Consumption-based versus production-based accounting of CO2 emissions: Is there evidence for carbon leakage?

As a complement of production-based accounting (PBA), consumption-based accounting (CBA) provides an alternative perspective to understand national emissions and responsibilities for global climate change. Existing studies assessed historical national emissions under CBA. However, how CBA might guide future mitigation under the Paris Agreement goals has not been well understood. By combining global multi-region input-output analysis and the equity principle of ‘equal cumulative per capita emissions’ (ECPCE), this study explores potential implications of CBA for future national emissions budgets to limit global warming to below 1.5°C. Historically, consumption-based greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were higher than production-based emissions in most developed countries while lower in many developing countries. When CBA is used instead of PBA to allocate emissions budgets by ECPCE, future GHG mitigation burdens would become more stringent in 70% of Annex I (mostly developed) countries but slightly smaller in 55% of non-Annex I (mostly developing) countries. In particular, more than half of Annex I countries might need to achieve negative GHG budgets under 1.5°C. Our analysis emphasizes that, as net emission importers, developed countries could strive to pay equal attention to achieving consumption-based and production-based emissions reductions, and strengthen technological and financial support to developing countries that undertake production outsourcing. As net emission exporters, with international support and domestic investment, developing countries could pragmatically promote energy structure optimization and technological innovation to accelerate the decarbonization of production. To support the Paris Agreement goals, mitigation contributions initiated from the perspective of CBA could also be welcomed. Key policy insights Developed countries shift emissions to developing countries through international trade. CBA increases historical responsibilities of developed countries for climate warming from the PBA assessments. Compared to PBA, CBA has clear implications on future national emissions budgets under responsibility-based allocations, but does not change the urgency of national mitigation required to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. Allocated by ECPCE, future GHG budgets for over 50% of the world’s countries would be run out before 2040 under 1.5°C at the 2015 emissions rates, using either CBA or PBA. According to different roles in global supply chains, developed countries should step up support to help developing countries improve emissions and energy intensities, which is a key to reducing emissions embodied in trade.

Low carbon cities in 2050? GHG emissions of European cities using production-based and consumption-based emission accounting methods

Comment on “Consumption-based versus production-based accounting of CO2 emissions: Is there evidence for carbon leakage?”

A series of studies has recently used emissions embodied in net imports (EENI) to argue for the consumption‐based accounting (CBA) approach. These publications have been generating much attention from the media and academia for ‘providing an opportunity to inform effective climate policy’. However, policymakers must be cautious when considering if CBA can be used to replace or just to supplement current practice of production‐based accounting (PBA). Terms such as ‘carbon leakage’, ‘emissions transfers’, and ‘CO2 outsourcing’ have been uncritically overused as there is little evidence that EENI is the result of climate policy. Furthermore, CBA overlooks ‘insourcing’ of polluting industries by producing regions when blaming consumers for emissions. To avoid misinformation, EENI should be called just that. CBA's practicality is limited as it involves more data‐intensive calculations and higher transaction costs than PBA. The success of CBA will rely on consumers to put pressure on producers. Eventually, it is still producers that need to reduce emissions. PBA is more practical by directly placing pressure on producers along with environmental laws and regulations. CBA will be counter‐productive to global emissions control if producers increase emissions due to reduced responsibility over the emissions incurred by the production of their exports. However, CBA could be used to persuade consumers to choose low‐emissions products, support producers' sustainability efforts, and reduce nonbasic consumption. WIREs Clim Change 2015, 6:1–8. doi: 10.1002/wcc.325This article is categorized under: Climate Economics > Economics of Mitigation The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Policies, Instruments, Lifestyles, Behavior

Analysis of provincial CO2 emission peaking in China: Insights from production and consumption

ABSTRACTExisting studies focus on either direct emissions of each province in China using production-based accounting (i.e. direct emitters) or emissions caused by the final consumption of each province using consumption-based accounting (i.e. final consumers), but overlook provinces whose final sales drive large amounts of upstream emissions (i.e. final producers). Improving the production efficiency of the latter can help to reduce national emissions. Here we use a final production-based accounting framework to identify critical final producers. Results show that the major final producers leading to China’s emissions are Hebei, Shandong, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Guangdong, which are the major manufacturing centers in China. China should encourage the production efficiency improvement of dominant firms in industries of these provinces. The final production-based accounting framework can also help to define and allocate emission responsibilities of Chinese provinces. It can complement production-based and consumption-based accounting frameworks to guide environmental policy-making in China.

Exploring the characteristics of production-based and consumption-based carbon emissions of major economies: A multiple-dimension comparison

To achieve carbon neutrality (i.e., net zero carbon emissions) by 2060, China must make significant changes in its socioeconomic systems, including appropriately allocating emissions responsibility. Traditional methods of delineating responsibilities (such as production-based and consumption-based accounting) can lead to double counting when applied simultaneously and therefore difficulty in determining responsibilities of different agents. An alternative approach based on economic welfare gains from environmental externalities has been refined, ensuring that the responsibilities of consumers and producers add up to the total emissions. The application of this approach to 48 countries and 31 Chinese provinces reveals that regions with less elastic supply and demand, such as Hebei in China and Russia, have higher responsibilities. Furthermore, larger externalities associated with unitary product value shift the burden of obligations from producers to consumers. Regions with high levels of wealth and carbon-intensive imports, such as Zhejiang and Guangdong in China, as well as the United States, typically have higher consumer-based accounting (CBA) emissions than production-based accounting (PBA) emissions and, as a result, redistributed responsibilities between PBA and CBA emissions. The new distribution results vary significantly from PBA or CBA emissions, indicating opportunities for more comprehensive and accessible policy goals.

Conjugation of border and domestic carbon adjustment and implications under production and consumption-based accounting of India's National Emission Inventory: A recursive dynamic CGE analysis

Allocation of carbon emission responsibility among Chinese cities guided by economic welfare gains: Case study based on multi-regional input-output analysis

In the literature on the attribution of responsibilities for greenhouse gas emissions, two accounting methods have been widely discussed: production-based accounting (PBA) and consumption-based accounting (CBA). It has been argued that an accounting framework for attributing responsibilities should credit actions contributing to reduce global emissions and should penalize actions increasing them. Neither PBA nor CBA satisfy this principle. Adapting classical Ricardian trade theory, we consider ex post measurement and propose a scheme for assigning credits and penalties. Their size is determined by how much CO2 emissions are saved globally due to trade. This leads to the emission responsibility allotment (ERA) for assigning responsibilities. We illustrate the differences between ERA and PBA and CBA by comparing their results for 41 countries and regions between 1995–2009. The Paris Agreement (COP21) proposed new market mechanisms; we argue that ERA is well suited to measure and evaluate their overall mitigation impact.

Reply to the comment by Zhang and Fang (2019) on consumption-based versus production-based accounting of CO2 emissions

Reply to the Comment by Zhang and Fang (2019) on Consumption-Based Versus Production-Based Accounting of CO2 Emissions

Sharing responsibility for trade-related emissions based on economic benefits

Indonesia's contribution to global carbon flows: Which sectors are most responsible for the emissions embodied in trade?