Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorMacKenzie, Craigen
dc.contributor.advisorAscui, Franciscoen
dc.contributor.authorBrander, Matthew Cuchulainen
dc.date.accessioned2017-11-07T14:23:00Z
dc.date.available2017-11-07T14:23:00Z
dc.date.issued2016-06-29
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1842/25448
dc.description.abstractAs part of the response to the threat of dangerous climate change a variety of methods have emerged for measuring greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, assigning responsibility for those emissions, and informing decisions on mitigation actions. Many of these greenhouse gas accounting methods have developed in semi-isolated fields of practice, and this raises questions about how these different methods relate to each other, and whether they form ‘families’ of conceptually similar approaches. A useful distinction has developed within the field of life cycle assessment (LCA) between attributional and consequential methods, and this thesis explores the possibility of extending that distinction to categorise other forms of greenhouse gas accounting. Broadly, attributional methods are inventories of emissions/removals for a defined inventory boundary, while consequential methods aim to estimate system-wide changes in emissions that result from a decision or action. This thesis suggests that national greenhouse gas inventories, city inventories, corporate inventories, and attributional LCA are all attributional in nature, while project-level assessments, policy-level assessments, and consequential LCA are all consequential in nature. The potential benefits from creating this categorical framework include ensuring that individual methods are conceptually coherent, transposing lessons between methods of the same categorical type, and ensuring that the correct type of method is used for a given purpose. These various benefits are explored conceptually through the analysis of existing greenhouse gas accounting standards, and also empirically with the use of a bioenergy case study. The findings suggest that the attributional-consequential distinction is highly useful for conceptualising and developing greenhouse gas accounting methods, which is important, ultimately, for addressing dangerous climate change.en
dc.contributor.sponsorEconomic and Social Research Council (ESRC)en
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherThe University of Edinburghen
dc.relation.hasversionBrander, M., 2015a. Response to “Attributional life cycle assessment: is a land-use baseline necessary?”—appreciation, renouncement, and further discussion. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(12), pp.1607–1611.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrander, M., 2013. The impact of contractual emission factors on the accuracy and relevance of corporate greenhouse gas accounts, Available at: http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/17771480/The_impact_of_contract ual_emission_factors_on_the_accuracy_and_relevance_of_greenhouse_gas_a ccounts.pdf.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrander, M., 2015b. Transposing lessons between different forms of consequential greenhouse gas accounting: lessons for consequential life cycle assessment, project-level accounting, and policy-level accounting. Journal of Cleaner Production.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrander, M. & Ascui, F., 2015. The attributional-consequential distinction and its applicability to corporate carbon accounting. In S. Schaltegger, D. Zvezdov, I. Alvarez, M. Csutora, & E. Günther, eds. Corporate Carbon and Climate Accounting. Dordrecht: Springer.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrander, M., Carstairs, S. & Topp, C.F.E., 2014. Global protocol for community scale greenhouse gas emissions: a trial application in the West Highlands of Scotland. Greenhouse Gas Measurement and Management, 3(3-4), pp.1–17.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrander, M., Gillenwater, M., Broekhoff, D. & Trexler, M., 2015. Open Letter on Scope 2 GHG Reporting. Available at: https://scope2openletter.wordpress.com/.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrander, M., Tipper, R., Hutchison, C. & Davis, G., 2009. Consequential and Attributional Approaches to LCA : a Guide to Policy Makers with Specific Reference to Greenhouse Gas LCA of Biofuels. Ecometrica Press, pp.1–14. Available at: http://ecometrica.com/assets//approachesto_LCA3_technical.pdf.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrander, M. & Wylie, C., 2012. The use of substitution in attributional life cycle assessment. Greenhouse Gas Measurement and Management, 1(3-4), pp.161– 166.en
dc.relation.hasversionChalmers, N.G., Brander, M. & Revoredo-Giha, C., 2015. The implications of empirical and 1:1 substitution ratios for consequential LCA: using a 1 % tax on whole milk as an illustrative example. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(9), pp.1268–1276.en
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Internationalen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
dc.subjectgreenhouse gas accountingen
dc.subjectattributional-consequentialen
dc.subjectClimate Changeen
dc.titleExtending the attributional-consequential distinction to provide a categorical framework for greenhouse gas accounting methodsen
dc.typeThesis or Dissertationen
dc.type.qualificationlevelDoctoralen
dc.type.qualificationnamePhD Doctor of Philosophyen


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International