Advertisement

Exergy-Based Responsibility Allocation of Climate Change

  • Hossein Khajehpour
  • Yadollah Saboohi
  • George Tsatsaronis
Chapter

Abstract

Climate change as a serious environmental issue has been subjected to many management studies. Yet the issue of allocating global responsibilities to emission reduction in a reasonable way is an unconcluded challenge. Two main groups of responsibility allocation systems are production-based responsibilities (PBR) and consumption-based responsibilities (CBR). PBR takes territorial emissions within borders into account that is applied to global policy makings by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In contrast, CBR considers the emission transfers through international trade and allocates the responsibilities based on the goods and services being consumed by each country. Both two methods are discouraged by some logics. The PBR does not consider the effects of indirect emissions of imported materials/services. By contrast, in the CBR the consumer is the only one being charged for the emission costs, ignoring the profitability of the emissions for the producers, thus lowering incentives of exporters toward greener production (usually developing nations). Moreover, the calculation of the embodied emissions in the CBR method requires massive interindustry and intercountry trade data. This research aims at defining and applying a new less data-intensive method for the calculation of embodied carbon loads on streams on the one hand and sharing environmental responsibilities (SBRs) among producers and consumers on the other hand. The method is based on thermodynamic quantities to internalize the external environmental damages using the exergy concept. The main notion of the new method is that the traceable exergy destruction could be representative of environmental burdens. Therefore, shared responsibilities motivate net importers (i.e., developed nations) to buy from greener producers and simultaneously push net exporters (i.e., developing nations) toward greener production to reduce their responsibilities. In this study, the global model is simplified into three country categories: developed countries, BRIICS, and rest of the world. The emission transfers are calculated using international trade statistics and are applied to the developed shared responsibility accounting model. Shared responsibilities lie between PBR and CBR. However, derived SBR recommends higher contribution of producers to reduce emissions.

Keywords

Climate change Responsibility Exergy Trade Allocation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study has been done with the support of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation/Stiftung, the Climate Protection Program.

References

  1. Aguiar, A., Narayanan, B., & McDougall, R. (2016). An overview of the GTAP 9 data base. Journal of Global Economic Analysis, 1(1), 28.  https://doi.org/10.21642/jgea.010103af.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrew, R., Peters, G. P., & Lennox, J. (2009). Approximation and regional aggregation in multi-regional input–output analysis for national carbon footprint accounting. Economic Systems Research, 21(3), 311–335.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09535310903541751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bastianoni, S., Pulselli, F. M., & Tiezzi, E. (2004). The problem of assigning responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions. Ecological Economics, 49(3), 253–257.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.01.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caldeira, K., & Davis, S. J. (2011). Accounting for carbon dioxide emissions: A matter of time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(21), 8533–8534.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1106517108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis, S. J., & Caldeira, K. (2010). Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(12), 5687–5692.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906974107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, S. J., Peters, G. P., & Caldeira, K. (2011). The supply chain of CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(45), 18554–18559.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1107409108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eder, P., & Narodoslawsky, M. (1999). What environmental pressures are a region’s industries responsible for? A method of analysis with descriptive indices and input–output models. Ecological Economics, 29(3), 359–374.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00092-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ISO. (2006). ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland, International Standard Organization: ISO/TC 207/SC 5 Life cycle assessment. 13.020.60 Product life-cycles: 46.Google Scholar
  9. Jakob, M., & Marschinski, R. (2013). Interpreting trade-related CO2 emission transfers. Nature Climate Change, 3(1), 19–23.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kander, A., Jiborn, M., Moran, D. D., & Wiedmann, T. O. (2015). National greenhouse-gas accounting for effective climate policy on international trade. Nature Climate Change, 5(5), 431–435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Khajehpour, H., Saboohi, Y., & Tsatsaronis, G. (2017). Environmental responsibility accounting in complex energy systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166(Supplement C), 998–1009.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., & Geschke, A. (2013). Building Eora: A global multi-region input–output database at high country and sector resolution. Economic Systems Research, 25(1), 20–49.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2013.769938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lenzen, M., Murray, J., Sack, F., & Wiedmann, T. (2007). Shared producer and consumer responsibility—Theory and practice. Ecological Economics, 61(1), 27–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Odum, H. T. (1996). Environmental accounting: Emergy and environmental decision making. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. OECD. (2016). OECD inter-country input-output (ICIO) tables (2016 ed.). Paris, France, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Retrieved October 20, 2017, from http://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/inter-country-input-output-tables.htm.
  16. Peters, G. P., & Hertwich, E. G. (2008). CO2 Embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(5), 1401–1407.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es072023k.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Peters, G. P., Marland, G., Hertwich, E. G., Saikku, L., Rautiainen, A., & Kauppi, P. E. (2009). Trade, transport, and sinks extend the carbon dioxide responsibility of countries: An editorial essay. Climatic Change, 97(3), 379.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9606-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Peters, G. P., Minx, J. C., Weber, C. L., & Edenhofer, O. (2011). Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(21), 8903–8908.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1006388108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rocco, M. V. (2016). Chapter 6: Case studies: Applications of the Exergy based Input-Output analysis. In Primary exergy cost of goods and services: An input–output approach (pp. 101–137). Cham: Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43656-2_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rodrigues, J., & Domingos, T. (2008). Consumer and producer environmental responsibility: Comparing two approaches. Ecological Economics, 66(2), 533–546.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Timmer, M. P., Dietzenbacher, E., Los, B., Stehrer, R., & de Vries, G. J. (2015). An illustrated user guide to the world input–output database: The case of global automotive production. Review of International Economics, 23(3), 575–605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/roie.12178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. UEROSTAT. (2017). Material flow accounts—Flows in raw material equivalents. Luxembourg, Eurostat - Statistical Office of the European Union. Retrieved October 23, 2017, from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/env_ac_mfa.
  23. UN-Comtrade. (2017). 2016 International trade statistics yearbook: Volume I—Trade by Country. New York, USA, United Nations Statistics Division/Department of Economic and Social Affairs. http://dx.doi.org/10.18356/78d35343-en.
  24. United Nations. (2017a). International standard industrial classification of all economic activities, Rev. 4. United Nations Statistics Division. Retrieved October 22, 2017, from https://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcst.asp?Cl=27.
  25. United Nations. (2017b). World economic situation and prospects 2017. New York, United Nations publication Sales No. E.17.II.C.2. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/publication/2017wesp_full_en.pdf.
  26. Wiebe, K., & Yamano, N. (2016). Estimating CO2 emissions embodied in final demand and trade using the OECD ICIO 2015. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlrcm216xkl-en.
  27. Wood, R., Stadler, K., Bulavskaya, T., Lutter, S., Giljum, S., de Koning, A., et al. (2015). Global sustainability accounting: Developing EXIOBASE for multi-regional footprint analysis. Sustainability, 7(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su7010138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. WTO. (2017). World Trade Statistical Review 2017, Economic Research and Statistics Division and International Trade Statistics Section, World Trade Organization. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2017_e/wts17_toc_e.htm.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hossein Khajehpour
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yadollah Saboohi
    • 1
  • George Tsatsaronis
    • 2
  1. 1.Energy Engineering DepartmentSharif University of TechnologyTehranIran
  2. 2.Energy Engineering and Environmental Protection, Energy Engineering Institute, Berlin Technical UniversityBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations