Natural Hazards

, Volume 84, Supplement 1, pp 399–410 | Cite as

Indirect carbon emissions from household consumption between China and the USA: based on an input–output model

Original Paper


Based on an input–output model, this paper calculates carbon emissions from household energy consumption in 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2010 between China and the USA. By a comparative analysis of the two countries, the results indicate the following: (1) In terms of the total household indirect carbon emissions, the USA has always been at a higher level than China. However, in recent years, China has presented a rapidly rising trend. In contrast, the USA appears to be experiencing a downward trend. (2) Indirect carbon emissions from USA household consumption mainly focus on Residence; Education, Culture, and Recreation; and Transport and Communications. By comparison, residence accounts for 50 % of China’s household indirect carbon emissions, and seven other sectors are much less than the USA (3) Although the number of China’s household facilities is growing rapidly, the carbon emissions remain at a relatively steady level. (4) In terms of the absolute value of the indirect carbon emissions from housing, the USA maintains a steady 400 million ton, while China increased from 150 to 500 million ton over 2002–2010.


Indirect CO2 emissions Household energy consumption Industrial distribution IO method 



This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (Reference Nos. 71573015, 71303019 and 71521002). The authors would like to express their gratitude to Prof. Yiming Wei for his comments and suggestions.


  1. Druckman A, Jackson T (2009) The carbon footprint of UK households 1990–2004: a social-economically disaggregated quasi-multi-regional input–output model. Ecol Econ 68:2066–2077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dietz T, Gardner GT, Gilligan J, Stern PC, Vandenbergh MP (2009) Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(44):18452–18456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dong HJ, Geng Y (2012) Study on carbon footprint of the household consumption in Beijing based on input–output analysis. Resour Sci 34(3):494–501Google Scholar
  4. Feng ZH, Zou LL, Wei YM (2010) Study on the relationship between household living and CO2 emissions in China. Energy China 32(3):37–40Google Scholar
  5. Feng L, Lin T, Zhao QJ (2011a) Analysis of the dynamic characteristics of urban household energy use and carbon emissions in China. China Popul Resourc Environ 21(5):93–100Google Scholar
  6. Feng ZH, Zou LL, Wei YM (2011b) The impact of household consumption on energy use and CO2 emissions in China. Energy 36(1):656–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamamoto M (2013) Energy-saving behavior and marginal abatement cost for household CO2 emissions. Energy Policy 63:809–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heinonen J, Junnila S (2011) Implications of urban structure on carbon consumption in metropolitan areas. Environ Res Lett 6(1):14–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jones C, Kammen DM (2014) Spatial distribution of US household carbon footprints reveals suburbanization undermines greenhouse gas benefits of urban population density. Environ Sci Technol 48(2):895–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kok R, Benders RMJ, Moll HC (2006) Measuring the environmental load of household consumption using some methods based on input-output energy analysis: a comparison of methods and a discussion of results. Energy Policy 34(17):2744–2761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lenzen M (1998) Primary energy and greenhouse gases embodied in Australian final consumption: an input-output analysis. Energy Policy 26(6):495–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leontief WW (1936) Quantitative input and output relations in the economic systems of the United States. Rev Econ Stat 18(3):105–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liu XC, Sweeney J (2012) Modeling the impact of urban form on household energy demand and related CO2 emissions in the greater Dublin region. Energy Policy 46:359–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu JR, Peters GP, Wang RS, Yang JX (2007) Hybrid life cycle analysis and its applications in sustainable consumption researches. Acta Ecol Sin 27(12):5332–5336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liu LC, Wu G, Wang JN, Wei YM (2011) China’s carbon emissions from urban and rural households during 1992–2007. J Clean Prod 19(15):1754–1762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Munksgaard J, Pedersen KA, Wien M (2000) Impact of household consumption on CO2 emissions. Energy Econ 22(4):423–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pachauri S, Spreng D (2002) Direct and indirect energy requirements of household in India. Energy Policy 30(6):511–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Papathanasopoulou E (2010) Household consumption associated fossil fuel demand and carbon dioxide emissions: the case of Greece between 1990 and 2006. Energy Policy 38(8):4152–4162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wang Y, Shi MJ (2009) CO2 emission induced by urban household consumption in China. Chin J Popul Resour Environ 7(3):11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wang ZH, Liu W, Yin JH (2015) Driving forces of indirect carbon emissions from household consumption in China: an input–output decomposition analysis. Nat Hazards 75:S257–S272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weber C, Perrels A (2000) Modelling lifestyle effects on energy demand and related emissions. Energy Policy 28(8):549–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wei YM, Liu LC, Fan Y, Wu G (2007) The impact of lifestyle on energy use and CO2 emission: an empirical analysis of China's residents. Energy Policy 35(1):247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zhang LX, Wang CB, Song B (2013) Carbon emission reduction potential of a typical household biogas system in rural China. J Clean Prod 47:415–421Google Scholar
  24. Zhang XL, Luo LZ, Skitmore M (2015) Household carbon emission research: an analytical review of measurement, influencing factors and mitigation prospects. J  Clean Prod 103:873–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiao-Wei Ma
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jia Du
    • 1
    • 2
  • Meng-Ying Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yi Ye
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Energy and Environmental Policy ResearchBeijing Institute of TechnologyBeijingChina
  2. 2.School of Management and EconomicsBeijing Institute of TechnologyBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations