-
A comparative analysis of Copenhagen's and Vienna's climate
targets
MASTERTHESIS
University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen
Supervisor: Kjeld Rasmussen
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna
Co-Supervisor: Helga Kromp-Kolb
Author: Eva Christine Pangerl 2014
-
Abstract
This study analyses Copenhagen's and Vienna's accounting schemes
and climate plans and shows how to improve Vienna's climate
strategy on the basis of Copenhagen's climate plan. Copenhagen
seeks to be the first climate neutral capital in the world by
2025, receiving worldwide attention for its climate efforts.
Therefore the motivation of this study is to investigate
Copenhagen's method of becoming carbon neutral in more detail and
to apply it to Vienna.
Since GHG accounting (greenhouse gas accounting) is a central
theme in climate planning, it is thoroughly elaborated. Aside from
Copenhagen's and Vienna's GHG accounts, the first international
standard on city GHG accounting, GPC (Global Protocol for
Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories), is also
introduced as an alternative to Copenhagen's and Vienna's current
climate accounts. Further analysis shows that large amounts of GHG
emissions are embedded in the
cities' consumption, which is why the consumption-based
accounting system by the consulting company NIRAS is presented as
well. A baseline scenario for the GHG emissions of Vienna is
developed projecting how the emissions could develop from now until
2030 provided that no policies or initiatives are initiated by the
City of Vienna. Copenhagen's method of reaching carbon neutrality
consists of emission reductions and compensation methods.
Copenhagen's ratio of these two
measures is applied to Vienna's emissions in 2030 to see how
many emissions Vienna would need to reduce to reach carbon
neutrality. Last but not least, this study discusses the meaning of
carbon neutrality and how misleading interpretations of the term
can be avoided. It additionally elaborates on Copenhagen's
experience with its climate plan concerning brand recognition and
non-climate benefits.
The study is based on literature analysis, semi-open interviews
with experts from Copenhagen, and calculations for Vienna's
baseline scenario and its consumption-based emissions. The results
of the baseline scenario show that Vienna's emissions will decrease
by 9% from 8.5 mill t CO2e to 7.7 mill tons of CO2e in 2030. Vienna
can reach Copenhagen's interpretation of carbon neutrality by 2030
if this 7.7 mill t CO2e are further reduced by 5.4 mill t CO2e and
if the remaining 2.3 mill tons CO2e are
compensated. Furthermore, a 3-step plan is developed that can
eliminate Vienna's accounting weaknesses, which were identified by
this study. Step 1 recommends establishing a comprehensive report
about Vienna's currently available GHG data and its accounting
methods. Step 2 suggests implementing the GPC and including
emissions by EU ETS and Step 3 advocates a consumption-based
accounting assessment to identify and address consumption-based
emission hotspots.
2
-
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my parents, my sister and all the people
that have supported me and without whom the completion of this
thesis would not have been possible.
Next, I would like to thank my supervisor, Kjeld Rasmussen, and
Co-Supervisor, Helga Kromp-Kolb, for all of their advice throughout
these past months.
Finally, I would like to thank all of the interviewees for
taking their time to meet me for an interview and for sharing their
experience and knowledge with me. Special thanks also to the City
of Copenhagen and the City of Vienna, who have provided me with
such valuable information.
I feel fortunate to have been able to do this research about
Copenhagen and Vienna, two cities that I truly love. Thank you.
3
-
Table of Content List of
Figures....................................................................................................................................................
6
List of Tables
.....................................................................................................................................................
9
List of
Equations..............................................................................................................................................
11
List of
Abbreviations.......................................................................................................................................
12
Dictionary.........................................................................................................................................................
13
1
Introduction..............................................................................................................................................
14 1.1
Background.........................................................................................................................................................
14 1.2 Field of Enquiry
...................................................................................................................................................
15 1.3 Outline
................................................................................................................................................................
16
2 Methodology and data
sources..............................................................................................................
18
I -
THEORY............................................................................................................................................
20
3 Theory of Carbon Accounting and Climate Neutrality
.........................................................................
21 3.1 Carbon
Accounting..............................................................................................................................................
21
3.1.1 Definition of Carbon Accounting
.................................................................................................................
21 3.1.2 National greenhouse gas
inventories..........................................................................................................
21 3.1.3 Greenhouse gas accounting in cites
...........................................................................................................
22 3.1.4 Consumption- and production-based accounting
........................................................................................
22 3.1.5 Carbon Footprint in
cities............................................................................................................................
25
3.2 Carbon
neutrality.................................................................................................................................................
26 3.2.1 Definition of carbon neutrality
.....................................................................................................................
26 3.2.2 Offset
.........................................................................................................................................................
26 3.2.3 Carbon neutrality within the Copenhagen's Climate target
..........................................................................
27
II - FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS FOR COPENHAGEN AND VIENNA
.............................................. 28
4 Overview of climate targets on different
levels.....................................................................................
29
5 International, European and national
frameworks................................................................................
30 5.1 Global climate
targets..........................................................................................................................................
30 5.2 EU climate
targets...............................................................................................................................................
30 5.3 National Frameworks - Denmark and Austria
......................................................................................................
33
5.3.1 Country Profiles Denmark and
Austria........................................................................................................
33 5.3.2 GHG emissions trends and projection Denmark and
Austria.......................................................................
33 5.3.3 Energy Landscapes - Austria and
Denmark................................................................................................
37 5.3.4 Comparison between Denmark's and Austria's GHG emissions
and energy landscapes ............................ 39
6 Introduction to the Cities of Copenhagen and Vienna
.........................................................................
40 6.1 City
Profiles.........................................................................................................................................................
40 6.2 Political and Geographical
borders......................................................................................................................
41
6.2.1 Copenhagen: The City of Copenhagen, Greater Copenhagen and
the Capital Region of Denmark ............ 41 6.2.2 Vienna: The
City of Vienna and the Federal Land
Vienna...........................................................................
44
6.3 Copenhagen and Vienna as smart cities
.............................................................................................................
44 6.4 Comparison of Copenhagen's and Vienna's framework
conditions......................................................................
45
III - ACCOUNTING
................................................................................................................................
47
7 Copenhagen's and Vienna's accounting systems and GHG
emissions............................................. 48 7.1
Copenhagen GHG accounting and emissions
.....................................................................................................
48
7.1.1 Copenhagen's accounting: Municipal CO2 Inventory Tool
(MCIT)
.............................................................. 48
7.1.2 GHG emissions Copenhagen 2011 and past trends
...................................................................................
51
7.2 Vienna GHG accounting and emissions
..............................................................................................................
53 7.2.1 Vienna's accounting schemes: BLI and CVA
..............................................................................................
53 7.2.2 GHG emissions 2011 and past trends Vienna (BLI and
CVA).....................................................................
57 7.2.3 Excurse: Calculation of Vienna's GHG emissions RE
adjusted...................................................................
60
4
-
8 Alternative accounting
schemes............................................................................................................
63 8.1 Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission
Inventories (GPC).......................................... 63 8.2
Consumption-based GHG accounting by
NIRAS.................................................................................................
67
8.2.1 Consumption-based GHG emissions 2008 Capital Region of
Denmark...................................................... 69
8.2.2 Calculation of Vienna's consumption-based carbon emissions
...................................................................
70
9 Analysis of different accounting
schemes............................................................................................
76 9.1 Comparison of different accounting methodologies
.............................................................................................
76 9.2 Comparing emissions levels calculated by different
accounting methods
............................................................ 79 9.3
Analysis of selected aspects within Vienna's current accounting
systems............................................................
82
9.3.1 GHG Data availability in
Vienna..................................................................................................................
82 9.3.2 Data controversy
........................................................................................................................................
83 9.3.3 Accounting Principles
.................................................................................................................................
84
9.4 Identified issues within Copenhagen's and Vienna's
accounting
schemes...........................................................
85
III - CLIMATE TARGETS
......................................................................................................................
88
10 Climate Plans of Copenhagen and Vienna
........................................................................................
89 10.1 Climate Plan
Copenhagen...................................................................................................................................
89
10.1.1 Copenhagen's policy papers related to CPH 2025 Climate
Plan.................................................................
89 10.1.2 CHP 2025 Climate
Plan..............................................................................................................................
90
10.2 Vienna's Climate Protection Program - KliP
II....................................................................................................
100 10.2.1 Policy papers related to KliP II
..................................................................................................................
100 10.2.2 Vienna's climate protection plan KliP II
.....................................................................................................
102
10.3 Comparison between Copenhagen's and Vienna's Climate Plans
.....................................................................
104
11 Calculation of Vienna's GHG baseline scenario 2010-2030
........................................................... 107
11.1 Vienna's baseline scenario - The base
study.....................................................................................................
107 11.2 Vienna's baseline scenario - Methodology and data
sources.............................................................................
109 11.3 Vienna's baseline scenario - Results
.................................................................................................................
112 11.4 Vienna's baseline scenario - Main
considerations..............................................................................................
116
12 Scaling Copenhagen's reduction plan to
Vienna............................................................................
118
13 Climate targets from different
perspectives....................................................................................
120 13.1 Copenhagen's climate targets
...........................................................................................................................
120 13.2 Vienna's climate targets
....................................................................................................................................
121
IV -
DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................
123
14
Discussion..........................................................................................................................................
124 14.1 Vienna's accounting scheme - missing
opportunities?.......................................................................................
124 14.2 GPC - an alternative to Vienna's accounting scheme?
......................................................................................
125 14.3 Consumption-based accounting - essential to tackle climate
change?...............................................................
126 14.4 EU-ETS - the low hanging fruits?
......................................................................................................................
128 14.5 Recognition value and non-climate benefits - Copenhagen's
success to achieve carbon neutrality? ................. 130 14.6
Carbon neutrality - a valid statement?
...............................................................................................................
131 14.7 A carbon neutral
Vienna?..................................................................................................................................
133
V - FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
...................................................................
135
15 Recommendations for Vienna
..........................................................................................................
136 15.1 The 3-step plan
.................................................................................................................................................
136 15.2 Climate
Plan......................................................................................................................................................
138
16 Conclusion
.........................................................................................................................................
139
VI - REFERENCES
.............................................................................................................................
141
17 References
.........................................................................................................................................
142
VII -
APPENDICES..............................................................................................................................
151
18 Appendices
........................................................................................................................................
152
5
-
List of Figures
Figure 3-1: Overlap between production-based and
consumption-based emissions ........................... 23
Figure 7-4: GHG emissions per capita by Emikat.at (without
companies covered by EU ETS) and BLI
Figure 8-2: Layers and geographical allocation of Input/output
tables used in consumption based
Figure 9-1: Accounting of GPC's/Copenhagen's (Scope 2) and
Vienna's (Scope 1) grid-supplied
Figure 3-2: Production-based and consumption-based accounting at
different geographical scales... 24
Figure 3-3: Five steps to reach carbon neutrality
..................................................................................
26
Figure 5-1: EU 2050 climate roadmap
..................................................................................................
32
Figure 5-2: Denmark - GHG trends and projections 1990-2020 -
total emissions ................................ 34
Figure 5-3: Denmark - GHG trends and projections 1990-2020 -
emissions by sector ........................ 35
Figure 5-4: GHG trends and projections in Austria 1990-2020 -
total emissions.................................. 35
Figure 5-5: GHG trends and projections by sector 1990-2020
Austria ................................................. 36
Figure 5-6: Danish energy policy milestones up to 2050
......................................................................
38
Figure 6-1: The Capital Region of
Denmark..........................................................................................
42
Figure 6-2: Greater Copenhagen
..........................................................................................................
43
Figure 6-3: The City of Copenhagen
.....................................................................................................
43
Figure 6-4: Austria and
Vienna..............................................................................................................
44
Figure 7-1: GHG emissions 2005-2012
Copenhagen...........................................................................
53
Figure 7-2: CO2 emissions from road traffic in Austria
.........................................................................
55
Figure 7-3: GHG emissions by BLI and Emikat (without companies
covered by EU ETS) Vienna 1990 and
2009................................................................................................................................................
58
Vienna 1990 and 2009
..........................................................................................................................
58
Figure 7-5: GHG emission trend according to BLI by sector Vienna
1990-2010 .................................. 59
Figure 7-6: CO2 emissions according to BLI with but with
EMIKAT-transport by sector Vienna
1990-2010.......................................................................................................................................................
59
Figure 8-1: Sources within the scopes of GPC
.....................................................................................
65
accounting
.............................................................................................................................................
68
Figure 8-3: Citizen's Climate footprint in the Capital Region of
Denmark 2008.................................... 70
energy (electricity and district heating)
..................................................................................................
78
6
http:Emikat.at
-
Figure 9-2: GHG emission per capita 2011 Copenhagen and
Vienna.................................................. 80
Figure 10-8: Development CO2 traffic in Vienna 1990-2010 and
Vienna's reduction target in the
Figure 11-2: GHG emissions "with additional measures" by
sectors: trends (1990-2010) and
Figure 12-1: Vienna's Reduction Plan to achieve climate
neutrality by 2030 assuming that complete
Figure 9-3: GHG emissions per capita by sector 2011 Copenhagen
and Vienna ................................ 81
Figure 10-1: Copenhagen's baseline scenario
2012.............................................................................
92
Figure 10-2: Required CO2 reduction to reach carbon neutrality -
Copenhagen ................................. 92
Figure 10-3: Emission reductions by different initiatives and
main areas of activity ............................. 95
Figure 10-4: Main areas of action and its contribution to the
total reduction (100%)............................ 95
Figure 10-5: Investments in Copenhagen by different
stakeholders.....................................................
99
Figure 10-6: Combines municipal investment
2013-2025...................................................................
100
Figure 10-7: The Smart City Wien Framework Strategy and its
mid-term strategy papers ................ 101
transport
sector....................................................................................................................................
103
Figure 11-1: Key underlying input parameters of emission
projections for WAM and WEM .............. 108
projections (2010-2030) Austria
..........................................................................................................
109
Figure 11-3: GHG emissions with BLI accoutning 2010-2030
Vienna................................................ 113
Figure 11-4: GHG emissions with CVA (Transport by Emikat and
excluding EU ETS) 2010-2030
Vienna..................................................................................................................................................
114
Figure 11-5 GHG emissions with BLI but Transport by emikat.at
2010-2030 Vienna ........................ 115
scaling of Copenhagen's reduction measures is
possible...................................................................
119
Figure 13-1: Copenhagen's emissions in 2025 by different
accounting methods............................... 120
Figure 13-2: Copenhagen's per capita emissions in 2025 by
different accounting methods.............. 120
Figure 13-3: Vienna's GHG emissions targets and baseline
projections 2010-2050.......................... 121
Figure 13-4: Vienna's per capita GHG emissions targets and
baseline projections 2010-2050......... 122
Figure 18-1: Austria - Primary Energy Production 1990-2012
........................................................... 153
Figure 18-2: Denmark - Primary Energy Production
1990-2012.........................................................
153
Figure 18-3: Austria - Production of Renewable Energy
1990-2012...................................................
154
Figure 18-4: Denmark - Production of renewable energy 1990-2012
................................................. 154
Figure 18-5: Austria - Gross Energy Consumption 1990-2012
........................................................... 155
Figure 18-6: Denmark - Gross Energy Consumption 1990-2012 6
..................................................... 155
7
http:emikat.at
-
Figure 18-7: Austria - Final Energy Consumption by sectors
1990-20127 .......................................... 156
Figure 18-8: Denmark - Gross Energy Consumption by use
1990-2012............................................ 156
Figure 18-9: Copenhagen's baseline scenario
2008...........................................................................
165
Figure 18-10: Copenhagen's baseline scenario
2012.........................................................................
165
Figure 18-11: Population growth in contrast to emission decrease
- Baseline Scenario Copenhagen
2005-2025............................................................................................................................................
167
Figure 18-12: Economic gain/cost from energy initiatives [DKK
mill - net present value]................... 169
Figure 18-13: Economic gains/costs from traffic initiatives [net
present value in DKK mill]................ 169
Figure 18-14: Employment effect of the CPH 2025 Climate Plan
....................................................... 170
8
-
5
10
15
20
25
List of Tables
Table 1: Scopes of
emissions................................................................................................................
