACTION PLAN
(SEAP)"Energy
Action
Plans (SEAP)
IEAP
International Standard for Determining GHG
Emissions for Cities
Count Scope 1 direct fuel

consumed within boundary
indirect
in
form
of
electricity, heating, cooling
in scope 2. Info on fuel use
from
primary
energy
providers.
Use total amount of fuel used by

planes on all flights originating at the
airport. Common substitute will be
fuel loaded onto planes at the airport.
Classify as Scope 3. Use GWP of ground
level fuel, not at different altitudes.
LG may consider the air travel footprint
of their citizens - classify Scope 3 (take
fuel loaded number and apportion to
travelers who are residents). Lastly,
emission from operation of airport also
counted.
Marine travel can also be counted by
transport originating in community
(scope 3) and in-port fuel consumption
(scope 2 but subtract from scope 3)
Emissions from solid waste

generated by the community
and disposed of at landfills,
open dumps, incinerators,
composting facilities or other
waste
treatment
sites,
regardless of the location of
the facility. All emissions
occurring
from
burning,
incineration and composting
of waste that originated in
the community must be
included and classified as
Scope 3. Scope 3 wastewater
emissions can be apportioned
between local governments
where a facility treats waste
from multiple communities.
May
include
district
energy systems or heat
pipes for which emissions
occur outside of the city
boundaries.
electrical
transmission
and
distribution losses* in scope
3
Emissions from aviation and marine

travelling away
Aviation emissions may be determined
from fuel loaded onto planes within
the boundaries of the city. The method
of Ramaswami et al. may be used to
allocate emissions between different
cities served by an airport..
To follow the UNFCCC, international
take-off and landing emissions may be
included with domestic aviation
emissions
solid waste disposal*

waste incineration*
wastewater
handling*
Out-of-boundary emissions
from waste
emissions embodied in the
food, water, fuels and
building materials consumed
in cities should also be
reported
as
additional
information items
not mentioned
embodied
emissions
of:
upstream of power
plants
fuels
imported
construction
materials
imported
water
imported food
reality.
Fugitive emissions count in scope 1 Industrial

Processes - scope 1
Agriculture - scope 1
Quantification of all these
=
use
"international
standards"
use IPCC tiers
Fugitive
Industrial
scope 1
scope 1
emissions
Processes Agriculture -
Heat
+
HEA
T
+
GRIP
ICLEI
(2009).
International
Local
Government
GHG
Emissions
Analysis
Protocol. Version 1.0
World Bank website
Appendix D: Indirect Emissions Issue Matrix
Issue addressed
How? Methodology
Further notes on methodology
Implications of method
Preferred Method
Why should cities
choice
What
include?
are
the
barriers to including?
Further
Development?
GHGelectricity = Celectricity (consumption of

1 convert utility delivered
electricity) x Ielectricity (IPCC emission factor)
energy to emissions with default

IPCC emission factor (T1)3
GHGheating = Cfuel
(energy content)
x Ifuel
Data quality a consideration

(IPCC
emission factor)
Country
specific
emission
factors and data retrieved
Energy electricity,
heating, cooling used
2 convert utility delivered
in city
energy to emissions with country-
SCOPE 2
specific emission factor (T2)3
from
utility
billing
is
electricity) x Ielectricity (regional emission factor)5
considered higher quality 4,8

and increases comparability
in line with standardised
reporting1
3- convert utility delivered energy

to emissions with LCA emission
with
emission
factors.
Should be chosen to closely

reflect
reality
of
city
consumption.4 Differences
in EF most significant in
electricity data 11
Required by all standards
Fugitive
1,2,3
emissions as part of
None mentioned
building energy use
energy procurement.
needs investigation 7
LCA reflects total enviro
factor1
1 Not measured4
Issue not specified in some methodologies1
2 calculate emissions based on

Energy transmission
SCOPE 2, 3
losses associated with out-of-
boundary energy3
electricity) x L (line loss factor) x Ielectricity

