Comparative Evaluation of Top-Down GOSAT XCO 2 vs. Bottom-Up National Reports in the European Countries

Youngseok Hwang, Stephan Schlüter, Tanupriya Choudhury and Jung-Sup Um
Additional contact information
Youngseok Hwang: Department of Climate Change, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Korea
Stephan Schlüter: Department of Mathematics, Natural and Economic Sciences, Ulm University of Applied Sciences, 89075 Ulm, Germany
Tanupriya Choudhury: Department of Informatics, School of Computer Science, University of Petroleum & Energy Studies (UPES), Dehradun 248 007, Uttarakhand, India
Jung-Sup Um: Department of Geography, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Korea

Sustainability, 2021, vol. 13, issue 12, 1-15

Abstract: Submitting national inventory reports (NIRs) on emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is obligatory for parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The NIR forms the basis for monitoring individual countries’ progress on mitigating climate change. Countries prepare NIRs using the default bottom–up methodology of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as approved by the Kyoto protocol. We provide tangible evidence of the discrepancy between official bottom–up NIR reporting (unit: tons) versus top–down XCO 2 reporting (unit: ppm) within the European continent, as measured by the Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite (GOSAT). Bottom–up NIR (annual growth rate of CO 2 emission from 2010 to 2016: −1.55%) does not show meaningful correlation (geographically weighted regression coefficient = −0.001, R 2 = 0.024) to top–down GOSAT XCO 2 (annual growth rate: 0.59%) in the European countries. The top five countries within the European continent on carbon emissions in NIR do not match the top five countries on GOSAT XCO 2 concentrations. NIR exhibits anthropogenic carbon-generating activity within country boundaries, whereas satellite signals reveal the trans-boundary movement of natural and anthropogenic carbon. Although bottom–up NIR reporting has already gained worldwide recognition as a method to track national follow-up for treaty obligations, the single approach based on bottom–up did not present background atmospheric CO 2 density derived from the air mass movement between the countries. In conclusion, we suggest an integrated measuring, reporting, and verification (MRV) approach using top–down observation in combination with bottom–up NIR that can provide sufficient countrywide objective evidence for national follow-up activities.

Keywords: top–down; bottom–up; GOSAT XCO 2; national inventory report; carbon footprint; MRV (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6700/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6700/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:12:p:6700-:d:574119

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().