# main_mrio

name: EXIOBASE
url: http://www.exiobase.eu/
description:
  is a global, detailed Multi-regional Environmentally Extended
                      Supply and Use / Input Output (MR EE SUT/IOT) database. It was
                      developed by harmonizing and detailing SUT for a large number of
                      countries, estimating emissions and resource extractions by
                      industry, linking countries and industries by trade. The
                      international input-output table that can be used for the
                      analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the final
                      consumption of product groups. To facilitate the data
                      comparability, environmental accounts are provided in a
                      standardised classification.


name: WIOD
url: http://www.wiod.org/
description:
  that
                      provides the opportunity to analyse consequences of
                      fragmentation, e.g. shifting patterns in demand for skills in
                      labour markets, or local emissions. WIOD provides time-series of
                      world input-output tables for forty countries worldwide and a
                      model for the rest-of-the-world, covering the period from 1995
                      to 2011. These tables have been constructed in a clear
                      conceptual framework on the basis of officially published
                      input-output tables in conjunction with national accounts and
                      international trade statistics. In addition, WIOD provides data
                      on labour and capital inputs and pollution indicators at the
                      industry level that can be used in conjunction enlarging the
                      scope of possible applications.


name: Eora
url: http://www.worldmrio.com/
description:
  provides time series of high resolution IO tables with matching
                      environmental and social satellite accounts for 187 countries.
                      Full list, high-resolution heterogeneous classification, or
                      25-sector harmonised classification, raw data drawn from the UN&#8217;s
                      System of National Accounts and COMTRADE databases, Eurostat,
                      IDE/JETRO, and numerous national agencies, distinction between
                      basic prices and purchasers&#8217; prices through 5 mark-ups,
                      and reliability statistics (estimates of standard deviation) for
                      all results.

                  The database features 187 individual countries represented by a
                      total of 15,909 sectors, continuous coverage for the period
                      1990-2011 (satellite accounts to 2010). In terms of
                      environmental extensions, 35 types of environmental indicators
                      are featured covering air pollution, energy use, greenhouse gas
                      emissions, water use, Ecological Footprint, and Human
                      Appropriation of Net Primary Productivity.


name: OECD
url: http://oe.cd/icio
description:
  inter-country input-output (ICIO) table was first constructed
                      for the calculation of Trade in Value Added (TiVA) indicators
                      during a joint OECD-WTO project. In addition to the TiVA
                      indicators, extensions of the ICIO regarding CO<sub>2</sub>
                      emissions from fuel combustion (based on IEA CO<sub>2</sub>
                      data), energy used for electricity production (based on IEA
                      energy balances) and trade in employment are available.

                      The 2015 edition of the ICIO database includes 61 economies
                      covering OECD, EU28, G20, most East and South-east Asian
                      economies and a selection of South American countries. The
                      industry list has been expanded to cover 34 unique industrial
                      sectors, including 16 manufacturing and 14 services sectors. The
                      years covered are 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2008 to 2011, a time
                      series from 1995 to 2011.


name: GTAP
url: https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/
description:
  network of researchers
                      and policy makers conducting quantitative analysis of
                      international policy issues. GTAP is coordinated by the Center
                      for Global Trade Analysis in Purdue University&#8217;s
                      Department of Agricultural Economics. The centerpiece of the
                      Global Trade Analysis Project is the GTAP Data Base, a fully
                      documented, publicly available global data base which contains
                      complete bilateral trade information, transport and protection
                      linkages.

                      The GTAP database represents the world economy and is utilized by
                      thousands worldwide as a key input into contemporary applied
                      general equilibrium (AGE) analysis of global economic issues.
                      The current release, the GTAP 9 Data Base, features 2004, 2007
                      and 2011 reference years as well as 140 regions for all 57 GTAP
                      commodities. The GTAP 9 database is converted into a MRIO model
                      for calculation of environmental footprints for this website.
                      Environmental extensions include Energy Use, and various
                      greenhouse gas emissions.


# main_post

title: EU's climate target within reach thanks to the European Green Deal
slug: climate-policy-progress-and-unfinished-business-under-the-european-green-deal
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2024-01-18
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  Naysayers argue nothing can be done about climate change. Anarchists argue emissions are fault of the economic system. Europe may be about to prove both sides wrong.

excerpt:
  Naysayers argue nothing can be done about climate change. Anarchists argue emissions are fault of the economic system. Europe may be about to prove both sides wrong.

html:
  <p>Naysayers argue nothing can be done about climate change; action is too costly, disruptive, and technically challenging. Anarchists argue emissions are fault of the economic system; we need to overthrow capitalism and degrow the economy to reduce emissions. Europe may be about to prove both sides wrong.</p><p>Greenhouse gas emissions of European Union member states were <a href="https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-11/com_2023_653_glossy_en_0.pdf">32.5% lower in 2022 than in 1990</a>. In 2023, the EU managed a substantial emission reduction of <a href="https://globalcarbonbudget.org/carbonbudget2023/">five percentage points</a>, according to projections of the Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists. This substantial emission reduction is the result both of climate policy progress and high energy prices following Russia’s war on the Ukraine. If the EU successfully concludes and implements the European Commission’s climate policy proposals, it may be well on track to achieving its ambitious emissions targets of minus 55% in 2030 and net-zero in 2050.</p><p><a href="https://climate-advisory-board.europa.eu/news/eu-climate-advisory-board-focus-on-immediate-implementation-and-continued-action-to-achieve-eu-climate-goals">Unparalleled but incomplete progress</a> is the main finding of an assessment of European climate policy by the independent <a href="https://climate-advisory-board.europa.eu/">European Climate Advisory Board</a>, which was created under the EU’s climate law of 2022. The scientists point to large gaps in agriculture, which has not managed to reduce emissions at all. They miss systematic attention to saving energy and materials. They see substantial and unmet investment needs, in installations that will have very low running expenses. They identify opportunities for further emission reductions, some profitable such as the phase-out of fossil-fuel subsidies and other economic distortions in favour of resource overconsumption.</p><p><em>Late turn-around following costly mistakes.</em></p><p>Like the rest of the world, Europe is late in realizing the depth of change in development needed to build a zero-carbon economy and staking out a course of reaching that goal. Past mistakes, such as making oneself dependent on cheap Russian gas and investing heavily in diesel engines rather than car battery technology, imply costly course correction now. Before 2019, the EU had put in place a general climate policy architecture, including an Emissions Trading System which puts a price on emissions from large stationary polluters, national emission targets for buildings, transport and agriculture, and technology standards. The carbon price was low, and progress was piecemeal and always counteracted by policies in agriculture, transport, and industry that increased emissions.</p><p><em>Finally, real leadership</em></p><p>With the European Green Deal from 2020, the Commission under the impressive leadership of Ursula von der Leyen and supported by the European Parliament and Council, has undertaken comprehensive policy reform addressing many emission sources. Not all policy proposals have yet been approved, however, and many still need to be implemented by the member states. Implementation can be more or less ambitious, more or less effective, slow or fast. The Board finds that only a swift and effective implementation of the proposed policies will allow the EU to meet its emission target for 2030. A successful completion of the European Green Deal, which is well under way, would demonstrate European leadership in addressing one of the fundamental challenges of our times and put pressure on other governments.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2024/01/VonDerLeyen.webp" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy" width="1940" height="1266" srcset="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/size/w600/2024/01/VonDerLeyen.webp 600w, https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/size/w1000/2024/01/VonDerLeyen.webp 1000w, https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/size/w1600/2024/01/VonDerLeyen.webp 1600w, https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2024/01/VonDerLeyen.webp 1940w" sizes="(min-width: 720px) 720px"><figcaption>The European Commission is currently the most important force for emission reductions. Here Commission president Ursula von der Leyen. Picture: Etienne Ansotte, © EU</figcaption></figure><p><em>Opportunities to save tax money and the planet.</em></p><p>What struck me most in reviewing European climate policy is the persistence of policies that are both costly and cause of emissions. The European Court of Auditors has repeatedly criticised <a href="https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications?did=60760">fossil fuel subsidies, which have not been reduced</a> over the past decades. Further, tax breaks support excessive energy use, unsustainable agricultural practices, and large residences. Why do our politicians feel that this is a good use of our tax money? These are past mistakes that need to be urgently corrected, but they imply confronting special interest groups who benefit from public largess. Sometimes fossil fuel subsidies and energy tax breaks also benefit less well-off parts of the population. In these cases, the board recommends, targeted policies should be put in place to help people and businesses to adjust.</p><p><em>Despair or indifference? There is a better alternative.</em></p><p>The transition to net-zero will need to continue after 2030. Policy implementation is not at all trivial, from renovating an aging housing stock to constructing the required electricity grid. But the fact that the crucial milestone of a 55% reduction is well in sight demonstrates the feasibility of moving away from fossil fuels. With redoubling our efforts, rather than overthrowing the system or throwing up our hands in despair, we can solve one of the big challenges of our times! Denying progress, as both activists and populists are prone to do, falsely suggests that we are on the wrong way when we have finally begun to turn the ship around.</p><p>This post was published in Norwegian in <a href="https://www.dn.no/innlegg/klimapolitikk/european-green-deal/eus-green-deal/mulig-a-na-klimamalene-med-eus-gronne-giv/2-1-1584699">Dagens Næringsliv</a>.</p><p><em>Edgar Hertwich, a member of the EUs Climate Advisory Board, is professor at the <a href="https://www.ntnu.edu/indecol/">Norwegian University of Science and Technology</a> and currently a guest at the <a href="https://boku.ac.at/en/wiso/sec">University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences</a> and the <a href="https://iiasa.ac.at/">International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis</a> in Vienna.</em></p>

author_bio:
  I am professor of industrial ecology at the <a href="https://www.ntnu.edu/indecol/">Norwegian University of Science and Technology</a>. 


title: The Material and Carbon Footprint of Machinery Capital: A Dual Role in Climate Change
slug: the-material-and-carbon-footprint-of-machinery-capital-a-dual-role-in-climate-change
authors: Meng Jiang
published_at: 2023-12-20
author: Meng Jiang
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2023/12/DSC03927-Enhanced-NR.jpg
summary:
  by Meng Jiang and Edgar Hertwich

  Our world is increasingly mechanized, with machinery and equipment being integral to both industrial processes and our daily lives. From agricultural machines to advanced technology like graphics processors and renewable energy tools like solar panels, machinery is 

excerpt:
  by Meng Jiang and Edgar Hertwich

  Our world is increasingly mechanized, with machinery and equipment being integral to both industrial processes and our daily lives. From agricultural machines to advanced technology like graphics processors and renewable energy tools like solar panels, machinery is ubiquitous.  Machinery capital is essential, yet research in Environmental Science & Technology indicates that its manufacturing process alone contributes to significant carbon emissions and entails h

html:
  <p>by <a href="https://www.ntnu.edu/employees/meng.jiang">Meng Jiang</a> and <a href="https://www.ntnu.edu/employees/edgar.hertwich">Edgar Hertwich</a></p><p>Our world is increasingly mechanized, with machinery and equipment being integral to both industrial processes and our daily lives. From agricultural machines to advanced technology like graphics processors and renewable energy tools like solar panels, machinery is ubiquitous.  Machinery capital is essential, yet research in <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c06180">Environmental Science &amp; Technology</a> indicates that its manufacturing process alone contributes to significant carbon emissions and entails heavy consumption of metals and materials.</p><h2 id="the-carbon-and-material-footprint-of-machinery">The Carbon and Material Footprint of Machinery</h2><p>In this study, we integrated input-output analysis with dynamic material flow analysis to understand the material and carbon footprints of machinery. In 2019, machinery production required 30% of global metal production and contributed to 8% of global carbon emissions. Moreover, from 2000 to 2019, the metal footprint of machinery stocks grew at a rate twice that of the global economy.</p><p>The complexity of machinery's role in climate change is highlighted. On one hand, machinery is crucial for climate mitigation technologies and services, but on the other, its production and lifecycle are heavily carbon-intensive.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2023/12/image.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy" width="602" height="275" srcset="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/size/w600/2023/12/image.png 600w, https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2023/12/image.png 602w"><figcaption>Figure 1. Metal footprints in machinery and equipment capital stock: in 2019, 2000 and changes in the global share.</figcaption></figure><h2 id="key-findings-and-global-implications">Key Findings and Global Implications</h2><p>A detailed breakdown of the carbon footprints associated with machinery production is presented, along with a regional comparison of carbon, material, and metal footprints within machinery and equipment capital stock.</p><p>Industrialized countries use 2−4.5 tons of metals per capita to build their stock of machinery and equipment, while many developing countries dispose only of a tenth of that amount.</p><p>To illustrate the global implications and scale, we spotlight key countries. Around 2008, China's total machinery capital stock, indicated by the metal footprint of machinery stock, exceeded that of the United States. By 2019, it had doubled, though its per capita level still remained at only half of that in the US.</p><p>The growth rate and absolute increase in developing regions significantly surpassed those in developed countries. Consequently, the share of advanced economies in the global material footprint of machinery stock declined from 51% to 34%. This shift was more pronounced in machinery used in production industries (extraction, manufacturing, and machinery), where in 2019, advanced economies accounted for only 24% of the worldwide share, a decrease from 45%.</p><h2 id="towards-a-circular-economy">Towards a Circular Economy</h2><p>We discuss the concept of depreciation in the financial sector and its discrepancy with the actual service life of physical machinery. For instance, a five-year-old car might lose half its value on the book, but more than 50% of such cars are still in use. It indicates that the physical assets continue to serve long after their book value has depreciated.</p><p>Understanding the relationship between a machine's tangible value and its environmental impact is vital for both financial and environmental strategy. For instance, in scope 3 emissions accounting, the methodology a company uses to calculate capital-related emissions greatly affects reported data and shapes responsibility allocation.</p><p>Our findings point towards an essential transition: as physical machinery stocks saturate, new machinery can increasingly be built from metals recycled from retired machinery. This shift is vital for moving towards a more sustainable and circular economy, where waste is minimized and resources are reused efficiently.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2023/12/image-1.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy" width="603" height="573" srcset="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/size/w600/2023/12/image-1.png 600w, https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2023/12/image-1.png 603w"><figcaption><em>Figure 2. Metal footprint embodied in machinery stock: Comparison of the physical world vs. financial present values. The metal footprint is calculated by using the survival curve (SV) and depreciating rates (DP) for different countries.</em></figcaption></figure><h2 id="conclusion">Conclusion</h2><p>Machinery holds a dual role in the battle against climate change. As an essential component of industrial and daily life, its environmental impact is also significant. The presented analysis lays the foundation for future research and policymaking. It underscores the importance of devising strategies that balance machinery's utility with its environmental footprint. This serves as a call to action for industries and policymakers to harmonize the advantages of machinery with the imperative of sustainability.</p><p>Article link : <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c06180">https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c06180</a></p>


title: Dagsvik silent on the detection limit of their instrument
slug: dagsvik-silent-on-the-sensitivity-of-their-method
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2023-10-19
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  The suitability of their method to investigate the presence or absence of global warming has not been demonstrated. 

excerpt:
  The suitability of their method to investigate the presence or absence of global warming has not been demonstrated. 

