Advertisement

Understanding New Zealand’s consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions: an application of multi-regional input-output analysis

  • Chanjief ChandrakumarEmail author
  • Sarah J. McLaren
  • Arunima Malik
  • Thiagarajah Ramilan
  • Manfred Lenzen
SUSTAINABLE FOOD PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Consumption- and production-based accounting approaches for national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions provide different insights to support climate policymaking. However, no study has yet comprehensively assessed the consumption-based GHG emissions of the entire New Zealand’s economy. This research, for the first time, quantified New Zealand’s GHG emissions using both consumption- and production-based accounting approaches and considered the policy implications for adopting a consumption-based approach over a production-based approach.

Methods

A global multi-regional input-output (MRIO) analysis was undertaken to calculate the consumption- and production-based GHG emissions of New Zealand for the year 2012. The MRIO analysis was based on the Eora database, which accounts for 14,839 industry sectors from 189 countries. Given the sectoral classification of each country is quite different and in order to ease interpretation of the results, the industry sectors of each country were classified and aggregated into 16 key sectors, and GHG emissions were calculated for those key sectors.

Results and discussion

The MRIO analysis showed that New Zealand’s consumption- and production-based GHG emissions in 2012 were 61,850 and 81,667 ktCO2eq, respectively, indicating that the country was a net exporter of GHG emissions in 2012. The dominant contributors to the consumption-based GHG emissions were the other services and construction key sectors (each representing 16% of consumption-based emissions), followed by food and beverages (14%), transport and equipment (12%) and financial and trade services (11%), whereas the dominant contributor to the production-based GHG emissions was the agriculture key sector (representing 52% of production-based GHG emissions). The results of the study provided two key insights to support climate mitigation activities and policymaking. First, the consumption- and production-based accounting approaches results have different rankings for the most dominant sectors contributing to New Zealand’s GHG emissions. Second, only the consumption-based accounting approach enables the quantification of the embodied emissions in New Zealand’s trade activities, and it indicated that a large proportion of GHG emissions are embodied in New Zealand’s trade activities. These insights, therefore, have important implications for future policies that could positively influence the consumption patterns of New Zealand citizens and the production structure and efficiency of New Zealand’s trade partners.

Conclusions

This research quantified New Zealand’s GHG emissions using both consumption- and production-based accounting approaches. Given the two accounting approaches provided different insights, both approaches should be used in a complementary way when developing climate policies. However, implementation of a consumption-based accounting approach to support development and implementation of climate policies and instruments requires further consideration.

Keywords

Climate change Consumption-based accounting Eora Greenhouse gas Multi-regional input-output New Zealand Production-based accounting 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Chanjief Chandrakumar acknowledges the Massey University Doctoral Scholarship. The authors thank Nihal P Jayamaha (Massey University) for his valuable insights that supported the development of this paper. The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments that have strengthened the revised article.

Supplementary material

11367_2019_1673_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (550 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 549 kb)
11367_2019_1673_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (29 kb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 29 kb)

References

  1. Afionis S, Sakai M, Scott K, Barrett J, Gouldson A (2017) Consumption-based carbon accounting: does it have a future? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Clim Change 8:e438Google Scholar
  2. Ali Y, Pretaroli R, Socci C, Severini F (2018) Carbon and water footprint accounts of Italy: a multi-region input-output approach. Renew Sust Energ Rev 81:1813–1824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allan C, Kerr S (2016) Who’s going green? Decomposing the change in household consumption emissions 2006 - 2012. Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  4. Allan C, Kerr S, Will C (2015) Are we turning a brighter shade of green? The relationship between household characteristics and greenhouse gas emissions from consumption in New Zealand. Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, Wellington, New ZealandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrew R, Forgie V (2008) A three-perspective view of greenhouse gas emission responsibilities in New Zealand. Ecol Econ 68:194–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andrew R, Peters GP, Lennox J (2008) New Zealand’s carbon balance: MRIO applied to a small developed country Paper presented at the International Input-Output Meeting on Managing the Environment, Seville, Spain, 9–11 July 2008Google Scholar
  7. Arroyo-Currás T, Bauer N, Kriegler E, Schwanitz VJ, Luderer G, Aboumahboub T, Giannousakis A, Hilaire J (2015) Carbon leakage in a fragmented climate regime: the dynamic response of global energy markets. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 90:192–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barrett J, Peters G, Wiedmann T, Scott K, Lenzen M, Roelich K, Le Quéré C (2013) Consumption-based GHG emission accounting: a UK case study. Clim Policy 13:451–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bjørn A, Kalbar P, Nygaard SE, Kabins S, Jensen CL, Birkved M, Schmidt J, Hauschild MZ (2018) Pursuing necessary reductions in embedded GHG emissions of developed nations: will efficiency improvements and changes in consumption get us there? Glob Environ Chang 52:314–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caro D, Rugani B, Pulselli FM, Benetto E (2015) Implications of a consumer-based perspective for the estimation of GHG emissions. The illustrative case of Luxembourg. Sci Total Environ 508:67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chandrakumar C, Malik A, McLaren SJ, Lenzen M, Ramilan T, Jayamaha NP (2018) New Zealand agri-food sector and absolute climate impacts: an application of multi-regional input-output analysis. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment of Food 2018, Bangkok, Thailand, 17–19 October 2018Google Scholar
  12. Dawkins E, Moran D, Palm V, Wood R, Björk I (2019) The Swedish footprint: a multi-model comparison. J Clean Prod 209:1578–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doherty E (2011) Economic effects of the Canterbury earthquakes. Parliamentary Library, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  14. Dolter B, Victor PA (2016) Casting a long shadow: demand-based accounting of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions responsibility. Ecol Econ 127:156–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. FAO (2018) FAOSTAT statistical database. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data. Accessed 15 Dec 2018
  16. Francis TR, Wilkinson S, Mannakkara S, Chang-Richards A (2018) Post-disaster reconstruction in Christchurch: a “build back better” perspective. Int J Disaster Resil Built Environ 9:239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Franzen A, Mader S (2018) Consumption-based versus production-based accounting of CO2 emissions: is there evidence for carbon leakage? Environ Sci Pol 84:34–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Girod B, Van Vuuren DP, Hertwich EG (2013) Global climate targets and future consumption level: an evaluation of the required GHG intensity. Environ Res Lett 8:014016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Girod B, van Vuuren DP, Hertwich EG (2014) Climate policy through changing consumption choices: options and obstacles for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Glob Environ Chang 25:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hertwich EG, Peters GP (2009) Carbon footprint of nations: a global, trade-linked analysis. Environ Sci Technol 43:6414–6420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories vol 1. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Kanagawa, JapanGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson T (2011) Prosperity without growth: economics for a finite planet. Routledge, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  23. Jackson T (2016) Prosperity without growth: foundations for the economy of tomorrow. Taylor & Francis, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karstensen J, Peters GP, Andrew RM (2015) Uncertainty in temperature response of current consumption-based emissions estimates. Earth Syst Dynam 6:287–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lenzen M, Kanemoto K, Moran D, Geschke A (2012) Mapping the structure of the world economy. Environ Sci Technol 46:8374–8381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lenzen M, Moran D, Bhaduri A, Kanemoto K, Bekchanov M, Geschke A, Foran B (2013) International trade of scarce water. Ecol Econ 94:78–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lenzen M, Moran D, Kanemoto K, Geschke A (2013) Building Eora: a global multi-region input–output database at high country and sector resolution. Econ Syst Res 25:20–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lenzen M, Murray J, Sack F, Wiedmann T (2007) Shared producer and consumer responsibility — theory and practice. Ecol Econ 61:27–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Li M, Wiedmann T, Hadjikakou M (2019) Towards meaningful consumption-based planetary boundary indicators: the phosphorus exceedance footprint. Glob Environ Chang 54:227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Malik A, Lan J (2016) The role of outsourcing in driving global carbon emissions. Econ Syst Res 28:168–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Malik A, McBain D, Wiedmann TO, Lenzen M, Murray J (2019) Advancements in input-output models and indicators for consumption-based accounting. J Ind Ecol 23:300–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MfE (2006) New Zealand’s greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2004. Ministry of the Environment, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  33. MfE (2013) New Zealand’s sixth National Communication under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto protocol. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  34. MfE (2016) New Zealand’s greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2014. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  35. MfE (2017) New Zealand’s greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2015. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New ZealandMfE (2017b) New Zealand’s seventh National Communication – fulfilling reporting requirements under the United Nations framework convention on climate change and the Kyoto protocol. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  36. Nakamura S, Nansai K (2016) Input–Output and Hybrid LCA. In: Input–output and hybrid LCA. In: Finkbeiner M (ed) special types of life cycle assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 219–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. OECD (2017) OECD environmental performance reviews: New Zealand 2017. OECD Publishing, Paris.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268203-en CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oita A, Malik A, Kanemoto K, Geschke A, Nishijima S, Lenzen M (2016) Substantial nitrogen pollution embedded in international trade. Nat Geosci 9:111–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (2016) Climate change and agriculture: Understanding the biological greenhouse gases. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  40. Peters GP (2008) From production-based to consumption-based national emission inventories. Ecol Econ 65:13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peters GP, Davis SJ, Andrew R (2012) A synthesis of carbon in international trade. Biogeosciences 9:3247–3276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Potter SH, Becker JS, Johnston DM, Rossiter KP (2015) An overview of the impacts of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 14:6–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stadler K, Wood R, Bulavskaya T, Södersten C-J, Simas M, Schmidt S, Usubiaga A, Acosta-Fernández J, Kuenen J, Bruckner M, Giljum S, Lutter S, Merciai S, Schmidt JH, Theurl MC, Plutzar C, Kastner T, Eisenmenger N, Erb KH, de Koning A, Tukker A (2018) EXIOBASE 3: developing a time series of detailed environmentally extended multi-regional input-output tables. J Ind Ecol 22:502–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stats NZ (2014) National accounts input-output tables: year ended March 2013. Statistics New Zealand, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  45. Steininger KW, Munoz P, Karstensen J, Peters GP, Strohmaier R, Velázquez E (2018) Austria’s consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions: identifying sectoral sources and destinations. Glob Environ Chang 48:226–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Suh S, Huppes G (2005) Methods for life cycle inventory of a product. J Clean Prod 13:687–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar GJ, Hondo H, Horvath A, Huppes G, Jolliet O, Klann U, Krewitt W, Moriguchi Y, Munksgaard J, Norris G (2004) System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ Sci Technol 38:657–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tukker A, Poliakov E, Heijungs R, Hawkins T, Neuwahl F, Rueda-Cantuche JM, Giljum S, Moll S, Oosterhaven J, Bouwmeester M (2009) Towards a global multi-regional environmentally extended input–output database. Ecol Econ 68:1928–1937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. UNFCCC (2015) The Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement. Accessed 30 Dec 2018
  50. Vickers J, Fisher B, Nebel B (2018) The carbon footprint of New Zealand’s built environment: hotspot or not? thinkstep Ltd. https://www.thinkstep.com/content/hidden-building-pollution-exposed-new-report. Accessed 10 Dec 2018
  51. Ward J, Sammon P, Dundas G, Peszko G, Kennedy P, Wienges S, Prytz N (2015) Carbon leakage theory, evidence and policy design. The World Bank, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  52. Wiedmann T (2009) A review of recent multi-region input–output models used for consumption-based emission and resource accounting. Ecol Econ 69:211–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wiedmann T, Wilting HC, Lenzen M, Lutter S, Palm V (2011) Quo Vadis MRIO? Methodological, data and institutional requirements for multi-region input–output analysis. Ecol Econ 70:1937–1945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wood R, Minx JC, Lenzen M, Guan D, Harris R (2010) A carbon footprint time series of the UK — results from a multi-region input–output model. Econ Syst Res 22:19–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yu Y, Feng K, Hubacek K, Sun L (2016) Global implications of China’s future food consumption. J Ind Ecol 20:593–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yu Y, Hubacek K, Feng K, Guan D (2010) Assessing regional and global water footprints for the UK. Ecol Econ 69:1140–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New Zealand Life Cycle Management Centrec/o Massey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand
  2. 2.School of Agriculture and EnvironmentMassey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand
  3. 3.ISA, School of PhysicsThe University of SydneyNew South WalesAustralia
  4. 4.Sydney Business SchoolThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  5. 5.School of Agriculture and FoodThe University of MelbourneVictoriaAustralia

Personalised recommendations