Abstract

The increasing emergence of carbon calculators and the absence of specific standards to regulate these tools, may lead to inconsistencies in the results. This article evaluates individual carbon calculators that are publicly available in Brazil. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of 15 calculators were performed. Input and output data, conversion factors, as well as the costs associated with the possibilities of mitigation were evaluated. The analyses showed that there is a great discrepancy between the Emission Factors (EF), which have been highlighted by the coefficient of variation of EF adopted for the emission of liquefied petroleum gas (146.5%). The values of carbon stock also showed a large amplitude (139.45 to 359.84 kgCO₂ tree⁻¹). Furthermore, it was observed that tips on the possibility of reducing emissions are poorly provided by the calculators (27%). However, most tools (67%) make it possible to offset quantified emissions, and carbon offset plantations are widely suggested. The discrepancies found may affect calculators reliability, their potential for raising environmental awareness and their influence on decision-making. Thus, the diffusion of the calculators should be accompanied by more specific guidelines in order to minimize the uncertainties associated with the estimates.

摘要

碳计算器的出现越来越多，而缺乏规范这些工具的特定标准，可能导致结果不一致。本文评估了在巴西公开发售的单个碳计算器。对15个计算器进行了定性和定量分析。评估了输入和输出数据，转换因子以及与缓解可能性相关的成本。分析表明，排放因子之间存在很大差异，而液化石油气排放所采用的EF的变化系数突显了这一差异（146.5％）。碳储量的值也显示出较大的幅度（139.45至359.84 kgCO ₂树^-1）。此外，据观察，计算器提供的减少排放可能性的技巧很少（27％）。但是，大多数工具（67％）可以抵消量化的排放量，因此广泛建议使用碳抵消人工林。发现的差异可能会影响计算器的可靠性，其提高环境意识的潜力以及对决策的影响。因此，计算器的普及应附有更具体的指导原则，以尽量减少与估计有关的不确定性。