Thomas Gibon and Elorri Igos Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST) Lunch debate cycle “Decarbonise now!” [2/5]

1. DECARBONISE NOW!
[2/5] Consumption Goods
Thomas Gibon and Elorri Igos
Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST)
Lunch debate cycle “Decarbonise now!” [2/5]

3. A bit of context!
Carbonnerd
https://www.list.lu/en/research/project/carbonnerd/
Talking about climate change, carbon footprint,
decarbonisation with everyone, in particular the youth
EN | DE | FR | LB

4. Introduction

5. 800 Gt CO2
left to emit
2022
2050 WITH EXTREME EFFORTS
2050 WITH MODERATE EFFORTS
2050 WITH NO EFFORTS
The Paris agreement is a
pledge to remain under
“well under” 2°C of warming
This translates globally into
a carbon budget of
about 800 Gt CO2
left to emit, forever
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf
CO2 emissions and temperature increase

6. Consequences of rising temperatures

7. 7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010
Gt
CO2
=
billion
tonnes
CO2
Annual global emissions of CO2 by source
Other
greenhouse
gases
2010
Carbon dioxide (1 kg = 1 kg CO2 eq.)
Fluorinated gases (1 kg = 8000-23000 kg CO2 eq.)
Dinitrogen monoxide (1 kg = 300 kg CO2 eq.)
Methane (1 kg = 25 kg CO2 eq.)

8. Carbon footprint of the average Luxembourger
Total ~13 tons CO2 eq / person / year
Car
2855
Airplane
303
Train & bus
220
Space heating
2031
Non-heating energy
512
Water
264
Construction & maintenance
205
Meat and fish
1354
Dairy and eggs
551
Other food
356
Drinks
229
Clothing
622
Hygiene products
322
Furniture
332
Electronics & IT
259
Books & newspaper
247
Appliances; 80
Education
474
Administration
422
Urban planning
320
Social and health
278
Defense and international; 154
Economy and finances; 112
Public spending
to non-residents
594
3300
3000
2400
1800
2300
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Mobility Housing Food Consumption goods Public services
kg
CO
2
eq
/
person
/
year
For Luxembourg:
https://carbonnerd.list.lu

9. Paris agreement target
90% reduction by 2050
13 t CO2eq /
person / year
1.6 t CO2eq /
person / year
- 90%

10. Zoom on consumption Goods

11. Carbon footprint of the average Luxembourger
Total ~13 tons CO2 eq / person / year
Car
2855
Airplane
303
Train & bus
220
Space heating
2031
Non-heating energy
512
Water
264
Construction & maintenance
205
Meat and fish
1354
Dairy and eggs
551
Other food
356
Drinks
229
Clothing
622
Hygiene products
322
Furniture
332
Electronics & IT
259
Books & newspaper
247
Appliances; 80
Education
474
Administration
422
Urban planning
320
Social and health
278
Defense and international; 154
Economy and finances; 112
Public spending
to non-residents
594
3300
3000
2400
1800
2300
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Mobility Housing Food Consumption goods Public services
kg
CO
2
eq
/
person
/
year
For Luxembourg:
https://carbonnerd.list.lu

12. Zoom on clothes’
impacts

13. The Carbon footprint of our clothes
 Major impacts from production, mainly due to raw
materials (agriculture, synthetic polymer) and wet
processes (chemicals use for dying, energy use)
 Significant contribution of use stage due to washing and
drying (energy consumption mainly)
13
Sources: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/fashion-on-climate
https://wrap.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-10/WRAP-valuing-our-clothes-the-cost-of-uk-fashion_WRAP.pdf
Consumers can play a significant role, e.g. in UK:
 Reduction of GHG emissions thanks to lower washing
temperature, less tumble-dry and ironing
 Increase of GHG emissions due to the increased
clothes amount purchased

14. The Carbon footprint of our clothes
Results for a T-shirt comparison
 Silk has significant impacts due to the cultivation of mulberry trees (48 kg leaves per T-shirt)
 No clear advantage between the other types of fibres (trade-offs)
What is the best material for our clothes?
Source: Schmutz et al. (2021) https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052498
14
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Carbon
footprint
(kg
CO
2
eq.)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Non-renew.
energy
demand
(MJ)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Water
footprint
(m
3
water
eq.)
36 299 360

15. The Carbon footprint of our clothes
Sorted environmental benefits:
 Extend lifetime (no purchase at each season)
 Air drying instead of tumbler
 Filling the machine at full level
 Decrease washing temperature
Impacts of usage patterns
15
0% 50% 100% 150% 200%
-15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Full 40°C Air-
drying
Half-full 30°C Air-
drying
Half-full 40°C Tumbler
Lifetime divided by 4
Effect of use patterns compared to the baseline
Half-full 40°C Air-
drying
Source: Schmutz et al. (2021) https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052498
Increased impact
Decreased impact

16. What else we can do to
decrease our footprint?

17. Eco-labelled products
17
Source:
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/facts-and-figures.html
 ISO 14020/24
 Multi-criteria
 Life-cycle approach
 Third-party certified
Ecolabels (type I) Self-declaration (type II)
 ISO 14020/21
 Single criteria
 Not third-party certified but
expected to be verifiable
Different environmental communication types
 Regulation EC 66/2010
 Criteria revised regularly (EC Decisions)
 Lower environmental impacts along the
life cycle compared to similar product
 No hazardous substances allowed
(except for specific derogations)
78071 products in 24 different categories (03/2021)

18. Eco-labelled products
18
Source:
Castellani
et
al.
(2019)
Is it really better for the environment?



 Example: liquid soap
Ecolabel soap
 -12% of GHG emissions thanks to
packaging design and lower dosage
 -0.1% to -12% on other impacts
Similar benefits observed for other ecolabelled products (shampoo, detergents, …)
No trade-offs observed on any impact category
Ingredients with lower impacts
Lighter packaging (with refilling system) including recycled content
Dosing system allowing lower dosage for use
EU Ecolabel

19. Second-hand products
19
Source:
Castellani
et
al.
(2015)
Survey in a second-hand shop in Italy: Are these items replacing the purchase of new products?
But are we really replacing
the production of new items?
No
53
Yes
28
No
48
Yes
43
No
37
Yes
3
No
4
Yes
21
Furniture Apparel Books Glasses
Raw
materials
Manufac
-turing
Trans-
port
Trans-
port
Condition-
ning
Impacts of producing new item Impacts of reuse
>>



 Favour second-hand products without falling into overconsumption!

20. Durability of products
20
Source:
Bobba
et
al.
(2016)
Example of a vacuum cleaner
Environmental
impact
Years
Environmental
impacts
Years
Environmental
impact
Years
Durable vs. non-durable products …including reparation at year 7 …and better efficiency of new product
Production impacts of durable items might
be higher but compensated by longer use
<10% higher production impacts
Additional reparation impacts might
be compensated by longer use
<10% reparation impacts
Efficiency gains of new items might
compensate their production impacts
Lower GHGs if efficiency gain >25%
True for impacts mainly influenced by use
but not for others (e.g. resources,
toxicity)
What to do?
 Production-intensive items 


 extend lifetime (buy durable/repairable products,
maintenance)
 Use-intensive items 


 replace with efficient products (but possible trade-offs)

21. Online shopping
21
Source:
Shahmohammadi
et
al.
(2020)
Example for fast-consuming goods shopping in UK
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4
kg CO2 eq./item
 Pure players more impacting due to last-mile transport (longer distance, smaller basket size, failed delivery rate)
and due to additional packaging
 Traditional shopping better if low-impact transport of consumers
 Uncertain results due to many variable parameters
(basket size, distances, transport mode, deliveries per tour, failed delivery rate…)
80%
94% 44% 8%

