Consumption-based carbon accounting: does it have a future?

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Afionis, Stavros ^a   Sakai, Marco ^a   Scott, Kate ^a   Barrett, John ^a   Gouldson, Andy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CARBON; GAS EMISSIONS; GREENHOUSE GASES; POLLUTION CONTROL;

ACCOUNTING METHODS; CARBON ACCOUNTING; CLEANER PRODUCTION; CLIMATE MITIGATIONS; POLICY MECHANISMS; POLITICAL ACCEPTABILITY; POLITICAL BENEFITS; TECHNICAL COMPLEXITY;

DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS;

CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON EMISSION; CLIMATE CHANGE; EMISSION CONTROL; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY;

EID: 85003726532     PISSN: 17577780     EISSN: 17577799     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/wcc.438     Document Type: Review

References (126)

1. Afionis S, Fenton A, Paavola J. EU climate leadership under test. Nat Clim Change 2012, 2:837–838.
2. Ott H, Arens C, Hermwille L, Mersmann F, Obergassel W, Wang-Helmreich H, Wehnert T. Lima climate report—COP20 moves at snails’ pace on the road to Paris; 2014. Available at: http://wupperinst.org/uploads/tx_wupperinst/lima-results.pdf.
3. UNFCCC. Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Paris: UNFCCC; 2015.
4. Springmann M. A look inwards: carbon tariffs versus internal improvements in emissions-trading systems. Energy Econ 2012, 34:S228–S239.
5. Peters GP. From production-based to consumption-based national emission inventories. Ecol Econ 2008, 65:13–23.
6. Steininger K, Lininger C, Droege S, Roser D, Tomlinson L, Meyer L. Justice and cost effectiveness of consumption-based versus production-based approaches in the case of unilateral climate policies. Glob Environ Change 2014, 24:75–87.
7. Bows A, Barrett J. Cumulative emission scenarios using a consumption-based approach: a glimmer of hope? Carbon Manage 2010, 1:161–175.
8. 2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010, 107:5687–5692.
9. Peters GP, Minx JC, Weber CL, Edenhofer O. Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011, 108:8903–8908.
10. Barrett J, Peters G, Wiedmann T, Scott K, Lenzen M, Roelich K, Le Quéré C. Consumption-based GHG emission accounting: a UK case study. Clim Policy 2013, 13:451–470.
11. 2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy. Environ Sci Technol 2008, 42:1401–1407.
12. 2 emission transfers. Nat Clim Change 2013, 3:19–23.
13. Fischer C. Policy: trade's growing footprint. Nat Clim Change 2011, 1:146–147.
14. Kanemoto K, Moran D, Lenzen M, Geschke A. International trade undermines national emission reduction targets: new evidence from air pollution. Glob Environ Change 2014, 24:52–59.
15. Arto I, Rueda-Cantuche JM, Andreoni V, Mongelli I, Genty A. The game of trading jobs for emissions. Energy Policy 2014, 66:517–525.
16. 2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011, 108:18554–18559.
17. Liu L. A critical examination of the consumption-based accounting approach: has the blaming of consumers gone too far? WIREs Clim Change 2015, 6:1–8.
18. Jakob M, Steckel JC, Edenhofer O. Consumption-versus production-based emission policies. Annu Rev Resour Econ 2014, 6:297–318.
19. Lininger C. Consumption-Based Approaches in International Climate Policy. Cham: Springer; 2015.
20. Wiedmann T. A review of recent multi-region input–output models used for consumption-based emission and resource accounting. Ecol Econ 2009, 69:211–222.
21. Harris PG, Symons J. Norm conflict in climate governance: greenhouse gas accounting and the problem of consumption. Glob Environ Politics 2013, 13:9–29.
22. Peters GP. Policy update: managing carbon leakage. Carbon Manage 2010, 1:35–37.
23. Grasso M, Roberts T. A compromise to break the climate impasse. Nat Clim Change 2014, 4:543–549.
24. Peters GP, Hertwich EG. Post-Kyoto greenhouse gas inventories: production versus consumption. Clim Change 2008, 86:51–66.
25. Aichele R, Felbermayr G. Kyoto and carbon leakage: an empirical analysis of the carbon content of bilateral trade. Rev Econ Stat 2015, 97:104–115.
26. Aichele R, Felbermayr G. Estimating the effects of Kyoto on bilateral trade flows using matching econometrics. World Econ 2013, 36:303–330.
27. Sartor O. Carbon leakage in the primary aluminium sector: what evidence after 6½ years of the EU ETS? USAEE Research Paper Series; 2012. Available at: http://www.cdcclimat.com/IMG/pdf/12-02_cdc_climat_r_wp_12-12_carbon_leakage_eu_ets_aluminium-2.pdf.
28. Reinaud J. Issues behind competitiveness and carbon leakage: focus on heavy industry. Available at: https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Competitiveness_and_Carbon_Leakage.pdf.
29. Bassi S, Duffy C. UK climate change policy: how does it affect competitiveness? 2016. Available at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Bassi-and-Duffy-policy-brief-May-2016.pdf.
30. Steinberger JK, Roberts JT, Peters GP, Baiocchi G. Pathways of human development and carbon emissions embodied in trade. Nat Clim Change 2012, 2:81–85.
31. Scott K, Barrett J. An integration of net imported emissions into climate change targets. Environ Sci Policy 2015, 52:150–157.
32. Druckman A, Bradley P, Papathanasopoulou E, Jackson T. Measuring progress towards carbon reduction in the UK. Ecol Econ 2008, 66:594–604.
33. Rothman DS. Environmental Kuznets curves—real progress or passing the buck? A case for consumption-based approaches. Ecol Econ 1998, 25:177–194.
34. Suh S. Are services better for climate change? Environ Sci Technol 2006, 40:6555–6560.
35. Karplus VJ. Policy: carbon emissions in China's trade. Nat Clim Change 2013, 3:703–704.
36. Grubb M. International climate finance from border carbon cost levelling. Clim Policy 2011, 11:1050–1057.
37. Depledge J. The road less travelled: difficulties in moving between annexes in the climate change regime. Clim Policy 2009, 9:273–287.
38. Girod B, van Vuuren DP, Hertwich EG. Climate policy through changing consumption choices: options and obstacles for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Glob Environ Change 2014, 25:5–15.
39. IEA. Energy and climate change. World Energy Outlook Special Report. Paris: IEA; 2015.
40. Obergassel W, Arens C, Hermwille L, Kreibich N, Mersmann F, Ott HE, Wang-Helmreich H. Phoenix from the Ashes—An Analysis of the Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Wuppertal, Germany: Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy; 2016. Available at: http://wupperinst.org/fa/redaktion/downloads/publications/Paris_Results.pdf. (Accessed May 2016).
41. 2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007, 104:10288–10293.
42. Sanwal M. Reflection on the climate negotiations: a Southern perspective. Clim Policy 2009, 9:330–333.
43. 2 mitigation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012, 109:12911–12915.
44. Andrew R, Forgie V. A three-perspective view of greenhouse gas emission responsibilities in New Zealand. Ecol Econ 2008, 68:194–204.
45. 2 over-emissions from the perspectives of benefit principle and ecological deficit. Ecol Econ 2003, 46:121–141.
46. Baer P, Kartha S, Athanasiou T, Kemp-Benedict E. The greenhouse development rights framework: drawing attention to inequality within nations in the global climate policy debate. Dev Change 2009, 40:1121–1138.
47. Kartha S, Baer P, Athanasiou T, Kemp-Benedict E. The greenhouse development rights framework. Clim Dev 2009, 1:147–165.
48. Page EA. Distributing the burdens of climate change. Environ Politics 2008, 17:556–575.
49. Jakob M, Marschinski R, Hübler M. Between a rock and a hard place: a trade-theory analysis of leakage under production-and consumption-based policies. Environ Resour Econ 2013, 56:47–72.
50. Sorrell S. Jevons’ Paradox revisited: the evidence for backfire from improved energy efficiency. Energy Policy 2009, 37:1456–1469.
51. Isenhour C, Feng K. Decoupling and displaced emissions: on Swedish consumers, Chinese producers and policy to address the climate impact of consumption. J Clean Prod 2014, 134:320–329.
52. Steininger KW, Lininger C, Meyer LH, Muñoz P, Schinko T. Multiple carbon accounting to support just and effective climate policies. Nat Clim Change 2015, 6:35–41.
53. Andres RJ, Boden TA, Bréon FM, Ciais P, Davis S, Erickson D, Gregg JS, Jacobson A, Marland G, Miller J, et al. A synthesis of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion. Biogeosciences 2012, 9:1845–1871.
54. Guan D, Liu Z, Geng Y, Lindner S, Hubacek K. The gigatonne gap in China/'s carbon dioxide inventories. Nat Clim Change 2012, 2:672–675.
55. Droege S. Using border measures to address carbon flows. Clim Policy 2011, 11:1191–1201.
56. Peters G, Davis S, Andrew R. A synthesis of carbon in international trade. Biogeosciences 2012, 9:3247–3276.
57. Turner K, Lenzen M, Wiedmann T, Barrett J. Examining the global environmental impact of regional consumption activities—part 1: a technical note on combining input–output and ecological footprint analysis. Ecol Econ 2007, 62:37–44.
58. Miller RE, Blair PD. Input–Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
59. Steckel JC, Kalkuhl M, Marschinski R. Should carbon-exporting countries strive for consumption-based accounting in a global cap-and-trade regime? Clim Change 2010, 100:779–786.
60. Dimitrov RS. Inside UN climate change negotiations: the Copenhagen conference. Rev Policy Res 2010, 27:795–821.
61. Ghosh M, Agarwal M. Production-based versus consumption-based emission targets: implications for developing and developed economies. Environ Dev Econ 2014, 19:585–606.
62. 2 accounts for open economies: producer or consumer responsibility? Energy Policy 2001, 29:327–334.
63. Rodrigues JFD, Domingos TMD, Marques APS. Carbon Responsibility and Embodied Emissions: Theory and Measurement. Abingdon/Oxford: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group Ltd; 2010.
64. Gallego B, Lenzen M. A consistent input–output formulation of shared producer and consumer responsibility. Econ Syst Res 2005, 17:365–391.
65. Lenzen M, Murray J, Sack F, Wiedmann T. Shared producer and consumer responsibility—theory and practice. Ecol Econ 2007, 61:27–42.
66. Cadarso M-Á, López L-A, Gómez N, Tobarra M-Á. International trade and shared environmental responsibility by sector: an application to the Spanish economy. Ecol Econ 2012, 83:221–235.
67. Bastianoni S, Pulselli FM, Tiezzi E. The problem of assigning responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions. Ecol Econ 2004, 49:253–257.
68. Marques A, Rodrigues J, Lenzen M, Domingos T. Income-based environmental responsibility. Ecol Econ 2012, 84:57–65.
69. Chang N. Sharing responsibility for carbon dioxide emissions: a perspective on border tax adjustments. Energy Policy 2013, 59:850–856.
70. Kander A, Jiborn M, Moran DD, Wiedmann TO. National greenhouse-gas accounting for effective climate policy on international trade. Nat Clim Change 2015, 5:431–435.
71. OECD. Carbon dioxide emissions embodied in international trade. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/carbondioxideemissionsembodiedininternationaltrade.htm.
72. DEFRA. UK's carbon footprint 1997–2012; 2015. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/414180/Consumption_emissions_Mar15_Final.pdf.
73. ECCC. Energy and climate change—twelfth report consumption-based emissions reporting; 2012. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenergy/1646/164602.htm.
74. Gouldson A, Colenbrander S, Sudmant A, McAnulla F, Kerr N, Sakai P, Hall S, Papargyropoulou E, Kuylenstierna J. Exploring the economic case for climate action in cities. Glob Environ Change 2015, 35:93–105.
75. Peters GP. Carbon footprints and embodied carbon at multiple scales. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2010, 2:245–250.
