The current battle of words between WWF and Singapore’s National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) raises some interesting questions about how carbon emissions should be reported on a country-level.
Briefly, the NCCS has taken issue with a WWF report which named Singapore as the country with the highest carbon emissions per capita in the Asia-Pacific. Rather than using the accepted UNFCC methodology of attributing emissions from the production of traded goods to the producing country, the WWF attributes these emissions to the importing country.
Who is right? The distinction may seem academic, but it can have a huge impact on emissions totals. The NCCS states that switching to the UNFCC’s methodology puts Singapore below countries including Brunei, Australia and South Korea. Back home, the UK claims to have reduced its emissions by more than 25% since 1990, but at the same time its importation of carbon-intensive goods, especially from Asia, has massively increased. If the UK has reduced its emissions only by exporting them abroad, then any claim of progress on its carbon targets is an illusion.
Quantifying exactly how much carbon a country imports per year is tricky – and this is one reason why the UNFCC’s methodology dominates. But several studies have attempted to obtain a “consumption estimate” of the UK’s emissions, adding emissions from imports, aviation, shipping and tourism to the official figures. One study by the Stockholm Environmental Institute in 2008 found an 18% rise in emissions related to UK consumption between 1992 and 2004, with the share of imports in overall emissions rising from 35% to 67% over the same period.
The government itself has also commissioned studies showing similar patterns, but as yet has not heeded its own conclusions, instead ploughing ahead with targets which focus only on carbon emitted within the UK’s borders. Until it recognises the bigger picture, then the UK’s official carbon figures will remain a convenient lie.