Carbon Footprint of Nations 090622

1

[email protected], carbonfootprintofnations.com

The Carbon Footprint of NationsA global multi-regional analysis

Edgar G. Hertwich and Glen P. Peters

Industrial Ecology Programme

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Trondheim, Norway

ISIE Conference

Lisbon, 22 June 2009

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ntnu.no/indecol

2


Overview

1. Objective, Motivation2. Multiregional Input-Output Model and Data• Carbon footprints of nations

• Cross-sectional analysis: Wealth and CO2

• Conclusions and outlook

http://carbonfootprintofnations.comhttp://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es803496a



http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es803496a

3


Objective

• Better understand the composition of carbon footprints of different countries– What are the most important consumption

categories?– How important is public consumption compared to

private (household) consumption and investment?

• Investigate global patterns of carbon footprint– cross-national analysis– underlying driving factors



4


First global assessment

• GTAP* database– 87 world regions– 57 sectors– For the year 2001– GHG emissions only

• Various data and methodological issues

*Global Trade Analysis Project



5


Full MRIO Model (1)

Mass balance as for total trade

Step 1: Split exports between final demand and industry

Step 2: Split exports to industry in direct proportions

Peters, Ecol.Econ. 2007



6


Full MRIO Model (2)

• Full MRIO mass balance

Interindustry demand

Domestic demand

Export to final demandExport to industry



7


Full MRIO Model (3)

11 j 1 1j131 11 12 1m 1

22 j 2 2j232 21 22 2m 2

3 31 32 33 3m 3 33 j 3 3j

m m1 m2 m3 mm m j mj

mm m

y yAx A A A x

y yAx A A A x

x A A A A x y y

x A A A A x y y

≠

≠

≠

≠

+ Σ + Σ = + + Σ + Σ

L

L

L

OM M M M M M M

L

Domestic IO coefficientsImport IO coefficients

ˆ importij ij jA s A=

Imports to final demand



8


0 5 10 15 20

Households

Government

Investment

CO2 [Gt CO2]

0 2 4 6 8

Households

Government

Investment

Non-CO2-GHG [Gt CO2e]

0 5 10 15 20 25

Households

Government

Investment

GHG total [Gt CO2e]

Construction

ShelterFood

Clothing

Manufactured products

MobilityService

Trade

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es803496a



http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es803496a

9


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

OECD NW

East Asia

Europe

South Asia

South America

Middle East/North Africa

Sub-saharan Africa

Construction

ShelterFood

Clothing


MobilityService

Trade



10


1E-1

1E+0

1E+1

1E+2

1E-1 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2

Consumption [1000 $/capita/y]

Fo

otp

rin

t [t

/ca

pit

a/y

]GHG

NonCO2

CO2

Power (NonCO2)

Power (CO2)

Power (GHG)



11


102

104

10-2

10-1

100

101

ton

CO

2e p

er c

apita

Construction

102

104

10-2

10-1

100

101

Shelter

102

104

10-2

10-1

100

101

Food

102

104

10-2

10-1

100

101

ton

CO

2e p

er c

apita

Clothing

102

104

10-2

10-1

100

101


102

104

10-2

10-1

100

101

Mobility

102

104

10-2

10-1

100

101

Expenditure ($ per capita)

ton

CO

2e p

er c

apita

Service

102

104

10-2

10-1

100

101


Trade

OECD NWEast Asia

Europe

South Asia

South America

Middle East/North AfricaSub-saharan Africa



12


Importance of categories as a function of wealth

102

103

104

105

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

102

ton

CO

2e p

er c

apita


Construction

ShelterFood

Clothing


MobilityService

Trade

GHG footprint

elasticity

Construction 0.74 Shelter 0.65 Food 0.29

Clothing 0.79 Manufactures 0.88

Mobility 0.83 Service 0.55 Trade 0.88



13


What really matters …

102

103

104

105

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

ton

CO

2e

pe

r ca

pita


ConstructionShelterFoodClothingManufactured productsMobilityServiceTrade



14


Numerical regression results

Monetary elasticity

GHG footprint elasticity

Global Average

Footprint 1$/d

Footprint $100’000/y

Construction 0.99 0.74 10 % 5 % 9 %

Shelter 0.97 0.65 19 % 13 % 14 %

Food 0.64 0.29 20 % 44 % 6 %

Clothing 0.91 0.79 3 % 2 % 3 %

Manufactures 1.09 0.88 10 % 5 % 18 %

Mobility 1.07 0.83 17 % 10 % 29 %

Service 1.16 0.55 16 % 19 % 11 %

Trade 1.14 0.88 6 % 2 % 9 %

Total [tCO2/person-year] 5.5 1.5 53



15


International Comparison

Country Year Income

elasticity of energy

Income elasticity of

CO2

Expenditure elasticity of

energy

Expenditure elasticity of

CO2

Change in energy with household

size

Australia 1993-94 0.59 0.55 0.74 0.70 -0.16 Australia 1998-99 0.78 -0.02 Brazil 1995 1.00 -0.07 Denmark 1995 0.51 0.51 0.90 0.90 -0.20 Denmark 1995 0.86 -0.22 India 1993-94 0.86 -0.01 Japan 1999 0.64 0.06 Netherlands 1990 0.63 0.83 -0.33 New Zealand 1980 0.40 Norway 1973 0.72 -0.27 USA 1960-81 0.85 USA 1972-73 0.78 -0.33

Lenzen et al. Energy 2006



16


Cross-country and within country variation

• Same elasticity for energy/CO2 – remarkable invariance of wealth-energy connection across different circumstances and many orders of magnitude

• Both approaches have the weakness of measuring consumption in monetary terms – different CO2 intensity of different qualities of same product type not considered



17


Further work

• Role of technology versus changes in quality and structure with increased wealth

• Density, climate and other explanatory variables

• Specific comparisons – decoupling of “footprints” and wealth; other indicators of welfare

• New database – EXIOPOL: more environmental detail



18


Questions?

[email protected]@ntnu.no

www.carbonfootprintofnations.comwww.carbonfootprintofnations.com

Edgar HertwichIndustrial Ecology Programme

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Trondheim, Norway




http://www.carbonfootprintofnations.com/

Carbon Footprint of Nations 090622

Documents

Transcript of Carbon Footprint of Nations 090622