Attributional or consequential assessments in a cyclic greenhouse gas management process – Comparison of guidance on use and production of electricity and district heating

Research on when to use attributional or consequential methods often considers individual applications. However, greenhouse gas (GHG) management frequently comprises a cyclic process, where GHG assessments are used for recurring sub-processes such as reviewing the current situation (making a GHG inventory), setting reduction targets, developing decision support and evaluating progress. This study analysed implications of different method choices for GHG assessment in a cyclic management process for a geographical region. The results show that attributional decision support can lead to unintended increases in global GHG emissions. Further, use of recurring attributional reviews of the current situation can support and reinforce the guidance provided by attributional decision support, but can contradict and thereby weaken the guidance provided by consequential decision support. Consequential reviews of the current situation (GHG inventories), applied here from a production-based and a consumption-based view, endorse consequential decision support. Given the importance of climate change mitigation, use of consequential GHG inventories in GHG management is recommended. •GHG management of regions and companies often involves a cyclic management process.•This process was modelled using attributional and consequential GHG assessments.•Attributional GHG inventories can impede global GHG emissions reductions.•Consequential GHG inventories can facilitate global GHG emissions reductions.•Consequential GHG inventories are recommended in GHG management.