(emission
vi
3 - calculate emissions based on

losses associated with consumed
energy3
factor)5
Both
methods 2 and 3
should be used together3
emission factors for
Can inform choice of
impact1
electricity) x Ielectricity (LCA emission factor)1
methane
Comprehensive
picture
of emissions 4,6
Incentive
to
improvement
in
efficiency
Data gaps4
Energy buildings
1 - Energy use per unit of built
SCOPE 2
surface)11
Emissions from energy in buildings= (quantity
Energy consumption in
Databases
of fuel consumed for unit of built surface x
built sector often the
space
floor space x emission factor) + (quantity of
largest contributor to a
incomplete or difficult
electricity consumed for unit of built surface x
citys
to find for many cities
floor space x emission factor of electricity)
emissions11
11
Required by all standards
Fuel sales data not
1,2,3
available
GHGheating = Cfuel
1 - quantity of fuel sold 3,4,5
emission factor)
(energy content)
x Ifuel
be
More complete and

standardised
stock
built
databases
needed 11
(IPCC
2 - vehicle kilometres travelled
vehicle
with
Method 1 is preferred for
(VKT) 1,3, 4,5
estimated fuel efficiency of vehicles mix in
CO2, Method 2 preferred by
Differences
region 5
IPCC for CH4 and N2O. 4,5
methods can be less than
counting
survey
combined
between
5% 5
Commute travel impacts can be added with
SCOPE 1
GHG
floor
Typically estimated using computer model or
Transportation road
overall
of
can
VKT prescribed by COM3

VKT method in all three
computer modelling and allocating 50% to

3 - vehicle kilometres travelled
destination city, 50% to origin city. Through
Method 3 least preferred b/c
global standards and is most
(VKT) with commuter impacts 6
traffic emissions not allocated to city which is
assumes regional same as
common
travelled through, but to origin and destination
urban transport
Fuel sales may not be

indicative of regional
Recognition
of
major
contribution
to urban
GHG emissions4,11
activity
Still questions about

whether
VKT 4.
Techniques
commuters
should be included4
vary
between cities
Can inform design of
cities. 6
transport plan
4 - Scaling fuel use from larger
scale (i.e. state or national) 4,5
Transportation
Calculations
based
Ccity = (Rcity/Rregion) x Cregion 5
on
More
transportation modelling 3,6

- Road
(vehicles
residents)
used
Method
by
2 - annual distance travelled by
residents 3
SCOPE 3
Ramaswami
outlined
by
Accuracy of data.
Whether
dependence
full
of
carbon
urban
economy is considered4
detailed
i/o
models needed for

Data availability9
city-scale to estimate
trucking
demand
from product inflows

to cities9
vii
Transportation
Adhere to prevailing modelling practices3
- Road
(transport
1
demand
generated by local
Calculations
based
on
transportation modelling of VKT
Freight
and trip demand estimates 3
origin/destination) and using LCA emission
calculated
VKT
(allocating
to
factors7
SCOPE 3
1 - Not measured 1,4
2 count flights originating in

city2,3
Fuel used by planes on flights originating or
No
fuel loaded onto planes at airport. GWP
methodology4,5
agreed
upon
ground level only3,5
3 - count all domestic, take offs

and landing for intl4
Transportation
Methods 1 and 2 only used if
Consistent with UNFCCC
airport located within city
boundaries
aviation
Whether
dependence
from city3
Approach 3 used by GRIP4,5
4 count based on city demand

of local airports3, 6
GHGaviation = Ifuel (emission factor jet kerosene) x Cfuel

(fuel loaded on planes
x (ncity
of
carbon
urban
Fuel loaded on planes apportioned to travellers
SCOPE 3
full
Depending on what level
GWP of fuels may
it is adopted, it shows
account for radiative
more
comprehensive
picture of urban GHG

and
if
all
emissions
accounted, then reflects
Complicating factors
like airports outside of
city and transfers4
carbon dependence of
city economy4
(annual # of trips city to
airpot)/nregion (annual # of regional trips to airport))5,
Method 4 is most recent

