1

The Environmental Profile of Norwegian Households - Imported Commodities

Edgar Hertwich1, Kristin Erlandsen2, Jørgen Aasness2, Knut Sørensen2, Klaus Hubacek3 1IIASA, 2Statistics Norway, 3University of Leeds

www.iiasa.ac.at/~hertwich/www.indecol.ntnu.no

ISIE meetingAnn Arbor, Mi, USA

29.6.-2.7.2003

2

Layout

Sustainable consumption: A framework for actionMeasuring the impacts of consumption: Input-output and hybrid analysisPollution elsewhere: endogenous assessment of imported commoditiesThe emissions intensities of China, Japan and Norway – A comparisonWhere does your product come from: The need for a wider analytic perspective

3

Sustainable consumption: Why and How?

Citizens as consumers: Consumer and investor activism (and

reactions) have gained importance: Nike, Shell, mad cow

Consume with a clear conscience: organic, fair-trade, clean-cloth, eco-label, solar, hybrid

Research should empower people to choose in accordance with their conscience: Provide information, understanding, feedback

4

Sustainable consumption: Why and How?Sustainable consumption policy:

Consumption as part of the overall sustainability strategy: Modeling options, tracking progress

Setting framework conditions for sustainable consumption: Infrastructure, taxes, services, procurement

Enabling and encouraging consumer action: awareness raising, providing info

Supporting experiments in sustainable consumption (social innovation)

5

Sustainable consumption: Why and How?Consumption and Production:

Understanding consumer behavior and use-phase environmental effects – Product design

Encouraging the purchase of green products Optimizing at the right point, taking

advantage of synergies Common interest in human aspects (product

design and marketing)

6

materials

Sustainable Production

Sustainable Consumption

Sustainability ofproducts and services

Understanding ofUser Behavior, Needs

Goods

Information

Production-consumption interaction

7

Optimise Life-cycle performance

materials

Sustainable Production

Sustainable Consumption

Sustainability ofproducts and services

Understanding ofUser Behavior, Needs

Goods

Information

Production-consumption interaction

8

A framework for action

1. A strategy for sustainability: Objectives; Evaluation, modeling, tracking progress; Consumption as part of a larger agenda

2. Specific measures, actions and initiatives to be taken by different actors

3. Consistent evaluation of actions and policy measures, feedback to actors

Environmental mechanisms, health

and ecosystem effect

Production systems and product life-cyclesIndividual behavior

and social mechanisms

9

Modeling the environmental pressures

and progress in reducing them1. Develop a strategy and track progress:

macro- and meso-scale analysis; Duchin – Social accounting frameworkFocus on issue identification, consumer activities, general learning

2. Measure the impact of specific goodsWilting & Vringer, hybrid & LCA Recommendations of specific actions: eco-labeling, green procurement

10

(1) (4)(3)(2)

Products Industries Rest of the worldFinal consumptionand gross capital

formation

(3)

(2)

(1)Products

Industries

Rest of theworld

Output

(2,1)

Imports

(3,1)

Intermediateconsumption

(1,2)

(2,2)

Valueadded

(2,4)

(3,2)

(2,3)

(3,4)

Exports

(1,3)

Componentsof valueadded

Final consumptionand gross capital

formation(1,4)

Structure of an I-O Table

11

CO2-equivalents % of total emission NACE rev. 1 Industry 1993 1997

% change 93 -97

1 Agriculture 10,7 % 9,0 % -0,2

11 Oil and gas extraction sector 17,7 % 17,9 % 20,0

24 Manufacture of chemicals and chemicals products 8,1 % 7,4 % 8,1

279 Other manufacture of basic metals 6,4 % 7,4 % 37,0

602 Other land transport 5,1 % 4,8 % 11,3 619 Ocean transport abroad 18,9 % 22,3 % 40,1

90 Sewage and refuse disposal, sanitation etc 6,7 % 5,8 % 3,1

Direct GHG emissions of Norwegian industry, from NAMEA.

12

0 %

10 %

20 %

30 %

40 %

50 %

60 %

70 %

80 %

90 %

100 %

CO2-equivalentes CO2-equivalentes Acid-equivalents Acid-equivalents

1993 1997 1993 1997

Export

Investments

Puiblic-sector consumption

Private consumption

Direct industry emissions allocated to final demand categories.

13

Multiplier analysis

11x̂ M1 E I X

11ˆ2 x M E I X CI +NCI

11ˆ3 x dM E I X K

11ˆ4 x d ci nciM E I X CI +NCI K +K +K

Emissions from production, incl. domestic intermediate inputs

Emissions from production, incl. domestic intermediate inputs and investment

Emissions from production, including domestic and foreign intermediate inputs

Emissions, incl. from domestic and foreign intermediate inputs and investment

14

Treating imports as domestically produced

Standard approach: assume that imports are produced with the same emissions

factors and the same production functions as domestic products.

Chilean apples = Norwegian apples

Kenyan pineapples = Norwegian apples

15

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1600

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5x 10

5

kg C

O2

equi

vale

nts/

MN

OK

Industry sectors

Pollution intensity of Norwegian industry

EM1M2M3M4

16

Indirect emissions assuming domestic emissions intensities

17

Indirect + direct emissions caused by Norwegian households

18

Emissions intensity of imports: using real numbers

Ideal approach: build a multinational I/O modelApproximation: Use domestic multipiers (M2, M4) of other countries Japan: 3EID (Nansai, Moriguchi, Tohno) China: IIASA work (Hubacek, TAP project)

19

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 100 200 300

Norway [tCO2e/MNOK]

Ch

ina

[tC

O2/

MN

OK

]

20

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

21

11

16

20

24

30

34

41

62

70

90

26

1

40

1

60

3

NACE

Dev

iatio

n to

Nor

way

(or

ders

of

mag

nitu

de)

China

Japan

US

GHG emissions intensity of 3 trading partners compared to NO

21

ConclusionsThe industry structure and emissions factors of Norway, Japan and China differ significantly. We do not know whether increasing globalization increases or decreases emissionsNo SC purchase recommendations among product categories are possible as long as they involve imported products.

Do these conclusions hold for larger, ‘closed’ economies, such as the United States?

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-02-073.pdf