An Assessment of the Link Between Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories and Climate Action Plans

Problem: Basing local climate action plans on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventories has become standard practice for communities that want to address the problem of climate change. Communities use GHG emissions inventories to develop policy despite the fact that there has been little theoretical work on the implications of the assumptions embedded within them. Purpose: We identify elements and assumptions in emissions inventories that have important policy implications for climate action plan formulation, aiming to help planners make informed, defensible choices, and to refine future GHG emissions inventory protocols and climate action planning methods. Methods: We conducted a content analysis of 30 city climate action plans selected as a stratified random sample. We collected data on 70 different factors and used summary and trend statements, typologies, and descriptive statistics to link our findings to our research questions. Results and conclusions: Climate action plans obviously vary in many details, but most contain all of the core GHG emissions elements suggested in common protocols. We found GHG emissions inventories to be technically accurate but found their reduction targets to fall short of international targets. We also found exogenous change and uncertainty to be unaccounted for in emissions forecasts and reduction targets. The plans generally do a poor job of linking mitigation actions to reduction targets. Takeaway for practice: GHG emissions inventories supporting climate action planning are reasonably standardized, but documentation of data and assumptions should be improved and GHG reduction targets should be justified. The effect of future changes that are beyond the direct control of the community plan should be accounted for in GHG emissions forecasts and reduction targets. Rapid anticipated population growth should be acknowledged and taken into account, both in GHG emissions forecasts and in setting reduction targets. Effects of mitigation may be difficult to predict reliably, yet can be partly offset by effective monitoring that evaluates progress and changes course when necessary. Research support: None.