Implications of the consumption-based accounting for future national emissions budgets

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and in particular CO2, are critical drivers of climate change, necessitating coordinated global efforts to mitigate their impact. This has led the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to launch several ambitious initiatives to curb its own emissions. However, there remain significant challenges when it comes to measuring outcomes, due to uncertainties in the existing methods and data. This current study therefore employs Production-Based (PB) and Consumption-Based (CB) emission accounting methods for KSA, emphasizing strategies to minimize the uncertainty inherent in these models. The results reveal that KSA is a net carbon exporter, with PB emissions (523 million tonnes CO2 equivalent (CO2e)) exceeding CB emissions (471 million tonnes CO2e). In addition, the validity of the applied methodology is supported by the literature. This research finds that private households form the largest contributors, along with sectors including electricity, land transport, water, and construction, as well as chemical, rubber, and plastic. The findings also confirm the potential for targeted policies to reduce emissions, i.e., the promotion of energy-efficient appliances, enhanced home insulation, public transportation, and recycling. Furthermore, this study highlights the importance of national investment in the accurate measurement of emissions and detailed energy statistics.

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

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.

Solely economic mitigation strategy suggests upward revision of nationally determined contributions

Much of the existing research analyses on emissions and climate policy are dominantly based on emissions data provided by production-based accounting (PBA) system. However, PBA provides an incomplete picture of driving forces behind these emission changes and impact of global trade on emissions, simply by neglecting the environmental impacts of consumption. To remedy this problem, several studies propose to consider national emissions calculated by consumption-based accounting (CBA) systems in greenhouse gas (GHG) assessments for progress and comparisons among the countries. In this article, we question the relevance of PBA's dominance. To this end, we, firstly, try to assess and compare PBA with CBA adopted in greenhouse gas emissions accounting systems in climate change debates on several issues and to discuss the policy implications of the choice of approach. Secondly, we investigate the convergence patterns in production-based and consumption-based emissions in 35 AnnexB countries for the period between 1990 and 2015. This study, for the first time, puts all these arguments together and discusses possible outcomes of convergence analysis by employing both the production- and consumption-based CO2 per capita emissions data. The empirical results found some important conclusions which challenge most of the existing CO2 convergence studies.

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

Quantifying international energy justice: The cost of electricity within footprint accounts

Close the carbon loophole

Searching appropriate system boundary for accounting India's emission inventory for the responsibility to reduce carbon emissions