Public Fixed Income

Measuring a Country’s Carbon Emissions: A Debate with High Stakes

October 2021 – 11 min read
Why some metrics are more accurate, more equitable, and more efficient than others.

As the effects of climate change become increasingly apparent—from rising sea levels to more frequent and devastating natural disasters, the need for action becomes more urgent by the day. Environmental responsibility has permeated to all sectors of the financial industry. In particular, asset managers have seen increasing interest from clients, regulators and the general public to facilitate this effort by directing financial flows toward entities that make better environmental citizens.

In order to encourage environmentally-friendly investments, we believe there needs to be some type of consensus on the appropriate measure of carbon intensity at both the individual investment and portfolio levels. But as of today, there is no such consensus. This is apparent in emerging markets debt, for instance, where the standards and metrics to track the carbon intensity for sovereign bonds are still being debated.

It is, however, possible to track this data for sovereign debt at both the asset and portfolio levels. Indeed, governments are able to control not only the emissions by the public sector but also influence those of the private sector, including firms and households. In our opinion, the unit of reference should therefore be the country as a whole, but much debate remains around the appropriate way to measure and track carbon intensity. Specifically, should the unit of intensity be per GDP? Or per capita? A lack of consensus today on this matter is resulting in confusing comparisons from country to country—and odd incentive structures for the countries tackling climate changes.

These are not just theoretical debates or topics for the experts. Asset owners and regulators are increasingly imposing specific metrics and limits of portfolio carbon intensity on asset managers, who are then investing money in different countries subject to those limits and constraints. The choice of the most appropriate metric to follow will have significant implications on which countries ultimately receive financial inflows to help tackle climate change—and which do not.

We believe measuring carbon intensity using consumption-based accounting, on a per capita basis, is more intuitive, fairer and more in line with international agreements than other carbon intensity measurements. Here is why.
 

Who should pay the price: carbon producers or carbon consumers?

There are two ways to measure carbon emissions for a country: production-based accounting, which aggregates all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of goods and services produced domestically in a country (including those which are subsequently exported), and consumption-based accounting, which looks at domestically produced carbon emissions in combination with the net imports of carbon emissions of goods and services. For instance, a country that produces 100 units of CO2 emissions but only consumes 70 locally will have 100 units of emissions in production-based accounting, but only 70 (plus other potential net imports) under consumption-based accounting.

Want to read the full article?

View PDF

Kawtar Ed-Dahmani

Managing Director, Emerging Markets Sovereign Debt

The document is for informational purposes only and is not an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument or service. The material herein was prepared without any consideration of the investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs of anyone who may receive it. This document is not, and must not be treated as, investment advice, investment recommendations, or investment research.

In making an investment decision, prospective investors must rely on their own examination of the merits and risks involved and before making any investment decision, it is recommended that prospective investors seek independent investment, legal, tax, accounting or other professional advice as appropriate.

Unless otherwise mentioned, the views contained in this document are those of Barings. These views are made in good faith in relation to the facts known at the time of preparation and are subject to change without notice. Parts of this document may be based on information received from sources we believe to be reliable. Although every effort is taken to ensure that the information contained in this document is accurate, Barings makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information.

Any forecasts in this document are based upon Barings opinion of the market at the date of preparation and are subject to change without notice, dependent upon many factors. Any prediction, projection or forecast is not necessarily indicative of the future or likely performance. Any investment results, portfolio compositions and/or examples set forth in this document are provided for illustrative purposes only and are not indicative of any future investment results, future portfolio composition or investments. The composition, size of, and risks associated with an investment may differ substantially from any examples set forth in this document. No representation is made that an investment will be profitable or will not incur losses. Where appropriate, changes in the currency exchange rates may affect the value of investments.

Investment involves risks. Past performance is not a guide to future performance. Investors should not only base on this document alone to make investment decision.

This document is issued by Baring Asset Management (Asia) Limited. It has not been reviewed by the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong.

Related Viewpoints