4.7 Article

A comprehensive city-level GHGs inventory accounting quantitative estimation with an empirical case of Baoding

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 651, Issue -, Pages 601-613

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.223

Keywords

Greenhouse gases; Emission inventory; Energy activity; Municipal waste treatment; Uncertainty analysis

Funding

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2018QN094]
  2. National Social Science Foundation of China (NSSFC) [15BGL145]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cities represent a critical source and primary unit of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The accurate emission accounts of cities provide robust and solid data support for further emission analysis as well as the local low-carbon policy making. Restricted by the data and method lacking, there is a relative lag in city-level emission accounts. Thus, this study attempts to build an investigation-based GHG emission inventory framework for cities. We include CO2, CH4, N2O, and SF6 emissions from five sources: energy activity, industrial processes/product use, agriculture, land use change/forestry, and waste disposal. This study then uses Baoding as a case study to analyse its emission characteristics. Baoding is a low-carbon pilot city in China, which is a core and crucial city in Jing-Jin-Ji area. It is also the origin of the recently established Xiongan New Area, which has great strategic development significance. The results show that energy activity is the highest emission source followed by waste disposal processes in Baoding. Emissions induced by electricity input that brought from other provinces or cities account for another considerable emission proportion as well. Moreover, agricultural activity, which is a pillar industry in Baoding, contributes the most to methane emissions. Several emissions reduction policy recommendations are provided. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available