5 count all domestic and
international
take-offs
suggestion
and
landings 4,2
Transportation
viii
1 - Not measured1,4
Method 2 most referred to in
comprehensive picture of
Inclusion
urban GHG and carbon
comparability of cities
affects
forcing
sufficient
when
scientific
consensus is formed
for how to do this
marine
2 count transport originating in

city
SCOPE 2, 3
and
all
in-port
fuel
literature
dependence
Measure fuel loaded or sold 2,3,4
of
city
economy4
with and large without

ports3
consumption2,3,4
Policy option for city to
3
all
domestic
provide electricity in port
and
rather
international4
than
on-board
generation
1 Not measured 4
Methods 2, 6 and 5 should

yield similar results4
2- Scaling from national4
Often
also
includes
waste
incineration
Method 4 allows credit to
emissions
be applied for recycling of
3 - Total yields gas approach4,5
Estimates long term GHG for waste in
waste
inventory year: GHGlandfill = 21Mlandfill (mass of
encountered with paper and
waste sent to landfill in inventory year)

potential based on waste fraction)
L0 (methane
SCOPE 3
Uses life cycle accounting4
problem
not
currently
counted in the GHG of
(1- OX)(oxidation factor) 5

4 - EPAs warm model4
plastics
generation
x (1-frec(fraction of methane
recovered this is uncertain, but generally assumed to be 0.75)
Waste
but
Approach 2 used by GRIP4
most cities so method is
Often the third most
Large
discrepancies
inconsistent4
relevant
over
methodology
sector
(after
transport and buildings)
makes inclusion and
Method 5 best informs
for
comparison
policy decisions relating to
emissions 11
5 - Measurement from waste-in-
Measure and monitor emissions in the
production ,transport, use,
place4
inventory year4
and disposal as well as

alternatives
10
city
scale
GHG
difficult
4, 11
BUT
monitoring may be onerous

and difficult4
6 - Local application of IPCC first
order decay 3,4,5
Calculation of emission for inventory year,

based on historical waste deposited over
previous years4
Method 6 requires 20 years

of data ideally and good
coefficient estimates5
ix
Waste
1 count emissions from all open
Burning, incineration
b, i, c from community waste3
CH4, and N2O considered but CO2 excluded

if of biogenic origin3. Use country specific
emission factors3
Whether
and composting (b, i,

c)
2 count emissions only from

waste incineration that doesnt
SCOPE 3
include energy recovery2,3
consumer
economic
expenditures from consumer surveys 6,7 and

EIO-LCA estimates of GHG emissions from
solid wastes used for emission factor 6
2 Use top down national I/O
I/O tables include national average data12 that
table to track financial flow 12, 13
is highly aggregated13
individual products 12, 13
1 consumption data scaled from

national average 4
shelter
from
analysis X LCA emission factor
3 Use bottom up LCA data of
Consumption
production
2 Use top down national I/O

table to track financial flow 12, 13
SCOPE 3
3 Use bottom up LCA data of

individual products 12, 13
Hybrid method 1 preferred

2,7,12
Whether
dependence
carbon
of
urban
Most
food
produced
More
detailed
i/o
outside of boundaries
models often hard to
but are a necessity to
find, particularly for
city5
developed countries7
are then assumed indicative for wider range of

products 12, 13
with IPCC non-energy GHG emission factors4
City specific hybrid method

5 preferred in most literature,
Method 1 results in only

partial emission calculation4
4, 6, 12, 13
Only includes national average data12
are assumed indicative for wider range of

products 12, 13
Using
consumption
approach
empower
Though Method 3 is noted as
Can be time consuming to collect and results
applying EIO-LCA at
based
possibly
being
more
appropriate for production

based cities.8
financial flows may not

match
physical
flows.
Lastly, local production is

allocated
though
full
Can be time consuming to collect and results
materials
urban
As above but energy recovery incineration to
1 City specific material flow
Consumption food
SCOPE 3
carbon
of
be included in stationary combustion
Calculated
production
full
dependence
elsewhere
cities
can
can
policymakers
to redirect purchasing to
less
sectors/regions 8
GHG
the city scale,