html:
  <p>This blog post was publihed in Norwegian in <a href="https://forskersonen.no/debattinnlegg-global-oppvarming-klima/dagsvik-svarer-ikke-pa-de-viktige-sporsmalene/2272008">forskersonen.no</a></p><p>In his <a href="https://forskersonen.no/debattinnlegg-global-oppvarming-klima/edgar-hertwich-sitt-innlegg-tyder-pa-manglende-forstaelse-for-var-metodiske-tilnaerming/2269342">response</a> to  <a href="https://forskersonen.no/debattinnlegg-global-oppvarming-klima/gamle-og-forkastede-klimateorier-i-ssb-notat/2267533">my critique</a> of Dagsvik and Moen’s <a href="https://www.ssb.no/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/i-hvilken-grad-endrer-temperaturnivaet-seg-pa-grunn-av-klimagassutslipp/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf">discussion note</a>, John K. Dagsvik fails to address my fundamental points:</p><p><strong>What is the sensitivity of the model they used?</strong></p><p>I asked about the sensitivity of the method they had employed: How much would the climate need to change for them to detect an impact that could be ascribed to CO2? JD did not respond to that point.</p><p>JD confirmed elsewhere that their study had not ascertained that CO2 had not influenced the climate, it only found that the analyzed temperatures had not changed enough to be detected by the employed method. This is why I would like to repeat my question: What is the sensitivity of the method?</p><p>In his response, Dagsvik explained:</p><p><em>A purely statistical (stochastic) model was used to analyze a selection of temperature series, each by itself. Using more weather stations does not make the analysis more or less precise.</em></p><p>This statement confirms my suspicion that they tried to detect climate change in the temperature records of an individual weather station. </p><blockquote class="kg-blockquote-alt">Seeking to detect global climate change in the records of an individual weather station is like trying to ascertain a pandemic by observing one individual's body temperature.</blockquote><p>In that context, I would like to point to the discussion note:</p><p><em>From these estimates and the formula above it follows [..] that the upper bound of the temperatures in July in Oslo becomes 51.0 degrees Celsius. The highest temperature ever recorded in Oslo is 35 degrees (21 July 1901), which we note is substantially lower than the upper bound. [..] Thus, even in a stationary model with normally distributed variations, such as FGN [the model employed by JD], quite extreme temperature realizations are possible.</em></p><p>That means, in other words, that <strong>the temperature in Oslo would need to rise well above 51 degrees to be detected as abnormally warm</strong>. And JD would need several such extreme temperatures to ascertain that the climate had changed. If deviations by tens of degrees, or even several degrees from the historical record are required for the method to indicate there is something going on, we could not expect it to confirm climate change, given that the IPCC reports an increase in global average temperature by just over one degree compared to the preindustrial level. The quotes strengthen me in my suspicion that the method used was really not suitable to investigate the research question that was posed. In that case, the failure of the method to detect a systematic temperature rise would hence indicate the method's insufficient precision rather than the absence of climate change.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2023/10/bilde.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy" width="1155" height="621" srcset="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/size/w600/2023/10/bilde.png 600w, https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/size/w1000/2023/10/bilde.png 1000w, https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2023/10/bilde.png 1155w" sizes="(min-width: 720px) 720px"></figure><p><strong>What has fluid mechanics to do with temperature analysis?</strong></p><p>I criticized the discussion note for a literature review that was off-topic, i.e. it was irrelevant to the research they presented. JD did not respond to this critique. I also showed that their literature review <a href="https://blog.indecol.no/climate-sceptic-talking-point-published-by-statistics-norway/">repeated standard climate-denialist talking points</a> based on outdated references and had ignored newer evidence that showed the assertions to be false. While JD provided some arguments with newer references that try to salvage their earlier assertions, this does not address the issue of the irrelevance of these points to the study they had conducted.</p><p><a>I shared Dagsvik's texts with my colleague </a><a href="https://www.ntnu.no/ansatte/simen.a.ellingsen">Simen Åndøy Ellingsen</a>, professor of fluid mechanics. He sums up a lengthy email to me with:</p><p><em>"The argument is irrelevant. These properties of Navier-Stokes' equations, which are inherently correct in principle, do not change the fact that climate models provide predictions good enough to inform best response decisions. It's a common misconception. The flow is chaotic locally, but statistically it is quite predictable; Just think of the flow in a stream – if you look from a few centimetres away second by second, it's chaos, but if you take a step back, you'll see a calm current that changes slowly. Call it weather vs. climate, if you will. Navier-Stokes describes the first image, but it's the latter that's interesting here. Take-home message: Solving Navier-Stokes' equation in full detail is here completely uninteresting, nor necessary to make useful predictions."</em></p><p>Ellingsen also points out that similar approaches to Navier-Stokes' equations are used in almost all practical applications, and form the basis for today's design of aircraft, ships, cars, processor fans, oil pipes, wind turbines, hydropower and much, much more. </p><p>Since Dagsvik and Moen clearly do not understand fluid mechanics, why do they see themselves competent to assess these complex arguments about atmospheric physics which they reproduce in a one-sided manner in their note? To argue even that atmospheric physicists are wrong in their use of fluid mechanics?</p><p>Given the lack of understanding of the science they are discussing, and the lack of relevance to the question they are investigating, Dagsvik and Moen should remove paragraphs 3-6 and parts of paragraph 1 of the discussion note.</p><p></p>

author_bio:
  I am professor of industrial ecology at the <a href="https://www.ntnu.edu/indecol/">Norwegian University of Science and Technology</a>. 


title: Climate denial published by Statistics Norway
slug: climate-sceptic-talking-point-published-by-statistics-norway
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2023-09-30
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  A discussion paper released by Statistics Norway contains standard talking-points of climate denial and a crude statistical model of selected temperature measurements which is unable to detect anything. Here I show how these points are flawed and point to sources of facts and scientific findings.

excerpt:
  A discussion paper released by Statistics Norway contains standard talking-points of climate denial and a crude statistical model of selected temperature measurements which is unable to detect anything. Here I show how these points are flawed and point to sources of facts and scientific findings.

html:
  <p>It is very surprising that the agency entrusted with the offical statistics, <a href="https://www.ssb.no/">Statistics Norway</a>, has published the manuscript  “<a href="https://www.ssb.no/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/i-hvilken-grad-endrer-temperaturnivaet-seg-pa-grunn-av-klimagassutslipp/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf">To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?</a>” by Dagsvik and Moen, given the dubious content and character of that work. Statistics Norway says<a href="https://www.ssb.no/omssb/ssbs-virksomhet/nyheter-om-ssb/diskusjonsnotat-fra-ssb-skaper-debatt"> it is normal practice in social science to release preprints of scientific work</a>, but their release gives this manuscript the impemature of peer-reviewed and officially approved information. However, the argument that the agency had no choice but to release work that one of their (retired) scientists was involved in, does not hold. The manuscript does not constitute a research paper but a piece of propaganda. The agency does not publish anybody else's opinion pieces.</p><p><strong>It should be easy for Statistics Norway to recognize that it is not a scientific manuscript given the following characteristics</strong>:</p><p>* Since Isaac Newton’s famous dictum ‘I stand on the shoulder of giants’, it has been a standard scientific practice to review prior work in the same domain before presenting one’s own work. The manuscript does not contain such a review. <br>Given their question, the authors would otherwise have had to account for the chapter ‘<a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter03.pdf">The Human Influence on the Climate System</a>’ of the latest IPCC report, which on 100 pages provides a very thorough treatment of the matter. That assessment is based on the full body of scientific work, and just the list of sources used fills 30 pages.</p><p>* Instead of reviewing prior analyses of temperature trends and their connection to greenhouse gas concentrations, Dagsvik and Moen promote several alternative, false theories, as well as assertions and remarks that are irrelevant to the matter at hand.</p><p>* The report repeats several points from the book<a href="https://scilogs.spektrum.de/klimalounge/fritz-vahrenholt-und-sebastian-luening-beharren-auf-abkuehlung/"> 'the cold sun</a>' by German ex-politician Fritz Vahrenholt, published in 2012, which promoted the theory that the solar cycle determines the climate of the Earth. The book was characterized by a biased presentation of the literature, where several sources were <a href="https://environmentalfootprints.org/blog/germany-solar-influence-on-climate-in-public-spotlight">misquoted</a>. Vahrenholt further concluded with certainty that the temperature up to 2020 and beyond would <a href="https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1491015574390214659">drop.</a> Haven't Dagsvik and Moen realised that <a href="https://berkeleyearth.org/are-temperatures-this-summer-hotter-than-scientists-expected/">the opposite</a> has happened?</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2023/09/Prognose_KalteSonne.jpg" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy" width="680" height="430" srcset="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/size/w600/2023/09/Prognose_KalteSonne.jpg 600w, https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2023/09/Prognose_KalteSonne.jpg 680w"><figcaption>Prognosis of global temperatures in "the cold sun" and actual development. Figure credit: <a href="https://www.stefanrahmstorf.com/en/">Stefan Rahmstorf</a></figcaption></figure><p>* Dagsvik and co-author Moen further cite astrophysicist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark">Henrik Svensmark's </a> theory that cosmic rays through processes in the upper atmosphere affect the climate on Earth. The theory was tested in climate research's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_experiment">most expensive experiment</a>, at CERN about 10 years ago. The experiment showed that the mechanism described by Svensmark was too <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaf2649">weak to affect the temperature of the earth's surface</a>. It is surprising that Statistics Norway cites old theories that have been tested and rejected.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2023/10/image.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy" width="731" height="572" srcset="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/size/w600/2023/10/image.png 600w, https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2023/10/image.png 731w" sizes="(min-width: 720px) 720px"><figcaption><a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaf2649">Summary of the 2016 paper in <em>Science</em></a> on the results of the CLOUD experiment which tested Henrik Svensmark's theory of cloud formation and its impact on the global climate.</figcaption></figure><p>* Retired economist Dagsvik asserts that atmospheric physicists do not understand that the weather is chaotic. In fact, atmospheric physicists teach this in their introductory courses. They also understand fundamental fluid dynamics and have developed an approach to solve fluid-dynamic equations for an open system. <em>It is inappropriate for a scientific manuscript to contain disparaging assertions about other, far-removed disciplines and fields of study</em>. </p><p><strong>Have temperatures increased?</strong></p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2023/10/image-1.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy" width="734" height="317" srcset="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/size/w600/2023/10/image-1.png 600w, https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2023/10/image-1.png 734w" sizes="(min-width: 720px) 720px"><figcaption><b>Frequency of extreme temperatures: a</b> Percent of the global land area with monthly temperatures above different sigma-thresholds in any calendar month (averaged over the year). Sigma is the standard deviation of the mean monthly temperature during the period 1951-1980. <b>b</b> Global annual mean series (1880−2020) of the ratio of observed local monthly temperature records on land compared to those expected in a stationary climate. The thick black line shows the trend with a 10-yr smoothing window, and the magenta line and shading show the median and 90% confidence interval for the statistical model driven by the long-term global warming trend over land and Gaussian noise. Source: <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00202-w">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00202-w</a>&nbsp;</figcaption></figure><p>In the title, Dagsvik and Moen ask, 'How much does the temperature change due to greenhouse gas emissions?' Their statistical model, however, does not use any data on greenhouse gases. After they have asserted, in their review, that multiple factors affect temperatures including natural variations, their model does not take such natural influences into account. It is completely useless to investigate the question they have posed. According to the model, the maximum temperature that can be expected within the normal range on a random July day in Oslo is 51 degrees Celsius! <em>Only when it gets even warmer will the model allow that temperatures are outside the normal range</em>. An instrument that is so insensitive cannot be used to evaluate theories of climate change, because these do not suggest that temperatures should have increased by tens of degrees because of past greenhouse gas emissions.</p><p>It should be noted that Dagsvik and Moen could have used their model to investigate the question of whether observed temperatures are inconsistent with the theory that temperatures have increased. This would be closer to answering the question they pose in the title of their manuscript. However, they have not done that.</p><p><strong>Like medicine, climate science relies on multiple lines of evidence</strong></p><p>When assessing whether the climate is changing due to human influences, the IPCC conducts a much more sophisticated analysis that takes multiple indicators such as temperature records in many locations, elevations, and media, sea level rise, ice melting, and shifts of seasons into account.</p><p>Imagine you go to the doctor because you have fever and feel unwell. Given a body temperature of 38 degrees, Dr. Dagsvik would assert that this was in the normal range and send you back to work. A real doctor would instead look at your throat and nose, hear your lungs, maybe send a test of your saliva to the laboratory. She would make a diagnosis based on all these different observations.</p><p><strong>I do not understand how Statistics Norway can defend releasing this piece of propaganda in a series of manuscripts that are meant to present early-phase scientific research. Given the unscientific character of the content, they put their own reputation on line.</strong></p><p>P.S.: It is somewhat ironic that Dagsvik and Moen criticise the statistical analysis of temperature data through climate researchers and claim that they can do better. Fifteen years ago, physics professor at Berkeley, Richard Muller, did. His <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth">Berkeley Earth </a> project received big money from climate skeptics in the U.S. coal industry to disprove the hypothesis that the Earth's temperature has increased. The team improved both the dataset and statistical method. The analysis showed that warming was even stronger than what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had determined at the time. Berkeley Earth also publishes a <a href="https://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/skeptics-guide-to-climate-change.pdf">guide for climate skeptics</a>, showing the limits of climate science knowledge in a simple manner. </p>

author_bio:
  I am professor of industrial ecology at the <a href="https://www.ntnu.edu/indecol/">Norwegian University of Science and Technology</a>. 


title: An emergency brake for the climate
slug: an-emergency-brake-for-the-climate
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2023-09-07
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  To limit global heating to 1.5 degrees, the EU’s Climate Advisors recommend that Europe cuts 90-95% of carbon emissions by 2040 compared to 1990. Fossil fuels should be phased out as quickly as possible.

excerpt:
  To limit global heating to 1.5 degrees, the EU’s Climate Advisors recommend that Europe cuts 90-95% of carbon emissions by 2040 compared to 1990. Fossil fuels should be phased out as quickly as possible.

html:
  <p>Originally published in <a href="https://forskersonen.no/eu-fn-global-oppvarming/uten-a-brabremse-klimautslippene-kan-vi-passere-15-grader-rundt-2030/2245728">forskning.no</a>. Translated from Norwegian.</p><p>The climate crisis is here. We are experiencing possibly the warmest year in human history. Record-warm oceans are contributing to historic floods in China, Greece, Slovenia, and Norway. <a href="https://www.nrk.no/ytring/et-forsvar-for-reiseguidene-1.16495281">Forest fires ruined Northern Europeans’ summer holiday</a> and devastated Hawaii’s Mau Island. <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/30/texas-heat-wave-deaths-illness/">Hikers</a> in Texas and chicken in England die of <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/jeff-goodell-the-heat-will-kill-you-first-excerpt-1234770786/">heat</a> stress.</p><p>There is broad political support for the 1.5°C target in the Paris Agreement, in Norway as in Europe. Politicians promised voters to take strong action to reduce emissions. Emissions of 350 billion tonnes suffices to raise the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to the level where there is a 50% probability that the average temperature will reach or surpass the threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average. Last year, carbon emissions from energy and cement production alone reached a record 37 billion tonnes, according to <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-from-fossil-fuels-hit-record-high-in-2022/">Global Carbon Project</a>. Without abruptly slowing down, we pass the 1.5 degrees emissions budget by around 2030, and summer this year gives us a taste of what an average year will look like then.</p><p>The European Union has through the <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en">presidency of Ursula van der Leyen</a> done a lot for climate protection. The EU’s and Norway’s target for 2030 is to reduce emissions by 55% from 1990 levels. The EU had achieved a reduction of 32% by 2021, Norway by just <a href="https://miljostatus.miljodirektoratet.no/tema/klima/norske-utslipp-av-klimagasser/">4%</a>. The EU Climate Law of 2021 requires the Union to set an emission target for 2040 and prepare a budget of accumulated emissions for the period 2030-2050. This is the objective by which future policies in industry, energy, transport, and agriculture will be governed. Norway is obliged to follow EU rules in several of these policy areas and has in the past also chosen to set the same emission targets.</p><p><a href="https://climate-advisory-board.europa.eu/news/eu-climate-advisory-board-recommends-ambitious-2040-climate-target-and-urgent-transitions-for-the-european-union">The EU climate advisory board, </a>anchored in the Climate Law, has now submitted proposals for both a target for 2040 and an emissions budget for 2030-2050. In our work on the 2040 target, we have considered how the global emission budget of 350 billion tonnes can be fairly distributed among the world's eight billion inhabitants, and the feasibility of emission cuts.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FBaneNORSF%2Fposts%2Fpfbid0masehAjDbHVvr9QwF5itTUiDGv5q3cGjN4mGHCGHXpdvG9ncZBLArR1he85d5nMKl&amp;"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2023/09/bilde.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy" width="680" height="1108" srcset="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/size/w600/2023/09/bilde.png 600w, https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2023/09/bilde.png 680w"></a></figure><figure class="kg-card kg-bookmark-card kg-card-hascaption"><a class="kg-bookmark-container" href="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href&#x3D;https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FBaneNORSF%2Fposts%2Fpfbid0masehAjDbHVvr9QwF5itTUiDGv5q3cGjN4mGHCGHXpdvG9ncZBLArR1he85d5nMKl&amp;"><div class="kg-bookmark-content"><div class="kg-bookmark-title">Facebook</div><div class="kg-bookmark-description"></div><div class="kg-bookmark-metadata"><img class="kg-bookmark-icon" src="https://www.facebook.com/favicon.ico" alt=""></div></div><div class="kg-bookmark-thumbnail"><img src="https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-1/347426748_658832859611747_386397218585584500_n.png?stp&#x3D;cp0_dst-png_p50x50&amp;_nc_cat&#x3D;111&amp;ccb&#x3D;1-7&amp;_nc_sid&#x3D;5fac6f&amp;_nc_ohc&#x3D;LQl5kGYoJnUAX_ArrwG&amp;_nc_ht&#x3D;scontent.xx&amp;edm&#x3D;AN6CN6oEAAAA&amp;oh&#x3D;00_AfDK4gcIlA528K6r8zeO2cfY_cgTfaj1SOFTuHc4GFd1bA&amp;oe&#x3D;64FE4E92" alt=""></div></a><figcaption>Facebook post from Bane NOR. Three of four railway lines from Trondheim we blocked by land slides following storm 'Hans' in August 2023 and one key railway bridge on the Trondheim-Oslo line collapsed.</figcaption></figure><p>The UN Framework Agreement on Climate Change from 1992 already laid down guidelines for equitable distribution of emission cuts. Everyone has a responsibility to reduce emissions, but it is necessary to differentiate both according to who causes how much emissions and the ability to implement reductions. Philosophers and researchers have worked out different distribution principles and investigated what this means for the distribution of the global emission budget. All principles based on historical emissions show that rich countries and China have used up their share of the emission budget, and then some. Only if we disregard who was responsible for past greenhouse gas emissions are European countries still allowed to emit more. In other words, the EU and Norway must reduce their emissions to zero as quickly as possible and prepare for carbon removal afterwards. At the same time, no one can be obliged to achieve the impossible.</p><p>The global energy and climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (<a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-2/">IPCC</a>) have long struggled to find measures that reduce emissions fast enough to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. But no one predicted that solar and wind energy would become so cheap, that electric cars could compete with fossil-powered vehicles so quickly, and that developing countries could increase their welfare with so relatively less energy use than rich countries did. The advisory board has examined two thousand different emission scenarios from many models. Three scenarios were selected as examples. These scenarios now serve as our basis for analyzing the necessary emissions reductions in different sectors of the economy.</p><p>The scenario analysis shows that there are different ways of reaching the 1.5°C target. Scenarios that achieve the 1.5°C target involve a radical phasing out of fossil energy sources and a rapid expansion of solar and wind energy. All scenarios involve reduced consumption of meat and transport services, accelerated development of renewable power, use of nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, and hydrogen, but in different composition and scope.</p><p>In the scenarios that achieve the 1.5°C target, emissions in 2040 are only 5-10% of emissions in 1990. The EU's accumulated greenhouse gas emissions between 2030 and 2050 are 11-14 billion tonnes. This is not more than four years’ worth of the current annual emissions of 3.5 billion tonnes per year. After 2050, the EU will have to remove some carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to remedy old sins.</p><p>The advisory board recognises that a reduction of 90-95% by 2040 compared with 1990 is a tough climate target. If we reduce less, then we rush past 1.5 degrees of warming. It will be difficult to stop emissions later, while at the same time we are battling the consequences of the climate crisis, such as refugee flows, floods, and heat waves. We must stop emissions! The EU is on the right track, and the goals proposed by the Council are achievable, but require a faster pace of change. Norway is a good illustration that not all countries are as well positioned as the EU. Stronger action is needed there.</p><p>Reference:</p><p>European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change, 2023, <a href="https://climate-advisory-board.europa.eu/reports-and-publications/scientific-advice-for-the-determination-of-an-eu-wide-2040">Scientific advice for the determination of an EU-wide 2040 climate target and a greenhouse gas budget for 2030–2050</a>. Copenhagen.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Norway's biodiversity footprint is unknown
slug: norwaysbiodiversityfootprint
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2023-07-12
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  Edgar Hertwich argues that Øystein Sjølie's critique of a Sintef report on Norway's biodiversity footprints is partially correct and the footprints are unknown. 

