Carbon Footprint of Nations 090622

1

The Carbon Footprint of Nations
A 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
Edgar.hertwich@ntnu.no, carbonfootprintofnations.com

2

Overview
1. Objective, Motivation
2. Multiregional Input-Output Model and Data
• Carbon footprints of nations
• Cross-sectional analysis: Wealth and CO2
• Conclusions and outlook

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 Edgar.hertwich@ntnu.no, carbonfootprintofnations.com

6

Full MRIO Model (2)
• Full MRIO mass balance

Interindustry demand
Export to final
demand
Domestic demand Export to industry


7

Full MRIO Model (3) Imports to final demand

 x1   A11 A12 A13 L A1m   x1   y11 + Σ j≠1 y1j 
       y +Σ y 
 x2   A21 A22 A23 L A2m   x2   22 j≠ 2 2j 

 x3  =  A31 A32 A33 L A3m   x3  +  y33 + Σ j≠3 y3j 
       
M  M M M O M  M  M 
 x  A L Amm  x   y +Σ y 
 m   m1 Am2 Am3   m   mm


j≠ m mj 

Import IO coefficients Domestic IO coefficients
Aij = sij Aj import
ˆ


8 CO2 [Gt CO2] Non-CO2-GHG [Gt CO2e]

Investment Investment

Government Government

Households Households

0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8

GHG total [Gt CO2e]
Construction
Shelter
Investment
Food
Clothing
Government
Manufactured products
Households Mobility
Service
Trade
0 5 10 15 20 25

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es803496a Edgar.hertwich@ntnu.no, carbonfootprintofnations.com

9

Sub-saharan Africa

Middle East/North Africa

Construction
South America Shelter
Food
Clothing
South Asia
Manufactured products
Mobility
Europe Service
Trade
East Asia

OECD NW

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1


10
1E+2
GHG
NonCO2
CO2
Power (NonCO2)
Footprint [t/capita/y]

1E+1 Power (CO2)
Power (GHG)

1E+0

1E-1
1E-1 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2
Consumption [1000 $/capita/y]

11 Construction Shelter Food
1 1 1
10 10 10
ton CO2e per capita

0 0 0
10 10 10

-1 -1 -1
10 10 10

-2 -2 -2
10 10 10
2 4 2 4 2 4
10 10 10 10 10 10

Clothing Manufactured products Mobility
1 1 1
10 10 10
ton CO2e per capita

0 0 0
10 10 10

-1 -1 -1
10 10 10

-2 -2 -2
10 10 10
2 4 2 4 2 4
10 10 10 10 10 10

Service Trade
1 1
10 10
ton CO2e per capita

OECD NW
0 0 East Asia
10 10
Europe
South Asia
-1 -1
10 10 South America
Middle East/North Africa
-2 -2 Sub-saharan Africa
10 10
2 4 2 4
10 10 10 10
Expenditure ($ per capita) Expenditure ($ per capita)


12

Importance of categories as a
function of wealth
2
10

1
GHG footprint
10 elasticity
Construction 0.74
Shelter 0.65
ton CO2e per capita

0
10 Food 0.29
Clothing 0.79
Manufactures 0.88
Mobility 0.83
-1
10 Construction Service 0.55
Shelter Trade 0.88
Food
Clothing
-2
10 Manufactured products
Mobility
Service
Trade
-3
10
2 3 4 5
10 10 10 10
Expenditure ($ per capita)


13

What really matters …
16

14

12 Construction
Shelter
ton CO2e per capita

10 Food
Clothing
8 Manufactured products
Mobility
Service
6 Trade

4

2

0
2 3 4 5
10 10 10 10
Expenditure ($ per capita)

14

Numerical regression results
GHG
Monetary footprint Global Footprint Footprint
elasticity elasticity Average 1$/d $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
Change in
Income Income Expenditure Expenditure
energy with
Country Year elasticity of elasticity of elasticity of elasticity of
household
energy CO2 energy CO2
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

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?

edgar.hertwich@ntnu.no
www.carbonfootprintofnations.com

Edgar Hertwich
Industrial Ecology Programme
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Trondheim, Norway


Carbon Footprint of Nations 090622

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (14)

Semelhante a Carbon Footprint of Nations 090622

Semelhante a Carbon Footprint of Nations 090622 (20)

Mais de Edgar Hertwich

Mais de Edgar Hertwich (6)

Carbon Footprint of Nations 090622