Research
exclusively,
can
difficult
comparing
be
both approaches is
since
needed to enhance
expenditure data at
city GHG accounting
the
in future10
level
of
metropolitan
even
statistical
have
(MSAs) are not always
areas
Use tracked by annual reported expenditures.
influence here. 8
available publicly for
National expenditures normalised against this
all economic sectors,6
to convert from monetary to mass flow (e.g.
I/O
2.3 kg cement/ $ activity reported) 7
downscaled
4 scaled national material flow

analysis X emission factor 4, 6
tables
for
unavailable in many
Calibrated with national material consumption
countries8
to avoid double counting

Emission factors from nationally calibrated
LCAs (e.g. EIO-LCA)4
Financial flows (household expenditure or
5 city specific material flow
municipality expenditure). GHG emission
analysis X LCA emission factor
factors from I/O in combination with LCA

data.9
Hybrid model preferred, 4, 6,
Calibrated with national material consumption
12, 13
Challenges
to avoid double counting

Consumption
transport
fuel
production
Values
analysis X emission factor 4,6
SCOPE 3
from
Ecoinvent
factors
Emission factors from nationally calibrated
preferred over MEET for
Whether
LCAs (e.g. EIO-LCA)4
Europe
dependence
full
of
carbon
Argonne
LCA
vary
significantly 5
urban
Material flow data from VKT,
selecting
appropriate
Detailed i/o models
GHG genius and Greet in
hard to find, esp. for
National Laboratorys GREET model for wells
close
developed countries
to pump emissions. 6
preferred
agreement
for
and
North
European
databases
typically
5-10t
eCO2/TJ lower than

North
American
databases = should be
investigated6
6, 7
America5
Consumption
transport
importation
water

analysis X emission factor
Material flow using utility provider billing data
Whether
full
with energy to produce water calculated with
dependence
utility provider reports 6
of
carbon
urban
More
detailed
i/o
models often hard to

find, particularly for
developed countries7
xi
SCOPE 3
Industrial
Processes
and Product Use (e.g.

feedstocks,
agents,
reducing
non-energy
product use)
1 Not measured 1,4,5

Emissions
2 scaled down from state-wide
inventory, weighted by industry
Preferable
to
consider
employment5
inclusion with Method 24
Whether
dependence
full
of
carbon
urban
associated
refilling
air
conditioners as well as
Diverse group makes
Better reporting in
other
reporting challenging
this area required 4
processes
thought
to
are
be
significant4
3 reporting from individual
SCOPE 1. 3
with
facilities5
Agriculture, Forestry,
and other Land Use
(AFOLU)
1 Not Measured 1, 4
2 Emissions from livestock and
cultivation in scope 14
SCOPE 1, 3
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
xii
(CoM, 2010)
(World Bank , 2010)
(ICLEI, 2009)
(Kennedy, C.A., Ramaswami, A., Carney, S., & Dhakal, S., 2009)
Kennedy, et al., (2009)
(Ramaswami, Hillman, Janson, Reiner, & Thomas, 2008)
(Hillman, T. and Ramaswami, A., 2009)
(Ramaswami, Chavez, Ewing-Thiel, & Reeve, 2011)
(Larsen & Hertwich (2010).
(EPA, 2010)
(Croci, Malandri, and Molteni, 2011).
(Larsen and Hertwich, 2009)
Whether
dependence
full
of
carbon
urban
There are cases where

