Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Towards a ‘New Deal’ in Climate Policy!
Consumption-based approach for mitigation of GHG Emissions
Dabo Guan, University of Cambridge, UK
Christopher L. Weber, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Glen P. Peters, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO), Norway
Jan Minx, Stockholm Environment Institute, York, UK & Berlin, Germany
Klaus Hubacek, University of Leeds, UK
Overview • Consumption-based approach • On different spatial scales
• International (trade) • National (US, China) • Regional (examples from the UK) • Local (housing project in Vienna, Austria)
• Summary
Exemple ocde parts d’un mòbil / altres
Today’s production is based on global supply chains
Der Spiegel, The Global Toothbrush, 01/31/2006 http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,398229,00.html
What are consumption-based emissions?
(Carbon Trust, 2006)
Similar to calculating emissions by all factories in a given territory
we could also calculate emissions by all products and services consumed in that territory
(Source: Santacana, 2008)
in the first case, we will know WHERE emissions occur
in the second case, we will know WHY emissions occur
(Santacana, 2008)
From cradle to the grave using Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA)
There are millions of products, each one is different from the other! If we want to calculate emissions from all consumption of a given territory, we will obviously not be able to do that with LCA
(Source: Santacana, 2008)
... •
••••••••••••••••••
• ...
“TOP DOWN” AND “BOTTOM-UP” APPROACH CONSUMPTION EMISSIONS (CARBON FOOTPRINT)
“TOP DOWN”
Input-Output Analysis
Local carbon footprint
Carbon footprint of countries
Carbon footprint of companies and organizations
Carbon footprint of products and activities
Citizen carbon footprint
Regional carbon footprint
“BOTTOM-UP”
LCA
~ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ .
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ . ■ -
[Ji ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■
■
~ ■ ■ ■
■
■
■ ■ ■ . •
What are direct and indirect emissions of a household?
Indirect GHG emissions (supply chain) Direct GHG emissions
n5 n4 n3 n2 n1
(…) (…)
tC02·eq
(…)
(…)
(…)
(…)
(…) (…)
(…)
Agricultura, Extracci6n y
ganaderfa y Selvicultura Pesca y aglomeraci6n
acuicultura de antracita, caza
hulla Ii ni to TSIO-01 TSIO-02 TSIO-03 TSIO-04
Productos de la agricultura, ganaderfa y
caza TSIO-01 2751 1 2 1 9 4 0
Productos de la selvicultura, de la ex lotaci6n fo restal se rvicios afines TSIO-02 18,4 0, 5 0 0 Pescado y otros productos de la pesca; servicios relacionados con la esca TSIO-03 0 0 0 0
Antracita, hulla, lignito y turba TSIO-04 0, 5 0 0 2 0, 2
Petr6leo crudo ; Gas natural; Servicios relacionados co n la extracci6n de etr6leo TSIO-05 0 0 0 0
CALCULATING CONSUMPTION EMISSIONS
Input-Output Tables show how
• the sectors of an economy are interrelated (in $)
• an economic activity demands, in its production process, inputs from other economic activities
• an increase in final demand of a good or service produces an indirect demand of other goods and services that serve as intermediate inputs to producing that specific good
(Santacana, 2008)
Cat91ory of 1oods and services
Prod ucts of agriculture, hunting and re lated services
Products of fo restry, logging and related serv ices
Fish and other fi shing prod ucts and related serv ices
Anth rac ite, coa l, lignite and peat Cru de petroleum and natural gas; services incidenta l to oil and gas extraction .. Uranium and thorium ores · I ran ores· non-fe rrous metal ores, except uranium and thorium ores
Non-meta Ilic and non-enerav ores
Non-market ed ucation services
Non-market hea lthcare and veterinar/ services; social services
Non-market public sa nitation services
Services. p~ovided by trade unions; services provided by other types of assoc1at1ons
Non-market recreational cultura l and sporting services
Pri vate households with em ployed persons
Financial med iation services indirectly measured (FISIM )
Households
SIOT code
SIOT-01
SIOT-02
SIOT-03
SIOT-04
SIOT-05
SIOT-06
SIOT-07
~ SIOT-65
SIOT-66
SIOT-67
SIOT-68
SIOT-69
SIOT-70
SIOT-71
Production and consumption categories
Calculation of consumption emissions by production activities
Consumption categories (COICOP group)
(…)
Food (COICOP 1, 2)
Clothing and footwear (COICOP 3)
Household energy (COICOP 45)
Housing, furnishings and household goods (COICOP 4, 5)
Health (COICOP 6)
Transport (COICOP 7)
Communication (COICOP 8)
Recreation and culture (COICOP 9)
Education (COICOP 10)
Restaurants and hotels (COICOP 11)Miscellaneous goods and services (COICOP 12)
(Santacana, 2008)
Education
Health
Communications
Clot hi ng/F ootwear
is Goods/Services
Rec/Culture
Utilities
Furnish. Equip, Mai nt
Housing
Private Transport
AlcBev,Tobacco
IF ood/NalcBev
0 .0 2 .0 4.0 6 .0
ton C02efcap-yr
o ,irectco2
c ,02
CH4
N20
HFCs
8.0
What are direct and indirect emissions of a household?
