Include a qualitative description of materials-related emissions in the inventory, even if these emissions are not quantified.
- Description of tool/’patch’ (action statement): In the GHG inventory, note the limitations of the "traditional" approach. Include a prominent discussion of what's missing from the quantified emissions, and why this matters.
- Tips/best practices for applying the tool: Include the language early and prominently in the inventory discussion (don't relegate it to an appendix or footnote). Provide examples from other communities/studies if possible. When traditional emissions are quantified and presented, qualify them so that they are described as "Geographic-Based Inventory" or "Hybrid Production/Consumption Inventory" some such language (and not simple "The City's Inventory", which implies comprehensiveness).
- Issues/obstacles: Inserting a qualitative description is much easier than actually inventorying/estimating materials life cycle/consumption-based emissions. This seems like it should be an easy first step for communities to acknowledge the issue without committing resources to quantifying the emissions. Perhaps our Work Group could draft some sample "ideal" language that communities could plug into their inventories.
- Resources/citations (justification for use of this particular tool/patch): Two examples of this approach include the City of Portland/Multnomah County Climate Action Plan and the State of Oregon GHG Inventory. In this author's view, neither are ideal, but both represent significant improvements over traditional inventories that only count emissions within the geographic "bubble" (sometimes with adjustments for electricity and waste) and then claim to be comprehensive.