excerpt:
  Edgar Hertwich argues that Øystein Sjølie's critique of a Sintef report on Norway's biodiversity footprints is partially correct and the footprints are unknown. 

html:
  <p><strong>This is a more detailed comment to an ongoing controversy in Norwegian media about a report published by Sintef of research on the biodiversity and carbon footprint of Norwegian consumption. A short version of this comment has been published by <a href="https://www.aftenposten.no/article/ap-y60PGE.html?mon_ref=retriever-info.com">Aftenposten</a>.</strong></p><p><a href="https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/debatt/i/mQEw4E/misforstaaelser-om-sintef-rapport">Vegar Johansen</a> and <a href="https://radio.nrk.no/podkast/dagsnytt_atten/sesong/202307/l_6c8a1e0a-8cd6-4050-8a1e-0a8cd6f050bc#t=32m33s">SINTEF</a> use NTNU’s Industrial Ecology Programme as a cover when they defend themselves against <a href="https://www.minerva.no/konsum-natur-sintef/sjokkerende-mange-feil-i-rapport-av-sintef/427056">criticism</a> from <a href="https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/debatt/i/P4XAjJ/sjokkerende-svak-sintef-rapport">Øystein Sjølie</a> of a<a href="https://sintef.brage.unit.no/sintef-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/3070850/Report_NVF_Version2_signed.pdf?sequence=4&amp;isAllowed=y"> SINTEF</a> report. The report, commissioned by the Norwegian Society for Nature Conservation, allegedly shows that pressures on global biodiversity caused by Norwegian consumption have tripled since 1995.</p><p>It is true that much of the SINTEF report summarises research articles in international journals, including articles from industrial ecology at NTNU. However, Sjølie criticises an analysis of Norway's contribution to nature loss that is not elucidated in the underlying reports.</p><p><em>Third-party data should be used with care</em></p><p>The articles referred to examine global conditions, and where Norway is a small piece of the global economy. They relied on the EXIObase <a href="https://exiobase.iedl.no/#/exiobase">database</a> which describes the world's economy and resource use with many millions of data points. Our research group has collated the data from different sources and used balancing calculations to produce as consistent a picture of the whole as possible. We cannot take responsibility forquality one of some datapoints. Data on agriculture, which the <a href="https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/">UN Food and Agriculture Organization</a> has collected from member states, has some gaps and input errors. The data should therefore be used with care.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2023/07/frokost-1.jpg" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy" width="2000" height="1500" srcset="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/size/w600/2023/07/frokost-1.jpg 600w, https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/size/w1000/2023/07/frokost-1.jpg 1000w, https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/size/w1600/2023/07/frokost-1.jpg 1600w, https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2023/07/frokost-1.jpg 2016w" sizes="(min-width: 720px) 720px"><figcaption>Food imports are the main mechanism by which Norway contributes to the extinction of plants and animals around the globe. Foto: Edgar Hertwich&nbsp;</figcaption></figure><p></p><p><em>Loss of nature varies with place of production</em></p><p>Sjølie argues that it must be wrong that Norway's contribution to nature loss has increased, while the EU’s contribution has decreased. However, this is not a reasonable comparison because<a href="https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z873q/hvor-selvforsynte-er-vi-egentlig-med-mat"> Norway import half of the foodstuffs</a>, while the EU  is largely self-sufficient with the exception of animal feed and fruit imports from southern countries.</p><p>Biodiversity loss from agricultural production varies depending on location and cultivation method. It is precisely the point of the <a href="https://lc-impact.eu/">impact assessment methods</a> co-developed at NTNU to take such regional variations into account. There is generally more loss in biodiversity from agriculture in tropical countries because biodiversity there is greater to start out with. Coffee production, for example, leads to high nature loss.</p><p>Depending on a year's harvest and adjustment in import rules, countries of origin of Norway’s imports can shift from year to year and produce large variations in nature loss.  Given Norway's import dependence, it is quite possible that both nature loss and its development are different from those of the EU.</p><p><em>Biodiversity footprints are knowable, but research on Norway is lacking</em></p><p>On behalf of the <a href="https://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/international/research/the-environmental-research-fund/research-efforts-community/policy-relevant-indicators-for-consumption-and-environment-prince">Swedish Environment Agency</a>, NTNU has worked with the <a href="https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/miljo/miljoekonomi-och-hallbar-utveckling/miljorakenskaper/pong/statistiknyhet/miljorakenskaper---miljopaverkan-fran-konsumtion-2017/">Swedish Central Bureau of Statistics</a> to compile and quality assure an environmental account for <a href="https://www.prince-project.se/">Sweden's consumption</a>. We haven't done anything similar for Norway, and neither has Sintef, to our knowledge. However, we know that the balancing calculations affect small countries’ numbers more, since the calculations minimizes the aggregate error.</p><p>In the starting year of the database, 1995, there are larger gaps in the UN's agricultural data than later. Data from 2020 onward is not based on statistics, but on economic projections from the IMF. Thus, it should not be regarded as empirical, and it is not correct to compare 1995 with 2020 or later. <a href="https://naturvernforbundet.no/nyheter/slik-gar-vi-fra-forbruksfest-til-baerekraft/">The alarming message posted by the</a> Norwegian Society for Nature Conservation has inadequate scientific support.</p><p>I believe that Sjølie's critique is appropriate, even if he is mistaken in several points. He is correct in saying that SINTEF presents the data and calculation results as conclusions without providing the necessary scientific assessment or interpretation. Research used in public debate must withstand that kind of critical review.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Green growth now
slug: green-growth-now
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2022-04-07
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  Summary: Concerned about economic growth, China and India weakened the COP26
  Glasgow Climate Pact. Our research suggests decarbonization and growth are
  independent processes. Delaying one to achieve the other is unnecessary and a
  wasteful detour.

  Nobody in the rich world can blame developing countr

excerpt:
  Summary: Concerned about economic growth, China and India weakened the COP26
  Glasgow Climate Pact. Our research suggests decarbonization and growth are
  independent processes. Delaying one to achieve the other is unnecessary and a
  wasteful detour.

  Nobody in the rich world can blame developing countries for wishing to improve
  their economic status. We began to industrialize and grow wealthy when we
  learned to use first coal and then oil to provide us with motive power.India
  has
  been widely blamed

html:
  <p><em>Summary: Concerned about economic growth, China and India weakened the COP26 Glasgow Climate Pact. Our research suggests decarbonization and growth are independent processes. Delaying one to achieve the other is unnecessary and a wasteful detour.</em></p><p>Nobody in the rich world can blame developing countries for wishing to improve their economic status. We began to industrialize and grow wealthy when we learned to use first coal and then oil to provide us with motive power.  <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59280241">India has been widely blamed for weakening the Glasgow climate agreement</a>. However, its <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-per-capita">coal use per capita is less than Germany’s</a>, and its oil and gas use are much lower. <a href="https://theconversation.com/coal-why-china-and-india-arent-the-climate-villains-of-cop26-171879">Sympathetic commentators detect a Northern bias in the negotiation’s exclusive focus on coal, the dirtiest fuel</a>.</p><p>Yet, the <a href="https://e360.yale.edu/digest/air-pollution-from-fossil-fuels-costs-8-billion-per-day-new-research-finds">tremendous environmental costs of fossil fuel combustion</a> are nowhere more apparent than in poor countries, which suffer disproportionately from both air pollution and climate change. When these damages are not reflected in the cost of polluting activities and fuels are subsidized, polluting activities become profitable even if they destroy value and worsen countries. Develop first, clean up later, aptly describes the historical development of rich countries. It is a result of ignorance and the persistent power of special interests. Yet even among experts, there is a widespread belief that emissions first need to rise as countries grow richer before they can go down.</p><p>In <a href="http://dx.doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.10.010">a recent study</a>, we have analyzed a comprehensive datasets of emissions and economic development covering 73 countries’ carbon emissions and underlying energy and economic variables over 47 years. Our statistical analysis ascertained that economic growth and decarbonization acted independently. If economies relied on fossil fuels, every percent growth raised CO<sub>2</sub>emissions by a percent. Shifting to cleaner energy, increasing productivity, moving from industry to services, and switching from fuels to electricity contributed to reducing the economy’s carbon intensity.</p><p>A dozen countries have reduced carbon emissions over extended periods while maintaining economic growth, including Denmark, New Zealand, and Uruguay. They managed this feat through a combination of energy system transition and structural economic change. It is a recipe that can be applied in any country. It has never been easier. Unsubsidized <a href="https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Jun/Majority-of-New-Renewables-Undercut-Cheapest-Fossil-Fuel-on-Cost">solar and wind power have become cheaper than fossil power</a> but are still hindered by structural barriers, <a href="https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004">fossil fuel subsidies</a>, and the power of vested interests.</p><p>These developments mean that China and India can directly follow in the footsteps of countries that have reduced carbon emissions while maintaining economic growth. Basing economic development on coal and oil and changing the industrial structure afterward is harmful to the environment, economically wasteful, and politically challenging. It is wiser to change the sequence: Clean up first, and then invest in development. We hope the leaders of China and India recognize as much. Their decisions will shape our planet’s future.</p><p><em>Ranran Wang, Valentina Assenova, Edgar Hertwich (2021) “Energy system decarbonization, and productivity gains reduced the coupling of CO</em><sub><em>2</em></sub><em>emissions and economic growth in 73 countries between 1970-2016.” One Earth (Cell Press).</em></p><p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.10.010"><em> https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.10.010</em><br></a></p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: How dematerialization could cut hard-to-abate emissions by a third, or more
slug: how-dematerialization-could-cut-hard-to-abate-emissions-by-a-third-or-more
authors: Edgar Hertwich, Stefan Pauliuk
published_at: 2022-04-07
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  The production of materials causes a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions
  [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00690-8]. Reducing the use of
  materials through a more intense utilization of products such as homes or cars,
  or the construction of lighter and smaller products, will also red

excerpt:
  The production of materials causes a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions
  [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00690-8]. Reducing the use of
  materials through a more intense utilization of products such as homes or cars,
  or the construction of lighter and smaller products, will also reduce the energy
  needed to provide services such as shelter and transportation.

  Dematerialization hence offers two mechanisms by which emissions can be reduced:
  the use of materials in production and t

html:
  <p>The production of materials causes <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00690-8">a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions</a>. Reducing the use of materials through a more intense utilization of products such as homes or cars, or the construction of lighter and smaller products, will also reduce the energy needed to provide services such as shelter and transportation.</p><p>Dematerialization hence offers two mechanisms by which emissions can be reduced: the use of materials in production and the use of energy in the operation of these products.</p><p>In a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25300-4">comparative scenario analysis</a>, we investigated the production, use, and disposal of residential buildings and vehicles in the period up to 2050. We investigated different strategies that could reduce demand for materials that cause high emissions in their production from natural resources, such as steel, concrete, plastics, aluminium, copper, and glass. These scenarios differ in their assumptions regarding future demand for buildings and vehicles, population size, and climate policies.</p><p>We focused on residential buildings because they are the most important product of the construction sector, which causes <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00690-8">40% of the material-related carbon emissions</a>. We also chose passenger vehicles because they are the most important consumer product of the manufacturing sector, which also contributes another 40%.</p><p>We found that dematerialization could reduce carbon emissions from residential buildings by 20 to 52 Gt CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent over the entire period up to 2050, depending on future demand and climate policy. Emissions from cars could be reduced by 13-26 Gt during that period (Figure 1, top row). Full implementation of all strategies is assumed by 2040. In 2050, emissions from buildings and cars would be reduced by one third to two thirds compared to the emissions without the implementation of these strategies.</p><p>The modeling demonstrates that material efficiency can deliver savings which are in addition to those that can be achieved through a decarbonization of the energy system, increased energy efficiency, and a rising share of electric vehicles. Figure 1 indicates that, in scenarios with a cleaner energy system and more electric vehicles (2°C policy scenario), the percent-wise reduction of emissions due to material efficiency is higher than in no policy scenarios with a moderate rise of renewables and EVs.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2022/04/image.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy" width="1380" height="641" srcset="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/size/w600/2022/04/image.png 600w, https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/size/w1000/2022/04/image.png 1000w, https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2022/04/image.png 1380w" sizes="(min-width: 720px) 720px"><figcaption>Fig. 1: Total global cumulative (top) and annual 2050 (bottom) greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions of the technical potential of ten industrial and demand-side material efficiency strategies. The <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-018-0172-6">Low Energy Demand</a> (LED) scenario entails large gains in energy efficiency and only limited growth in floor space and vehicle fleet size, the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009">Shared Socioeconomic Pathway</a> 1 (SSP1) scenario good conditions for the growth of renewables and energy efficiency, and the SSP2 scenario provides intermediate Full image: <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25300-4/figures/1">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25300-4/figures/1</a></figcaption></figure><p>We have investigated ten different strategies to reduce materials use and emissions. For <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13067">vehicles</a>, there are three strategies which provide most of the reductions. These are quite instructive. The first strategy ride sharing, that is, reducing both the number of cars and the distance driven by riding together. Ride sharing, also called carpooling, is now facilitated by apps such as <a href="https://www.blablacar.com/">BlaBalCar</a>and <a href="https://www.takescoop.com/commuter">Scoop</a>, which match up people who drive with those who need to go the same direction. Ride sharing is different from ride hailing, in which taxi services are provided to riders independent of the transportation needs of the drivers. Ride hailing does not lead to emissions reductions. Another promising strategy is car sharing, which allows a rental of cars by the hour and close to the place of need. Car sharing can be effective in reducing car ownership, but also serves to shift the trips towards other modes of transportation. The third measure is reducing the size and thus weight of vehicles. This often occurs automatically as a result of car sharing: when you rent cars by the trip, you choose a trip-appropriate car. When you buy a car, you size your car for the most demanding trips you plan, be it a ski vacation, taking the neighbors’ kids to a ball game, or pulling a trailer.</p><p>For homes, we <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jiec.13122">assessed that floor space per capita</a> could be reduced by up to 20% compared to the baseline, with a heated floor area in the North of around 30 m<sup>2</sup> per capita compared to the current 35 m<sup>2</sup>in the United Kingdom. Lower floor space not only reduces the amount of building material, but also the energy needed to heat or cool buildings. One measure to reduce floor-space is to have people live in multi-unit dwellings instead of single-family houses. It also reduces operational energy need (because there are fewer outer walls per unit floor space) and increases urban density, which reduces trip distances and increases the attractiveness of public transport and walking/biking over driving.</p><p>We also investigated the use of wood instead of concrete and masonry buildings. Timber has much lower greenhouse gas emissions and it binds carbon, both of which helps to reduce the CO<sub>2</sub>concentration in the atmosphere. We considered that there was only a limited supply of wood. To our amazement, we found that if we combine wooden buildings and floor space limits, total wood demand would not increase, but it would shift from single-family homes to apartment buildings, and from industrialized to developing countries.</p><p>Additional measures we also investigated were increased recycling, reuse of parts, increased product lifetime, increased yields of production processes, and the construction of lighter products. All these strategies offer some savings, and overall, the relative savings in terms of materials are larger than the relative savings in terms of carbon emissions over the life cycle of the products. For recycling, there is already a substantial degree of recycling of metals which saves substantial emissions. Expanding the recycling to other materials has lower benefits than the recycling that already occurs.</p><p>We also found that product life extensions benefited the climate only when it is applied to efficient buildings and electric vehicles, not to poorer-performing products in the current stock.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2022/04/image-1.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy" width="1379" height="696" srcset="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/size/w600/2022/04/image-1.png 600w, https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/size/w1000/2022/04/image-1.png 1000w, https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2022/04/image-1.png 1379w" sizes="(min-width: 720px) 720px"><figcaption>Fig. 2: Impact of material efficiency on material production for passenger vehicles and residential buildings. Full image: <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25300-4/figures/4">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25300-4/figures/4</a></figcaption></figure><p>Overall, the strategies we investigated would substantially reduce the demand for material production from natural resources (primary materials) by the two sectors. Primary steel demand would drop to a sixth, cement demand to a quarter, and copper demand to half. The primary materials would, to a substantial degree, be replaced by recycled materials. For the metals investigated, at the global level, secondary production would become more important than primary production within the current decade (Figure 2).</p><p>Next to energy efficiency and low-carbon energy supply, material efficiency is the third pillar of deep decarbonization for these sectors. For those <a href="https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/overview">promoting the circular economy</a>, this would be a significant development. We would like to note that for achieving this switch-over from primary to secondary supply, reducing the overall demand for materials by reducing the demand for new products is at least as important as increasing recycling rates. It means that if we want to achieve a circular economy, we need to look at more than recycling!</p><p>For this research, we built <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13023">a new model</a> which traces the product vintages, their composition and operational characteristics from production through use and maintenance to the end-of-life where the materials become available for recycling. This model was first applied to the G7 countries in a report for the <a href="https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/resource-efficiency-and-climate-change">International Resource Panel</a>, which has informed the formation of the EU’s <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1583933814386&amp;uri=COM:2020:98:FIN">Circular Economy Action Plan</a> and its <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1603122220757&amp;uri=CELEX:52020DC0662">Renovation Wave</a>. The new research shows that, in absolute terms, carbon emissions cuts from dematerialization in developing countries are much larger than those in industrialized countries.</p><p>Realizing some of these gains is maybe <a href="https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/resource-efficiency-and-climate-change">not trivial in terms of policy innovations</a>, but it requires no technical breakthroughs. In fact, the technologies are all in place and we can begin realizing the gains identified in our research quite immediately.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Climate protection and development in the Global South
slug: climate-protection-and-development-in-the-global-south
authors: Edgar Hertwich, Stefan Pauliuk
published_at: 2021-09-10
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  Nobody is as affected by the damaging forces of climate change as underdeveloped
  countries, but these countries face a paradox as they try to mitigate their CO2
  emissions. Improving the lives of their citizens will increase the demand for
  energy and materials — which in turn will make climate change

excerpt:
  Nobody is as affected by the damaging forces of climate change as underdeveloped
  countries, but these countries face a paradox as they try to mitigate their CO2
  emissions. Improving the lives of their citizens will increase the demand for
  energy and materials — which in turn will make climate change worse.

  It may seem like an insolvable problem. But the combination of clean energy,
  efficient energy use, and material efficiency can allow the Global South to
  develop while reducing greenhouse gas 

html:
  <p><em>Nobody is as affected by the damaging forces of climate change as underdeveloped countries, but these countries face a paradox as they try to mitigate their CO2 emissions. Improving the lives of their citizens will increase the demand for energy and materials — which in turn will make climate change worse.</em></p><p><em>It may seem like an insolvable problem. But the combination of clean energy, efficient energy use, and material efficiency can allow the Global South to develop while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, </em><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25300-4" rel="noopener ugc nofollow"><em>our research shows</em></a><em>.</em></p><p>Developing countries are gravely exposed to the harms that result from global warming — increased frequency and severity of heat waves, droughts, storms, and floods, as well as sea level rise. While temperatures are increasing more in polar and temperate regions than in the south, it is in the tropics that <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/how-hot-is-too-hot-for-humans-understanding-wet-bulb-temperatures-1.6088415" rel="noopener ugc nofollow">wet-bulb temperatures</a> threaten to surpass a lethal level.</p><p>It is very much in the interest of poor countries in the Global South to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, some politicians and businesspeople see climate change mitigation as a Northern ploy to cheat them out of the opportunity for development. The North developed its infrastructure, buildings, and factories without consideration for the climate. Why should people in the South be denied this opportunity?</p><p>Well, they don’t need to.</p><p>Those Southern politicians correctly point out that it is our obligation in the North to take a lead in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. People in the North have filled up more than their share of the planet’s atmosphere with CO2. Yet today, the 6.5 billion inhabitants of low and middle-income countries emit more greenhouse gases (<a href="https://ourworldindata.org/co2-by-income-region" rel="noopener ugc nofollow">62% of global CO2</a>) than 1.2 billion inhabitants of high-income countries, an improvement over historically even more inequitable emissions. <a href="https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/climate_change" rel="noopener ugc nofollow">China’s per-capita emissions have even surpassed those of Europe</a>. Continued industrialization following a Northern or Chinese model threatens indeed to accelerate climate change.</p><p>A different development pathway is possible. The South can achieve modest prosperity while reducing its emissions substantially in three ways: They can shift to clean, low-carbon energy sources , increase energy efficiency overall, and <a href="https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/resource-efficiency-and-climate-change" rel="noopener ugc nofollow">use materials and services more efficiently</a>, too.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2021/09/image-4.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy" width="701" height="1156" srcset="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/size/w600/2021/09/image-4.png 600w, https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2021/09/image-4.png 701w"><figcaption>Contribution of different emission reduction strategies to the reduction of GHG emissions from residential buildings and passenger vehicles in 2050 for the Global South. The two side-by-side bare explore a different sequencing of the reductions. The reductions are applied for three different scenarios, the Low Energy Demand scenario which has a tight limit on activity, the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways SSP1, which is optimistic about climate-friendly development, and the SSP2, which is more broadly in line with current development. Source: <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25300-4/figures/3" rel="noopener ugc nofollow">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25300-4/figures/3</a></figcaption></figure><p>Here’s how — and why — these approaches can work. Today, <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea" rel="noopener ugc nofollow">photovoltaic cells produce the cheapest electricity</a> in India, undercutting dirty coal. In East Africa’s Rift Valley, wind power plants can deliver full-load electricity in 60% of the time, which is more reliable than many of the continent’s electricity grids. So there’s no doubt that clean energy offers hope for developing countries.</p><p>But can clean electricity production can be ramped up quickly enough to replace dirty power plants, as well as to provide for rapid growth? Land-use conflicts arise. The electricity grid needs to be strengthened and expanded. There are high up-front costs. That’s why increasing energy efficiency is also critical.</p><p><a href="https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/energy-efficiency-indicators" rel="noopener ugc nofollow">Energy efficiency</a> has long been in focus when it comes to reducing energy needs. In powering machines, electric motors are more efficient than combustion engines. LEDs offer the same light as incandescent or oil lamps for a small fraction of the energy. Well-designed buildings require much less or no mechanical cooling. Those savings should help shrink the gap between new supplies of clean energy and overall demand.</p><p>The third ingredient in this climate policy mix is <a href="https://www.uselessgroup.org/research/materials-systems-analysis" rel="noopener ugc nofollow">material efficiency</a>. <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00690-8" rel="noopener ugc nofollow">One quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions are in the production of materials</a>. Most material use is in emerging economies, contributing to nine of 11.5 gigatons of the carbon footprint of materials in 2015. Concrete in new buildings, steel in new machines, factories, and vehicles, copper in new wires. There are many opportunities to reduce material use, and most of them can be found in emerging economies. In China today, <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab0fe3/meta" rel="noopener ugc nofollow">the average lifetime of a building is 23 years</a>. Designing and building buildings that last longer can reduce the use of concrete, steel, and glass. Individually owned cars are parked twenty-two or more hours a day. Shared fleets of vehicles offer mobility with fewer vehicles. Clever designs of buildings can save substantial amounts of structural steel. According to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25300-4" rel="noopener ugc nofollow">our modeling</a>, such strategies can deliver up to a quarter of the potential emissions reductions from the passenger vehicle and housing sectors in the Global South.</p><p>Energy and material efficiency offer avenues to reduce the total energy demand. Often, these kinds of efficiency strategies are readily available, require fewer capital outlays, and generate less conflict than renewable electricity or nuclear power. By reducing process-related emissions in material production, material efficiency offers emissions reductions that can’t be supplied through low-carbon energy alone. Our modeling clearly shows: if developing countries implement all three of these strategies, climate change mitigation doesn’t need to hamper the kind of development the Global South needs to bring a better quality of life to its citizens.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2021/09/image-5.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy" width="700" height="639" srcset="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/size/w600/2021/09/image-5.png 600w, https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2021/09/image-5.png 700w"><figcaption>Annual GHG emissions from the making, use, and disposal of cars and homes in selected developing and emerging countries depending on whether material efficiency is implemented, and the energy system is decarbonized. Source: <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25300-4/figures/2" rel="noopener ugc nofollow">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25300-4/figures/2</a></figcaption></figure><p>This blog draws on a paper published in <em>Nature Communications</em>, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25300-4" rel="noopener ugc nofollow">Global Scenarios of Resource and Emission Savings from Material Efficiency in Residential Buildings and Cars</a>. This blog was first published in <a href="https://energiogklima.no/meninger-og-analyse/kommentar/climate-protection-and-development-in-the-global-south/" rel="noopener ugc nofollow">Energi og Klima</a>.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: EXIOBASE update: v3.8
slug: exiobase-update-v3-8
authors: Richard Wood, Konstantin Stadler
published_at: 2020-11-22
summary:
  We just released a new update for the EXIOBASE 3 MRIO time-series of
  monetary tables: v3.8.

excerpt:
  We just released a new update for the EXIOBASE 3 MRIO time-series of
  monetary tables: v3.8.

author: Richard Wood
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/11/ww.jpg
author_bio: Richard Wood is a professor at the Industrial Ecology Programme at NTNU.
author_url: https://www.ntnu.edu/employees//richard.wood
html:
  <!--kg-card-begin: markdown--><p>We just released a new update for the EXIOBASE 3 MRIO time-series of monetary tables: v3.8.</p>
  <p>It is a full re-estimate of the time-series, but still relies heavily on &quot;now-casting&quot; economic structure (and environmental extensions).</p>
  <p><a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4277368"><img src="https://zenodo.org/badge/DOI/10.5281/zenodo.4277368.svg" alt="image" loading="lazy"></a></p>
  <p>For the SUT and IOT coefficient data the latest available source data is for 2011. As such, the data is likely good for global analysis, and country level estimates, but the uncertainty relative to official data at transaction level would be considerably higher.</p>
  <p>The time-series extends into the future (2022), but this is based on the now-casting procedure and projections of GDP and aggregate trade of the IMF.</p>
  <p>Most of the updates were done by <a href="https://www.ntnu.edu/employees/richard.wood">Richard Wood</a>.</p>
  <h1 id="mainupdates">Main updates</h1>
  <ul>
  <li>
  <p>Macroeconomic and trade data for recent years</p>
  <ul>
  <li>Updated to 2018 macroeconomic data from UN, and GDP &amp; gross import/export projections until 2022 from IMF.</li>
  <li>Trade data from Comtrade/BACI in HS6 classification (detailed data) updated to 2018</li>
  </ul>
  </li>
  <li>
  <p>Energy and energy-related emissions</p>
  <ul>
  <li>At detailed level, energy / emissions updated to 2015 IEA energy balances</li>
  <li>At an aggregate level, all CO2 fossil emissions updated to 2019 based on Edgar Database; all other GHG emissions updated to 2017 based on PRIMAST database. More recent data are now-casts.</li>
  <li>There is a major update to the historical time-series of non-fuel combustion GHG emissions. Non-fuel combustion GHG emissions are now scaled to match the PRIMAST dataset, with sectoral (IPCC based) emissions by gas availabe.</li>
  </ul>
  </li>
  <li>
  <p>Land, material and water-related data</p>
  <ul>
  <li>No updates to v3.7, so purely reliant on now-casts post 2011, or 2013 in the case of materials.</li>
  </ul>
  </li>
  <li>
  <p>Co-efficients for environmentally-relevant flows</p>
  <ul>
  <li>No updates to v3.7</li>
  </ul>
  </li>
  <li>
  <p>Balancing algorithms</p>
  <ul>
  <li>No updates to v3.7</li>
  </ul>
  </li>
  </ul>
  <p>As of v3.8, the end years are: 2015 energy, 2019 CO2, 2017 all GHG, 2013 material, 2011 most others, land, water. More recent data are purely &quot;now-casts&quot;.</p>
  <h1 id="publicvsprivateversion">Public vs private version</h1>
  <p>Note, that there is a public (<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4277368">available on Zenodo</a>) and private EXIOBASE datasets. The private dataset contains more detailed working files - we are not able to make these fully public because they contain licensed data for energy (IEA), land use and material flows (so these are aggregated in the public version). We don't have permission to release these files to users without requisite licences, and use of the data here should be undertaken only in respect to these licenses. Please contact us for access to the private version with providing evidence for the relevant licences.</p>
  <h1 id="priorreleaseinfo">Prior Release Info</h1>
  <ul>
  <li>
  <p>v37 (June 2019)</p>
  <ul>
  <li>includes all notes relating to 36 below, but also updates to the emission accounts where the emission accounts are updated <a href="https://t.co/miLWSbqIXW?amp=1">as described Wood et al 2020</a></li>
  <li>includes simplification of balancing from purchaser price to basic price for the reconciliation step (hence purchaser price data no longer part of balancing). Pricing layers are now available only in the &quot;init&quot; tables of the individual country SUT files.</li>
  <li>includes a fix regarding data constraint on macro-economic data regarding taxes less subsidies on final demand. Fix regarding gap filling where binary discrepancy between EXIO2 data and EXIO3 trade data occurs</li>
  </ul>
  </li>
  <li>
  <p>v36 (September 2018)</p>
  <ul>
  <li>includes new energy and emission accounts, energy and emission accounts updated for better consistency with MSUT, and updated to 2015.</li>
  <li>includes net energy account broken down by type, and explicit identification of losses (new stressor classification).</li>
  <li>includes more coefficient constraints (implemented in coeffixer, see coef_fixer log file)</li>
  <li>switch from QP to CE in objective of trade data reconciliation.</li>
  </ul>
  </li>
  <li>
  <p>v35</p>
  <ul>
  <li>update of the Macro-economic account (based on a problem identified in RoW ME)</li>
  <li>inclusion of the net energy account</li>
  <li>major update of land and water extensions</li>
  <li>major update of coefficient constraints (in CoefFixer)</li>
  </ul>
  </li>
  </ul>
  <p>The data here has different end-dates for the environmental extensions.  Anything beyond the end date is an extrapolation. As of v3.5, the end year is: 2011 energy, 2015 CO2 fuel combustion, 2013 material, 2011 most others, incl methane and N20, land, water As of v3.6, the end year is: 2015 energy, 2015 CO2 fuel combustion, 2013 material, 2011 most others, incl methane and N20, land, water As of v3.7, the end year is: 2015 energy, 2016 all GHG, 2013 material, 2011 most others, land, water land extensions to 2015 are available on request soon, but not yet processed.</p>
  <p>Constant price data has been estimated, but we are not robust enough to be released yet. Price indices for each product in the database are available.</p>
  <h1 id="bulkdownload">Bulk Download</h1>
  <p>To allow the download of specific years we uploaded the data as zip archives per year and mrio type (industry by industry: ixi, and product by product: pxp). If you need all data, we recommend the excellent <a href="https://github.com/dvolgyes/zenodo_get">zenodo_get python utility</a> for the download.</p>
  <p>After installing the tool, you can download the latest version with</p>
  <pre><code class="language-{.bash}">zenodo_get 10.5281/zenodo.4277368
  </code></pre>
  <p>Previous versions are available by replacing the latest DOI with previous record numbers.</p>
  <p>Alternatively, you can contact <a href="https://www.ntnu.edu/employees/richard.wood">Richard Wood</a> or <a href="www.konstantinstadler.site">Konstantin Stadler</a> for access to the Box data repository.</p>
  <h1 id="concordances">Concordances</h1>
  <p>For concordances, please <a href="https://ntnu.box.com/s/ziox4zmkgt3cdsg549brr0qaecskgjsd">see our concordance repository.</a></p>
  <h1 id="analysispackage">Analysis package</h1>
  <p>The <a href="https://github.com/konstantinstadler/pymrio">python package pymrio</a> can be used to directly parse the EXIOBASE 3 zip files and to calculate production and consumption based acounts.</p>
  <h1 id="background">Background</h1>
  <p>EXIOBASE 3 was developed by the EU fp7 project DESIRE (Development of a System of Indicators for a Resource Efficient Europe, grant no.: 308552), which was the follow up of the fp6/fp7 projects EXIOPOL/CREEA (which developed EXIOBASE1 and 2, respectively). 10 partners across the <a href="https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/308552">EU were involved in the development</a>.</p>
  <p>A special issues at <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/15309290/2018/22/3">Journal of Industrial Ecology</a> collects several method and application articles describing the compilation and use of EXIOBASE 3.</p>
  <p>This also includes the <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.12715/full">main documentation of the compilation</a>, which This corresponds to version 3.4 of the data for the time series 1995-2011.</p>
  <p>For the now-casting description <a href="http://fp7desire.eu/documents/category/3-public-deliverables?download=24:d5-3-integrated-report-on-ee-io-related-macro-resource-indicator-time-series">see the relevant deliverable</a></p>
  <p>EXIOBASE3 workflow and classification is based on EXIOBASE2.</p>
  <p>The final EXIOBASE2 database is available on <a href="https://www.exiobase.eu">exiobase.eu</a>, but note that <a href="https://ntnu.box.com/s/bt93z4x4bw2tg8sworrl">agricultural emissions are available here</a>.</p>
  <p>Final country specific tables of <a href="https://ntnu.box.com/s/u9n7fwr6w7y0wguu9ubbw0ppc47r8opc">EXIOBASE2 are available here.</a></p>
  <p>Source country tables of EXIOBASE2 are <a href="https://ntnu.box.com/s/u9n7fwr6w7y0wguu9ubbw0ppc47r8opc">also available</a>.</p>
  <p>And please also check our <a href="https://environmentalfootprints.org/blog/exiobase3/">main EXIOBASE 3 announcement blog post here.</a></p>
  <h1 id="dataqualityadherence">Data quality/adherence</h1>
  <p>In terms of data quality for more recent years please be mindful of:</p>
  <ul>
  <li>2007 is the base year for the SUTs and the method of interpolation over time involves using data in different classifications and formats to understand structural change over time (i.e. intermediate and final demand flows by product and industry). Only output, trade and macroeconomic constraints (7 sectors) are direct inputs to final balancing in absolute terms. The database is under the NACE1 classification scheme.</li>
  <li>SUT and IOT data are only used to inform structural change</li>
  <li>Whilst the 2007 EXIOBASE2 table is the base, the National Account Main Aggregates is the main constraint. The main goal was temporal consistency, and not disaggregation of official tables in EXIO3.  SUTs/IOTs do often not get updated going backwards, whilst National Account Main Aggregates data does. In general, National Account Main Aggregates are often 10-20% off the equivalent data points aggregated from the official SUTs/IOTs from 2007.</li>
  </ul>
  <p>Energy &amp; emission accounts Energy and Emission accounts are based on the IEA energy balances, but are not always fully consistent with the monetary IO tables (different data sources was used in the disaggregation of the energy accounts). This does lead to some minor discrepancies in relationships between energy flows and monetary flows.  Some efforts are ongoing to fix these.</p>
  <p>Household use of energy is available in disaggregated form (by EXIOBASE product), but is auxiliary to the main MRIO dataset, as it does not fit that data structure. Similar case for fuel combustion emissions.</p>
  <h1 id="furtherupdatesanddevelopment">Further Updates and Development</h1>
  <p>In terms of financing future work, we of course are reliant on funding.  We are updating parts of the dataset based on individual project requirements, and providing some internal funding for co-ordination across these efforts. We are of course welcome to participate in projects that help fund these updates, either central updates or peripheral work that has benefits for both a single end-user, but also that can be rolled into future public data releases.</p>
  <p>We are continually updating the data behind EXIOBASE with a rolling release cycle. Hence more feedback that is given, the greater the chance of improvements in future updates!</p>
  <h1 id="announcements">Announcements</h1>
  <p>Stay tuned for announcements <a href="https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/exiobase-announcements">by subscribing to our EXIOBASE email list.</a></p>
  <!--kg-card-end: markdown-->


title: Less material use = better climate
slug: less-material-use-better-climate
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2020-11-18
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  Material production accounts for close to a quarter of global greenhouse gas
  emissions [https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/n9ecw/], but receives little
  attention compared to energy, meat, or deforestation. In a new report for the
  International Resource Panel
  [https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/r

excerpt:
  Material production accounts for close to a quarter of global greenhouse gas
  emissions [https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/n9ecw/], but receives little
  attention compared to energy, meat, or deforestation. In a new report for the
  International Resource Panel
  [https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/resource-efficiency-and-climate-change],
  we show that reducing the use of emissions-intensive materials such as metals
  and cement in buildings and cars can lead to significant emission reductions.
  Savi

html:
  <p></p><p>Material production accounts for <u><a href="https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/n9ecw/">close to a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions</a></u>, but receives little attention compared to energy, meat, or deforestation. In <u><a href="https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/resource-efficiency-and-climate-change">a new report for the International Resource Panel</a></u>, we show that reducing the use of emissions-intensive materials such as metals and cement in buildings and cars can lead to significant emission reductions. Savings are greatest with measures that reduce the need for new production altogether. Unfortunately, current policy often supports and promotes the use of more materials.</p><p>It is natural to focus on energy use when we think of greenhouse gas emissions from buildings. In many countries, however, it is the production of building materials that is causing higher emissions than heating or cooling buildings. Scandinavia is a leader in the development of carbon-free material production with the Swedish <u><a href="https://www.hybritdevelopment.com/first-pilot-plant-for-fossil-free-steel">Hybrid</a></u> pilot plant using hydrogen instead of carbon to reduce iron ore to iron and the <u><a href="https://ccsnorway.com/capture-norcem/">Norwegian carbon capture plans</a></u> for cement production at <u><a href="https://www.norcem.no/en/CCS">NorCem</a></u> in Brevik. It will take at least two to three decades for such advanced green technologies to transform material production, given that these have yet to be tested and commercialization remains. In the meantime, the focus should be on reduced use and increased reuse of emission-intensive materials.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/11/image.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p>In the resource panel report, we have quantified possible emission reductions through increased resource efficiency for housing and cars. We investigated policy instruments that affect resource efficiency. The results are clear. The largest emission reduction can be achieved through increased utilization of the products so that demand for new buildings and vehicles is reduced. Emission reductions are complementary to those achieved through energy efficiency and renewable energy.</p><p>In relation to housing, we find that there is a significant potential for limiting the growth in floor space and improving the utilization of homes. For example, many older people continue to live in large homes when their children move out, while young people are desperately looking for a place to start their own family. Policies should make it easy to move to housing that is appropriate for the current life-stage, rather than hindering moving by increasing the cost of shifting ownership, such as through a tax on sales or a registration fee (<u><a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stampduty.asp">stamp duty</a></u>).</p><p><strong>Small is beautiful …</strong></p><p>Flats in multifamily buildings are smaller and often better organized than single-family homes. In addition, they tend to have lower energy consumption. Multifamily buildings also provide the opportunity to share part of the infrastructure. One example are shared guest rooms, which can be reserved if needed, rather than every flat having their own guest room. Unfortunately, in some countries such as the United States, tax breaks for home ownership are designed to favour single family homes.</p><p>… <strong>but large is more profitable</strong></p><p>Failed policies are often co-responsible for large imbalances in the housing market, which lead to the over-consumption of housing by wealthy older people and a poor supply for younger and poorer population groups. Norway is a good example of that. Here, there are <u><a href="https://www.skatteetaten.no/en/person/taxes/get-the-taxes-right/property-and-belongings/houses-property-and-plots-of-land/">large and unlimited tax incentives to invest in housing</a></u>, such as tax deductions for mortgage interest and a tax exemption for the value appreciation in one's own home. Hence, for those who can afford it, it pays to buy a larger home even if they do not need it. The resulting rise in house prices makes it difficult for them young to save up enough equity to get into the housing market. The tax benefits could easily be limited to the first 30 square meters per person only, and a <u><a href="https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/08/09/the-time-may-be-right-for-land-value-taxes">land tax</a> </u>could capture the windfall profit associated with rising property values.</p><p><strong>Elegant, light structures</strong></p><p>Several strategies can reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with home construction. <a href="https://block.arch.ethz.ch/brg/files/BLOCK_2020_Structural-Engineer_Redefining-structural-art_1578310555.pdf"><u>Lighter constructions</u></a> such as trusses and self-supporting arches can reduce the amount of material per area significantly. Furthermore, <a href="https://www.uselessgroup.org/use-less/use-less-industries/construction"><u>more material is often used than is technically necessary</u></a>, as research at <a href="https://www.uselessgroup.org/"><u>Cambridge</u></a> has shown quite unequivocally. We can use wood or other biological materials that bind carbon instead of reinforced concrete. But it is not only that there are few incentives to reduce the use of emission-intensive materials, many rules and standards practices favour high consumption of such materials.</p><p><strong>Low-emissions materials</strong></p><p>Eighty-five meters high <u><a href="https://www.dezeen.com/2019/03/19/mjostarne-worlds-tallest-timber-tower-voll-arkitekter-norway/">Mjøstårnet</a></u> demonstrates that it is possible to build high-rise buildings from wood. Construction standards needed to be adapted to permit such a structure. The report recommends adapting regulations to promote environmentally friendly material choices and construction methods. Further, certification systems such as <u><a href="https://www.breeam.com/">BREEAM</a></u> and <u><a href="https://www.usgbc.org/leed">LEED</a></u> are important for buildings that are built better than what is required. Such systems should be adapted to promote material efficiency.</p><p>Worldwide the greatest need to change construction practices is in China. China has surpassed England in floorspace per capita, while the rate of expansion continues to skyrocket. The building style is high-rise towers of glass and concrete, which need more material than the dense low-rise houses recommended in the Resource Panel’s <u><a href="https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/weight-cities">Weight of Cities</a> </u>report. The service life of Chinese buildings has historically been extremely low, around 30 years. The hope is the quality of current construction has improved so that new buildings will be adequate for a much longer period.</p><p><strong>Shared fleets of on average smaller vehicles</strong></p><p>For cars, we find that strategies that reduce the number and size of cars can deliver significant reductions in emissions related to car production and operation. The sharing economy, which is based on mobile apps, can be the key to making better use of cars. On <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/apr/26/carpooling-commuting-car-share-liftshare-uber"><u>ride-sharing</u></a> platforms like <a href="https://same-way.com/"><u>Same-Way</u></a> or <a href="https://www.blablacar.com/"><u>BlaBlaCar</u></a>, it is possible to find passengers travelling long distances or get hitch-hike with somebody. Acquaintances living in Denmark report that there is extensive use of ride sharing also for daily journeys with established 'stops'. It even starts competing with the bus.</p><p>Perhaps a little safer in relation to infection control is car sharing, which has now also reached smaller cities, and which makes it easier to live without owning a car. You rent the car per hour when you really need it. The advantage of car sharing is that the size of cars in the car fleet decreases because you have a large car available the few times you need to shop for furniture, while you rent a small car if you are going to drive the child to the football match. Using on average smaller cars provides savings of both metal and energy.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/11/image-1.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p>Now that a transition to clean energy is underway, it is important to address the remaining sources of emissions. It is time for climate policy to aim at the significant potential to reduce emissions through material efficiency and the circular economy.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/11/image-2.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Exiobase3
slug: exiobase3
authors: Konstantin Stadler, Richard Wood
published_at: 2018-11-15
author: Konstantin Stadler
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/11/3W1oTlFv_400x400.jpg
author_bio: Manager of the Industrial Ecology Digital Laboratory
author_url: https://konstantinstadler.site/
summary:
  EXIOBASE 3 is the culmination of work in the FP7 DESIRE project (www.fp7desire.eu) and builds upon earlier work on EXIOBASE 2 in the FP7 CREEA projected (www.creea.eu) and the FP6 EXIOPOL project. The papers describing the work in EXIOBASE 3 are coming out at Journal of Industrial Ecology (https://o

excerpt:
  EXIOBASE 3 is the culmination of work in the FP7 DESIRE project (www.fp7desire.eu) and builds upon earlier work on EXIOBASE 2 in the FP7 CREEA projected (www.creea.eu) and the FP6 EXIOPOL project. The papers describing the work in EXIOBASE 3 are coming out at Journal of Industrial Ecology (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15309290) in June 2018. The database is available on www.exiobase.eu

  The data has aggregated energy and material accounts because of licensing issues with the IEA.

  See

html:
  <p>EXIOBASE 3 is the culmination of work in the FP7 DESIRE project (<a href="http://www.fp7desire.eu">www.fp7desire.eu)</a> and builds upon earlier work on EXIOBASE 2 in the FP7 CREEA projected (<a href="\&quot;http://www.creea.eu%29/\&quot;">www.creea.eu)</a> and the FP6 EXIOPOL project. The papers describing the work in EXIOBASE 3 are coming out at Journal of Industrial Ecology (<a href="\&quot;https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15309290)\&quot;">https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15309290)</a> in June 2018. The database is available on <a href="\&quot;http://www.exiobase.eu/\&quot;">www.exiobase.eu</a></p><p>The data has aggregated energy and material accounts because of licensing issues with the IEA.</p><p>See <a href="\&quot;https://environmentalfootprints.org/footprints-embodied-in-trade/\&quot;">environmental footprint</a> results.</p><p><strong>Documentation</strong></p><p>The main data documentation is described here <a href="\&quot;http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.12715/full\&quot;">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.12715/full</a></p><p>This corresponds to version 3.4 of the data for the time series 1995-2011.</p><p><strong>Versions</strong></p><p>There  was an earlier release of the data for v3.3 – for some uses, e.g.  energy, emissions and material accounting, the data is valid.</p><p>However, care should be taken in the water and land use accounts. There were major differences that  were corrected in v3.4, and a public release of data for v3.3 will not  be made available. Depending on research questions, the data may be  impacted.</p><p><strong>End-year</strong></p><p>We  also have estimates based on trade and macro-economic data up to 2016  as well, however, a lot of care must be taken in use of this data. It is not suitable for analyzing trends over time. The basic description of the process employed is in the relevant deliverable:</p><p><a href="\&quot;http://fp7desire.eu/documents/category/3-public-deliverables?download=24:d5-3-integrated-report-on-ee-io-related-macro-resource-indicator-time-series\&quot;">http://fp7desire.eu/documents/category/3-public-deliverables?download=24:d5-3-integrated-report-on-ee-io-related-macro-resource-indicator-time-series</a></p><p>The  data here has different end-dates for the environmental extensions  (2011 energy, 2015 CO2 fuel combustion, 2013 material, 2011 most others,  incl methane and N20, land, water), and is not part of the main public  release. Some work is going on to update these, but other collaborative  efforts are more than welcome.</p><p><strong>Data quality/adherence</strong></p><p>In terms of data quality for more recent years. Please be mindful of:</p><p>-2007 is the base year for the SUTs  and the method of interpolation over time involves using data in  different classifications and formats to understand structural change  over time (i.e. intermediate and final demand flows by product and  industry). Only output, trade and macroeconomic constraints (7 sectors)  are direct inputs to final balancing in absolute terms. The database is  under the NACE1 classification scheme.</p><p>-SUT and IOT data are only used to inform structural change</p><p>-Whilst the 2007 EXIOBASE2 table is  the base, the National Account Main Aggregates is the main constraint.  The main goal was temporal consistency, and not disaggregation of  official tables in EXIO3. SUTs/IOTs do often not get updated going  backwards, whilst National Account Main Aggregates data does. In  general, National Account Main Aggregates are often 10-20% off the  equivalent data points aggregated from the official SUTs/IOTs from  2007.</p><p><strong>Updates</strong></p><p>More specific updates for each environmental extension will be provided in relevant publications.</p><p>Right now, our focus is on having a  robust time-series to 2016. We are not currently working on updating  data past 2016, although we do expect to continue the work in the  future. The data past 2011 is currently being made available  through Box. Unfortunately, the only method of access is manual addition  to the shared folder – please email Konstantin or Richard. Also ensure  that you have read the limitations above and have registered on  exiobase.eu</p><p>In terms of financing future work, we of course are reliant on  funding. We are updating parts of the dataset based on individual  project requirements, and providing some internal funding for  co-ordination across these efforts. We are of course welcome to  participate in projects that help fund these updates – either central  updates or peripheral work that has benefits for both a single end-user,  but also that can be rolled into future public data releases.</p><p>We  are continually updating the data behind EXIOBASE with a rolling  release cycle. Hence more feedback that is given, the greater the chance  of improvements in future updates!</p><p><strong>Announcements</strong></p><p>Stay tuned for announcements:</p><p><a href="\&quot;https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/exiobase-announcements\&quot;">https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/exiobase-announcements</a></p><p><strong>Energy &amp; emission accounts</strong></p><p>Energy  and Emission accounts are based on the IEA energy balances, but are not  always fully consistent with the monetary IO tables (different data  sources was used in the disaggregation of the energy accounts) – this  does lead to some minor discrepancies in relationships between energy  flows and monetary flows. Some efforts are ongoing to fix these.</p><p>Household  use of energy – this is available in disaggregated form (by EXIOBASE  product), but is auxiliary to the main MRIO dataset, as it does not fit  that data structure. Similar case for fuel combustion emissions.</p><p><strong>Concordances</strong></p><p>For useful concordances, please see: <a href="\&quot;https://ntnu.box.com/s/ziox4zmkgt3cdsg549brr0qaecskgjsd\&quot;">https://ntnu.box.com/s/ziox4zmkgt3cdsg549brr0qaecskgjsd</a> </p><p>EXIOBASE3 is based on EXIOBASE2. The final EXIOBASE2 database is available on www.exiobase.eu, but note that agricultural emissions are available at: <a href="\&quot;https://ntnu.box.com/s/bt93z4x4bw2tg8sworrl\&quot;">https://ntnu.box.com/s/bt93z4x4bw2tg8sworrl</a>. </p><p>Final country specific tables of EXIOBASE2 are: <a href="\&quot;https://ntnu.box.com/s/j3axad9zuwsquboowxek80m8m7ua7mvq\&quot;">https://ntnu.box.com/s/u9n7fwr6w7y0wguu9ubbw0ppc47r8opc</a></p><p>Source country tables of EXIOBASE2 are: <a href="\&quot;https://ntnu.box.com/s/u9n7fwr6w7y0wguu9ubbw0ppc47r8opc\&quot;">https://ntnu.box.com/s/u9n7fwr6w7y0wguu9ubbw0ppc47r8opc</a></p>


title: Science Cannot Stop Global Warming
slug: science-cannot-stop-global-warming
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2018-10-07
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  With current efforts or those committed to under the Paris agreement
  [https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/what-is-the-paris-agreement]
  , there is absolutely no chance that humanity will limit the warming of the
  Earth’s surface to an average of 1.5 degrees Celsius
  [https://www

excerpt:
  With current efforts or those committed to under the Paris agreement
  [https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/what-is-the-paris-agreement]
  , there is absolutely no chance that humanity will limit the warming of the
  Earth’s surface to an average of 1.5 degrees Celsius
  [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/global-warming-climate-change-targets-un-report?CMP=share_btn_tw]
  . This finding emerges from a special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
  Climate Change