25
Table 2: Greenhouse gas emission reduction and renewable energy
targets EU, Denmark, Austria, Copenhagen and Vienna 2008-2050
....................................................................................................
29
Table 3: EU sector specific targets for 2030 and 2050
.........................................................................
32
Table 4: Country Profiles
.......................................................................................................................
33
Table : City Profiles
.............................................................................................................................
40
Table 6: Comparison of the framing of Copenhagen and Vienna
......................................................... 46
Table 7: Tier-levels in MCIT
..................................................................................................................
49
Table 8: GHG emissions by sectors 2011 Copenhagen
.......................................................................
52
Table 9: CO2e emissions 2011 Vienna by sector
.................................................................................
57
Table : CO2 emissions 2011 Vienna CVA
........................................................................................
57
Table 11: Data for the calculation of Vienna's CO2 emissions RE
adjusted 2011................................ 61
Table 12: Vienna's CO2 emissions RE adjusted for the sector
Energy Supply 2011........................... 61
Table 13: Scopes within
GPC................................................................................................................
64
Table 14: Sources and scopes required under BASIC, BASIC+ 1 and
Expanded ............................... 66
Table : Data quality assessment
.......................................................................................................
67
Table 16: Consumption-based CO2 emissions of Austria and
Denmark.............................................. 72
Table 17: Consumption based CO2 per capita in Vienna with 20/80
method ...................................... 73
Table 18: Consumption-based CO2 emissions per capita, GDP
corrected 2009................................. 74
Table 19: Comparison of MCIT, BLI and CVA
......................................................................................
77
Table : GHG data BLI and traffic emissions by emikat.at 2011
........................................................ 83
Table 21: Individual reduction measures and its contributions to
key reduction areas and total required reduction
target......................................................................................................................................
98
Table 22: Climate Plans of Copenhagen and Vienna
.........................................................................
105
Table 23: CO2e Conversion factors
....................................................................................................
110
Table 24: Allocation of BLI sectors to base-study sectors
..................................................................
110
Table : Population 2010-2030 Vienna and
Austria..........................................................................
111
9
http:emikat.at
-
Table 26: Average share of industry and energy supply emissions
covered by the EU ETS 2007-2011
.............................................................................................................................................................
112
Table 27: Projected GHG emissions total and per capita with to
accounting format BLI 2010-2030 . 114
Table 28: Projected GHG emissions total and per capita according
with accounting format CVA (excluding EU ETS emissions and
transport emissions by emikat.at)
2010-2030.............................. 115
Table 29: Projected GHG emissions total and per capita according
with accounting format BLI but transport by emikat.at
2010-2030........................................................................................................
116
Table 30: Potential progress by following the
recommendations........................................................
136
Table 31: Primary energy production - Demark and Austria
...............................................................
153
Table 32: Production of renewable energy - Denmark and Austria
.................................................... 154
Table 33: Gross energy consumption - Denmark and Austria
............................................................
155
Table 34: Gross energy consumption of Denmark and final energy
consumption of Austria ............. 156
Table 35: GHG data BLI
......................................................................................................................
162
Table 36: Assessment of emissions by BLI with traffic emissions
by emikat.at 1990-2011 ............... 163
Table 37: GHG emissions by BLI and traffic emissions by
emikat.at 2011 ........................................ 164
Table 38: CO2 emissions in 2010 and projections 2015œ2030,
scenario —with additional measures“ 171
Table 39: CH4 emissions in 2010 and projections 2015œ2030,
scenario —with additional measures“ 172
Table 40: N2O emissions in 2010 and projections 2015œ2030,
scenario —with additional measures“ 173
Table 41: HFC, PFC and SF6 emissions in 2010 and projections
2015œ2030, scenario —with additional
measures“............................................................................................................................................
173
Table 42: Data to Chapter 13
..............................................................................................................
174
Table 43: Data to Chapter 13
..............................................................................................................
175
Table 44: Data assessment for
MCIT..................................................................................................
205
Table 45: Data assessment for Copenhagen's baseline scenario
...................................................... 207
10
-
List of Equations
Equation 1: Elaborating inventory data by application of a
scaling factor ............................................. 49
Equation 2: Elaborating inventory data by application of a the
scaling factor - in the case of individual heating
...................................................................................................................................................
50
Equation 3: RE adjustment Copenhagen
..............................................................................................
51
Equation 4: Conversion from emissions by BLI to emissions by CVA
.................................................. 56
Equation 5: Renewable energy adjustment
Copenhagen.....................................................................
60
Equation 6: Emission factor approach for calculating GHG
emissions................................................. 67
Equation 7: Definition of consumption-based CO2 emissions by
OECD.............................................. 72
Equation 8: GDP adjustment
.................................................................................................................
72
Equation 9: BLI emissions adjusted by emikat.at traffic
emissions.......................................................
84
Equation 10: Definition of Carbon
neutrality..........................................................................................
93
Equation 11: Austria's GHG emission per capita growth factor
.......................................................... 111
Equation 12: Projected GHG emissions per capita
Vienna.................................................................
111
Equation 13: BLI emissions adjusted by emikat.at traffic
emissions...................................................
163
11
http:emikat.athttp:emikat.at
-
List of Abbreviations
DK Denmark
CPH Copenhagen
AUT Austria
VIE Vienna
MD Municipal Department
CPH 2025 Climate Plan The Copenhagen Climate Plan 2025
KliP Climate Protection Program, Vienna
MCIT Municipal CO2 Inventory Tool, Denmark
RE adjusted Renewable electricity adjusted
BLI Federal Länder Air Pollution Inventory
CVA City of Vienna Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
COP Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC
GPC Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission
Inventory
GHG Greenhouse gas
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CH4 Methane
N2O Nitrous oxide
EF Emission factor
mill Million
km× Squared kilometers
kg Kliogram
t Metric ton
GDP Gross domestic product
⁄ Euro
DKK Danish Krone
n.d. No date
12
-
Dictionary
English Danish
City of Copenhagen Københavns Kommune
Capital Region of Denmark Region Hovedstaden
Municipal CO2 Inventory Tool Kommunejksagsk CO2-regnskab
English German
Federal Länder Bundesländer
Federal Länder Air Pollution Inventory Bundesländer
Luftschadstoffinventur
Executive Office for the Coordination of Magistratsdirektion -
Klimaschutzkoordination Climate Protection Measures
Glossary
CVA - City of Vienna Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment
This term is used to describe the City of Vienna's own GHG
accounting system. In the literature it is sometimes referred to as
Emikat, but to avoid confusion with the emission model Emikat, it
is defined as CVA in this study.
emikat.at
This term is used to describe the model that is used to assess
Vienna's in-boundary traffic emissions. In the literature this
model is mainly called Emikat.
Baseline scenario
The baseline scenario is the projected GHG emission development
of Copenhagen or Vienna, provided that no further GHG reducing
policies or initiatives are initiated by the City of Copenhagen or
Vienna.
Renewable electricity
Electricity generated by renewable energy
Compensation method
This term is used to describe Copenhagen's way of reaching
carbon neutrality: Copenhagen will reduce some of its emissions and
will compensate the remaining emissions. Copenhagen compensates its
emissions by implementing renewable power generation to replace
fossil fuel based power generation.
RE adjustment - Renewable electricity adjustment
This is a method used by the City of Copenhagen to take credit
for its renewable electricity production. It can take credit for
the renewable electricity generation inside Copenhagen, and
outside
Copenhagen, if the City of Copenhagen had a major contribution
to its establishment. The GHG emissions that are reduced by
Copenhagen's renewable electricity production can be subtracted
from Copenhagen's annual GHG emissions (see Equation 3).
13
http:emikat.at
-
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Today approximately 50% of people worldwide live in cities and
the trend of urbanization is expected to continue throughout the
century, reaching 70% by 2050.1 Urban areas consume between 60% and
80%2 of total energy production and by 2030 75% of EU's energy
consumption will be allocated to cities.3 This extensive energy
consumption is accompanied by large amounts of CO2 emissions
causing global warming.
Even though cities cause large shares of CO2 emission they can
also be a main part of the climate solution. Cities have a huge
advantage compared to more dispersed areas. Higher density
correlates with a lower energy consumption which is why emissions
per capita in cities are typically lower than
emissions per capita in rural areas within the same country.4
The OECD demonstrated that cities can use energy more efficiently
than rural areas since cities have the advantages of the economics
of scale.5 Moreover, many green technologies such as district
heating, district cooling or collective transportation thrive
better in dense areas which again gives cities the advantage.6 Last
but not least, local authorities are better suited than national
authorities to develop innovative solutions tailored for
the local conditions.7
Besides climate benefits, green technologies often add
advantages such as public health benefits, energy security and
improved urban quality of life. In addition, energy efficiency
measures often
substantially reduce city expenses on energy.8
Copenhagen has realized this situation and strives to become the
first carbon neutral capital in the world. In 2009, the City of
Copenhagen announced its vision to become carbon neutral by 2025
and finally, in 2012, they published the "CPH 2025 Climate Plan",
the core document outlining the roadmap
to climate neutrality. Besides decreasing the emissions,
Copenhagen's motivation is also to accelerate green growth and
innovation and to reduce other issues of urbanization such as
traffic congestion. This in turn also improves the image of the
city and makes it more attractive for citizens, businesses and
visitors.
Considering that Copenhagen's climate plan has shown that it is
feasible to reach carbon neutrality, the question arises why this
climate plan has not been applied to other cities. The focus of
this study will be the similarly developed and innovative city of
Vienna. An assessment of the possibility of a carbon neutral Vienna
based on the mechanisms of the Copenhagen Climate Plan has not yet
been
conducted. Therefore, this study strives to collect favorable
approaches for a future climate protection plan in Vienna to aid
the journey towards carbon neutrality.
1 OECD (2010, pp 39œ40) 2 OECD (2010, p 17) 3 OECD (2010, p 50)
4 Dodman (2009, p 189) 5 OECD (2010, p 17) 6 Rasmussen (2014b) 7
OECD (2010, p 21) 8 OECD (2010, p 20)
14
-
A core element within reaching carbon neutrality is the applied
accounting method. Carbon emissions within Copenhagen will reach
net zero which differs from completely eliminating carbon
emissions. Furthermore, Copenhagen's citizens' carbon footprint
will entail carbon emissions beyond 2025 since
consumption-based carbon emissions are not considered in
Copenhagen's climate plan. Nevertheless, there is a drive around
Copenhagen's climate ambitions that shall not be underestimated and
that is worth discussing for future implementation in other
cities.
1.2 Field o f Enquiry
The following paper investigates what approaches within
Copenhagen's Climate Plan are beneficial to improve Vienna's future
climate plan and accounting scheme. The analysis focuses on
Copenhagen's and Vienna's GHG accounts and their climate protection
plans, as well as giving an assessment of their weaknesses followed
by a screening of alternative solutions.
This implies the following research question and research
sub-questions:
How can Vienna's GHG reduction strategy and its accounting
scheme be improved on the
basis of Copenhagen's climate plan?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of Copenhagen's and
Vienna's accounting methods/systems? What alternative GHG
accounting systems are there to represent realities more
correctly?
• How does the choice of the accounting method impact the
current GHG emissions and target GHG emissions of Copenhagen and
Vienna?
• What accounting methods could be recommended to Vienna to
ensure a solid and comprehensive data foundation for its future
climate strategy?
• How much GHG emissions would Vienna have to reduce to achieve
carbon neutrality according to Copenhagen's accounting method?
• Could Vienna realistically improve the GHG reduction plans on
the basis of experience and inspiration from Copenhagen, or are the
situations and institutional settings of the two cities
too different?
• What are the risks and opportunities related to the target
carbon neutrality? What does carbon neutrality mean, and how can
misleading interpretation of the term be avoided? What is
Copenhagen's experience concerning brand recognition and
non-climate benefits?
Since the foundation of the study is the Copenhagen Climate Plan
"CPH 2025 Climate Plan", this strategy is explained in detail.
Furthermore, special emphasis is put on the comparison between
GHG
accounting schemes and the climate plans of Copenhagen and
Vienna as well as the assessment of their influence on calculated
GHG emissions and climate targets. To allow comparison between
consumption-based and production-based emissions, consumption-based
emissions from the Capital Region of Denmark are taken to represent
Copenhagen's consumption-based emissions and Vienna's
consumption-based emissions are estimated with a simple
calculation.
The report identifies and discusses issues within the individual
accounting schemes of Copenhagen (MCIT) and Vienna (BLI and CVA).
The study limits itself to problematic aspects related to the
heterogeneity of carbon accounts, production- and consumption-based
accounting, the compensation method, the level of detail within GHG
data as well as data reporting and the exclusion of emissions
by
the EU ETS sector. It does not intend to elaborate on all
possible aspects related to carbon
15
-
accounting. Moreover, the issue of defining biomass as carbon
neutral is briefly outlined, but the study refrains from a further
comprehensive elaboration on that topic to stay within the scope of
a master thesis.
The paper should not only compare current accounting schemes
between the two cities but also question their methodology and
investigate alternatives. The two alternatives presented in this
report are the consumption-based accounting scheme developed by the
consulting company NIRAS and the
Global Protocol of Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission
Inventories (GPC), which is the first international standard for
GHG accounting on the city and community scale. These two
alternatives were selected to illustrate potential solutions for
issues related to current accounting schemes. The study forgoes
conducting a comprehensive literature review to assess potential
alternative accounting schemes, since this would go beyond the
scope of the study.
It is also noted that the study comprises overall emissions,
emission targets and accounting schemes, and does not elaborate on
sector specific conditions such as traffic, electricity and heating
infrastructure, supply and consumption in Copenhagen or Vienna.
These related topics are
recommended for assessment in future investigations since it
would exceed the scope of this study.
To provide a first impression of the applicability of
Copenhagen's climate target to Vienna, a baseline scenario from now
to 2030 is calculated based on the Austrian emission growth factors
and subsequently Copenhagen's reduction measures are applied to
Vienna's projected baseline emissions
in 2030. This assessment is limited to the theoretical
assumption that the scaling of Copenhagen's emission cuts for
individual measures is applicable, and that Vienna and Copenhagen
have the same preconditions. Therefore the results are not
optimized or evaluated on actual feasibility. The study primarily
refrains from analyzing GHG reduction potentials for Vienna and
abstains from taking economic implications into account as has been
done in Copenhagen with more time and resources.
However, it is highly recommended to investigate these steps in
future studies.
1.3 Outline
The main body of this study is structured into theory, framework
conditions, accounting, climate
targets, discussion and recommendations for Vienna.
The first part of the study provides theoretical background on
GHG accounting, in particular to clarify the difference between
national and city accounting, as well as production-based and
consumption-
based accounting, and defines carbon neutrality in line with
offset and compensation methods.
Furthermore, the overall framework conditions of the two cities
are elaborated. First of all, the international, EU and climate
targets are explained which are followed by an outline of national
past
and future GHG emissions trends and projections of Austria and
Denmark. Since energy is the major contributor to the national GHG
emissions, the countries' energy landscapes and future energy
strategies are briefly explained. Thereafter, an introduction to
the cities of Copenhagen and Vienna is presented, which includes
basic facts such as population size and GDP, their geographical and
political boundaries, which will also explain the difference
between the City of Copenhagen and the
Greater Copenhagen Region, and their city images, institutions
and networks regarding ”smart city‘. A comparison of the two cities
will demonstrate that the cities have similar framework conditions
except for their respective national GHG development.
16
-
To build the relevant foundation for the assessment,
Copenhagen's and Vienna's GHG accounting methods and its respective
emissions of 2011 are presented. Alternative accounting schemes are
necessary for the ongoing assessments as an international standard
for city accounting (GPC) and a
consumption-based accounting method by the consulting company
NIRAS are presented as well. NIRAS's calculated consumption-based
emissions for the Capital Region of Denmark are presented and
subsequently Vienna's consumption-based emissions will be estimated
with simple calculations. Last but not least, the different
accounting schemes are compared to each other and their impact on
emission levels are explained. This part of the study concludes
with identifying weaknesses of
Copenhagen's and Vienna's accounting schemes.