76. Anderson K, Quéré CL, Mclachlan C. Radical emission reductions: the role of demand reductions in accelerating full decarbonization. Carbon Manage 2014, 5:321–323.
77. Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, et al. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
78. Bohringer C, Carbone JC, Rutherford TF. Unilateral climate policy design: efficiency and equity implications of alternative instruments to reduce carbon leakage. Energy Econ 2012, 34:S208–S217.
79. Bohringer C, Balistreri EJ, Rutherford TF. The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: overview of an Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF 29). Energy Econ 2012, 34:S97–S110.
80. Bohringer C, Fischer C, Rosendahl KE. Cost-effective unilateral climate policy design: size matters. J Environ Econ Manage 2014, 67:318–339.
81. Bednar-Friedl B, Schinko T, Steininger KW. The relevance of process emissions for carbon leakage: a comparison of unilateral climate policy options with and without border carbon adjustment. Energy Econ 2012, 34:S168–S180.
82. Helm D, Hepburn C, Ruta G. Trade, climate change, and the political game theory of border carbon adjustments. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 2012, 28:368–394.
83. Fischer C, Fox AK. Comparing policies to combat emissions leakage: border carbon adjustments versus rebates. J Environ Econ Manage 2012, 64:199–216.
84. Victor DG, Gerlagh R, Baiocchi G. Getting serious about categorizing countries. Science 2014, 345:34–36.
85. Barrett S. Rethinking climate change governance and its relationship to the world trading system. World Econ 2011, 34:1863–1882.
86. Wiers J. French ideas on climate and trade policies. Carbon Clim L Rev 2008, 1:18–32.
87. Van Asselt H, Brewer T. Addressing competitiveness and leakage concerns in climate policy: an analysis of border adjustment measures in the US and the EU. Energy Policy 2010, 38:42–51.
88. Atkinson G, Hamilton K, Ruta G, Van der Mensbrugghe D. Trade in 'virtual carbon': empirical results and implications for policy. Glob Environ Change 2011, 21:563–574.
89. Li AJ, Zhang AZ, Cai HB, Li XF, Peng SS. How large are the impacts of carbon-motivated border tax adjustments on China and how to mitigate them? Energy Policy 2013, 63:927–934.
90. 2 emissions? Energy Econ 2014, 42:204–212.
91. Ismer R, Neuhoff K. Border tax adjustment: a feasible way to support stringent emission trading. Eur J Law Econ 2007, 24:137–164.
92. Sakai M, Barrett J. Border carbon adjustments: addressing emissions embodied in trade. Energy Policy 2016, 92:102–110.
93. Koch N, Fuss S, Grosjean G, Edenhofer O. Causes of the EU ETS price drop: recession, CDM, renewable policies or a bit of everything? New evidence. Energy Policy 2014, 73:676–685.
94. Liu L, Chen C, Zhao Y, Zhao E. China's carbon-emissions trading: overview, challenges and future. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015, 49:254–266.
95. Hübler M, Voigt S, Löschel A. Designing an emissions trading scheme for China—an up-to-date climate policy assessment. Energy Policy 2014, 75:57–72.
96. Somanathan E, Sterner T, Sugiyama T, Chimanikire D, Dubash NK, Essandoh-Yeddu J, Fifita S, Goulder L, Jaffe A, Labandeira X, et al. National and sub-national policies and institutions. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, et al, eds. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
97. Vasan A, Sood B, Pecht M. Carbon footprinting of electronic products. Appl Energy 2014, 136:636–648.
98. Suh S, Huppes G. Methods for life cycle inventory of a product. J Clean Prod 2005, 13:687–697.
99. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S. Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage 2009, 91:1–21.
100. 2 emission reduction potential of passenger vehicle replacement programs. Glob Environ Change 2013, 23:1807–1818.
101. Miller D, Doh J-H, Panuwatwanich K, van Oers N. The contribution of structural design to green building rating systems: an industry perspective and comparison of life cycle energy considerations. Sustain Cities Soc 2015, 16:39–48.
102. Ibn-Mohammed T, Greenough R, Taylor S, Ozawa-Meida L, Acquaye A. Operational vs. embodied emissions in buildings—a review of current trends. Energy Build 2013, 66:232–245.
103. Moncaster AM, Symons KE. A method and tool for ‘cradle to grave’ embodied carbon and energy impacts of UK buildings in compliance with the new TC350 standards. Energy Build 2013, 66:514–523.
104. Dixit MK, Fernández-Solís JL, Lavy S, Culp CH. Need for an embodied energy measurement protocol for buildings: a review paper. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012, 16:3730–3743.
105. Iddon CR, Firth SK. Embodied and operational energy for new-build housing: a case study of construction methods in the UK. Energy Build 2013, 67:479–488.
106. Sorrell S. Reducing energy demand: a review of issues, challenges and approaches. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015, 47:74–82.
107. Blanco G, Gerlagh R, Suh S, Barrett J, de Coninck HC, Diaz Morejon CF, Mathur R, Nakicenovic N, Ofosu Ahenkora A, Pan J, et al. Drivers, trends and mitigation. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, et al., eds. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
108. Knight KW, Rosa EA, Schor JB. Could working less reduce pressures on the environment? A cross-national panel analysis of OECD countries, 1970–2007. Glob Environ Change 2013, 23:691–700.
109. Barrett J, Scott K. Link between climate change and resource efficiency. Glob Environ Change 2012, 22:299–307.
110. Giesekam J, Barrett J, Taylor P, Owen A. The greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation options for materials used in UK construction. Energy Build 2014, 78:202–214.
111. Bakker C, Wang F, Huisman J, den Hollander M. Products that go round: exploring product life extension through design. J Clean Prod 2014, 69:10–16.
112. Reim W, Parida V, Örtqvist D. Product–Service Systems (PSS) business models and tactics—a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 2015, 97:61–75.
113. Birnik A. An evidence-based assessment of online carbon calculators. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2013, 17:280–293.
114. Padgett JP, Steinemann AC, Clarke JH, Vandenbergh MP. A comparison of carbon calculators. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2008, 28:106–115.
115. Cohen MA, Vandenbergh MP. The potential role of carbon labeling in a green economy. Energy Econ 2012, 34:S53–S63.
116. Gsottbauer E, van den Bergh JC. Environmental policy when pollutive consumption is sensitive to advertising: norms versus status. Ecol Econ 2014, 107:39–50.
117. Paterson M. Sustainable consumption? Letigimation, regulation, and environmental governance. In: Park J, Conca K, Finger M, eds. The Crisis of Global Environmental Governance: Towards a New Political Economy of Sustainability. Oxon: Routledge; 2008, 110–131.
118. Wu P, Xia B, Pienaar J, Zhao X. The past, present and future of carbon labelling for construction materials—a review. Build Environ 2014, 77:160–168.
119. Testa F, Annunziata E, Iraldo F, Frey M. Drawbacks and opportunities of green public procurement: an effective tool for sustainable production. J Clean Prod 2016, 112:1893–1900.
120. Alvarez S, Rubio A. Carbon footprint in Green Public Procurement: a case study in the services sector. J Clean Prod 2015, 93:159–166.
121. Michelsen O, de Boer L. Green procurement in Norway; a survey of practices at the municipal and county level. J Environ Manage 2009, 91:160–167.
122. Uyarra E, Edler J, Garcia-Estevez J, Georghiou L, Yeow J. Barriers to innovation through public procurement: a supplier perspective. Technovation 2014, 34:631–645.
123. Bratt C, Hallstedt S, Robèrt KH, Broman G, Oldmark J. Assessment of criteria development for public procurement from a strategic sustainability perspective. J Clean Prod 2013, 52:309–316.
124. Parrado R, De Cian E. Technology spillovers embodied in international trade: intertemporal, regional and sectoral effects in a global CGE framework. Energy Econ 2014, 41:76–89.
125. Dessai S, Afionis S, Van Alstine J. Development goals: science alone cannot shape sustainability. Nature 2013, 493:26–26.
126. Depledge J. The opposite of learning: ossification in the climate change regime. Glob Environ Politics 2006, 6:1–22.