Scholarlink

<p>Leão et al. (2022) criticize the lack of transparency and completeness in the carbon inventories of several Brazilian cities using the GPC Standard, suggesting that methodologies aren't being properly followed. However, this critique may miss some key points: (I) the GPC framework has two levels, BASIC and BASIC+, with AFOLU and IPPU emissions required only in the latter; (ii) the GPC allows some flexibility for "Other Scope 3" emissions, like consumption-based calculations and additional indirect emissions. While not mandated, these can be included for a more comprehensive inventory without risking doublecounting; (iii) the criticism of SEEG, a system designed to capture broader national trends, might overlook its purpose: to provide a generalized view rather than detailed local measurements. Overall, while the authors' concerns are valid, some claims may be exaggerated or misaligned with the GPC's flexible approach to carbon inventory. The GPC offers adaptability and could serve as a robust framework if used with a clear understanding of its guidelines and limitations.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Response to the article “Carbon accounting approaches and reporting gaps in urban emissions: an analysis of the greenhouse gas inventories and climate action plans in Brazilian cities”

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月6日

查看全文
  • Fábio Pedó,
  • Laura Lúcia Vieira Ceneviva,
  • Ana Luisa Soares Vasconcelos

摘要

Leão et al. (2022) criticize the lack of transparency and completeness in the carbon inventories of several Brazilian cities using the GPC Standard, suggesting that methodologies aren't being properly followed. However, this critique may miss some key points: (I) the GPC framework has two levels, BASIC and BASIC+, with AFOLU and IPPU emissions required only in the latter; (ii) the GPC allows some flexibility for "Other Scope 3" emissions, like consumption-based calculations and additional indirect emissions. While not mandated, these can be included for a more comprehensive inventory without risking doublecounting; (iii) the criticism of SEEG, a system designed to capture broader national trends, might overlook its purpose: to provide a generalized view rather than detailed local measurements. Overall, while the authors' concerns are valid, some claims may be exaggerated or misaligned with the GPC's flexible approach to carbon inventory. The GPC offers adaptability and could serve as a robust framework if used with a clear understanding of its guidelines and limitations.