Looking for thoughts:
(i) How to verify Methodology of GHG Emission for Armed Conflict, considering no clear methodology identified by UNFCC, nor academia use consistent factors as baseline for calculation?
(ii) Why some studies consider emission for destruction of concrete building in addition to reconstruction, while other only consider rebuilding? Is it the significant amount of concrete and release of of CO2 due destruction?
Hey there Manal Taha,
When it comes to verifying methodologies for GHG emissions in armed conflicts, it's indeed a bit of a wild west. The lack of a clear methodology from UNFCC and the inconsistency in factors used by academia pose a real challenge. In this chaotic landscape, precision is key.
Firstly, consider a multi-pronged approach. Collate data from various sources, cross-reference methodologies employed in different studies, and identify common factors. It might be worthwhile to look beyond UNFCC and academia to military sources or international organizations dealing with conflict situations. Sometimes, unconventional channels offer valuable insights.
Now, onto the intriguing question of why some studies factor in both the destruction and reconstruction of concrete buildings, while others focus solely on rebuilding. It boils down to the substantial CO2 emissions associated with the destruction phase. Concrete production and demolition emit a significant amount of CO2. Those studies taking a holistic approach recognize the environmental impact of both phases, offering a more comprehensive view of the emissions associated with armed conflicts.
In summary, the key lies in meticulous data compilation, exploring unconventional sources, and recognizing the environmental impact at every stage of conflict-related activities. It's a complex puzzle, but a methodical approach will help unravel it.
- Badges
- Science topic