AFOLU are significant,
so need to be considered
before exclusion4
Only
significant
become
if
boundary large
May be negligible4
city
Appendix E: Interviews
Dan Hoornweg, Lead Urban Specialist, World Bank, working directly with developing global standards for cities
What can be told about the new global standard?
How does this differ from the 2010 global standard?
What are the challenges and benefits for policymakers in understanding indirect (SCOPE 3) emissions?
Ronald Piers-de-Raveschoot of Joint Research Centres Covenant of Mayors Team, working directly with the development of the BEI and SEAP
The press release from ICLEI mentioned that the Covenant of Mayor's BEI would be incorporated into the new city-scale greenhouse gas
measuring standard they are developing (due out this week). I was wondering if JRC or the Covenant of Mayors had a role in developing this
standard?
What have you found to be the strengths and weaknesses of the BEI approach based on the feedback from cities and the SEAPs you are
currently analyzing?
How is the BEI likely to be updated?
o Will it more closely follow other global city-scale standards (e.g would the BEI incorporate the concept of scopes or include indirect
emissions like aviation and marine mobile transport)?
The BEI is more based on the energy sector. In discussions with city scale accounting developers in the US, the trend there seems to be
towards including more consumption based emissions (e.g. embodied emissions in food). Is there a similar trend in the EU?
Pete Erickson, Senior Scientist at Stockholm Environment Institute in Seattle, researching and applying methodologies in the US (King County)
What are the successful components to completing an inventory like the one in King County?
Is SEI working on similar projects in other regions?
What trends have you seen developing in city-scale inventories?
In what ways does your model support or depart from ICLEI or World Bank standards?
What are the advantages and challenges to using SEIs approach on a broader scale?
xiii

Counting in Cities City-Scale Greenhouse

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Counting in Cities City-Scale Greenhouse

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IIIEE EMP ARSCP REPORT 2012

Jessika Luth Richter

PROBLEM DEFINITION ............................................................................................................................................... 6

THE DEVELOPMENT OF GLOBAL CITY-SCALE GHG ACCOUNTING ................................ 10

GHG ACCOUNTING IN NATIONAL AND CORPORATE CONTEXTS ................................................................... 10

INDIRECT EMISSIONS IN CITY-SCALE STANDARDS .............................................................. 14

COMPARISON OF FRAMEWORKS: INCLUSION OF INDIRECT EMISSIONS .......................................................... 14

INCLUDING INDIRECT EMISSIONS IN INVENTORIES ......................................................... 20

APPENDIX D: INDIRECT EMISSIONS ISSUE MATRIX..................................................................... VI

agriculture, forestry, and other land use

baseline emission inventory

C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group

consumption based emission inventory

Cities for Climate Protection

combined heat and power

CO2 equivalent emissions

Environmental Input Output

Environmental Protection Agency (USA)

Greenhouse Gas Regional Inventory Protocol

International Council for Local Environmental Initiative

International Energy Agency

International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

International Organization for Standardization

life cycle assessment

material flow analysis

Sustainable Energy Action Plan

Stockholm Environment Institute

Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories of the IPCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Waste Reduction Model (EPA)

World Business Council for Sustainable Development

World Resources Institute

Wells to pump emissions

There was a need for global city-scale accounting standards to

1.1 Problem definition

1.2 Research question

What policy implications are associated with these methods?

What indirect emissions are included or excluded?

Figure 1-2 Outline of research methodology

1.4 Data Collection

Pete Erickson, Senior Scientist at Stockholm Environment Institute in Seattle,

1.5 Limitations and scope

frameworks to be incorporated into a (fourth) global standard to be released on the 16th of

European Commission Covenant of Mayors Baseline Emission Inventory (BEI), 2010

2 The Development of Global City-Scale GHG Accounting

2.1 GHG Accounting in national and corporate contexts

2.1.2 Global Corporate Standard

2.2 Global standards for cities

2.2.1 European Commission Covenant of Mayors (CoM) Baseline

Table 2-2 BEI Categories and Sectors

Municipal buildings and equipment

The methodology specified in the BEI is to Source: Covenant of Mayors, 2010.

2.2.2 ICLEI International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis

Table 2-3 IEAP Sectors

Source: ICLEI, 2009

2.2.3 International Standard for Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions

GHG emissions within territorial boundary of city

Indirect emissions occurring outside city boundary as a result of electricity

Source: World Bank, UN-HABITAT, & UNEP, 2010

2.2.4 Global Protocol for Community Scale GHG Emissions (GPC)

Source: ICLEI/C40, 2012

3 Indirect emissions in city-scale standards