html:
  <p>With current efforts or those committed to under the <a href="https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/what-is-the-paris-agreement">Paris agreement</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/global-warming-climate-change-targets-un-report?CMP=share_btn_tw">there is absolutely no chance that humanity will limit the warming of the Earth’s surface to an average of 1.5 degrees Celsius</a>. This finding emerges from <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/">a special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on 1.5 degrees</a> released on Monday 8 October 2018. It will take extraordinary effort to  achieve this target, a real change of track. At the same time, climate  change will bring a <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-and-extreme-weather-science-is-proving-the-link/a-43323706">dramatic rise in</a> <a href="https://www.climate.gov/news-features/category/extreme-events">extreme events</a>, <a href="https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/09/sea-level-rise-hits-real-estate/">a sea level rise</a> that will be much larger if we continue heating our planet unabated  rather than halt the temperature increase. The sea level rise will  continue over centuries as Greenland and Antarctic glaciers slowly  disintegrate and the ocean slowly absorbs more heat and expands. <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/will-climate-change-turn-miami-into-a-future-atlantis">The consequences for coastal cities</a> home to hundreds of millions will be dramatic as storm surges rise. The  IPCC speaks with a clear voice of the threats to lives, physical  infrastructure, ecosystems, and associate economic cost but does not  quantify the consequences of political collapse, civil strife and war  that may quite well arise from a <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45084144">hothouse Earth</a>.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/06/image.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"><figcaption>Breezy Point, New York, in the wake of Hurricane Sandy 2012. The massive storm surge caused billions of damage in New York and New Jersey. Picture: <a href="https://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/global-warming-or-just-weather">NOAA</a></figcaption></figure><p>Breezy  Point, New York, in the wake of Hurricane Sandy 2012. The massive storm  surge caused billions of damage in New York and New Jersey. Picture: <a href="https://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/global-warming-or-just-weather">NOAA</a></p><p>Halting climate change is not impossible, as the new report shows.  Technology is a key ingredient that offers us many possibilities;  however, naïve faith in technology has also lulled us into complacency  and blinded us to the social, political, and economic actions we need to  take if we want to kick our carbon habit.</p><ul><li>The main reason for rising temperatures is our use of coal, oil and  gas as cheap energy sources and the increasing dependency of our systems  on abundant amounts of energy. Climate policy has focused on  technological development and promotion of cleaner alternatives. We have  achieved initial success in the deployment of solar and wind power and  electric vehicles, but at the same time allowed energy use to grow. We  cannot achieve zero carbon emissions by building new runways and high  ways, by continuing urban sprawl and economic growth by the ever-growing  consumption of cheap, throw-away junk. We need entirely new models of  economic development, social and individual well-being that are  fundamentally different from the ones we have pursued in the 20<sup>th</sup> We must rid ourselves off our dependency on cheap, abundant fuels. <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378018301109">Grass-roots groups</a>,  urbanists, scientists, engineers, have taken promising initiatives to  limit our footprint on this planet, and we cannot allow these to remain a  side-show.</li><li>While we increasingly observe the consequences of climate change in  rising temperatures, sea levels, and severity of storms, floods, and  droughts, climate change remains a phenomenon that is primarily  understood through science. Scientists observe and model solar  radiation, atmosphere, oceans, the biosphere; they observe and quantify  the impacts; and they model energy transformations and response  strategies. The dominance of scientists in the public debate coincides  with a weakness of social movements devising climate solutions and  experimenting with the social, political, and economic change that  scientists increasingly agree is essential for halting carbon emissions.  I do not know whether this weakness of social movements is a  consequence of the technical arguments that dominate climate policy  debates and disempowers the common citizen, but it prevents the  emergence of a politics of climate solutions. Even advocacy groups and  think-tanks present themselves as quasi-scientific outfits and aim to  gain influence based on the technical and economic merit of their  proposals rather than building a ground-swell of support for those  solutions.</li></ul><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/06/image-1.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"><figcaption>Marching for the Climate. Photo credit: <a href="https://flickr.com/photos/9602574@N02/33551770633">Mark Dixon, Flickr</a>.</figcaption></figure><p></p><ul><li>Possibly because of this lack of a ground-swell of political support  for climate action, our governments have been unable to mount the scale  of response required. This scale is comparable to the <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/07/14/the-big-bank-bailout/">response of governments</a> to the global 2007/08 financial crisis, the response of the US  government to the 9/11 terror attacks, or the Chinese government’s  one-belt one-road initiative. While the scale is not unprecedented or  insurmountable, the speed is slower, the impact less immediate, and a  longer-term commitment is required. The threat is not quite as imminent  and visible as the collapse of the world trade towers or Bear-Stearns.  Several world leaders have shown dedication to the climate cause and  have managed to move the needle appreciably, but their actions have  often been undone by a shift of priorities or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509433112">by vicious campaigns of fossil-fuel interests</a>.  The weakening of government through globalization, of public debate  through social media, of civil society through fragmentation, strife,  and the conscious sowing of discord by moneyed and hostile interests,  the world’s march on the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/09/books/review/road-to-unfreedom-timothy-snyder.html">road to unfreedom</a>,  have seriously compromised our ability to mobilize the resources  required. We will need to reconstitute our civil societies and political  institutions to withstand the rougher conditions of the 21<sup>st</sup> century, not only to reduce emissions but also to protect ourselves  from disease, tyrants, and the destructive consequences of global  warming.</li></ul><p>When I started my scientific career in the 1990s, one could still  make the argument that we did not fully understand the climate  consequences of choices we needed to make, that low-carbon technologies  were not mature and required further development, that better science  and engineering was required. Today, we exactly know what to do, as the  1.5°report reiterates, but our actions remain inadequate. It is time to  change that.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Metals use tied to economic upswings
slug: will-more-expensive-metals-impede-economic-growth-in-the-us
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2018-05-12
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  Will more expensive metals impede economic growth in the US?

  As the US government justifies new tariffs  on steel and aluminum imports with
  their military importance, the role  of metals in society comes into focus. New
  research shows that metals are an important ingredient in economic upswings
  [ht

excerpt:
  Will more expensive metals impede economic growth in the US?

  As the US government justifies new tariffs  on steel and aluminum imports with
  their military importance, the role  of metals in society comes into focus. New
  research shows that metals are an important ingredient in economic upswings
  [https://t.co/Gu4R7yTvwF].  Conversely, metal use declines rapidly in
  recessions. Restricting the  access to metals or increasing their price may come
  at a cost to the  economy.

  Metals are key enablers 

html:
  <p><strong>Will more expensive metals impede economic growth in the US?</strong></p><p>As the US government justifies new tariffs  on steel and aluminum imports with their military importance, the role  of metals in society comes into focus. <a href="https://t.co/Gu4R7yTvwF">New research shows that metals are an important ingredient in economic upswings</a>.  Conversely, metal use declines rapidly in recessions. Restricting the  access to metals or increasing their price may come at a cost to the  economy.</p><p>Metals are key enablers of economic development and human progress,  being widely used for their superior structural properties, durability,  and increasingly for their special chemical properties that are the  basis for technological wizardry from drones to brain imaging. Access to  metals is important for a modern economy. Taxing an important input to  production may cause disruption in global supply chains. New research  published in Nature Geoscience by a team of scientists from Yale,  Tsinghua University, and NTNU tried to unravel the relationship between  metal use and economic activity.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/MetalDemandGrowth-2.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p>This  research addresses the metal footprint, which is a way to combine the  consumption of different metals to a single indicator. It represents the  ore that needs to be extracted to satisfy the consumption in a country,  even if the metal is actually employed in another country, as in the  factory producing your laptop. The metal footprint reflects the effort  in the extraction of the ore and represents the associated environmental  costs. Since 1970, global metal ore extraction increased more than  threefold, to 1.2 tons per person in 2013. More than half of the metal  footprint was caused by the large emerging economies: Brazil, Russia,  India, China and South Africa (BRICS). The most significant growth was  associated with iron ore, which expanded especially after the year 2000.  To understand this growth of metal use, one needs to understand what  metals are used for. In 2013, two thirds of metal use was associated  with investments, up from half two decades earlier.</p><p>These macro-level descriptions, while interesting, tell us little  about causality. That is why we conducted a panel analysis of metal  footprint of 43 large economies looking at the time span of 1995 to  2013, for which good data was available. <em>We find that metal  footprints are more strongly dependent on economic growth than any other  resource or environmental indicator previously investigated.</em> <em>Increasing economic growth by 1% increased the metal footprint by 1.9%.</em></p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/MF_GDP.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p>We then went on to unpack this elastic, aggregated metal  footprint-economy relationship. We tested the metal footprint effects of  other factors, such as the degree of urbanization, the share of  industry in value added, the share of investment in GDP, population  density, or domestic ore extraction reflecting the availability of  metals. Only investment proved to be important, and very important at  that! We found that at the same level of economic growth, a 1 percent  higher share of investment in GDP would increase the metal footprint of a  country by 2 percent. With investment included, the sensitivity of  metal use to economic growth became less, indistinguishable from a 1:1  relationship.</p><p>We conclude that metal use is tightly coupled to economic development  and to investment in particular. The finding raises questions about the  impact of the Trump tariff on steel and aluminum. What will the impact  of higher prices and reduced access be on the American economy? There  are many ways by which a reduced access to metals can constrain economic  growth. Many investment goods – cars, machinery, and buildings – are  made from metals. As metals become more expensive, products made  domestically from metals become more expensive and import of those  products becomes more attractive. Increasing investment costs may reduce  the level of investment and hence the capacity to produce goods in the  future. The largest impact, however, will be in the construction sector,  where shifting to imports is not really an alternative and higher costs  are most acutely felt.</p><p>See also: Coverage on <a href="https://phys.org/news/2018-04-metal-country-wealth.html">phys.org</a>.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/131106-F-OB680-366-1.jpg" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Energy efficiency offers win-win for climate, health, and ecosystems
slug: energy-efficiency-offers-win-win-for-climate-health-and-ecosystems
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2017-06-11
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  A potential increase in metal consumption emerges as only concern in a
  broad-based investigation of the clean-energy transition
  The history of environmental protection is full of unforeseen  consequences:
  taller chimneys only led to pollutants spreading wide and  far, and safe
  refrigerants replacing

excerpt:
  A potential increase in metal consumption emerges as only concern in a
  broad-based investigation of the clean-energy transition
  The history of environmental protection is full of unforeseen  consequences:
  taller chimneys only led to pollutants spreading wide and  far, and safe
  refrigerants replacing hydrocarbons turned out to damage  the ozone hole. How
  can we ensure that technologies we employ to reduce  greenhouse gas emissions do
  not give rise to the next generation of  problems? Protecting t

html:
  <figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/01/image.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><h2 id="a-potential-increase-in-metal-consumption-emerges-as-only-concern-in-a-broad-based-investigation-of-the-clean-energy-transition">A potential increase in metal consumption emerges as only concern in a broad-based investigation of the clean-energy transition</h2><p>The history of environmental protection is full of unforeseen  consequences: taller chimneys only led to pollutants spreading wide and  far, and safe refrigerants replacing hydrocarbons turned out to damage  the ozone hole. How can we ensure that technologies we employ to reduce  greenhouse gas emissions do not give rise to the next generation of  problems? Protecting the climate demands a fundamental reorganization of  some aspects of our economy. How can we make sure that we select and  develop solutions that offer us the largest net benefit?</p><p>The <a href="http://www.resourcepanel.org/">International Resource Panel</a> has now released the <a href="http://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/green-technology-choices">second</a> in a series of reports investigating potential environmental trade-offs  and co-benefits of green technologies. This report addresses energy  efficiency, while <a href="http://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/green-energy-choices-benefits-risks-and-trade-offs-low-carbon-technologies-electricity">the first report addressed renewable energy and CO<sub>2</sub> capture and storage</a>.  The report provides strong support for energy efficiency strategies:  they are very effective in addressing a wide range of pollutants, as  well as land and water use. It offers the most detailed look at the  potential side-effects of efficiency to date.</p><p>Research teams studied individual technologies, such as <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.12342/full">LED lighting</a>, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.12378/full">building energy management systems</a>, and efficient <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.12369/full">copper smelting</a>,  in order to get an understanding of the resource requirements of  manufacturing, use and disposal of efficient devices and their  performance relative to conventional technologies. Going beyond  individual technologies, implementation of new technologies was modeled  in the context of their entire market and value chain. The approach is  maybe most neatly illustrated by the work on transportation systems for <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.12277/full">goods</a> and <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.12391/full">people</a>, conducted by colleagues in California and Arizona. For example, the study on <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.12277/full">goods transport</a> considers the shift of transportation mode – from land to rail to road –  that is typical for many movements. For personal transport, it  considered improvements in competing technologies as well as in the  underlying electricity system which becomes more important as e-mobility  advances.</p><p>Research results on different technologies were integrated in a <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5b01558">life-cycle model of the global economy</a>, built specific for the purpose and specified to reflect the changes in <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6277">the electricity mix</a> and the economy that come with the realization of the <a href="http://www.iea.org/publications/scenariosandprojections/">2-degree and 6-degree scenarios</a> of the International Energy Agency. The model captured the interaction  of implementing a whole portfolio of clean technologies in the 2-degree  scenario. It compared those with the utilization of conventional  technologies in the 6-degree scenario.</p><p>Through the clean-energy scenario, 17 million tons of particulate  matter per year can be avoided, saving many lives. Water use can be  reduced by 200 billion cubic meters, land use by 150’000 km<sup>2</sup>.</p><p>Individual technologies contribute substantially. For example,  building insulation would reduce life cycle greenhouse gas emissions by  30-50%.</p><p>Echoing findings of the earlier report, the new technologies would  require more metals. Both PV and LED technologies rely on a wide range  of specialty metals, while railways rely on steel. The new report offers  little indication whether this increased metal demand poses a problem  or not. An important issue that will be on the agenda for the  International Resource Panel and other sustainability research. Our <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6277">previous study</a>,  just of the electricity sector, showed that the additional metal demand  for just electricity generation was modest, though, with potential  concerns only related to the use of copper.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/GreenTechChoices_irp.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p><em>More information on the individual technologies can be found in a <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.2016.20.issue-2/issuetoc">special issue of the Journal of Industrial Ecology</a>.</em></p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: How to force down the US climate impact
slug: how-to-force-down-the-us-climate-impact
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2017-06-02
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  While Donald Trump withdraws the US from the Paris climate agreement, the world
  has tools to reduce the US carbon footprint
  As the world is in shock about Donald Trump’s erratic but not  unexpected
  decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate  accord, reactions
  range from the denial

excerpt:
  While Donald Trump withdraws the US from the Paris climate agreement, the world
  has tools to reduce the US carbon footprint
  As the world is in shock about Donald Trump’s erratic but not  unexpected
  decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate  accord, reactions
  range from the denial
  [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/01/the-us-tried-to-derail-climate-action-before-and-it-ended-in-humiliating-defeat?CMP=share_btn_tw] 
  of the momentous consequences of this decision 

html:
  <figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/01/image-1.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><h3 id="while-donald-trump-withdraws-the-us-from-the-paris-climate-agreement-the-world-has-tools-to-reduce-the-us-carbon-footprint">While Donald Trump withdraws the US from the Paris climate agreement, the world has tools to reduce the US carbon footprint</h3><p>As the world is in shock about Donald Trump’s erratic but not  unexpected decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate  accord, reactions range from the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/01/the-us-tried-to-derail-climate-action-before-and-it-ended-in-humiliating-defeat?CMP=share_btn_tw">denial</a> of the momentous consequences of this decision <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/06/01/vatican-leaders-dismayed-by-reports-that-united-states-will-leave-paris-climate-accord/?utm_term=.6c863c52a828">through dismay</a> to desperate <a href="http://www.politico.eu/article/schulz-to-trump-dropping-paris-agreement-means-no-trade-talks/">calls for retaliation</a>.  It is clear, this decision unmistakably indicates that the United  States is no longer deserving of the global leadership role that it has  long held but now sees as a burden. As other countries and parties way  their options, they should not overlook a potentially powerful strategy  to reduce the US carbon footprint: shift away from the dollar.</p><p>This option is grounded in seemingly unrelated phenomena:</p><p>First, in addition to driving oversized  vehicles and having grossly inefficient buildings, a significant part of  the carbon footprint of the United States is related its import of  goods from other countries. The US has been running substantial <a href="https://blog.bea.gov/category/trade-deficit/">trade deficits</a> with the rest of the world for well over two decades. <em>In  2016, the deficit in the trade of goods and services was $ 500 billion,  or 3% of GDP. Measured in carbon, the US trade deficit amounted to 300  million tons of CO2 or 6% of its domestic emissions.</em> Nixing this  trade deficit would be a useful contribution to global emission  reductions, able to offset a substantial portion of the damage done by  Trump.</p><p><em>Second, countries can run a persistent  trade deficit and current account deficit only when somebody loans them  money or invests in them. The US has been spending more than it earns  for an extensive period of time, binging on consumption. Such an  imbalance is normally not possible. It can only be sustained because</em></p><p>Third,US dollar serves as the global reserve currency. <em>Central banks of all countries need to hold dollars to stabilize their own currencies.</em> <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21716618-pillar-global-financial-stability-under-threat-donald-trump-and-dollar">As emerging economies develop, more dollars are needed</a>,  both to conduct international trade, as bilateral contracts, say  between Saudi Arabia and South Korea, are denominated in dollars, and to  grow foreign reserves of central banks. Other countries obtain the  dollars they need by selling products to America. These sales are the  root cause of the trade imbalances.</p><p>The reserve currency system has become outmoded and a <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21669875-americas-economic-supremacy-fades-primacy-dollar-looks-unsustainable-dominant-and">threat to economic stability</a>, especially given erratic US politics. It has become a bad deal for everybody. For those of us who invest in the US, <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21709549-exorbitant-privilege-looks-greater-ever-net-debt-big-returns">we get much lower returns on our investment than US companies accrue on their overseas investments</a>.  For US workers, a dollar overvalued compared to the economic vitality  of the economy and subsequent competition from cheap imports has meant  job losses and salary cuts. <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/international/21601858-american-and-english-law-and-lawyers-have-stranglehold-cross-border-business-may">Only US lawyers and banks benefit</a>.</p><p>So, what can other countries do? First, get your central banks to  diversify their portfolio of reserves to include a broader basket of  currencies. Such a step is necessary in the long run, so better do it  sooner!</p><p>Second, start developing contracts denominated in other currencies or  basket of currencies such as ‘special drawing rights.’ This step is  also likely to reduce the exposure of these contracts to currency  fluctuations.</p><p>Third, get your own assets, including your pension fund, to shift  away from investments in the United States, especially those in  low-yield government bonds. You deserve better!</p><p>These steps should relieve the US of the ‘exorbitant privilege’ of  issuing the reserve currency of the world, thereby removing the reason  for its trade imbalance. If we are collectively successful in our  efforts, US consumers will reduce their emissions by as much as current  emissions of global aviation.  A worthwhile goal, no doubt. We will also  have helped Trump achieve one of his election promises. That we can  stomach.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CarbonTradeFlows.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p>Geographical  origin of CO2 emissions, their flow from producers to consumers, and  the resulting carbon footprints of countries, in the year 2007</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Does ‘green energy’ have hidden health and environmental costs?
slug: does-green-energy-have-hidden-health-and-environmental-costs
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2017-03-21
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  Edgar Hertwich [https://theconversation.com/profiles/edgar-hertwich-210836], 
  Yale University [http://theconversation.com/institutions/yale-university-1326]; 
  Anders Arvesen [https://theconversation.com/profiles/anders-arvesen-342635], 
  Norwegian University of Science and Technology
  [http://theconve

