NDC reduction number in country page not correct

[MarkMDekker]

Hi @Peter9192 and @sverhoeven , could you have a check on this? Could it be that for the number at the top the wrong variable is used?

Historical emissions should be something like GHG_hist_incl or GHG_hist. NDC data should be the same as the one in the graph.

So here's India. Emissions in 2015 were ~3500. 60-90% increase would be 5600-6650. However, the NDC shows roughly 4000-4700.

Another example: EU. In 2015: 3700 Mt CO2e, which with a 39% reduction yields 2250, not 2085 Mt CO2e.

[MarkMDekker]

In theory, it's possible that the data in the graph is incorrect, I'm not 100% sure. If so, this could have happened in the last PR that @chantalwuer and I merged.

[MarkMDekker]

(This shouldn't be affected by @chantalwuer recent PR #83 )

[Peter9192]

Corresponding code is here, do you see anything strange in the logic here?

website-carbon-budget-explorer/src/routes/regions/[region]/+page.svelte

Lines 139 to 166 in 675c615

	<span> NDC ambition in 2030 relative to 2015: </span>
	<span>
	{#if data.ndcReduction === null}
	-
	{:else if data.ndcReduction.min.toFixed(0) === data.ndcReduction.max.toFixed(0)}
	{#if data.isEuMemberState}
	EU Member States do not have individual NDCs. The EU27's joint NDC target is to
	reduce GHG emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. This
	translates to 2085 Mt CO₂e in 2030.
	{:else if data.ndcReduction.min < 0}
	{Math.abs(data.ndcReduction.min).toFixed(0)} % increase
	{:else}
	{data.ndcReduction.min.toFixed(0)} % reduction
	{/if}
	{:else if data.isEuMemberState}
	EU Member States do not have individual NDCs. The EU27's joint NDC target is to
	reduce GHG emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. This
	translates to 2085 Mt CO₂e in 2030.
	{:else if data.ndcReduction.min < 0 && data.ndcReduction.max < 0}
	{`${Math.abs(data.ndcReduction.max).toFixed(0)} - ${Math.abs(
	data.ndcReduction.min
	).toFixed(0)} % increase`}
	{:else}
	{`${data.ndcReduction.min.toFixed(
	0
	)} to ${data.ndcReduction.max.toFixed(0)} % reduction`}
	{/if}
	</span>

[Peter9192]

And the data on ndc reductions originates here:

website-carbon-budget-explorer/ws.py

Lines 706 to 724 in 675c615

	@app.get("/statistics/ndc/reductions/<region>")
	def ndc_reductions(region):
	region = is_eu(region)
	ndc2030_min = ds_global.GHG_ndc_red.sel(Region=region).min().values.tolist()
	ndc2030_max = ds_global.GHG_ndc_red.sel(Region=region).max().values.tolist()
	if np.isnan(ndc2030_min) or np.isnan(ndc2030_max):
	return jsonify(None)
	return {"min": ndc2030_min * 100, "max": ndc2030_max * 100}
	# ndc2030_min = dsGlobal.GHG_ndc.sel(Region=region).min().values.tolist()
	# ndc2030_max = dsGlobal.GHG_ndc.sel(Region=region).max().values.tolist()
	# hist2015 = dsGlobal.GHG_hist.sel(Region=region, Time=2015).values.tolist()
	# return {
	# "min": -(ndc2030_max - hist2015) / hist2015 * 100,
	# "max": -(ndc2030_min - hist2015) / hist2015 * 100
	# }

[Peter9192]

https://carbonbudgetexplorer.eu/api//statistics/ndc/reductions/IND returns

{"max":-60.10054293183189,"min":-89.62396943494872}

So I think either the data is incorrect, or the interpretation of negative values is wrong.

[Peter9192]

The NDC displayed on the graph, on the other hand, uses

website-carbon-budget-explorer/ws.py

Lines 727 to 736 in 675c615

	def ndc_range_inventory(region):
	# Absolute emissions from the NDC, based on self-reported inventory data
	region = is_eu(region)
	ds_ndc_inv = ds_global.GHG_ndc_inv.sel(Region=region)
	min_ndc_inv = ds_ndc_inv.min().values.tolist()
	max_ndc_inv = ds_ndc_inv.max().values.tolist()
	if np.isnan(min_ndc_inv) or np.isnan(max_ndc_inv):
	return None
	return {2030: [min_ndc_inv, max_ndc_inv]}

which returns:

{"ndc_inventory":{"2030":[3980.9,4715.0]},"ndc_jones":{"2030":[5446.1547756478085,6450.455868567263]}}

Could it be that graph is based on inventory while the reductions displayed at the top are based on Jones?

[Peter9192]

@MarkMDekker please shed your light

[chantalwuer]

@MarkMDekker I double checked where the numbers for the NDC % reduction are coming from. We do not calculate the % reduction in the CABE code but take the variable GHG_ndc_red from xr_dataread. And for that apparently Jones data is used. So this could explain the mismatch.

[MarkMDekker]

Ah, clear. I'll check this tomorrow and see what is the correct way.

[MarkMDekker]

Thanks for this. Jones is not used for GHG_ndc_red. This is actually correct, because it uses the NDC from Michel (val), and the 2015 emissions from Michel's sheet (val_2015, which is not from self.xr_hist.GHG_hist, but from df_ndc_raw).

What I propose is the following.

• If you could proceed with the tooltip
• I will contact Michel and ask him to look at the Explorer and compare this with his numbers. I'll CC you and Detlef.

[MarkMDekker]

Done. I emailed him.