Methods that equate temporary carbon storage with permanent CO2 emission reductions lead to false claims on temperature alignment
AbstractThere has been renewed interest in equating temporary carbon storage with permanent CO2 emission reductions, both within corporate GHG inventories and for carbon offset accounting. Proposed methods discount future emissions, such that carbon stored temporarily can be accounted for as (some f...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2023-12-01
|
| Series: | Carbon Management |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/17583004.2023.2284714 |
| _version_ | 1827666487329947648 |
|---|---|
| author | Matthew Brander Derik Broekhoff |
| author_facet | Matthew Brander Derik Broekhoff |
| author_sort | Matthew Brander |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | AbstractThere has been renewed interest in equating temporary carbon storage with permanent CO2 emission reductions, both within corporate GHG inventories and for carbon offset accounting. Proposed methods discount future emissions, such that carbon stored temporarily can be accounted for as (some fraction of) a permanent reduction in emissions. These approaches are problematic as long-term temperature change is primarily caused by cumulative CO2 emissions and delayed emissions accumulate in the atmosphere the same as any other emission of CO2. This perspective article uses illustrative examples to show how discounting future emissions results in false temperature alignment and net zero claims. We recommend that emissions and removals should be reported without discounting to ensure that GHG accounts accurately reflect contribution to cumulative emissions. There is value in temporarily storing carbon, e.g. it can reduce peak warming and buy time to implement permanent mitigation measures, but it cannot be treated as equivalent to permanent mitigation, and alternative approaches should be used to convey the value of temporary storage. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T01:51:26Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-cda2896242074417a471bfc2d4724630 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1758-3004 1758-3012 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T01:51:26Z |
| publishDate | 2023-12-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Carbon Management |
| spelling | doaj.art-cda2896242074417a471bfc2d47246302023-11-23T13:04:54ZengTaylor & Francis GroupCarbon Management1758-30041758-30122023-12-0114110.1080/17583004.2023.2284714Methods that equate temporary carbon storage with permanent CO2 emission reductions lead to false claims on temperature alignmentMatthew Brander0Derik Broekhoff1Centre for Business, Climate Change and Sustainability, University of Edinburgh Business School, Edinburgh, United KingdomStockholm Environment Institute – US Center, Seattle, WA, USAAbstractThere has been renewed interest in equating temporary carbon storage with permanent CO2 emission reductions, both within corporate GHG inventories and for carbon offset accounting. Proposed methods discount future emissions, such that carbon stored temporarily can be accounted for as (some fraction of) a permanent reduction in emissions. These approaches are problematic as long-term temperature change is primarily caused by cumulative CO2 emissions and delayed emissions accumulate in the atmosphere the same as any other emission of CO2. This perspective article uses illustrative examples to show how discounting future emissions results in false temperature alignment and net zero claims. We recommend that emissions and removals should be reported without discounting to ensure that GHG accounts accurately reflect contribution to cumulative emissions. There is value in temporarily storing carbon, e.g. it can reduce peak warming and buy time to implement permanent mitigation measures, but it cannot be treated as equivalent to permanent mitigation, and alternative approaches should be used to convey the value of temporary storage.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/17583004.2023.2284714Temporary carbon storagetonne-year accountingdiscounting greenhouse gas emissionspermanence of stored carbon |
| spellingShingle | Matthew Brander Derik Broekhoff Methods that equate temporary carbon storage with permanent CO2 emission reductions lead to false claims on temperature alignment Carbon Management Temporary carbon storage tonne-year accounting discounting greenhouse gas emissions permanence of stored carbon |
| title | Methods that equate temporary carbon storage with permanent CO2 emission reductions lead to false claims on temperature alignment |
| title_full | Methods that equate temporary carbon storage with permanent CO2 emission reductions lead to false claims on temperature alignment |
| title_fullStr | Methods that equate temporary carbon storage with permanent CO2 emission reductions lead to false claims on temperature alignment |
| title_full_unstemmed | Methods that equate temporary carbon storage with permanent CO2 emission reductions lead to false claims on temperature alignment |
| title_short | Methods that equate temporary carbon storage with permanent CO2 emission reductions lead to false claims on temperature alignment |
| title_sort | methods that equate temporary carbon storage with permanent co2 emission reductions lead to false claims on temperature alignment |
| topic | Temporary carbon storage tonne-year accounting discounting greenhouse gas emissions permanence of stored carbon |
| url | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/17583004.2023.2284714 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT matthewbrander methodsthatequatetemporarycarbonstoragewithpermanentco2emissionreductionsleadtofalseclaimsontemperaturealignment AT derikbroekhoff methodsthatequatetemporarycarbonstoragewithpermanentco2emissionreductionsleadtofalseclaimsontemperaturealignment |