(Weber & Matthews 2008 with newer data)
... ... ... .. .. .. .. .. - - - ... -.. -.. - ... -
UK’s CO2 emissionsC
O2 e
mis
sion
s (M
t CO
2)
CO2 producer emissions (UK Environmental Accounts)
CO2 consumer emissions (UK carbon footprint) 800
750
700
650
600
550
500
CO2 emissions reported to UNFCCC (UK territorial emissions)
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year
Summary - Methods
• Production versus consumption-based accounting approach
• Hybrid models (IO & LCA) • Problems
Next: some applications
International trade
http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?action=attachment &tid=4175&pid=12213
Educadon
Health
Communications
C1olhina/Footwear
Misc Oood&'Scrvicea
Rec/Culture
Udlities/Home Energy
Fumish,Equip,Maint
Hoosing
PrivateTransp:xt
Alc8ev1Tobacco
RestaorantstHotels
Food/Bev at Home
0 500 1000 MTC01
■ Domestic
■ Anni
■ NonAnnl
1500 2000
US household CO2 and location of imports (2004)
(Weber and Matthews 2008)
50% - - - - ■ROW 1.2 ■Ger
I UK 1.0 N I 40% •Korea
0 I u 0.8 •Japan s ■China ...: 0.8 w
30% Mexico w 0.4 ■Canada
0.2 •.Ann1%
0.0 20% 1997 2002 2004
•Services L4
■Transport
1.2 MiscfJlanuf
LO ■ TranspEquip
N ■ Eled:rics/onlcs o 0.8 • MachineEquip 0 ChamPlast a o.,6
■Textiles .. -Ill 0.4 • Metals/Raw w
0.2 ■ Energy
FoodBevTob 0 .. 0
1997 2002 2004
(Weber and Matthews, 2008)Embodied CO2 in imports
Ruaalan Federal
Unilad Kingdom C&nada France
Italy
Korea
Aualralia South Africa
0
-Expons Imports
10 20 30 40 50 Peroentage of total dome■lio amiaaiona (Produc,tion)
Embodied CO2 in exports and imports (2001)
(Peters and Hertwich 2008)
~ 5T,7
54,2
;) \ 41 ,1 '
76,6
16,5
33,6
EU CO2 Trade Balances
Source: Komerup Bang et al. (2008)
Cartogram morphed by total GHG emissions from consumption
__,,,.--- -~ . ~-.,;;
__, -~ -_----- - - . -- . . __ - ~
GHG by GTAP region
tonnes C02e per person
0.73 - 2.11
2.12 - 5.15
- 5.16 - 10.39
- 10.40 - 16.21
- 16.22 - 21 .20
- 21 .21-41 .57
- , ---t·
. ,, --
_..
