6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Quo Vadis MRIO? Methodological, data and institutional requirements for multi-region input–output analysis

      , , , ,

      Ecological Economics

      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 58

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment.

          Life Cycle Assessment is a tool to assess the environmental impacts and resources used throughout a product's life cycle, i.e., from raw material acquisition, via production and use phases, to waste management. The methodological development in LCA has been strong, and LCA is broadly applied in practice. The aim of this paper is to provide a review of recent developments of LCA methods. The focus is on some areas where there has been an intense methodological development during the last years. We also highlight some of the emerging issues. In relation to the Goal and Scope definition we especially discuss the distinction between attributional and consequential LCA. For the Inventory Analysis, this distinction is relevant when discussing system boundaries, data collection, and allocation. Also highlighted are developments concerning databases and Input-Output and hybrid LCA. In the sections on Life Cycle Impact Assessment we discuss the characteristics of the modelling as well as some recent developments for specific impact categories and weighting. In relation to the Interpretation the focus is on uncertainty analysis. Finally, we discuss recent developments in relation to some of the strengths and weaknesses of LCA.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008.

            Despite the emergence of regional climate policies, growth in global CO(2) emissions has remained strong. From 1990 to 2008 CO(2) emissions in developed countries (defined as countries with emission-reduction commitments in the Kyoto Protocol, Annex B) have stabilized, but emissions in developing countries (non-Annex B) have doubled. Some studies suggest that the stabilization of emissions in developed countries was partially because of growing imports from developing countries. To quantify the growth in emission transfers via international trade, we developed a trade-linked global database for CO(2) emissions covering 113 countries and 57 economic sectors from 1990 to 2008. We find that the emissions from the production of traded goods and services have increased from 4.3 Gt CO(2) in 1990 (20% of global emissions) to 7.8 Gt CO(2) in 2008 (26%). Most developed countries have increased their consumption-based emissions faster than their territorial emissions, and non-energy-intensive manufacturing had a key role in the emission transfers. The net emission transfers via international trade from developing to developed countries increased from 0.4 Gt CO(2) in 1990 to 1.6 Gt CO(2) in 2008, which exceeds the Kyoto Protocol emission reductions. Our results indicate that international trade is a significant factor in explaining the change in emissions in many countries, from both a production and consumption perspective. We suggest that countries monitor emission transfers via international trade, in addition to territorial emissions, to ensure progress toward stabilization of global greenhouse gas emissions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions.

              CO(2) emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are the primary cause of global warming. Much attention has been focused on the CO(2) directly emitted by each country, but relatively little attention has been paid to the amount of emissions associated with the consumption of goods and services in each country. Consumption-based accounting of CO(2) emissions differs from traditional, production-based inventories because of imports and exports of goods and services that, either directly or indirectly, involve CO(2) emissions. Here, using the latest available data, we present a global consumption-based CO(2) emissions inventory and calculations of associated consumption-based energy and carbon intensities. We find that, in 2004, 23% of global CO(2) emissions, or 6.2 gigatonnes CO(2), were traded internationally, primarily as exports from China and other emerging markets to consumers in developed countries. In some wealthy countries, including Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, the United Kingdom, and France, >30% of consumption-based emissions were imported, with net imports to many Europeans of >4 tons CO(2) per person in 2004. Net import of emissions to the United States in the same year was somewhat less: 10.8% of total consumption-based emissions and 2.4 tons CO(2) per person. In contrast, 22.5% of the emissions produced in China in 2004 were exported, on net, to consumers elsewhere. Consumption-based accounting of CO(2) emissions demonstrates the potential for international carbon leakage. Sharing responsibility for emissions among producers and consumers could facilitate international agreement on global climate policy that is now hindered by concerns over the regional and historical inequity of emissions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ecological Economics
                Ecological Economics
                Elsevier BV
                09218009
                September 2011
                September 2011
                : 70
                : 11
                : 1937-1945
                Article
                10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.014
                © 2011

                Comments

                Comment on this article