Greenhouse gas emissions due to national product consumption: from demand and research gaps to addressing key challenges

  • B. WindspergerEmail author
  • A. Windsperger
  • D. N. Bird
  • H. Schwaiger
  • G. Jungmeier
  • C. Nathani
  • R. Frischknecht
Original Paper


In recent years, accounting for greenhouse gas emissions due to national consumption has been of increasing interest, as transformative strategies towards a “low-carbon” economy are inevitable to restrict climate change below 2 °C temperature increase. Thus, every country has to implement effective measures to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions at global level by including impacts abroad due to international trade and avoiding the outsourcing of emissions (“carbon leakage”). The sources and origins of emissions should be known to elaborate appropriate emission reduction strategies, requiring a detailed investigation of products in consumption. This article aims at investigating whether an accounting of emissions due to national consumption of products is considered as important and feasible with current methods, what future research gaps are, and how they can be solved by presenting new methodical approaches in the form of life cycle-based physical supply chains. The results have shown that existing methods are based mainly on monetary data at sectoral level, so that a detailed analysis of the national consumption of products is still missing and global effects as “carbon leakage” cannot be identified. Nevertheless, the demand for calculating consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions at product level was confirmed in various studies, but is currently seen as too complex and time-consuming. Finally, proposed methodical solutions to address existing research gaps were elaborated and applied exemplarily for the mineral sector in Austria and shall further serve as a kind of guidance how an accounting of emissions due to national consumption of products can be put in practice.


Carbon leakage Consumption-based emission accounting Life cycle analysis Material flows Process chain analysis Product-based approach 



This article arose from the research project climAconsum, funded by the Austrian Climate Research Programme (ACRP, 7th Call) of the Austrian Climate and Energy Fund. The article benefited a lot from an extensive discussion within the project team. The authors further thank the anonymous reviewers of this journal.


