Rising danger: Rescue workers walking through flood waters in Vietnam. Severe weather incidents are posing risks to more and more people around the world. — AFP
LONDON: If the world is to meet its climate targets, both governments and businesses need to start with the same thing: reliable numbers.
Policymakers depend on accurate greenhouse-gas data to design effective regulations, channel public investment, and measure national progress. Companies rely on the same data to shape strategy, manage risk and prove credibility to investors and customers.
For both sides, emissions reporting is the foundation of decision-making.
Yet too often the numbers aren’t good enough. They are built on rough estimates, outdated science or inconsistent rules.
That means governments may direct money to the wrong places, and companies may set targets or make claims that don’t hold up.
Without reliable reporting, even ambitious climate plans risk missing the mark. Getting the numbers right is not just a technical exercise, it is the cornerstone of effective climate action and credible business strategy.
Most companies publish two types of emissions data: those that are directly produced from their own operations and those that come indirectly from their wider value chain, such as suppliers, logistics and product use.
The second category usually represents the lion’s share, but it is also the least reliable.
Data gaps mean companies often lean on industry averages, which can obscure real differences between firms.
To simplify, different gases are bundled into a single “carbon dioxide equivalent” figure. But because gases like methane behave very differently from carbon dioxide, the same activity can yield very different totals.
Both may be technically correct but they can’t be compared.
Methane hits hard in the near term but fades quicker. In contrast, carbon dioxide is effectively forever; once released, it accumulates in the atmosphere for centuries. Over 20 years, methane’s impact looks big; over 100 years, smaller.
This means that two reports can show different totals for the same emissions simply because they used different time windows or older conversion values.
The issue is explored in a recent Imperial-led Nature Communications study and SSRN paper on this topic.
The result: a patchwork system that leaves policymakers with an incomplete picture and companies exposed to reputational and financial risk.
Getting the numbers right has real-world consequences. Reliable data shows governments which levers – subsidies, taxes or regulations – will deliver the biggest impact.
Accountability is another key factor. There needs to be clear metrics that allow the public and investors to check whether climate promises are being kept.
For companies, credible reporting builds trust, reduces the risk of greenwashing claims and reassures investors that climate strategies are solid. It can also lower the cost of capital, as lenders and asset managers increasingly reward transparency.
Fixing the system doesn’t require new breakthroughs. It requires political will and regulatory alignment.
Companies should disclose major gases separately, not just one blended total.
Countries should agree on shared baselines for how emissions are counted and ensure those rules are updated regularly in line with science. — Reuters