The following section compares Copenhagen's and Vienna's Climate
Plans. As the Copenhagen Climate Plan is a main focus of this study
it is described in detail. Based on the fact that Vienna's
Climate Protection Plan does not project Vienna's emissions as
Copenhagen does, a baseline scenario for Vienna built on Austria's
emission growth factors is established. Subsequently, Copenhagen's
target of becoming carbon neutral is applied to Vienna's emissions
in 2030 to see how many emissions would need to be reduced to
achieve the same target by 2030. Finally Copenhagen's and Vienna's
climate targets are analyzed from different perspectives. This
analysis is based on the
findings within Vienna's baseline emissions, the applied carbon
neutral target for Vienna and the differences in accounting schemes
identified in the previous chapter.
Finally, several key topics are discussed which will aid final
recommendations and conclusions. In
particular alternative accounting schemes for Vienna and their
advantages and disadvantages are addressed. Furthermore,
Copenhagen's compensation method, which is used to achieve carbon
neutrality, is discussed and the non-climate benefits associated
with Copenhagen's climate strategy are discovered. Last but not
least the potential of a carbon neutral Vienna is roughly outlined.
The discussion is enriched with input from several expert
interviews conducted in Copenhagen and is
amended with literature where appropriate.
The final recommendations for Vienna consist of a 3-step plan
that ensures the elimination of all
identified issues within Vienna's current accounting system.
Additionally, suggestions are made to
further address the vision of a carbon neutral Vienna and to
investigate Vienna's potential to achieve
carbon neutrality in the future.
17
-
2 Methodology and data sources
Overall the analytical procedure is based on the Copenhagen's
Climate Plan "CPH 2025 Climate Plan" as well as the corresponding
baseline scenario and GHG accounting system "MCIT", which are
analyzed in detail. The assessment was continued by searching for
similar documents and data for
Vienna. Less specific documents and data were available for
Vienna and therefore it was attempted to establish some data by
calculations. The establishment of a bottom-up GHG inventory for
2012 for Vienna and a bottom-up baseline scenario for Vienna from
now to 2030 was intended, but after confronting too many challenges
it had to be realized that such an assessment would be beyond the
scope of this study. Therefore Vienna's baseline scenario was
calculated based on Austrian emission
projections and largely aggregated GHG data for Vienna was used.
Beyond that, Vienna's consumption-based emissions and emissions
according to Copenhagen's accounting method MCIT (RE adjusted) were
calculated. Methodologies applied to these three assessments are
described directly within their corresponding chapters. At the same
time weaknesses within the individual accounting schemes were
identified and mayor differences among the accounting methods
were
realized. To receive more clarity about their impact on
calculated and target emissions current and future emissions with
different accounting methods were contrasted. Additionally,
alternative accounting methods were consulted and interviews were
conducted to discuss the identified issues. Besides the discussion
of weaknesses within accounting schemes, the interviews were also
used to investigate advantages for setting a clear and tangible
climate protection target such as "Carbon
neutrality by 2025" and the compilation and publication of
comprehensive GHG accounts. The collected data and information is
used to establish recommendations for Vienna on a future version of
Vienna's GHG accounting and climate protection plan.
The main tools to assess the research questions were a
literature analysis, own calculations and the conduction of
interviews. Own calculations were applied mainly for estimating
Vienna's consumption-based emissions, Vienna's emissions RE
adjusted9 and Vienna's baseline scenario. Beyond that, simple
comparisons and contrasts of the findings were displayed by graphs
and tables to apprehend results. As already stated above, the
corresponding methodologies for the specific calculation are
explained in subchapters previous to their results and are not
elaborated in this chapter.
Literature and data for the individual sections were collected
with a standard literature search by applying corresponding
keywords to online search engines and by screening public
institution's websites, publications and databases. The main data
sources were public authorities such as the City
of Copenhagen, the City of Vienna, national statistical
databases, national environmental agencies and the European
Commission. Missing data or literature was requested by email.
Mainly the Administrative Departments of the City of Vienna and the
Environment Agency Austria were contacted to clarify questions
related to BLI, CVA and the general availability of GHG data in
Vienna. Beyond that, the report documenting Copenhagen's Baseline
Scenario was received by email by Ibsen-Jensen
2014 .
The interviews were face-to-face semi-open interviews conducted
by the author of the study and the respective interview partners,
which will be further described below. An interview guideline and
several
questions were prepared in advance and discussed verbally
throughout the interview. The interviews
9 RE adjustment is a accounting method that is used by
Copenhagen to acknowledge its renewable electricity production.(see
Chapter 7.1.1) 10 Ibsen-Jensen (2014)
18
-
were recorded and the respective audio files are attached to the
study. In addition Appendix X presents the summaries of the
interviews.
• Interview with Rune Rasmussen Head of the Cluster Department
at Copenhagen Capacity; at Copenhagen Capacity office in Nørregade
7B DK-1165 Copenhagen on 18th August 2014; The interview focused on
the general perception of the CPH 2025 Climate Plan, implications
for the private sector, city branding and the green and economic
motivations behind the climate plan.
• Interview with Simon Kjær Hansen Deputy Director of the
Technical and Environmental Administration and Head of the City
development and strategy at the City of Copenhagen; at
the Municipality office at Njalsgade 13, 2300 Copenhagen on 19th
August 2014. The interview focused on the reactions to and
perceptions of CPH 2025 Climate Plan, challenges of implementing
the reduction measures, the issue of compensation within the CPH
2025 Climate Plan and future accounting methods.
• Interview with Jørgen Abildgaard Executive Project Director
CPH 2025 Climate Plan at the City of Copenhagen; at the
Municipality office at Njalsgade 13, 2300 Copenhagen on 21st
August 2014. The interview focused on Copenhagen's accounting
scheme, calculation methods of CPH 2025 regarding baseline scenario
and reduction measures, the issue of compensation within the CPH
2025, finance and economic implication of CPH 2025 Climate
Plan.
• Interview with Anna Claudia Szeler, Energy and climate advisor
at NIRAS and Niels Bahnsen, Civil Engineer at NIRAS; at the office
of NIRAS Sortemosevej 19 3450 Allerød on 22nd
August 2014. The interview focused on the methodology and other
technical questions regarding their consumption based accounting,
advantages and challenges of consumption based accounting, adoption
of consumption based accounting.
• Interview with Michael Sattler, Deputy Director of the
Executive Office for the Coordination of Climate Protection
Measures at Vienna City Administration at the administration's
office Wipplingerstraße 24-26 1010 Vienna on 22nd September 2014.
The interview focused on
accounting schemes, differences between Vienna and Copenhagen
regarding climate mitigation, energy supply of Vienna, traffic
situation in Vienna, implementation of Klip II.
19
-
I - THEORY
20
-
3.1 Carbon Accounting
3.1.1 Definition of Carbon Accounting
3.1.2 National greenhouse gas inventories
3 Theory of Carbon Accounting and Climate Neutrality
The first part of the study provides theoretical background
information on carbon accounting and
clarifies the term carbon neutrality in line with the term
offset and Copenhagen's compensation methods. The understanding of
the different types of accounting and the meaning behind carbon
neutrality and compensation seems essential to follow the
procedures in the remainder of the study.
The term carbon accounting is used in many different contexts.
Mostly the term carbon accounting is associated with national
production-based carbon accounting, but there are many different
other types of carbon accounting. This chapter also introduces to
consumption-based accounting and city accounting and explains their
differences.
A comprehensive literature review by Stechemesser et al. (2012)
showed that there is a lack of consistent definitions of carbon
accounting. He attempts to define carbon accounting over the
different scales (national, project, organizational, and product
scale) as follows:
"Carbon accounting comprises the recognition, the non-monetary
and monetary evaluation and the monitoring of greenhouse gas
emissions on all levels of the value chain and the recognition,
evaluation and monitoring of the effects of these emissions on the
carbon cycle of ecosystems." 11
In this study, the term GHG accounting is used to describe the
regular systematical acquisition and reporting of anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions.
Under UNFCC United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change
Annex 1 parties (OECD countries) are required to submit national
GHG inventories. The methodology for assessing the GHG emissions
was developed by the IPCC and is mainly based on the Revised 1996
IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The
reporting of the national GHG inventories comprises a National
Inventory Report (NIR) and Common Reporting Format (CRF)
tables.12
The national GHG inventories under the UNFCCC reporting
obligations represent a production-based accounting system. It has
primarily been challenged on its exclusion of international
transportation such as international aviation and navigation and
its production based accounting approach since it enhances carbon
leakage.13
11 Stechemesser & Guenther (2012, p 36) 12 UNFCCC (2014) 13
Peters (2008, p 13)
21
http:leakage.13http:tables.12
-
3.1.3 Greenhouse gas accounting in cites
3.1.4 Consumption- and production-based accounting
To date most GHG inventories on city levels are based on the
accounting framework by the IPCC.14
However, national accounts seem rather unsuitable for cities
since cities differ significantly from
countries in its spatial structure. Intensive cross-boundary
exchange of energy, waste, transport and other products make the
allocation of GHG emissions to cities more complex than to
countries.15
However, until recent years, no international framework provided
detailed guidance on how to
measure urban emissions16 and the lack of standardized
methodologies have made benchmarks
among cites highly problematic.17 The need for harmonized GHG
accounting has become more
prevalent18 and by the end of 2014 the first globalised standard
for GHG accounting on city level will
be published. The GPC - Global Protocol of Community-Scale
Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories is developed by WRI (World
Resources Institute), C40 (C40 Cities) and ICLEI (Local Governments
for Sustainability) and will be outlined in Chapter 8.1 in more
detail.
GHG emissions can be allocated to three categories: Export,
Import and Consumption of own goods
and services: "Export" includes CO2 emissions from the products
produced domestically and exported; "Import" includes CO2 emissions
from the production of goods and services that are imported:
"Consumption of own goods and services" include CO2 emissions from
products that are domestically produced and consumed.19
Production-based accounting comprises total emissions in the
category "Consumption of own goods and services" and "Export" and
consumption-based accounting assesses emissions in the category
"Consumption of own goods and services" and "Import". In other
words, production-based emissions are emissions occurring within a
geographical entity, whereas consumption-based emissions are
the
embodied emissions of consumed products within a geographical
entity, originated during the production of these goods and
services, regardless its production site location.20 The difference
is illustrated in Figure 3-1.
14 Dodman (2009, p 187) 15 Desai & Arikan (2012, p 1) 16
Dodman (2009, pp 187œ188) 17 Dodman (2009, p 188) 18 Dodman (2009,
pp 187œ188) 19 Dam Mikkelsen et al. (2011, p 13) 20 Homma, Akimoto
& Tomoda (n.d., p 4)
22
http:location.20http:consumed.19http:problematic.17http:countries.15
-
Figure 3-1: Overlap between production-based and
consumption-based emissions
Source: (Erickson 2011, p 4)
A common methodology to establish consumption-based accounts is
to convert production-based
emission sources elaborated by national GHG inventories to the
format of the System of National Accounts (SNA). Subsequently
production-based emissions are translated to consumption-based
emissions by applying input-output analysis (OIA).21
In a closed economy, production-based and consumption-based
emissions would be equal. However, since our economy is globalized,
there are large quantities of carbon embedded in international
trade.22 The more GHG emissions are downscaled to smaller
geographical entities, for instance from global to city level, the
variation between production- and consumption
Particularly in cities where there is little or no industrial
and agricultural production, production-based and consumption-based
emissions differ significantly and show a very small overlap in the
category "Consumption of own goods and services". Citizen's
export-based CO2 emissions are typically very low while their
import-based CO2 emissions can be very high due to the high level
of income and their
need for food, electronics, cars, air travel and so on.23 Figure
3-2 illustrates the typical allocation of import, export and
"overlap", which is the consumption of their own goods and
services, at different geographical scales.
21 Peters (2008, p 14) 22 Dam Mikkelsen et al. (2011, p 14) 23
Dam Mikkelsen et al. (2011, p 14)
23
http:trade.22
-
Figure 3-2: Production-based and consumption-based accounting at
different geographical
scales
Source: (Rasmussen 2014a)
In a city consumption-based GHG emissions include emissions
embodied in energy deployed to
produce concrete, steel, glass and other materials required for
urban infrastructure, methane and nitrous oxide emitted during food
production or emissions occurring in rural power plants to provide
heat and electricity consumption in the city.24 In most European
cities without significant industry or agriculture production-based
emissions mainly comprise emissions related to traffic and
electricity and heat consumption.
Process-based accounting is more common than consumption-based
accounting and used by most entities today. Moreover, it is easier
to implement than consumption-based accounts and presents GHG
emissions that are within the most influential field of
politicians.25 However, production-based
accounting does not present any data to act on embedded GHG
emissions in consumption and subsequently represents a threat for
carbon leakage.26 Carbon leakage occurs when CO2 emission increase
outside the countries conducting domestic mitigation, while their
own emissions are reduced. For instance higher domestic energy
prices due to climate policy may result in the movement of
production to countries with less or no mitigation
obligations.27
On the other hand consumption-based accounting is subject to
several weaknesses. One major drawback is the complexity of
consumption-based GHG calculations. The complex methodology
requires more assumptions and hence increases uncertainty.
Consumption based carbon accounting
would elevate mitigation options, but also require the extension
of climate governance outside the political region.28
24 OECD (2010, p 50) 25 Bahnsen & Szeler (2014) 26 Peters
(2008, p 13) 27 IPCC (2007) 28 Peters (2008, p 14)
24
http:region.28http:obligations.27http:leakage.26http:politicians.25
-
3.1.5 Carbon Footprint in cities
Carbon footprint is typically associated with the climate impact
of corporate entities, households,
individuals or communities. The Oxford Dictionary defines carbon
footprint as follows
"The amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere as a
result of the activities of a particular individual, organization,
or community."29
(Note: It has to be defined in advance what gases are included
in the specific carbon footprint since often other greenhouse gases
are assessed as well.)
Since the carbon footprint covers all emissions caused by an
entity, it comprises direct and indirect emissions. Direct
emissions are emissions that are directly owned or controlled by
the entity and indirect emissions occur due to the entities
activities but take place at sources owned or controlled by other
entities. 30 Commonly, the categories scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3
are used to classify emissions. Within this framework direct
emissions are allocated to scope 1 and indirect emissions to
scope 2, scope 3.
The GHG Protocol Initiative delivers the Greenhouse Gas Protocol
(GHG Protocol), an international recognized accounting tool, sets
standards on how to assess GHG emissions for organizations and
corporate entities and recently also for cities (see Chapter 8.1).
They outline direct and indirect
emissions with the scope 1, 2, 3 approach. Table 1 shows their
definition of scopes for cites.
Scope Definition
Scope 1 All GHG emissions from sources located within the
boundary of the city
Scope 2 All GHG emissions occurring as a consequence of the use
of grid-supplied electricity, heating and/or cooling within the
city boundary
Scope 3 All other GHG emissions that occur outside the city
boundary as a result of activities within the city‘s boundary
Table 1: Scopes of emissions
Source: (GHG Protocol 2014, p 17)
It has to be noted that a full carbon footprint on city or
community level is similar to the consumption-based GHG emissions.
Following the definition of scope 1 "All GHG emissions from sources
located within the boundary of the city"31 intuitively GHG
emissions embodied in export are included as well. In
that case a full climate footprint would be more comprehensive
than consumption based. However, it depends on the individual
accounting tool how consumption-based emissions are distinct from a
full
carbon footprint. The GPC for instance states that grid supplied
energy produced within the city, but consumption outside the city
should be reported to ensure completeness and transparency but do
not contribute to the inventory emissions.32
29 Oxford Dictionaries (n.d.a) 30 ISO (2014) 31 GHG Protocol
(2014, p 17) 32 GHG Protocol (2014, p 22)
25
http:emissions.32
-
3.2 Carbon neutrality
3.2.1 Definition of carbon neutrality
3.2.2 Offset
In most cases carbon neutrality does not mean the full
elimination of GHG emissions, but uses offset or compensation (as
in the case of Copenhagen) to reach net carbon neutrality.
Therefore this chapter explains the connotation of carbon
neutrality and the meaning of carbon neutrality within Copenhagen's
climate target.
Carbon neutrality is an absolute term and therefore stronger
than "climate friendly "or "low carbon". The Oxford Dictionary
defines the adjective "carbon neutral" as the
—Making or resulting in no net release of carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere, especially as a
result of carbon offsetting“33 .
The WWF (n.d.) describes the path to carbon neutrality in five
steps, which can be derived from Figure 3-3.
1. Assessment of current emissions 2. Identification of
emissions that can be avoided 3. Improvement of energy efficiency
4. Offset of unavoidable emissions 5. Annual review to enhance step
2-3
Figure 3-3: Five steps to reach carbon neutrality
Source: (WWF n.d.)
According to WWF the final target is to reach carbon neutrality
without offset over time.34 Although the WWF addresses mainly
companies with this approach it is assumed that this concept can be
applied to cities as well. The principle of Avoid-Reduce-Offset can
not only be retrieved from WWF's five steps
but also in other sources such as Greenfleet (n.d.)35 or the
Forum for the Future (n.d.)36 .
A central tool to become carbon neutral is to offset remaining
emissions. Lovell (2010) explains carbon offset as follows:
"A carbon offset allows emission reduction targets to be met in
one location by purchasing emission reductions from a climate
mitigation project based elsewhere (and so relies on the uniform
global mixing of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere"37
33 Oxford Dictionaries (n.d.b) 34 WWF (n.d.) 35 Greenfleet -
Greenfleet Australia (n.d.) 36 Clean Air Cool Planet & Forum
for the Future (2008) 37 Lovell (2010, p 353)
26
-
3.2.3 Carbon neutrality within the Copenhagen's Climate
target
Mitigation projects include initiatives that reduce carbon
emissions such as investments in renewable energy and energy
efficiency or sequester carbon from the atmosphere by creating
sinks such as planting trees.38
The City of Copenhagen aims to be carbon neutral by 2025. As
stated in the definition above the aim of carbon neutrality is not
to eliminate all carbon emissions, but to achieve a net zero in
carbon emissions. In the case of Copenhagen, this means that the
city does not intend to eliminate all carbon
sources within their geographical boundaries by 2025 but to
compensate their remaining emissions with renewable electricity
production inside and outside the city. By replacing fossil fuel
generated electricity in Denmark with their own clean electricity
production, Copenhagen lowers Danish emissions and consequentially
reaches zero net emissions in Copenhagen. (For Copenhagen's precise
path to carbon neutrality see Chapter 10.1.2.1)
By applying this approach Copenhagen deviates slightly from the
concept of offsetting. Copenhagen's main focus is to subtract its
own electricity production from its electricity consumption and
multiplies it with a corrected Danish emission factor for
electricity consumption (see Equation 3). On the contrary,
offsetting requires the determination of the amount of emissions
that are to be offset and the financing
of projects that eliminate the same amount of carbon in other
locations. Moreover, offsetting projects are typically carried out
internationally, whereas Copenhagen limits itself to compensate its
emissions within Denmark. Copenhagen refuses to characterize its
method as offset. Abildgaard (2014) argues that Copenhagen owns its
renewable electricity production and thus the method shall be
called compensation.39 Therefore, in this study the act of reaching
zero net emissions by establishing
renewable electricity production will be defined as
compensation. However, further analyses would be required to define
the precise distinction between offset and Copenhagen's
approach.
Furthermore, it has to be noted that Copenhagen uses a
production based accounting system.
Therefore the aim of net carbon neutrality only applies to
emissions within its geographical boundaries and ignores emissions
embedded in the consumption of goods. This implies that a citizen
in Copenhagen lives in a net carbon neutral city but by no means
lives a carbon neutral life. Furthermore, GHG emissions embodied in
energy is deployed to produce infrastructure that is required to
reach carbon neutrality, for instance wind turbines, is not taken
into account either.
38 The Global Carbon Project (2008, p 6) 39 Abildgaard
(2014)
27
http:compensation.39http:trees.38
-
II - FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS FOR COPENHAGEN
AND VIENNA
28
-
4 Overview of climate targets on different levels
Copenhagen's and Vienna's future energy and climate developments
are closely linked with
international, European and national energy and climate
decisions. Table 2 summarizes all relevant climate and energy
targets for the different geographical levels, while the following
sub-chapters provide the necessary background information.
2008-2012 2020 2030 2040 2050
GHG40
GHG RE GHG
b.yr 1990 RE GHG
b.yr 1990 GHG
b.yr 1990 RE
b.yr 1990 b.yr 2005 (1990)
EU-total -8% -14% (-20%)41 20%42 -40%43 27%44 -60%45 -80%46
EU ETS (b.yr.2005)
Non EU-ETS
(b.yr.2005)
RE total
Trans-port
EU ETS (b.yr. 2005)
Non EU ETS
(b.yr 2005) RE RE
EU -8% -21%47 -10%48 20%49 10%50 -43%51 -30%52
AUT -13% - -16%53 34%54
DK -21% - -20%55 30%56 100% heat
and electricity57 100%
58
2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050
GHG GHG GHG GHG GHG GHG
CPH -20% b.yr 200559 -100%60 (net target)
VIE -21% per capita61
non-EU ETS b.yr 1999 -35% per capita62
non-EU ETS b.yr 1999 -80% per capita63
non-EU ETS b.yr1999
Table 2: Greenhouse gas emission reduction and renewable energy
targets EU, Denmark,
Austria, Copenhagen and Vienna 2008-2050
Source: Own draft
40 European Commission (2014f) 41 European Commission (2014d) 42
European Commission (2014d) 43 European Commission (2014a) 44
European Commission (2014a) 45 European Commission (2014c) 46
European Commission (2014c) 47 European Commission (2014d) 48
European Commission (2014e) 49 European Commission (2014d) 50
European Commission (2014d) 51 European Commission (2014a) 52
European Commission (2014a) 53 European Commission (2014e) 54
Federal Ministry for Science Research and Economy (n.d.) 55
European Commission (2014e) 56 Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy
and Buildings (2011, p 5) 57 Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy and
Buildings (2011, p 5) 58 Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy and
Buildings (2011, p 5) 59 The City of Copenhagen (2012, p 8) 60 The
City of Copenhagen (2012) 61 Vienna City Administration (2009, p 6)
62 MD 18 Vienna City Administration et al. (2014, p 44) 63 MD 18
Vienna City Administration et al. (2014, p 43)
29
-
5 International, European and national frameworks
5.1 Global cl imate targets
At the COP 16 of the UNFCCC in Cancun, Mexico 2010, the nations
agreed to a maximum temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius above
pre-industrial levels.64 At the moment the Kyoto Protocol is the
main international document that contains specific GHG reduction
targets. The Kyoto Protocol committed Annex I countries to reduce
their GHG emissions on average by 5% during the commitment period
of 2008-2012 compared to 1990 levels - for the EU this implied a
reduction target of 8% on
average. 65 In Doha 2012, the parties to Kyoto Protocol adopted
the amendment of the Kyoto Protocol which regulates the time period
from 2013 to 2020. During this time the parties have agreed to
reduce emissions by 18% compared to 1990 levels.66 Under the
UNFCCC, the next comprehensive global climate protection agreement
is arranged to be established in 2015 and to come into effect by
2020.67
5.2 EU climate targets
2008-2012 Kyoto
Under the Kyoto Protocol, the EU had to fulfill a reduction
target of 8% compared to 1990 levels during the first Kyoto
commitment period from 2008 to 2012. Due to its burden sharing
agreement, the EU
divides the efforts among the member states and sets individual
targets for each state. For instance Denmark was obliged to reduce
21% and Austria 13% during the same period and according to 1990
base level.68
2020
In 2009 the EU adopted binding legislations covered under the
Climate and Energy Package to meet its targets by 2020. The goals
are called "20-20-20" targets which comprise three key
objectives69:
• 20% GHG emissions reductions compared to 1990 levels
• 20% of renewable energy consumption
• 20% improvement in the EU's energy efficiency
To achieve an overall emission reduction of 20%, the EU set
individual targets for the EU ETS sector and the non-EU ETS sector.
The non-EU ETS sector includes sectors such as Housing,
Agriculture, Waste and Transport (excluding Aviation) and by 2020
the EU aims to reduce 10% in the non-EU ETS sector based on 2005
level. This target is allocated to the EU Member States under the
Effort Sharing
64 UNFCCC (n.d.c) 65 UNFCCC (n.d.b) 66 UNFCCC (n.d.a) 67 UNFCCC
(n.d.d) 68 European Commission (2014f) 69 European Commission
(2014d)
30
http:level.68http:levels.66http:levels.64
-
Decision. Denmark, for instance, is committed to reduce 21% and
Austria 16% by 2020 compared to 2005 level.70
Within the Climate and Energy Package the EU ETS was revised and
the new Emission Trading Directive was applied from 2013 starting
the third EU ETS period. The national caps were replaced by one
single EU-wide cap of emission allowances, which will be reduced
each year in order to reach an emission cut of 21% by 2020 based on
2005 level. Additional changes include the replacement of free
allocation of allowances by auctioning and the inclusion of more
gases and sectors. 71
Subsequently member states are committed to raise their share of
renewable energy in their energy consumption. By 2020 the EU aims
to consume 20% renewable energy with a share of 10% in the
transport sector. The binding national targets are set in the
Renewable Energy Directive. Denmark for instance is committed to
reach 30% and Austria 34%.The energy targets aims to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions as well as to minor the dependency on
energy imports. 72
The energy efficiency target of reducing 20% of the primary
energy consumption is not directly faced
by the Climate and Energy Package, but later addressed by the
Energy Efficiency Plan in 2011 and the Energy Efficiency Directive
agreed in 2012. The Directive obliges member states to take binding
measures and to submit national indicative targets. 73
2030
Furthermore, in October 2014 the European Council approved the
2030 framework for climate and energy containing a reduction target
of 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. To comply with this target the
entities under the EU ETS have to cut their emissions by 43%
compared to 2005 and the Member States have to share their effort
for achieving a 30% reduction below the 2005 level. Furthermore,
the
share of renewable energy has to reach a share of 27% of EU's
energy consumption. However, Member States remain flexible in their
own energy mix as no specific renewable energy target would be
translated into national law. Last but not least, energy efficiency
has to be enhanced further. The preliminary target is to reach
energy savings of 27% which will be reviewed in 2020.74
2050
The EU's long term perspective is to reduce 80% of GHG emissions
below 1990 levels by 2050. This vision is accompanied by a
reduction goal of 60% by 2040.
70 European Commission (2014d) 71 European Commission (2014d) 72
European Commission (2014d) 73 European Commission (2014d) 74
European Commission (2013)
31
http:level.70
-
Figure 5-1: EU 2050 climate roadmap
Source: (European Commission 2014c)
Table 3: EU sector specific targets for 2030 and 2050
Source: (European Commission 2014b)
Early emission cuts could be achieved in the Power sector by
replacing fossil fuels renewable energy, as well as nuclear power
and carbon capture and storage. The sectors Residential and
Services and Industry would follow a gradual reduction path by
cleaner technologies, passive house standards and retrofitting. The
Transport sector and the Non-CO2 Agriculture will be characterized
by a very slow reduction path.75
75 European Commission (2014c)
32
-
5.3.2 GHG emissions trends and projection Denmark and
Austria
5.3 National Frameworks - Denmark and Austria
National laws and conditions have a strong influence on cities'
GHG reduction performances. To understand the Copenhagen's and
Vienna's basic framework conditions, this chapter provides a short
overview about Denmark's and Austria's GHG emissions, its past
trends and future developments. Since one of the core sources for
Denmark's and Austria's GHG emissions is their energy system, this
chapter is amended with an introduction to their energy landscapes.
Last but not least a short
summary is provided comparing Austria's and Denmark's GHG
emissions and energy landscapes.
5.3.1 Country Profiles Denmark and Austria
Denmark Danish: Danmark
Austria German: Österreich
Capital Copenhagen Capital Vienna
European member state Yes European member state Yes
Danish population
(2013)
5,602,62876 Austrian population (2013)
8,499,75977
Danish GDP
(2013 - current price)
[mio ⁄]/[mio DKK]
254,054/ 1,891,01878
Austrian GDP
(2013 - current prices)
[mio ⁄]
322,59579
Danish GDP per capita
(2013) [⁄]
45,34680 Austrian GDP per capita (2013) [⁄]
37,95381
Table 4: Country Profiles
Source: Own draft
Both countries are rather small countries within the EU.
Denmark's population is smaller than Austria's, amounting to
approximately 2/3 of Austria's population. In GDP per capita
Denmark is slightly wealthier than Austria with approximately
45,000⁄ per capita compared to Austria with 38,000⁄ per capita.
This chapter provides a brief overview about Denmark's and
Austria's past emissions trends, their performance concerning the
Kyoto target and their projections towards 2020. The projections
reflect the expected progress (based on data and information
submitted in 2011) towards the 2020 targets under the two
assumption that only existing measures are implemented ("with
existing measures") and
that additional planned measures are implemented ("with
additional measures").82
76 Statistics Denmark (n.d.b) 77 Statistics Austria (2014a) 78
Statistics Denmark (n.d.a) 79 Statistics Austria (2014b) 80 Own
calculation 81 Own calculation 82 European Environment Agency
(2011e, p 15)
33
http:measures").82
-
5.3.2.1 Denmark - GHG emissions trends and projections
The trends and projections are illustrated in total and by
sectors. Note the difference between the energy supply sector and
the energy use sector. The energy supply sector covers mainly
public electricity and heat production by energy industries and
large amounts of its emissions fall under the
EU ETS. The energy use sector consists mostly of fuels used
directly in industry and construction, residential, commercial and
agriculture, therefore excluding emission occurring in transport
and energy supply sector.83
Figure 5-2: Denmark - GHG trends and projections 1990-2020 -
total emissions
Source: (European Environment Agency 2011d, p 2)
In general emissions are decreasing since the mid 1990s. Under
the burden sharing agreement
Denmark was committed to reduce 21% of its GHG emissions during
2008œ2012 compared to 1990. According to past trends and
projections emissions during the Kyoto period were significantly
below 1990 levels but slightly above the Kyoto targets. In both
scenarios "with existing measures" and "with additional measures"
emissions are expected to continue to fall.
83 European Environment Agency (2013, p 97)
34
http:sector.83
-
5.3.2.2 Austria GHG emissions trend and projections
Note: GHG emission projections are represented either through
dash lines (with existing measures) or dotted lines (additional
measures)
Figure 5-3: Denmark - GHG trends and projections 1990-2020 -
emissions by sector
Source: (European Environment Agency 2011d, p 2) (Primary data
source: National GHG inventory report, 2012; National proxy
estimate of 2011 GHG emission; National GHG projection data
submitted in 2011. [No reference list was provided])
The sectoral presentation of Denmark's emissions reveals Energy
supply is by far the most emitting
sectors over the past 20 years. (Its large fluctuation is due to
the electricity trade within the Nordic energy market.84) In 2010
this sector covered approximately 40% of Denmark's emissions.85 At
the same time it is the sector that has been falling the most since
1996 and which is expected to continue to fall up to 2020 (except
after 2015 "with existing measures"). Emission levels in other
sectors remain rather stable over the time from 1990 to 2020. In
2010 the sectors transport, energy use and
agriculture covered 22%, 18%, and 16% of Denmark's total
emissions.86
Figure 5-4: GHG trends and projections in Austria 1990-2020 -
total emissions
Source: (European Environment Agency 2011b, p 2)
84 European Environment Agency (2011d, p 2) 85 European
Environment Agency (2011c, p 1) 86 European Environment Agency
(2011c, p 1)
35
http:emissions.86http:emissions.85http:market.84
-
Austria's emissions have increased from 1990 to 2005, peaking in
2005 and are generally decreasing since then, at least when
assuming the scenario "with additional measures". Under the burden
sharing agreement Austria was committed to reduce 13% of its
greenhouse gas emissions during the period
2008-2012 compared to 1990. However, between 2008 and 2011
Austria's average emissions were 5.4% above the base-year level and
thus also by far higher than the burden sharing target. In
particular the sectors not covered by the EU ETS show significantly
higher emissions th