  1. Bruckner M, Giljum S, Khoroshun O, Lutz C, Wiebe K (2009) Die Klimabilanz des österreichischen Außenhandels. Klima- und Energiefonds, WienGoogle Scholar
  2. Csutora M, Mózner ZV (2014) Proposing a beneficiary-based shared responsibility approach for calculating national carbon accounts during the post-Kyoto era. Clim Policy 14(5):599–616. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davis SJ, Caldeira K (2010) Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. PNAS 107(12):5687–5693. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dawkins E, Croft S (2017) Consumption-based accounting reveals global redistribution of carbon emissions. Discussion Brief. Stockholm Environment Institute, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  5. Dittrich M, Bringezu S, Schütz H (2012) The physical dimension of international trade. Part 2. Indirect global resource flows between 1962 and 2005. Ecol Econ 79:32–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fischer-Kowalski M, Krausmann F, Giljum S, Lutter S, Mayer A, Bringezu S, Moriguchi Y, Schütz H, Schandl H, Weisz H (2011) Methodology and indicators of economy wide material flow accounting state of the art and reliability across sources. J Ind Ecol 15:855–876. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frischknecht R, Nathani C, Büsser Knöpfel S, Itten R, Wyss F, Hellmüller P (2014) Entwicklung der weltweiten Umweltauswirkungen der Schweiz. Umweltbelastung von Konsum und Produktion von 1996 bis 2011. Bundesamt für Umwelt, Bern. Umwelt-Wissen Nr. 1413. Accessed 16 May 2018
  8. Hertwich EG, Larsen N, Pettersen I, Solli C (2008) Climate calculators and expert systems. In: Hargreaves T (eds) (2011) Proceedings: sustainable consumption and production: framework for action, 10–11 Mar 2008. Conference of the Sustainable Consumption Research Exchange (SCORE!) Network, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, prepared by the national greenhouse gas inventories programme. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) Chapter 4: Methodological choice and identification of key categories, vol 1. IGES, JapanGoogle Scholar
  10. IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. In: Working group I contribution to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Jungbluth N, Steiner R, Frischknecht R (2007) Graue Treibhausgas-Emissionen der Schweiz: 1990 bis 2004: Erweiterte und aktualisierte Bilanz. UW-0711. ESU-services, Uster, im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Umwelt (BAFU), Bern, CH, retrieved from: Accessed 16 May 2018
  12. Jungbluth N, Nathani C, Stucki M, Leuenberger M (2011) Environmental impacts of Swiss consumption and production: a combination of input–output analysis with life cycle assessment. Environmental studies no. 1111. ESU-services Ltd. & Rütter + Partner, commissioned by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Bern, CH, retrieved from Accessed 16 May 2018
  13. Kander A, Jiborn M, Moran DD, Wiedmann TO (2015) National greenhouse-gas accounting for effective climate policy on international trade. Nat Clim Change. Google Scholar
  14. Lenzen M, Murray J, Sack F, Wiedmann T (2006) Shared producer and consumer responsibility—theory and practice. Ecol Econ 61:27–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lininger C (2015) Consumption-based approaches in international climate policy. Springer Climate. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liu H, Fan X (2017) Value-added-based accounting of CO2 emissions: a multi-regional input–output approach. Sustainability 2017(9):2220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu H, Liu W, Fan X, Zou W (2015) Carbon emissions embodied in demand-supply chains in China. Energy Econ 50:294–305. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lutter S, Giljum S, Bruckner M (2016) A review and comparative assessment of existing approaches to calculate material footprints. Ecol Econ 127:1–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maurer C, Cronenberg A, Steinbach J, Ragwitz M, Duscha V, Fleiter T, Braungardt S, Wachter K, Sievers L, Pfaff M (2016) Grünbuch für eine integrierte Energie- und Klimastrategie. Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Wissenschaft und Bundesministerium für ein Lebenswertes Österreich, WienGoogle Scholar
  20. Munoz P, Steininger KW (2010) Austria’s CO2 responsibility and the carbon content of its international trade. Ecol Econ 69:2003–2019. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nathani C, Schneider M, Frischknecht R, Kopainsky B, Stolz P, Tribaldos T (2017) The economic and environmental impact of Swiss food consumption. Working paper. NRP 69 project “Environmental-economic models for evaluating the sustainability of the Swiss agri-food system”. Rütter Soceco AG, treeze Ltd, Flury & Giuliani GmbH, Rüschlikon/Uster/Zürich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  22. Peters GP (2008) From production-based to consumption-based national emission inventories. Ecol Econ 65(1):13–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peters GP, Hertwich EG (2008) CO2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy. Environ Sci Technol 42(5):1401–1407. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peters GP, Andrew RM, Boden T, Canadell JG, Ciais P, Le Quere C, Marland G, Raupach MR, Wilson C (2013) The challenge to keep global warming below 2 °C. Nat Clim Change 3:4–6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sato M (2012) Carbon Emissions and bilateral trade. A thesis submitted to the Department of Geography and Environment of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of PhilosophyGoogle Scholar
  26. Schaffartzik A, Eisenmenger N, Krausmann F, Weisz H (2014) Consumption-based material flow accounting. J Ind Ecol 18(1):102–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schaffartzik A, Eisenmenger N, Krausmann F (2015) Resource use in Austria—report 2015. Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry Environment and Water Management, Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  28. Schorcht F, Kourti I, Scalet BM, Roudier S, Sancho LD (2013) Best available techniques (BAT) reference document for the production of cement, lime and magnesium oxide—industrial emissions directive 2010/75/EU integrated pollution prevention and control. European Commission—Joint Research Centre.
  29. Statistics Austria (2017) CPA 2008–CN 2013. Accessed 17 May 2018
  30. Tukker A, Huppes G, Guinée J, Heijungs R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Suh S, Geerken T, Holderbeke MV, Jansen B, Nielsen P (2006) Environmental impact of products (EIPRO): analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to the final consumption of the EU-25. Accessed 17 May 2018
  31. Wiedmann T (2009) A review of recent multi-region input–output models used for consumption-based emission and resource accounting. Ecol Econ 69:211–222. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wieland H, Giljum S, Bruckner M, Owen A, Wood R (2017) Structural production layer decomposition: a new method to measure differences between MRIO databases for footprint assessments. Econ Syst Res 30(1):61–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Windsperger
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Windsperger
    • 1
  • D. N. Bird
    • 2
  • H. Schwaiger
    • 2
  • G. Jungmeier
    • 2
  • C. Nathani
    • 3
  • R. Frischknecht
    • 4
  1. 1.Institut für Industrielle ÖkologieSt. PöltenAustria
  2. 2.JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbHGrazAustria
  3. 3.Rütter Soceco AGRüschlikonSwitzerland
  4. 4.treeze Ltd.UsterSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations