Global Environmental Footprints

Global Environmental Footprints
Glen Peters, Robbie Andrew, Jonas Karstensen (CICERO)
Nordic Council of Ministers, Environment and Economy Group (16/03/2017)

@Peters_Glen
• Why look at “environmental footprints”?
• Methods and data
• Policy relevance
• Policy applications
• Questions and discussion
Outline

@Peters_Glen
Why look at “environmental footprints”?

@Peters_Glen
Consumption-based emissions are:
production-based emissions – emissions to produce exports + emissions to produce imports
Source: Global Carbon Budget 2016 (update)
Consumption-based emissions

@Peters_Glen
Consumption-based emissions are:
production-based emissions – emissions to produce exports + emissions to produce imports
Source: Global Carbon Budget 2016
Consumption-based emissions

@Peters_Glen
Can calculate an environmental footprint for all environmental problems,
but policy implications can differ
Source: Hoekstra and Wiedmann (2014)
Global environmental footprints

@Peters_Glen
• Scale
– Product, person, household, city, state, country
– Bottom-up (LCA), top-down (MRIO)
• Flow
– Physical (water in a melon, carbon in coal)
– Virtual (emissions air/water to produce a product)
• Supply chain
– Apparent consumption (direct trade flows only)
– Final consumption (global supply chains)
Definitions

@Peters_Glen
• Air pollutants (most common, virtual, final consumption)
– Long-lived: CO2, GHG (“carbon footprints”)
– Short-lived: SO2, black carbon, etc
• Material footprints
– Metals ores, fossil fuels, construction, biomass, etc
– Apparent (Domestic Material Consumption, DMC)
– Final consumption (physical and virtual flows)
• Water
– Green (used by plants, rainwater)
– Blue (ground, surface: hydropower, irrigation, industry)
– Grey (polluted)
– Apparent or final consumption
Environmental footprints (1)

@Peters_Glen
• Land
– Crops, pastures, forests
– Physical areas
– Apparent or final consumption
– Related (ecological footprint, HANPP)
• Economic
– Trade in Value Added (TiVA)
– Economic flows
– Final consumption
• …
Environmental footprints (2)

@Peters_Glen
Calculation steps and uncertainties

@Peters_Glen
Danish CO2 emissions differ when using environmental (UNFCCC) and economic (NAMEA) accounts
International transport the main issue, and effects all Nordic countries (to different degrees)
Emissions data

@Peters_Glen
Different datasets, different total emissions, different sector distribution
Emissions data

@Peters_Glen
• Multi-regional input-output analysis
– Economic method with data from System of National Accounts
– Top-down allocation between sectors
– Data driven approach
• Key assumptions
– Linear, output is proportional to inputs
– Monetary data (not physical)
– Aggregation (e.g., 100 sectors)
– Each industry produces one product
• Assumptions ok for historical attribution at national level
Linking production to consumption

@Peters_Glen
Hot colours represent largest transactions between sectors in the (New Zealand) economy
Source: Robbie Andrew
Input-Output Analysis
Consuming Sector
ProducingSector

@Peters_Glen
Hot colours represent largest transactions between sectors in the (global) economy
Source: Robbie Andrew
Multi-regional Input-Output Analysis
Consuming Region and Sector
ProducingRegionandSector

@Peters_Glen
• GTAP-MRIO: 120 countries, 57 sectors, 1997, 2001, 04, 07, 11
– CICERO version in timeseries 1990-2014 (CO2 only)
• WIOD: 40 countries, 35 sectors, 1995-2011
• Eora: 187 ‘countries’, average 85 sectors, 1970+, automated
• EXIOBASE: 43 countries, 163 sectors, 2000, 2008, time-series (?)
• OECD: 34+27 countries, 34 sectors, 1995-2011
• …
• Most have VA, CO2, some GHG, less land, water, materials, …
• Problems with ‘off-the-shelf’ data and results
Economic Accounts

@Peters_Glen
Large structural uncertainties in production emissions, propogates to consumption
Despite difference in absolute values, trends are generally similar.
Structural uncertainties

@Peters_Glen
Carbon Footprints

@Peters_Glen
• Context (global)
– Unharmonised global policy, carbon leakage, competitiveness
– Not big changes in the Nordics (net importers, but relatively stable)
• Policies
– Consumption-based target, border carbon adjustments
• Slight improvement in efficiency, effectiveness, but at the cost of equity
• Need financial transfers to offset inequities (could do along trade flows)
– Consumer policies
• Labels, standards, nudges, information, reporting, etc
• Uncertain impact at individual and macro level
• Can help, but probably not sufficient levers to signficantly effect macro level?
Carbon Footprints

@Peters_Glen
Land & Water Footprints

@Peters_Glen
• Context (local)
– Water/land ‘scarcity’, more a question of degradation
– Impacts very local (water basin, converted land)
– Who decides context (local or global citizens)
• Policies
– Difficult to generalize (Norway is water rich, but not “productive”)
– Generally policy focused on (household, industry) consumers
• Product specific (less meat good for land, water, health, climate)
• Impact specific (restrictions on products from sensitive areas)
– Technology or yield improvements
Land & Water Footprints

@Peters_Glen
Material Footprints

@Peters_Glen
• Context (local)
– Resource efficiency and security
– Often not environmentally focussed (unless waste flows)
• Policies
– Need to seperate materials (too much context lost in aggregation)
– Consumer and industry policies (consume less of X, Y, and Z)
– Role of construction activities important
Material Footprints

@Peters_Glen
Policy applications

@Peters_Glen
• What is the policy objective?
– Paris Agreement (clear)
– Materials, land, water, etc (resource efficiency, security?)
• What is the role of the environmental footprint?
– Most impacts are domestic (in most cases)
– What is advantage in a consumption (or trade) policy?
– Differentiate policy on domestic versus on imported?
• What is the confidence in the estimates?
– The policy needs sufficiently accurate indicators
Three framing issues

@Peters_Glen
• Footprints useful, but perhaps not sufficient to implement
• Quality
– Independent data sets are broadly “consistent”, but differences large
• Conflicting data
– Data sets are conflicting, and harmonization required
• Aggregation and targeting
– Country and broad sector level, ok. Detailed results more uncertain.
• Interpretation
– Footprints embody a variety of issues, making interpretation difficult
Uncertainty

@Peters_Glen
• Carbon, climate
– Context and motivation clear
– Unclear that consumption policies justify added complexity
• Materials, land, water, …
– Unclear context and motivation
– Broad conclusions can be made (e.g., reduce consumption)
– But specifics matter (which water basin has a scarcity issue)
• Resource efficiency
– May be best to modify indicators to suit policy application
Policy

@Peters_Glen
• Tracking
– Value in tracking progress, improved understanding of global systems
– Prepares for potential policy applications
• Methodologies
– Considerable progress has been made in last 10 years
– Knowledge gaps in reconciling data, method choices, updating, …
• Policy context
– In past driven by researchers (“hey, look at my results”)
– In future, need motivation from policy
– What problems need to be solved? Are footprints the answer?
Future perspectives

@Peters_Glen
Peters_Glen
cicero.oslo.no
cicerosenterforklimaforskning
glen.peters@cicero.oslo.no
Glen Peters

Global Environmental Footprints

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Global Environmental Footprints

Similaire à Global Environmental Footprints (20)

Plus de Glen Peters

Plus de Glen Peters (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Global Environmental Footprints