excerpt:
  Edgar Hertwich [https://theconversation.com/profiles/edgar-hertwich-210836], 
  Yale University [http://theconversation.com/institutions/yale-university-1326]; 
  Anders Arvesen [https://theconversation.com/profiles/anders-arvesen-342635], 
  Norwegian University of Science and Technology
  [http://theconversation.com/institutions/norwegian-university-of-science-and-technology-715]
  ; Sangwon Suh [https://theconversation.com/profiles/sangwon-suh-342636], 
  University of California, Santa Barbara
  [http://t

html:
  <figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/01/image-2.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/edgar-hertwich-210836">Edgar Hertwich</a>, <em><a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/yale-university-1326">Yale University</a></em>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/anders-arvesen-342635">Anders Arvesen</a>, <em><a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/norwegian-university-of-science-and-technology-715">Norwegian University of Science and Technology</a></em>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sangwon-suh-342636">Sangwon Suh</a>, <em><a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-california-santa-barbara-1350">University of California, Santa Barbara</a></em>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/thomas-gibon-342633">Thomas Gibon</a>, <em><a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/norwegian-university-of-science-and-technology-715">Norwegian University of Science and Technology</a></em></p><p>There are a number of available low-carbon technologies to generate  electricity. But are they really better than fossil fuels and nuclear  power?</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/52484/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" class="kg-image" alt="The Conversation" loading="lazy"></figure><p>To answer that question, one needs to compare not just the emissions of different power sources but also the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6047">health benefits and the threats to ecosystems</a> of <a href="http://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/green-energy-choices-benefits-risks-and-trade-offs-low-carbon-technologies-electricity">green energy</a>.</p><p>Production of electricity is responsible for about <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data">a quarter</a> of global greenhouse gas emissions, and demand is poised to rise as <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024015">underserved populations connect to the grid</a>, and electronics and <a href="http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2016/09/evs-will-green-despite-increasing-power-demand/">electric vehicles</a> proliferate. So stopping global warming will require a transformation of electricity production.</p><p>But it is important to avoid various environmental pitfalls in this  transition, such as disrupting ecosystems and wildlife or causing <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/world/asia/indias-air-pollution-rivals-china-as-worlds-deadliest.html?ref=world">air pollution</a>.</p><p>In a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6047">research paper</a>, we analyzed the impact of electricity generation from renewable sources, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power">nuclear fission</a> power plants and fossil fuels, with and without <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage">CO₂ capture and storage</a> (CCS) technology for separating CO₂ and storing it underground. We  accounted for the environmental effects associated with the production,  operation and dismantling of facilities, as well as the production,  transport and combustion of fuels. We then compared a baseline scenario  to a <a href="http://www.iea.org/publications/scenariosandprojections/">low-carbon electricity scenario</a> that would prevent global average temperatures from rising more than  two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels by 2050 – the <a href="http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/under-2-mou-a-subnational-global-climate-leadership/">point</a> climate scientists say will avoid dangerous climate change.</p><p>Our study emphatically confirms that fossil fuels – mainly coal – <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-coal-fired-power-stations-need-to-shut-on-health-grounds-68809">place a heavy burden on the environment</a> and that most renewable power projects have lower pollution-related  impacts on ecosystems and human health. Nonetheless, no energy source is  without adverse environmental side effects. Power plant siting, project  design and technology choice are critical issues that investors and  governments should consider very carefully.</p><h2 id="solar-shines">Solar shines</h2><p>Replacing fossil fuel power plants with renewable energy sources,  including solar, wind, hydropower and geothermal power, would reduce  diverse types of pollution. The magnitude of difference in pollution  between fossil and some renewable energy options is stunning. For  example, we found that the entire process of manufacturing, setting up  and operating photovoltaic panels causes less pollution than only  delivering fuel to a coal-fired power plant when mining is included.</p><p>What about the environmental footprint of actually making renewable energy systems?</p><p>Photovoltaics (PV) comes out very well in our analysis. Today, the  production of PV cells uses much less energy than previously. The carbon  emissions per unit of PV electricity is one-tenth or less of even the  most efficient natural gas power plants. Human health problems, such as  respiratory disease from particulate matter exposure, are around  one-tenth of those of modern coal-fired power plants with advanced  pollution control equipment. Similar conclusions hold for water and soil  pollution on ecosystems, we found.</p><p>But solar panels require much more space to generate the same amount  of power as fossil fuel or nuclear power generators. Shouldn’t covering  huge areas with solar panels be a problem? Not necessarily. The amount  of land needed to generate a kilowatt-hour from PV is comparable to that  of coal power, when the land associated with mining coal is accounted  for. And about half of the PV installations in our future scenario in  2050 could be placed on rooftops.</p><p>Producing PV panels does require various metals, many of which are produced only in <a href="http://e360.yale.edu/features/a_scarcity_of_rare_metals_is_hindering_green_technologies">limited locations</a>.  Some of those metals are highly toxic. Waste treatment and recycling,  which we did not include in our assessment, are therefore important.</p><p>PV, of course, delivers electricity only when the sun shines. However, a different solar technology – <a href="http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=solar_thermal_power_plants">concentrating solar-thermal power</a>,  which concentrates light to make heat – may be a viable way forward as  it delivers a similar performance in terms of pollution reduction yet  offers the option to store heat and thus generate electricity in the  evening. We assumed CSP technology, which currently has very low  adoption compared to PV, would provide one quarter of solar electricity  in our low-emissions scenario.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/161681/width754/image-20170320-9117-tb0cg.jpg" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"><figcaption><span class="caption">From the perspective of carbon emissions and health, solar power is far better than fossil fuel power generation. But large-scale solar plants require large tracts of land and can have a negative impact on local species.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/103707855@N05/16487460430/in/photolist-r7Wxz9-pz3YP3-GbvvvM-FSfi7A-M6zopq-rwXGfc-scjvrV-srtUcE-sarymt-FmUGZ3-CA2Rap-rwXNNn-sarDmZ-hc6XtC-Gbvv3c-stLRh4-FSfixL-BCDmvT-CsxvkZ-Eaud3K-oKgKF4-CzQAxv-nm4vBX-nnQ22x-nm6P3y-nkM8T4-rnd439-QekniY-ftb46Y-p513jf-nm6PW7-fsVGAn-9EUwt7-pyHhqR-ot3Tqn-H7rLMy-stANHd-sarxKD-pPpsbb-pz3Zsh-pRv2pT-yqtu8N-H7rAUs-GQyaLw-M5CLh2-HfMCD4-GQydR9-rC4d3J-5sfXLS-ft8aPj">11_jamey_stillings_20121027_bse/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Environmental effects from hydropower vary widely, we found. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/28/scientists-just-found-yet-another-way-that-humans-are-creating-greenhouse-gases/?utm_term=.80b2d0eb8462">Some dams cause significant climate impacts</a> through the emissions of methane from the decomposition of biomass in reservoirs. Other dams <a href="http://theconversation.com/chinese-hydropower-electrifies-southeast-asia-but-at-a-cost-20275">cause equally serious ecological problems</a> through habitat destruction. They can also block the migration of  aquatic species and reduce sediment flow and nutrient transport, which  affects floodplains and deltas. On the other hand, reservoirs form new  habitats for birds and other species.</p><p>Hydropower offers a good illustration of the importance of site  selection and project design. Some projects may be economically viable  but ultimately should not be realized if society considers the  environmental degradation they can cause. For other projects, the  impacts can be limited by mitigation strategies such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_flow">environmental stream flow</a> and <a href="http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/fishing/fish-conservation/fish-populations/fish-ladder.htm">fish ladders</a>, which provide a detour for migrating fish around a dam.</p><p>Similar lessons hold for wind power, where habitat destruction during  construction should be minimized and operations adjusted in order to  reduce <a href="http://theconversation.com/what-can-be-done-to-make-sure-that-wind-energy-and-africas-vultures-co-exist-43677">collisions with raptors and bats</a>.  Also, wind power resources vary widely across locations, which argues  for choosing locations where wind resources are more abundant.</p><h2 id="bioenergy-threatens-biodiversity">Bioenergy threatens biodiversity</h2><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/does-bioenergy-have-a-green-energy-future-in-the-us-46921">Biomass</a> energy, or burning plant material for power generation, plays a central  role in most plans to limit global warming to 2°C above preindustrial  levels. Contrary to PV and wind, it provides on-demand renewable power.</p><p>When combined with CO₂ capture and storage, it can <a href="http://roadtoparis.info/2015/03/30/will-negative-emissions-technology-get-us-to-2-degrees/">scrub carbon from the atmosphere</a> and place it underground. Burning short-rotation coppice, such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willow">willow</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscanthus">miscanthus</a>,  to produce power can also lower the net greenhouse gas emissions of  biopower. In these ways, the health effects of burning biomass can be  reduced.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/159649/width754/image-20170306-20739-ndp41q.jpg" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"><figcaption><span class="caption">Making power from bioenergy, such as wood chips, has carbon emissions and other air pollutants. Capturing carbon and pumping it underground improves its environmental footprint.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/oregondepartmentofforestry/14492838086/in/photolist-o5FzQJ-6nMQsW-qwseB3-cdkAAA-jyk1zr-5EyEX5-eQcjHd-9zfV7t-uTTQbQ-uMzvr-4U6RhP-pi2dzd-b7qmzi-65BCRS-4hSLAU-5PgquD-5Eun9i-5Eun8p-wRJo5b-4nc9yY-4wGdak-5Eunaz-aFH8GZ-gZkD9y-65Q7Uj-gZkCjs-da7GXg-ntxXWi-6HLrvg-dGRmwy-khJSXc-asqZKX-dn3KpF-gZkqEN-GWQS5-7Jf5TG-adHke6-6ExLU7-ppYB1B-sdRq54-5ZoWAR-9cjB84-pPMK2a-9Vx44H-6baKir-8cgdFs-7gZnwu-q2DvZU-ebxED4-oNTPC">Oregon Department of Forestry</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Yet, the land use required to grow even these fast-growing plants  dwarfs the land use of other power sources. This has significant  ecological implications. As measured by species lost per kilowatt-hour  generated, we found that the ecological damages of biomass are  comparable to that of coal and gas.</p><p>So while it does deliver benefits from reduced greenhouse gas  emissions, biomass power becomes more favorable to ecosystems only when  used <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage">with carbon capture and storage</a>, we concluded.</p><p>Climate mitigation strategies can provide a rare opportunity to  reduce not only carbon emissions but also a wide range of environmental  problems. However, deployment of low-carbon technologies should avoid  sensitive habitats in order to fully realize their environmental  benefits without triggering unintended consequences.</p><p>While most people recognize that solar and wind are low-carbon energy  sources, bioenergy and carbon capture and storage also have an  indispensable role in basically all scenarios where countries rapidly  reduce carbon emissions. Our results indicate that we need to search for  ways to use these technologies while minimizing the harm to ecosystems.  It is not just about whether we employ clean energy, but what  technologies, where and how.</p><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/edgar-hertwich-210836">Edgar Hertwich</a>, Professor of Industrial Ecology, <em><a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/yale-university-1326">Yale University</a></em>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/anders-arvesen-342635">Anders Arvesen</a>, Researcher in Energy and Process Engineering, <em><a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/norwegian-university-of-science-and-technology-715">Norwegian University of Science and Technology</a></em>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sangwon-suh-342636">Sangwon Suh</a>, Professor in Industrial Ecology, <em><a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-california-santa-barbara-1350">University of California, Santa Barbara</a></em>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/thomas-gibon-342633">Thomas Gibon</a>, Ph.D. Candidate, <em><a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/norwegian-university-of-science-and-technology-715">Norwegian University of Science and Technology</a></em></p><p>This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-green-energy-have-hidden-health-and-environmental-costs-52484">original article</a>.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: The Carbon Footprint of Capital
slug: the-carbon-footprint-of-capital
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2017-01-11
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  We think of capital, the assets we use in production, as heavy:  machines,
  buildings, infrastructure, trucks and railroads. Being  composed mostly of
  cement and steel, we would expect their production to  cause a lot of greenhouse
  gas emissions. In  a new paper, we offer a first detailed analysis of

excerpt:
  We think of capital, the assets we use in production, as heavy:  machines,
  buildings, infrastructure, trucks and railroads. Being  composed mostly of
  cement and steel, we would expect their production to  cause a lot of greenhouse
  gas emissions. In  a new paper, we offer a first detailed analysis of the
  carbon
  footprint  of gross fixed capital formation across countries and sectors
  [http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12532]. The picture that emerges is interesting
  because of some small surprises.

  S

html:
  <p>We think of capital, the assets we use in production, as heavy:  machines, buildings, infrastructure, trucks and railroads. Being  composed mostly of cement and steel, we would expect their production to  cause a lot of greenhouse gas emissions. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12532">In  a new paper, we offer a first detailed analysis of the carbon footprint  of gross fixed capital formation across countries and sectors</a>. The picture that emerges is interesting because of some small surprises.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Sodersten_CFofCapitalPerCountry2007-1.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p>Share of capital formation in the final demand and carbon footprint of different countries. Source: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12532">Journal of Industrial Ecology</a></p><p>First of all, capital is big. Capital formation constitutes about one  quarter of gross global product in monetary terms. It causes about 30%  of global greenhouse gas emissions. Leaving it out is a pretty big  oversight.</p><p>Second, capital formation varies across countries. The country with  the highest capital formation over the past decade was China, where it  constituted 44% of GDP in 2007 and caused 57% of the carbon footprint.  In developed economies, capital formation constitutes only about 20% of  GDP.</p><p>Third, the carbon intensity of capital formation varies depending on  what capital goods countries and industries invest in. While  construction and machinery are carbon intensive, software and business  services are not and ICT hardware has an average carbon intensity.  Globally, construction accounts for half of capital formation and 60% of  its footprint. In wealthier countries, capital formation is less carbon  intensive than household consumption.</p><p>Fourth, capital formation increases with GDP across countries. This  is maybe not surprising: affluent people save more. However, despite  purchasing more software and business services, rich countries also keep  investing in buildings and roads. Across countries, the carbon  footprint of capital formation increases by 83% for each doubling in GDP  per capita, measured on a purchasing power parity basis. China is an  outlier in this picture, having a carbon footprint of capital per person  higher than France or Great Britain. This increase of the carbon  footprint of capital with wealth occurs in spite of investing in cleaner  types of capital and having cleaner technology.</p><p>Most of the capital goods are purchased domestically. We investigated  two groups of countries, those with the highest and lowest carbon  intensities of capital formation, and found that in both groups, two  thirds of the value added associated with capital formation was  domestically produced. However, the location of GHG emissions diverges:  In countries with a high carbon intensity of capital, most of the  emissions occurred domestically, while in countries with a low carbon  intensity of capital, three quarters of the carbon footprint was  associated with imports. That is quite a stunning divergence! In  economies with a clean energy mix and a high energy efficiency of  production, one would expect imports to have a disproportionate share of  the carbon footprint, but the differences observed for capital are  especially egregious.</p><p>In <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Prosperity-without-Growth-Economics-for-a-Finite-Planet/Jackson/p/book/9781849713238">Prosperity without Growth</a>,  Tim Jackson argues that investing in assets and infrastructure was an  important step in the transition to a sustainable economy (p.177 f). We  find that investments are just as or even more polluting than  consumption, so that this strategy, per se, is not one that will solve  our environmental problems. His list of suggested investments, of  course, focuses on investments that would enable a more sustainable  living, such a renewable energy, public transport, and energy-efficient  buildings. We agree that such investments are required, but would like  to point out that capital formation as such is polluting and that hence,  this pollution needs to be considered when looking at the whole  picture.</p><p>Finally, I would like to close by reflecting on my own field. When  considering the carbon footprint of products or services, the carbon  required to produce the machinery that produces the products we consume,  the carbon required to lay the roads and build the ports, warehouses  and shopping malls that deliver these products to us are usually not  considered in the assessments, independent of whether life cycle  assessment or input-output analysis is used for the quantification. We  have now provided an estimate of the potential magnitude of the  resulting error. It is too large to be ignored.</p><p><em>Source</em>: Södersten, C.-J., R. Wood, and E. G. Hertwich. 2017. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12532">Environmental Impacts of Capital Formation</a>. <em>Journal of Industrial Ecology</em> doi:10.1111/jiec.12532</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Sodersten_CFcapitalPerGDP.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p>The  carbon footprint of capital per person as a function of GDP per capita.  The figure shows a clear trend, but also some significant outliers. The  capital invested in rich countries has lower CO2 emissions, as it  consists more of software, and it is produced with cleaner technology.  Nonetheless, the sheer volume of investment is higher, leading to this  effect. Source: Journal of Industrial Ecology</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Alternative climate theory in shatters
slug: alternative-climate-theory-in-shatters
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2016-01-27
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  An alternative theory for climate change based on the influence of cosmic radiation lead to prominent predictions of an imminent cooling of global temperatures. Three years after the book by Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning was a bestseller in Germany and translated into English, its prediction

excerpt:
  An alternative theory for climate change based on the influence of cosmic radiation lead to prominent predictions of an imminent cooling of global temperatures. Three years after the book by Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning was a bestseller in Germany and translated into English, its predictions – popular with climate sceptics also in the US –  have been shown to be false. Instead of a rapid cooling since the publication of the book, the world has experienced new temperature records.


