Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 221–239 | Cite as

Swedish CO2 Emissions 1993–2006: An Application of Decomposition Analysis and Some Methodological Insights

  • Åsa Löfgren
  • Adrian Muller
Article

Abstract

This study undertakes a decomposition analysis to identify the drivers of carbon dioxide emissions change in the Swedish business and industry sectors 1993–2006. On aggregate, energy intensity decreased, but this does not seem to have been very important for reducing emissions. Rather, fuel substitution seems to have been more important, which is in line with findings from the decomposition literature on Sweden. However, at the sectoral level, we find no clear pattern of the effect of fuel substitution and energy intensity on emissions. We also draw some methodological conclusions: decomposition analysis should be undertaken at the most disaggregate level possible; assessing decomposition results by summing results over several time periods leads to biased results; and decomposition analysis should not be based only on some initial and final years of a long time period. Furthermore, we address the problem of double counting energy flows in decomposition analysis of aggregate effects when the energy sector is included, and point out potential problems related to output measured in monetary terms.

Keywords

Carbon dioxide emissions Decomposition Energy intensity Fuel substitution Sectoral change 

Abbreviations

GHG

Greenhouse gas

LMDI

Logarithmic Mean Divisia Index

JEL Classification

C02 Q40 Q54 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albrecht J, Frano̧is D, Schoors K (2002) A Shapley decomposition of carbon emissions without residuals. Energy Policy 39: 727–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ang BW (1995) Decomposition methodology in industrial energy demand analysis. Energy 20(11): 1081–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ang BW (2004) Decomposition analysis for policymaking in energy: which is the preferred method?. Energy Policy 32: 1131–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ang BW (2006) Monitoring changes in economy-wide energy efficiency: From energy GDP ratio to composite efficiency index. Energy Policy 34: 574–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ang BW, Choi Ki-Hong (1997) Decomposition of aggregate energy and gas emission intensities for industry: a refined divisia index method. Energy J 18(3): 59–73Google Scholar
  6. Ang BW, Liu N (2001) A new energy decomposition method: perfect in decomposition and consistent in aggregation. Energy 26: 537–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ang BW, Liu N (2007) Handling zero values in the logarithmic mean divisia index decomposition approach. Energy Policy 35(1): 238–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ang BW, Liu N (2007) Negative value problems of the logarithmic mean divisia index decomposition approach. Energy Policy 35(1): 739–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ang BW, Liu N (2007) Energy decomposition analysis: IEA model versus other methods. Energy Policy 35(5): 1426–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ang BW, Huang HC, Mu AR (2009) Properties and linkages of some index decomposition analysis methods. Energy Policy 37: 4624–4632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Choi KH, Ang BW (2003) Decomposition of aggregate energy intensity changes in two measures: ratio and difference. Energy Econ 25(6): 615–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chung H, Rhee H (2001) A residual-free decomposition of the sources of carbon dioxide emissions: a case of the Korean Industries. Energy 26: 15–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cole MA, Elliot RJR, Shimamoto K (2005) A note on trends in European industrial pollution intensities: a divisia index approach. Energy J 26(3): 61–73Google Scholar
  14. Diakoulaki D, Mandaraka M (2007) Decomposition analysis for assessing the progress in decoupling industrial growth from CO2 emissions in the EU manufacturing sector. Energy Econ 29: 636–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ebohon OJ, Ikeme AJ (2006) Decomposition analysis of CO2 emission intensity between oilproducing and non-oil-producing sub-Saharan African countries. Energy Policy 34: 3599–3611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. EPA (2009) Average daily temperature archive, The University of Dayton and the US Environmental Protection Agency EPA, http://www.engr.udayton.edu/weather/default.htm (accessed 27.3.2009)
  17. Fernandez E, Fernandez P (2007) An extension to Sun’s decomposition methodology: the path based approach. Energy Econ 30: 1020–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greening LA, Davis WB, Schipper L, Khrushch M (1997) Comparison of six decomposition methods: application to aggregate energy intensity for manufacturing in 10 OECD countries. Energy Econ 19: 375–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamilton C, Turton H (2002) Determinants of emissions growth in OECD countries. Energy Policy 30: 63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaivo-oja J, Luukkanen J (2004) The European union balancing between CO2 reduction commitments and growth policies: decomposition analyses. Energy Policy 32: 1511–1530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kander A, Lindmark M (2006) Foreign trade and declining pollution in Sweden: a decomposition analysis of long-term structural and technological effects. Energy Policy 34: 1590–1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lescaroux F (2008) Decomposition of US manufacturing energy intensity and elasticities of components with respect to energy prices. Energy Econ 30: 1068–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liaskas K, Mavrotas G, Mandaraka M, Diakoulaki D (2000) Decomposition of industrial CO2 emissions: the case of European Union. Energy Econ 22: 383–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lin XQ, Chang TC (1996) Decomposition of SO2, NOx and CO2 emissions from energy use of major economic sectors in Taiwan. Energy J 17(1): 1–17Google Scholar
  25. Liu N, Ang BW (2007) Factors shaping aggregate energy intensity trend for industry: Energy intensity versus product mix. Energy Econ 29: 609–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu L-C, Fan Y, Wu G, Wei Y-M (2007) Using LMDI method to analyze the change of China’s industrial CO2 emissions from final fuel use: an empirical analysis. Energy Policy 35: 5892–5900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. LSE (1994) Lagen om skatt påenergi (1994:1776; the Swedish energy tax law. http://www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/lag/19941776.htm (accessed 27.3.2009)
  28. Luukkanen J, Kaivo-oja J (2002) ASEAN tigers and sustainability of energy use—decomposition analysis of energy and CO2 efficiency dynamics. Energy Policy 30: 281–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ma C, Stern DI (2008) China’s changing energy intensity trend: a decomposition analysis. Energy Econ 30: 1037–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Muller A (2008) Clarifying poverty decomposition, Scandinavian working papers in Economics 217Google Scholar
  31. Muller A (2007) Putting decomposition of energy use and pollution on a firm footing—clarifications on the residual, zero and negative values and strategies to assess the performance of decomposition methods, Scandinavian working papers in Economics, 215Google Scholar
  32. Paul S, Bhattacharya RN (2004) CO2 emission from energy use in India: a decomposition analysis. Energy Policy 32: 585–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schipper L, Murtishaw S, Khrushch M, Ting M, Karbuz S, Unander F (2001) Carbon emissions from manufacturing energy use in 13 IEA countries: long-term trends through 1995. Energy Policy 29: 667–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Torvanger A (1991) Manufacturing sector carbon dioxide emissions in nine OECD countries 1973–1987. Energy Econ 13(3): 168–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Unander F, Karbuz S, Schipper L, Khrushch M, Ting M (1999) Manufacturing energy use in OECD countries: decomposition of long-term trends. Energy Policy 27: 769–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Viguier L (1999) Emissions of SO2, NOx and CO2 in transition economies: emission inventories and divisia index analysis. Energy J 20(2): 59–87Google Scholar
  37. Wing IS (2008) Explaining the declining energy intensity of the U.S. economy. Resour Energy Econ 30: 21–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Socioeconomic InstituteUniversity of ZürichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations