文章 Articles

Accounting for China’s carbon

Developing a system to quantify energy use and greenhouse-gas emissions will help China meets its ambitious targets, write Lucia Green-Weiskel and Robyn Camp. Plus: Isabel Hilton discusses a proposal for a new standard for carbon disclosure.

Article image

Since the 1990s, there has been a growing interest in identifying and quantifying emissions of greenhouse gases in order to understand their impact on the global atmosphere. People have begun better understand the origin and impacts of different greenhouse gases. Emissions today are determined through a variety of methods including macro-level models, direct measurement, calculations and estimations. Understanding of the accuracy, value and applicability of each of these is increasing with experience and time.

China – which, according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, is now the number one emitter of carbon emissions – is a natural next centre for infrastructure related to greenhouse-gas measuring and reporting. It is clear that China will benefit greatly from transforming into a resource-efficient and largely energy self-sufficient economy. China also stands to gain significantly by becoming a leader of environmentally friendly technologies and policies. This reality is reflected by Beijing’s ambitious energy-efficiency targets, which – if implemented – stand to be some of the most environmentally progressive policies in the world.

However, to meet those targets, China will need to develop a system to quantify energy use and greenhouse-gas emissions. This system must be growth-oriented, transparent, accurate and reliable, in line with international standards and accompanied by a system of third-party verification. An online carbon and energy registry will support China’s drive to meet its own energy targets, facilitate bilateral cooperation between China and the US on climate change and support China’s participation in international agreements on carbon reduction. This registry needs to come online soon if China will be able to meet its targets for the next five to 10 years. But questions remain about how to implement such a tool, who should administer it and the methodology to use.

How to best measure emissions may depend on the reasons for asking. For instance, national governments may use top-down assessments, based on economy-wide assumptions to inform national climate-change policies. Regional trading systems rely on precise calculation and measurement of discrete activities associated with specific emissions reduction projects at a relatively small geographic location. Regulators want comparable data to evaluate performance of similar facilities: for example, comparing one manufacturing plant to another to understand reductions over time. Companies may want to understand the footprint – including any associated liability or risk – from the full scope of their operations in order to be good corporate citizens.

There is a very strong case for such a website-based voluntary reporting program in China. Over the last 12 years, a growing number of the world’s largest companies have incorporated greenhouse-gas accounting into their standard business practices in order to understand their own contribution to global emissions. And they are looking to their suppliers, competitors and customers to do the same. In China, such efforts are nascent, presenting an opportunity to build on existing experience and start with strong, rigorous accounting. The best way to do this is to follow the model developed in California by the Climate Registry and the California Climate Action Registry, which together have 500 members, including some of the biggest emitters in the United States.

This model is based on The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (known as “the GHG Protocol”), created by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development. The GHG protocol provides programme-neutral, high-level accounting standards that are widely considered international best practice for determining a corporation’s responsibility for greenhouse-gas emissions. Different from the traditional pollution-control approach of tracking emissions on a unit or facility basis, the GHG Protocol takes precedent from financial accounting standards and assigns responsibility for emissions activities to a corporation, according to ownership of different sources or facilities. Given the global nature of greenhouse gases, this approach acknowledges that each company’s footprint may result from a wide number of activities that it can directly or indirectly control, including mobile sources and electricity use, in addition to activities like power generation and heavy manufacturing.

The GHG Protocol establishes a language of greenhouse-gas accounting. This includes setting the reporting boundaries around a corporation (“entity”) and defining what is to be reported or not. This is based on the entity’s operational or financial control or sources, or its equity share in each source. Perhaps most significantly, the GHG Protocol defines scopes for counting purposes. When considering an entity’s footprint, there may be:

* Scope 1 – Direct emissions: emissions that are within the control of the entity, defined as from stationary combustion, mobile combustion, chemical or manufacturing processes, or fugitive sources (unintentional releases).

* Scope 2 – Indirect emissions: emissions of which the consumption is controlled by the entity, but the generation is not: purchases of electricity, steam, heating or cooling.

* Scope 3 – Indirect emissions from everything else: emissions associated with the use of products that are manufactured, employees commuting to work, performing business travel and so on.

By breaking emissions responsibility into scopes, an organisation can build up its entire footprint. Every Scope 2 emission from electricity consumed by an end-user may also be counted as a Scope 1 emission by the electricity generator. Breaking emissions into scopes helps assure that emissions are not double-counted on a broad scale.

In addition to a solid methodology, a registry must have a good business model. There should be a strong incentive for businesses to disclose their energy use and greenhouse-gas emissions data – information that is usually not identified or shared. There are many business-friendly arguments for joining a greenhouse-gas registry. First, by reporting to a registry, enterprises in China can promote and publicise a green image. Second, while increasing transparency and putting in place internal systems to measure and monitor energy use, some companies can reduce energy costs and get a head start on reducing carbon emissions.

Business for Social Responsibility
has pointed out that many of the concerns the business community has about joining a registry are unfounded. For example, businesses that worry about the administrative cost of generating accurate data usually find that the benefits of tracking data are greater than the cost. Businesses that worry about unnecessarily revealing information about their operations, or having that information used against them, find that fears about disclosure are often exaggerated: disclosure leads to stakeholders having more confidence in the company and view it as less of a risky investment. Finally, for those that worry that this type of data-sharing will violate privacy and open floodgates for other requests, find instead that collaborating with stakeholders holds an opportunity to set beneficial terms in the future.

To conclude, a China-based registry to quantify carbon emissions in a measurable, consistent and verifiable way is the necessary first solid step toward any larger climate-change solution and an important prerequisite of both bilateral and multilateral cooperation on climate change. A registry will move China away from its negative image as the biggest polluter in the world – towards being seen as a responsible, resource-efficient, energy self-sufficient country, which can become a leader in green technology. China stands to gain a lot from this development.


Lucia Green-Weiskel is a project officer at the Innovation Center for Energy and Transportation in Beijing. Robyn Camp is vice president of programmes at the Climate Registry in Los Angeles. iCET and TCR are currently working in partnership to develop the Energy and Climate Registry: the first web-based voluntary reporting greenhouse gas and energy efficiency registry in China. For more information on the China-based registry, please contact Lucia at [email protected]



A common standard

In a move that underlined the growing importance of carbon disclosure to business, the Climate Disclosure Standards Board – founded in 2007 at the World Economic Forum, Davos – last month unveiled its proposals for a common, international standard for carbon disclosure. The draft was produced by a group that includes some of the world’s leading accounting firms and launched at the World Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen in May.

The practice of voluntary carbon disclosure has been growing rapidly as companies come to understand that their carbon emissions expose them to risk, including future penalties and negative publicity. Increasingly, big investors demand reliable carbon accounting as one of the factors considered when deciding whether or not to invest.

Effective emissions reduction also demands that emissions be measured, but many companies still do not have the capacity or the will to learn how to account for their emissions. Since reporting emissions is still largely voluntary, comparisons across borders or within sectors are difficult to make.

Reporting is mandatory within trading systems such at the European Emission Trading System. As carbon markets expand, different schemes have developed with different accounting practices. Now, the board argues, a common, principles based accounting standards, similar to a financial accounting standard, is essential to allow investors and companies accurately to assess their risks. Carbon accounting, the board believes, will soon be a standard component of annual reports. For a global carbon market to function properly, accounting standards must be global.

The draft proposals have been published here [pdf] and its authors are inviting comments before September.

-- Isabel Hilton

Homepage image by aur2899

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

在创新中发展

我认为中国目前的主要问题是提高能源的使用率,即如何在不增加碳排放的前提下,快速发展经济。在这些方面,中国有很多需要像西方学习的地方。然而技术的引进又涉及到知识产权的问题。因此,中国是时候鼓励绿色科技创新了。

Development through Innovation

I think China's current, primary problem is improving energy utilization rate, that is, how to rapidly develop the economy under the premise of not increasing carbon emissions. In this aspect, China has a lot to learn from the West. However, technology introduction also involves the question of intellectual property rights. Therefore, it is time for China to promote green science and technology innovation. (Translated by David Vance Wagner)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

企业的认识

在经济的微观主体——企业层面,对于气候问题的认识还很不够,因此,文章中提到的网 上自愿报告系统如何实现呢?碳核算在企业看来会不会仅仅是作秀或是敷衍了事呢?

knowledge by enterprises

At the enterprise level - the micro foundation of the economy - there is still not enough knowledge of the climate problem. Therefore, how will the online voluntary reporting system mentioned in the article be achieved? From the perspective of the businesses, won't carbon accounting be something just for show or perfunctory? (Translated by David Vance Wagner)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

如何摆脱怪圈?

很多低附加值的产品,尤其是日用消费品都是高耗能的。中国很多企业还处于价值链的低端,结果我们的人民越是勤奋,消耗能源越多,获得利润的份额越小,受到的指责也越多。这不是个怪圈么?我们的祖先所说的“勤劳致富”,是否在今天的全球环境面临危机的大背景下,已经变得不那么有力了?我们需要一种能够扭转这种局面的力量,我们也需要更多的在经济上行得通的策略建议。

How can we overcome the vicious cycle?

Lowly value-added products, especially daily consumer goods, require high consumption of energy. Many China's enterprises are still at the lower-end of the value chain. The outcome is, the more hardworking are our people, the more the energy is consumed, the less profits are obtained, and the more blame we face. Isn't it a vicious cycle? According to our ancestors' teaching, "wealth comes from being industrious“. In the face of the global environmental crisis nowadays, is this saying no longer valid? We need the power to reverse this situation. We also need more feasible suggestions on economic strategies.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

还是企业的关注问题

碳核算系统在中国建立起来,对于企业的发展无疑是好的。但从去年孙晓华的文章及其后的反应来看,企业对此认知不够。在碳排放的计算方面,越来越多的个人参与进来,觉得很时尚,但企业毕竟要生存的,凭什么能够让企业把排放问题提上议事日程,如果它们还在忙着“求生存”?国家如何为环保的企业提供更多的激励

It is still the question as enterprises' awareness.

The establishment of carbon accounting system in China is no doubt beneficial to the development of enterprises. However, we can see the enterprises lack this awareness from the responses towards Sun Xiaohua's articles. More and more people get involved in carbon accounting as they think it is fashionable. Yet, enterprises need to survive. While they are still striving for survival, what can induce them to put carbon emission to the agenda? How can China provide more incentives for environmental-friendly enterprises?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

核算系统

短短几年之前,中国开创了绿色核算系统。不幸的是,该它揭露了一些不便公开的问题,遂遭废弃。该制度或许可以成为一套行之有效的碳核算系统的基石。然而,从当今的世界金融危机可以看出,有些核算系统已失灵或者受到滥用。(本评论由Garvey Yan翻译)

Accounting systems

It was only few years ago that China initiated a green accounting system. Unfortunately, this revealed some inconvenient truths and was scrapped. Perhaps that system could form the basis for an effective carbon accounting system.

However, the current global financial crisis is in part a reflection of accounting systems which failed or were abused.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

第四条评论

没错,企业需要得到激励才会做碳核算。因此,碳披露项目需要把披露与投资联系在一起。温室气体排放应被看作一项商业风险,在进行投资前,投资者需要清楚地了解所存在的风险。假如有一套包括碳核算在内的如同财务报告一样健全的管理系统,那么,不重视气体排放的企业所面临的风险就如其忽视财务回报一样危险。(本评论由Garvey Yan翻译)

comment no 4

It's true that enterprises will need incentives to do carbon accounting. This is why the Carbon Disclosure Project ties disclosure to investment. Greenhouse gas emissions should be considered a business risk and investors need to have a clear idea of risk before investing in a business. With a sound regulatory structure that includes carbon accounting, as it should financial reporting, a business that does not pay attention to its emissions would be considered as poor a risk as a business that does not pay attention to its financial return.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

个人意见

在我看来,建立网上自愿报告系统不具备可行性;而强制建立排放量申报系统并取得相对真实的数据的前提是推行碳税,而这是中国政府和中国企业都不愿意看到的

My own opinion

To me, the establishment of an online self-declaring system is not feasible. The implementation of carbon tax is the prerequisite of imposing a carbon registry where relatively real data can be acquired. Yet, this is not the wish of the PRC Government and the Chinese enterprises.