Source: SEI (2008)
---
20
ne d n y S K n l a l a i aU en n iz aU ia ia d rk ass bip a up a nrr rla u r Ro u BS I UJ R P k T aU a nn ihih CC
Per capita Carbon Footprints
15
10
5
0
(Various sources)
Summary - Trade
• Large inequalities internationally • And within countries • Consumption-based approach favours
developing countries
Next: China
China
Motivation: China’s CO2 Emissions
Chinese CO2 Emissions (IEA Estimate)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Mm
t CO
2
US Current Total
emissions 150
100
l N en 50 ~ E : I o I: II
.I: u
-50
-100
19'2 1993 1994 19'5 1996 19'7 19!)8 1999 2000 2001 2002
China: Structural Decomposition Analysis • From 1992 to 2002, 59% increase in CO2
Consumption Volume, 129%
Total, 59%
Consumption Structure, 3% Production Structure, -11%
Emissions efficiency, -62%
contribution of the different final demands to changes
in theSDA 60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
°" -10%
)..
✓•
■ Construction
■ Primary iron and steel manufacturing
~ other special ind ustria I equipment
■ other electronic and communication equipment
■ Electronic computer
■ Motor vehicles and its fittings
Drivers of change (1992-2002)
5000
4500 - Total - Emissions embodied in Chinese exports
4000
3500
3000 N 0 2500 u ...., ~ 2000
1500
1000
500
0
(Weber et al.,2008)China’s exports
33%
21%
100%
80%
N
8 •Non-B .. 60% Rest of e f 8. •Err M ILi
15 40% .EU27
!! .. •us .c VJ!
20%
0%
1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Figut"e I: Region of' destination :for Chinese CO2 em:ission:s elDhodied in~ by year. EU27 does not inclu.d.e any economies in. 1rall.si.tion {El I), and •rxes• o:f B .. represents all r,pqgining Anne-.: B COIID.t:ries which do not :fall in.to anotll.er aroup.
Destinations of China’s exports
(Weber et al. 2008)
1750
1500 ■ Transpor1/Serv Ices ■ Mlsc Manufacture
■ Eled:ronlc:s
1250 ■ Maohlnery/Equlp Metal Proo ucts
■ Raw Metals N 1000 Wood/Mlneral Proo 0
0 Cheml0als/Plasttc:s
~ 750 ■ Textiles
■ Ag+Mlnlng
500
250
Chinese export emissions by commodity group
(Weber et al. 2008)
China - Summary
• Significant difference between urban and rural lifestyles and emissions
• Efficiency gains are not sufficient
• Almost a 1/3 of emissions for export production
UK
DM',ographks
• Household demographia Population movement
~e::'round & beliefs
e Occupation e 1ndustry • EmJjoyrrentstatus • Qua lifications • Sodo-economicstatus
Car;andtransport Product and media
e Directonhips Shareholdings Bad debt Credit behaviour
Property Characurlstlcs
Housing age Se.condresidendes Amenities Tenure Building .......,,. __
• Council tax band Property value Prop?rtysa1es -e A.t.cessibi lity
• Rurality Urbanisation Islands
MOSAIC: Using Geo-demographic Marketing Data
• Experian: world leading supplier of consumer segmentation
• MOSAIC UK: consumer classification
• Comprehensive post-code specific information on property, residents and their lifestyle
• 61 lifestyle groups • over 400 variables
www.sei.se/reap
16:ICIEI ---------------------------------------.
-...
1UJCIEI
1:!l:ICIEI
~ 1IZICIEI 1:1 --... -1- BIZIIZI if E: IJ
I! lilZIIZI ~
._IZIIZI
:!IZIIZI
~ .::: R! & 'Iii I l'iill iii & lt:I'"' Iii Cl:ltn;&
F~llhill' t t-al . 11:1 = H 1:111111:::111::1
::::.....: El:!• j:111 I! 1t
.. 9! 11111:::::1!!1
- .._......::::i b I B:11Cilb:::11 ~ffl 11 l:iilml Cl+---------T"------..---------.-------.------------------1
Cl :!IZIIZI UIIII 11111:1 DIICI 1CIEIIZI 1:!l:ICIEI
Hl:LI 1t11::i1i:::1 lj:lll"dn; P,, 11111:::!n E: ~
UK Final demand decompostion
•
(Minx, 2008)
CO2 by Local Authority tonnes of CO2 per household
17.10 - 20.40
1111 20.40 - 21 .50
1111 21 .50 - 22 .50
1111 22.50 - 24.10
1111 24.1 0 - 29.40
Average weekly household total income pounds stirling
420 - 500
1111 soo-sso
Ill sso - 600
Ill 600 - 700
1111 700 - 1040
(www.sei.se/reap)
Legend
Total Housing Footprint lonne!I per capita
31'/''4 - )U.9'
- 353'9-l7•0C
- 37"40S·31)31
- 313,31-Jffll
- 31922 - • 7629
Legend
Total Transport Footprint tonnes per capita
1791S - 25'5)
- 25-45.- - 27008
- H009 ° 2Cll3'il
- 2Clll5 - 323a2
- )234) - !7371
Legend
Total Food Footprint tonnes per capita
09821 - 0Vfle
- 092i7 - 0t72•
- 09725 - 1004$
- 10Ck6 - t0ll2
- 1 038) - 12629
Specific carbon footprints
Housing Travel Food
(www.sei.se/reap)
Public Transport Carbon Footprint (by OA) tonnes per capita
0.64 - 0.83
- 0.83-0.89
- 0.89-1 .01
- 1.01- 1.19
- 1.19- 1.83
Case Study
Car-Free City: Vienna, Austria
(Ornetzeder et al. 2007)
Location in Vienna (Wien)
IIID
D
~
~
D
• D
CO2 emissions kg
CO2
emis
sion
s pe
r cap
ita
8 000
7 000
6 000
5 000
4 000
3 000
2 000
1 000
-
0.33 kg/€
0.49 kg/€
0.40 kg/€
Car free Reference Average Austrian
Other
Hotel+Restaurant
Food
Car + moped
HolidayTransp
Publ.Transport
Energy
areas of c onsum pti on Energy (heating warm water, electricity)
Public transport Holiday transport (mainly airtravel) C ar, motorbike, etc. Food Hotel and restaurant
Other total
Car-free Reference project settlement
in kg C Oi per capita 489 620 88 62
1,336 1,119 57 817
292 163 212 128
1,730 1,615 4,202 4,524
Emissions
Conclusions • Holistic approach
– Territorial, Production and Consumption
– Territorial explains where
– Consumption explains why
• Combination of top-down and bottom up
• Analyses at different scales: global, national and local
Conclusions cont…
• Scientific challenges – Uncertainty, data, methods,
definitions, … – Can be overcome with time
• Policy and Regulatory Challenges
– Actors operate outside of their “territory”
Conclusions cont… Currently, we see a separation between a country’s consumption and the global production system
Rich countries tend to have: – Stabilized production-based emissions – Increased consumption-based emissions
Brings into question decoupling of economy and emissions
Conclusions cont…
•“Shadow Consumption based Indicator” alongside official accounting
•Effective policy on sustainable consumption and production
•Increase transparency and equity in climate change policy
Selected References • CP/RAC (Regional Activity Centre for Cleaner Production (2008). A Consumption-
based Approach to Greenhouse Gas Emissions in a Global Economy: A Pilot Experiment in the Mediterranean. Case Study: Spain. Barcelona.
• Dabo Guan, Glen P. Peters, Christopher L. Weber , Klaus Hubacek (2009). “Journeyto world top emitter – an analysis of the driving forces of China’s recent CO2 emissions surge.” Geophysical Research Letters. 36, L04709.
• Guan, Dabo, Peters, Glen, Christopher L. Weber, and Klaus Hubacek (2008) “The Drivers of Chinese CO2 Emissions from 1980 to 2030”; Global Environmental Change. Vol. 18. 626–634.
• Ornetzeder, M., Hertwich, E, Hubacek K., Korytarova, K., Haas, W. (2008). “The Environmental Effect of Car-free Housing: A Case in Vienna.” Ecological Economics Vol. 65/3, 516-530.
• Peters, Glen, Christopher L. Weber, Dabo Guan, Klaus Hubacek (2007) “China’s growing CO2 emissions - a race between lifestyle changes and efficiency gains”.Environmental Science and Technology 41, pp.5939-5944.
• Peter, Glen P. And Edgar G. Hertwich (2008). CO2 Embodied in International Trad with Implications for Global Climate Policy. Environmental Science & Technology,Vol. 42/5, 1401-1407.
• Weber Christopher L. and Scott H. Matthews (2008). Quantifying the global and distributional aspects of American household carbon footprint. Ecological Economics, 6 6, 3 7 9 – 3 9 1
Additional slides
Carbon Footprint for US Households
Communications
Clothing/Footwear
Misc Goods/Servi
Utilities/Home Energy
Fumish11Equip,Mai nt
Housing
Private Transport
Restaurants.Hotels
0 500 1000
• Expenditure
■ CO2
1500 2000
MT CO2 and $lo' HH Expenditure
Carbon Footprint for US Households (2004)
Source: Weber & Matthews (2008)
11 u
aJth
11-i, [Iii ~ 0 car
...... ICI El
=: [fl
e _ta rant. , H
urni a m1nt.
Cl
0 20 ,000 000 0000 00-0 0 ,r
Carbon Footprint and Income
(Weber & Matthews, 2008)
6
2
0
) 5 ,n11111QP!n . Id I z
7'
a H uing
a
H ·alth
AtcB ·
n
l thing/ "'ootw ar
Re. auram,~.H
■ .. u1'1rti h Equip int
Prival ran ·pon
C ood
Carbon Footprint and Household Size
(Weber & Matthews, 2008)
US - Summary
• Households vary considerably in their CO2 responsibilities
• Household income and expenditure being the best predictors
• 30% of total US household CO2 was produced outside the US
llndex (2008 = 1)
11
10
9
8
7
5
4
3
2
Carbon productivity =
.. ■ ..
GDP
Emissions
...... llil _. !!ii
. ,. ,._ .,. • ·• -· "'
Carbon productivity growth required 5.16 percent per annum
World GDP growth at current trends* 3. 1 percent per annum (r,eal)
1 Emissions decrease to o - - - - - - - - reach 20 GtCO ~ by 2050
-2.4 peroent per annum 2005 2010 2015 2 020 2(125 2(130 2(135 204(1 2045 2050
How to reach 20 GTCO2e by 2050
Source: McKinsey Analysis
Index Y1ear O = 1
10 I '
I
6
4
2
0
Carbon prod u ctivlty / 1groW'lh naqu in~d J··
2008- 50 /
/ /
/ ,
. I. I
I I
US labor product iv1ty 1g rO\l\flh 1830- 1955
0 10 20 30 40 .50 60 70 80 '90 100 110 120 1:30
Years
A ‘Carbon revolution’ needs to be 10 times faster than the industrial revolution rise in labour productivity
Source: Contours of the world economy 1-2030 A.D. Madison, 2007. McKinsey Analysis.
Per-capita annual ernissior1s, 2005 TCO ... e ..
United States
Russia
EU-27
China
India
World sustainable average•
·• En1is.sion budger· for a day {alternatives')
21.5 Travel
stay home
Shop
Eat
20-40 km car ride
10-20 hours air conditioning
2 new T-shirts (6 kg of CO2•
so don't drive to the shop)
2 meals a day (6 kg CO2)
of 300 g meat, 200 g fries, tap water
Live at 20 GTCO2e per year
Source: McKinsey Analysis
Contribution to UK Meat Footprint 0 .1
10
1,000 1 ooot CO2 per year
Forest Change hectares per year
- -3500000 to -1 0000
- -10000 to -100
-100to0
No Change or No Data
Oto 100
100 to 10000
- 10000 to 110000
, .. "ft
Carbon emissions from meat consumption
(www.sei.se/reap)
Hong Kong
United Kingdom
Germany
Japan
United States
Brazil
South Africa
Rest of Former Soviet Union
Rest of Middle East
Russian Federation
China
-800 -600 -400 -200
Mt CO2-eq (2001)
0
□ Carbon dioxide (CO2)
■ Methane (CH4)
□ Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
□ Fluorinated Gases
200 400 600 800 1000
Global Balance
Source: Peters (2008)
IPCC definition: “national (including administered) territories and offshore areas over which the country has jurisdiction”
Production-based inventories are based on the economic activities of residential institutions as defined in the System of National Accounts (including international economic activities primarily, international transportation and tourism—as defined in GDP
Consumption-based emission inventory as the total global emissions occurring from economic consumption within a country
Approaches
• case-control study of the ‘car-free’ settlement
• combination of the quantitative and qualitative social research designs
• with input-output analysis, • LCA, • questionnaires, and • qualitative interviews.
l [t] NOx [kg] COD [kg] A01 [~ Toxic Energy Expenditure waste [kg] [G J] [k€]
C ar-fr ee 4.2 14 10 15 61 75 12.7
Reference 4.5 13 9 13 54 80 11.2
Average 7.0 16 11 16 72 101 14.3
Emissions
types of transport C ar -fr e e pr oj e ct Ref er enc e settlement
by car households with 0 km in 2 0 03 59 .5% 27.3% total ( all households) in 2 0 0 3 (km) (42 hh) 23)78 ( 4 6 hh) 5 0 5 ~ 0 1 8 by car- sharing 8)78 4,240 average distance per household in 20 0 3 (km) 566 10 ~9 7 9
by train total ( all households) in 2 0 0 3 (km) 77 ~6 0 0 5)00 average distance per household in 2 0 0 3 (km) 1~848 124
by airplane
share of households without flights in 2 0 0 3 42.9% 52 .2% total ( all households) in 2 0 0 3 (km) 291 ~800 286~900 aver age distance per household in 2 00 3 (km) 6~948 6,237
total distance by car~ train~ airplane per household (km) 9)62 17 )40
Mobility
20
CO2 emissionsCO
2 w
ithou
t air
tran
spor
t [t]
16
12
8
4
0
y = 0.4R2 =
54x0.8209
y = 2.3192x0.4386
R2 = 0.4531
0.9279
/
/
♦
■
• X
y = 0.3466x0.
R2 = 0.9631
8856
Car-free Ref no car Ref car A Avg P(Ref car) P(Car-free) P(Ref no car)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Income [k€]
Fuel consumption in 1000 Megajoules per capita
(Runge 2005 after Newmann & Kenworthy 1989)
US Cities
Australien Cities
Central European Cities
Population density (cap per hectares)
-----------------
:counts Producer Emissions 400
200
150
100
50
1992
■ EEi OECD Europe EEi OECD non-Europe EEi ROW
1993
C 0 Cl) Cl)
E Q)
N 0 u
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
650
600
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
ons (embedded emissions indicator)
d (incl. overseas territories)
500 -+---------,-----r-------,-----,----------r----,----------c------r--,--------.---r--------r-----.-------------,
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Wiedmann et al. (2008) United Kingdom
600.0
400.0
200.0
0.0
1981 1983 1987 :t 1995 1997 2000 2002 -200.0
-400.0
-600.0
Figure 1: The orange line shows the percentage change in Celi emismons from 1981 to
2002. Other colored lines represent the conbibution to change from GDP per capita growth (light blue, 469%),. efficiency gains (re4. -425%),. population (dark blue,. 72%),. production structure ~ 45%), and consumption patterns (pmple, 42%). The inconsistent efficiency gains (red line) between 2000 and 2002 are due to the under
reporting coal consumption at the end of 1990s (6, 20).
The Drivers of CO2 Emissions – 1981-2002
Structural Decomposition Analysis (1981-02)
(Guan, et al. 2009)
•
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦ ♦
♦
♦
R2 = 0.8969
-
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
Car
bon
Foot
prin
t (C
O2e
t/hh)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Weekly household income (£)