22. Online shopping
22
Source:
Shahmohammadi
et
al.
(2020)
How to reduce our footprint:
 Prefer low-impact transport mode for last-
mile transport, e.g. car used by 80%
consumers in UK, but by 8% in China
 Trip chaining (shop when returning from work)
 Multiple products from the same supplier
and bundle items
 Forego fast deliveries
 For companies: use electric cargo bikes
instead of vans for last-mile transport
Effects to be further investigated:
 Product return/losses for online vs. traditional shopping (higher return rate for online channels but
more unsold products for traditional retailing)
 Does online shopping substitute trips to traditional shops? e.g. probably not for supermarkets

23. Can we consume “green”
even if we are rich?

24. GDP and environmental footprint
24
Source:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita-vs-gdppc
A positive correlation at global scale
Per
capita
consumption-based
CO
2
emissions
GDP per capita (int. $)
Year 2017
Europe

25. Income and environmental footprint
25
Source:
UNEP
(2020)
Share of global emissions
15% 48% 44% 7%
Minimum factor of emissions reduction to
achieve 1.5ºC target:
 Top 1% income earner need to reduce
emissions by at least a factor of 30
 Bottom 50% income earner can still
increase by ~3 times their emissions
Increased expenditures generally lead to
higher GHG emissions (a few exceptions, e.g.
for food with more vegetal proteins)

26. The rebound effect
26
Source:
Alcott
(2005)
Technical progress
/ Policy
Improved resource
efficiency Raising demand
Increased
consumption
Example: I bought a car with lower fuel consumption rate
• I use my car more because of lower fuel costs (direct effect)
• I use the savings to buy a flight ticket (indirect effect)
• I move further away from my work thanks to lower fuel budget
(systemic effect)
Can we avoid rebound effects?
 Use savings into low-impact products / services (e.g. train travel instead of plane travel)
 Combination of efficiency with frugality (more is not necessarily better)
Impacts/unit  Units  Impacts 

27.  15% of the income of a Luxembourgish, after
taxes, is saved
 Where does this money go?
What about Savings and Investments?
Total HH savings, % of household disposable income, 2000 – 2019
Source:
OECD
2020
Currency and
bank deposits
Pension funds
Insurance funds
Company
shares
Mutual funds
Bitcoin

28. Savings at the bank
28
Source:
Banking
on
climate
change
(2020);
ShareAciton
-
Banking
on
a
Low-Carbon
Future
II
(2020)
 What does your bank do with the money on your savings account?
 EU SFDR regulation: “financial market participants” must disclose
sustainability-related information in their annual reports (Regulation (EU)
2019/2088)
 Banks you may know are actually responsible for the financing of fossil
fuel operations of corporations (for the example, USD 62bn in 2019)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
2016 2017 2018 2019
 Despite pledges for reducing
emissions and achieving net-zero
emissions by 2050, the financing of
fossil fuels its on a upward trend
Note: Bank financing in USD billion (financing went to over 2,000
companies active across the fossil fuel life cycle)
Leaders in terms of environmental
disclosure and response to
climate change
...and in financing
fossil fuel
companies

29. Greener banking operations
29
Source:
BGL
BNP
Paribas;
Spuerkess;
Triodos
Bank
Inform yourself about the environmental
profile of your bank
Decide actively how to invest the money
you save in your accounts
Beware of hidden fees that are not justified
Beware of superficial sustainability claims
How to take control over the sustainability
of your banking operations ?

30. Take-away messages

31. 31

32. 32

33. The rest is here
Carbonnerd
https://www.list.lu/en/research/project/carbonnerd/
Talking about climate change, carbon footprint,
decarbonisation with everyone, in particular the youth
EN | DE | FR | LB

34. Thank you!
Thomas Gibon thomas.gibon@list.lu
Elorri Igos elorri.igos@list.lu
https://carbonnerd.list.lu/educational-material