Contact us
[email protected] | |
3275638434 | |
Paper Publishing WeChat |
Useful Links
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Article
Better Accountancy for a Real Hopenhagen
Author(s)
Rolf Czeskleba-Dupont
Full-Text PDF XML 854 Views
DOI:10.17265/1548-6605/2021.01.003
Affiliation(s)
Berlin Institute of Critical Theory (InkriT), Berlin, Germany
ABSTRACT
It is questioned whether
states, cities, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can solve the climate problem when rejecting to
learn from critical scrutiny of their decisions. The Danish example of massive
scale conversions from fossil to biomass sources for combustion-derived energy
is a case in point, as it cannot be generalized. Historical as well as actual measurements since
1958 show that the world is living with an exceptionally high and rising level
of atmospheric concentration of CO2. Additions (“sources”) and
subtractions (“sinks”)
have, therefore, to be considered as comprehensively as possible. Biological
sinks must be better protected and expanded. The role of forests in climate
mitigation is generally judged too optimistically without due regard to the
threat of tipping points and short-term contributions to global warming from
using woody biomass for energy purposes. Under the aim of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to
stabilize CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere at a level in accord
with the precautionary principle, the reporting of national emissions must
comprise CO2 emissions from the combustion of biomass, too. Since
the Kyoto-phrase that “biomass fuels are considered CO2 neutral” in the energy sector has no consistent backing in the land sector, the
complexities of real forest development must be considered. Protection must be
prioritized to avoid that more forests tip into becoming net sources of
greenhouse gases—and forest potentials to draw down CO2 from the
atmosphere are foregone. Therefore, carbon accounting must be extended from
the one-sided approach of reckoning with “Kyoto-CO2” from fossil sources only to integrated assessments
of, how to decarbonize, i.e., reduce CO2 emissions from the use of
biomass sources, too. To become sustainable, correcting erroneous accountancy
is a first step to be taken. Instead of using problematic carbon calculators,
integrated energy planning for clean renewables can help, e.g.,
at city level.
KEYWORDS
biomass accountancy, Kyoto Protocol, UNFCCC, greenhouse gas concentrations, forests, forest industry, carbon debt, biological sinks, policy networks, IPCC, CO2-neutral cities, systemic energy planning
Cite this paper
References