Establishing and Understanding Post-2020 Climate Change Mitigation Commitments

Briner, Gregory; Prag, Andrew

doi:10.1787/5jzb44qw9df7-en

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the Kyoto Protocol framework is not designed to account for mitigation contributions expressed relative to a baseline, non-GHG contributions, or actions with long-term but not short-term impacts on GHG emissions. This section briefly explores accounting building blocks for contributions of different types, building on Briner and Prag (2013).…”

Section: Accounting Implications Of Different Types Of Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is considerable experience to date with accounting using GHG-related goals and so related accounting issues and the information needed to understand GHG goals have been covered elsewhere (Briner and Prag, 2013;WRI 2013a). 3 In order to understand a mitigation contribution expressed in terms of GHG emissions, information is needed on:…”

Section: Accounting For Ghg Goals (Type I Contributions)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure 2 illustrates this set of information and rules, separating those that define the scope, content and extent of the contribution ex-ante from ex-post accounting rules. Briner and Prag (2013) built on this analysis to show how understanding could be enhanced by agreeing bounded flexibility for some technical dimensions of contributions (e.g. by agreeing to use IPCC metrics for global warming potentials, or the same time frame for contributions).…”

Section: Accounting For Ghg Goals (Type I Contributions)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Earlier CCXG work looked at the diverse range of mitigation contributions that Parties may choose to put forward, options for "bounded flexibility" for some technical aspects of these contributions (Briner and Prag, 2013), and options for GHG unit accounting (Prag, Hood and Barata, 2013). This paper will build on previous work to consider in more detail the accounting options for different contribution types.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

GHG or not GHG

Hood

Briner

Rocha³

2014

OECD/IEA Climate Change Expert Group Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This series is designed to make available to a wider readership selected papers on climate change issues that have been prepared for the OECD/IEA Climate Change Expert Group (CCXG). The CCXG (formerly called the Annex I Expert Group) is a group of government delegates from OECD and other industrialised countries. The aim of the group is to promote dialogue and enhance understanding on technical issues in the international climate change negotiations. CCXG papers are developed in consultation with experts from a wide range of developed and developing countries, including those participating in CCXG Global Forums. The full papers are generally available only in English. The opinions expressed in these papers are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the OECD, the IEA or their member countries, or the endorsement of any approach described herein.

show abstract

Section: Accounting Implications Of Different Types Of Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Accounting For Ghg Goals (Type I Contributions)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Accounting For Ghg Goals (Type I Contributions)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

GHG or not GHG

Hood

Briner

Rocha³

2014

OECD/IEA Climate Change Expert Group Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to specifying headline target(s), further information is needed in the INDC to fulfil these criteria of "clarity, transparency, and understanding", including timeframes and coverage. For mitigation contributions, this also includes details of baselines and accounting assumptions (Briner and Prag, 2013;Herold et. al, 2014;CDKN and Ricardo-AEA, 2015;Levin et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%