  In 2

html:
  <p><em>An alternative theory for climate change based on the influence of cosmic radiation lead to prominent predictions of an imminent cooling of global temperatures. Three years after the <a href="http://www.kaltesonne.de/">book by Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning</a> was a <a href="http://www.kaltesonne.de/die-kalte-sonne-auf-der-spiegel-bestseller-liste/">bestseller in Germany</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Neglected-Sun-Catastrophe-Independent/dp/1909022241">translated into English</a>, its predictions – <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/14/highly-controversial-german-climate-book-to-appear-worldwide-in-english-september-1st/">popular with climate sceptics also in the US</a> –  have been shown to be false. Instead of a rapid cooling since the publication of the book, the world has experienced <a href="https://www.wmo.int/media/content/2015-hottest-year-record">new temperature records</a>.</em><br></p><p>In 2012, <a href="https://blog.indecol.no/germany-solar-influence-on-climate-in-public-spotlight/">I reviewed a best-selling book</a> by two German scientists critical of the greenhouse effect as a theory  explaining recent temperature rise. These scientists claimed that it was  cosmic radiation, instead. Part of public attraction of the book was  the prominence of the first author, Fritz Vahrenholt, a former  environmental activist, chemist-turned-politician and later corporate  big-wig at Germany’s largest electric utility, another part was the  scientific appearance of the argument, with a book full of figures and  references, but written in accessible language.  For me, finding a consistently argued  contrarian case was welcome, as it allowed me to understand and probe  the intellectual content of that position. I had been faced with various  contrarian arguments often contradicting each other and no alternative  theory to explain the phenomenon of global warming or other climatic  developments. Probing the book, I identified inconsistencies of the  presented arguments, e.g. about feedback mechanisms, contradiction  between observations in the scientific literature and those reported in  the book, a very selective representation of the available evidence, and  gross misrepresentations of a few of the cited articles.</p><p>Sure of their alternative theory, the authors predicted that given  the expected development of cosmic radiation in response the sun’s  regular cycles, temperatures would decline. In fact, they predicted a  measurable decline to levels seen in the 1990s already by 2015. I am  afraid the picture I took at the time of the figure in question was not  the sharpest, but you can get a good impression. What has happened was  exactly the opposite. After 2014 already setting a new temperature  record, 2015 is now the warmest year on record by a good margin. This  new evidence clearly contradicts the predictions made by the sceptics.  They were very sure of themselves. I wonder what they say now.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Industrial Ecology – Reflexions
slug: industrial-ecology-reflexions
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2015-09-04
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  The entire team of PhD students, PostDocs and professors on the steps of the
  main building, 17 October 2014

  In 2003, I moved to Trondheim to become Director of the Industrial Ecology
  Programme [http://www.ntnu.edu/indecol/] (IndEcol) of the Norwegian University
  of Science and Technology (NTNU). In 

excerpt:
  The entire team of PhD students, PostDocs and professors on the steps of the
  main building, 17 October 2014

  In 2003, I moved to Trondheim to become Director of the Industrial Ecology
  Programme [http://www.ntnu.edu/indecol/] (IndEcol) of the Norwegian University
  of Science and Technology (NTNU). In 2015, I have moved on
  [https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/edgar-hertwich-global-leader-in-industrial-ecology-joins-fes-faculty/] 
  to head the Center for Industrial Ecology [http://cie.research.

html:
  <figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/15771182305_12d70bfb18_z-300x200.jpg" class="kg-image" alt="The entire team of PhD students, PostDocs and professors on the steps of the main building, 17 October 2014" loading="lazy"></figure><p>The entire team of PhD students, PostDocs and professors on the steps of the main building, 17 October 2014</p><p>In 2003, I moved to Trondheim to become Director of the <a href="http://www.ntnu.edu/indecol/">Industrial Ecology Programme</a> (IndEcol) of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). In 2015, I have <a href="https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/edgar-hertwich-global-leader-in-industrial-ecology-joins-fes-faculty/">moved on</a> to head the <a href="http://cie.research.yale.edu/">Center for Industrial Ecology</a> at Yale University, following <a href="https://environment.yale.edu/profile/graedel">Tom Graedel</a>, the founding president of our <a href="http://is4ie.org/A-Note-from-the-Presidents">society</a>.  This transition provides an occasion to reflect on NTNU’s contribution  to the field and on opportunities for future development.</p><p>Industrial Ecology as a scientific field coalesced in the 1990s going  back to beginnings in the 1960s and 1970. As an interdisciplinary  activity strongly influenced by industry, industrial ecology was  simultaneously</p><ol><li>built on an explicit systems approach, borrowing both from biology and engineering;</li><li>an analogy between nutrient cycles in nature and material cycles in  industry, analyzing “industrial ecologies” (specific arrangements of  material cascading and looping), with a normative implication that  circular material flows in the economy were more sustainable;</li><li>a pro-active environmental attitude by industry. Rare among academic  fields dealing with the environment, industrial ecology accords  industry agency in solving environmental problems and sees it not just a  cause of problem and responding to government regulations.</li></ol><p>At NTNU, the Industrial Ecology programme was initiated on the request of industry, with Norwegian Hydro’s Vice President <a href="http://homepages.uwp.edu/crooker/research/systems/articles/2000-mastrander-etal-jie.pdf">Rolf Mastrander</a> in the leadership. Mastrander became the first industry-sponsored  Adjunct Professor of Industrial Ecology in the second half of the 1990s,  a position later held by Kjell Øren, also from Hydro and the World  Business Council on Sustainable Development. An international evaluation  of IndEcol after its initial five years praised the work of founding  director Professor <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helge_Bratteb%C3%B8">Helge Brattebø</a> and his team of co-conspirators and stated that NTNU, offering the  first organized educational program, was a true pioneer in the field.</p><p>For me, the position at NTNU offered an opportunity to realize  research ideas of consumption-based accounting for environmental  pressures and of evaluating the potential contributions of emerging  technologies to reducing these environmental pressures. It also offered  an opportunity to expand on and permanently establish the original  project organization, and I initially did not realize how much time I  would dedicate to this. Fortunately, NTNU’s engineering deans took a  positive attitude towards our field, creating new professorships and  financing PhD students. In return, they were awarded with a highly  productive and internationally well-recognized unit.</p><p>In a <a href="http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Article/Evaluation_of_basic_and_longterm_research_within_technology/1253995805470">research assessment</a> conducted for the Research Council of Norway (RCN), IndEcol was ranked  third out of 64 research groups in engineering, beaten only by two  well-funded heavyweights. In particular, the assessment emphasized the  synergy achieved among different topics and projects and praised our  societal impact, evidenced by the contributions to the Intergovernmental  Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the creation of spin-offs. In  preparation for the research assessment, the RCN also commissioned a <a href="http://www.forskningsradet.no/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&amp;blobheader=application%2Fpdf&amp;blobheadername1=Content-Disposition%3A&amp;blobheadervalue1=+attachment%3B+filename%3D%22Bibliometricreport-Finalversion.pdf%22&amp;blobkey=id&amp;blobtable=MungoBlobs&amp;blobwhere=1274506527829&amp;ssbinary=true">bibliometric study</a> of scientific papers published by Norwegian engineers in the  peer-reviewed literature, which identified IndEcol as the most cited  group in terms of total citations. It listed the Carbon Footprint of  Nations as the single most cited study published in the considered time  period 2009-2013. The analysis also showed that work published by the  group was on average cited 2.5 times as much as other papers appearing  in the same journals, an indicator of the impact that our work has in  the scientific community.</p><p>NTNU is well placed to continue making substantial contributions.</p><ul><li>IndEcol has a substantial pool of talent. As the research assessment  emphasized, IndEcol researchers “have very good overall performance  with some excellent individuals”. IndEcol researchers will continue to  provide leadership in scientific societies and journals, an IEA task  force, and the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative.</li><li>IndEcol has an excellent educational program. Its International MSc  program in industrial ecology provides a very solid training especially  in the quantitative analysis approaches characteristic of the field.  IndEcol also educates engineering Master students and receives a  substantial number of visiting students from other European  universities. These MSc students contribute to ongoing research and  provide access to talent.</li><li>Environmental issues will continue to be a serious concern and  industrial ecology approaches are increasingly recognized as being  essential to addressing these problems.</li></ul><p>Industrial ecology has seen the start of a convergence of  traditionally separate methods and approaches. IndEcol has contributed  to this trend; yet I am convinced that the potential for further  synergies is large. We have developed scenario approaches based on  either material cycle dynamics or energy scenario models, yet a  combination of those two would provide a real breakthrough. IndEcol  scientists have produced models of the global economy resolved also to  specify und understand emissions and resource use at the national level  while others have worked on spatially explicit impact assessment  especially on ecosystems, but not yet combined those approaches to model  the environmental impacts arising from specific value chains and  product baskets. IndEcol researchers have studied different climate  impact mechanisms of biomass utilization but not yet connected these to  broader scenarios of energy and material consumption.</p><p>All this research would help us to answer research questions  important either for policy decisions or for individual companies and  authorities. What opportunities does a circular economy hold for climate  change mitigation? How do specific action options of specific  industries affect future resource access? We demonstrated pollution  benefits of shifting to a low-carbon electricity supply, yet do such  benefits also occur from other climate change mitigation strategies? The  world economy is continuing a tectonic shift in the utilization of  resources, so what are the implications of this shift for resource  owners, like Africa, and regions dependent on resource imports, like  Europe?</p><p>Research activities need to reach a certain scale to be able to  tackle such questions, as they require a systematic build-up of research  infrastructure in terms of databases and software and a combination of  skills that are usually not held by a single individual. To take  advantage of these research opportunities and the potential synergies  that lie in the complementary competences of IndEcol staff, the new  IndEcol leadership will have to find funding for larger projects  involving multiple PIs. Unfortunately, I have not been able to generate  such funding. Our proposal for a Centre of Excellence received good  scores but was not funded. Since twice rejecting proposals to fund the  work that lead to the Carbon Footprint of Nations, the Research Council  of Norway has consistently failed to support larger projects in our  domain. Others may be more capable of maneuvering the politics of  research funding that invariable affects small countries.</p><p>I have enjoyed many aspects of living in Trondheim. It has great  outdoors, 100s of km of hiking trails and ski tracks, good but expensive  food and decent cultural offerings. I really should have spent more  time in the mountains! Norway is a well-run and extremely cohesive  society where family life is important and many are active in volunteer  activities; a country with a high social capital. Like Berkeley, Vienna,  Zurich, a great place to live, and I still manage to move on. Other  places have other attractions. All of us are visitors on this beautiful  planet, and we may as well visit a few places to see what it is like.</p><p>I would like to thank my former colleagues  for their excellent collaboration and wish them good luck with their further path.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Carbon pricing improves economics of energy
slug: carbon-pricing-improves-economics-of-energy
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2015-01-21
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  The Economics of Energy – What is the cost-effectiveness of energy and climate
  policies?

  In a panel debate [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcL4WTeGmPo] with key
  European policy makers hosted by GE and organized by  ScienceBusiness; I
  emphasized the need to more systematically  internalize environm

excerpt:
  The Economics of Energy – What is the cost-effectiveness of energy and climate
  policies?

  In a panel debate [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcL4WTeGmPo] with key
  European policy makers hosted by GE and organized by  ScienceBusiness; I
  emphasized the need to more systematically  internalize environmental costs,
  which we have enumerated in recent  scientific work.

  The social and economic benefits of modern energy are tremendous.  While two
  billion people still lack access to clean cooking fuels 

html:
  <p><strong>The Economics of Energy – What is the cost-effectiveness of energy and climate policies?</strong></p><p><strong>In a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcL4WTeGmPo">panel debate</a> with key European policy makers hosted by GE and organized by  ScienceBusiness; I emphasized the need to more systematically  internalize environmental costs, which we have enumerated in recent  scientific work.</strong></p><p><strong>The social and economic benefits of modern energy are tremendous</strong>.  While two billion people still lack access to clean cooking fuels and  one billion lacks access to electricity, the number of energy-poor in  Europe is small and energy is both reliable and affordable for most  European consumers. The real benefits of modern energy become apparent  only when we experience power outages, gas embargoes or when we see</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BalancingEnergyEconomy150120-300x169.png" class="kg-image" alt="BalancingEnergyEconomy150120" loading="lazy"></figure><p>what fraction of the household income energy-poor are willing to pay  for energy. Research on the social metabolism of societies has  demonstrated that <a href="http://anr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/01/08/2053019613518033.abstract">access to fossil fuels was essential to allow the growth of urban centers</a> even before invention of the steam engine and how it has fueled the industrial revolution and <a href="http://www.e-elgar.co.uk/bookentry_main.lasso?id=13324">economic growth</a> ever since.</p><p><strong>The use of fossil fuels, however, has substantial environmental costs</strong>. In a <a href="http://www.unep.fr/scp/publications/details.asp?id=DTI/1262/PA">study for the International Resource Panel</a>,  we assessed the main drivers of a large set of environmental problems  in terms of industry sectors, products and materials. We found that  fossil fuel utilization was the number one cause of most  pollution-related environmental problems, while agriculture and food  production stood as the major cause for habitat change, biodiversity  loss, and a significant contributor to ecotoxicity and overfertilization  of the environment. Energy not only stands for 80% of the climate  problem, it also causes the exposure to fine particulate matter with  significant health impacts especially but not only in developing  countries, the formation of smog, significant pollution associated with  the extraction and transport of fossil fuels, and more. As people become  wealthier, they are increasingly <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/110/32/12936">less willing to have their lives cut short by five years</a> because of cheap energy supply, as we see in China today.</p><p><strong>The environmental costs of fossil fuel use should be the deciding factor in determining our energy policy</strong>.  Climate costs affect mostly future generations and the poor, which have  little political clout today and cannot force decision makers to  internalize these costs. Fortunately, as our recent research has shown, <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/10/02/1312753111.abstract">low-carbon power sources also lower other types of pollution</a> which cause more immediate damages. This dual benefit provides an additional rationale for climate policies.</p><p><strong>In the area of solar and wind energy; Europe has been at the forefront</strong> creating a market for these technologies, thereby driving costs down  and making these energy sources cost-competitive in some markets, even  if the environmental costs of fossil fuels are not yet fully  internalized. Even if China has now taken over as a technology supplier,  it would not have happened without European leadership.</p><p>Solar and wind energy are intermittent. Good resources are sometimes far from demand centers. <strong>Extending electricity grids and removing regulatory barriers to create a single energy market in Europe</strong> can overcome some of the challenges posed by intermittency and  remoteness. Our research shows that transmission lines and subsea  cables, while adding to the pollution impact of renewables, do not  compromise the environmental edge renewables have over fossil fuels.  Even with extensive <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0709-2">transmission networks, in North Sea</a> or <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.03.072">across Europe</a>, RES come out as very attractive from a pollution perspective compared to today’s system.</p><p>However, <strong>impacts on the landscape</strong> become a problem –  people do not want to have all places full of windmills and  transmission towers. The variability of RES may be a real challenge to  effective utilization if not sufficient transmission capacity is built.  We should hence also explore alternative options to address variability  through energy demand reduction, peak shaving, and various forms of  energy storage. Technological progress, including in smart grids and  energy storage, will reduce the costs and hassle associated with these  strategies and will make them more attractive. They may also have clear  environmental benefits, which, however, need to be demonstrated.</p><p><strong>Energy and climate policy</strong>, GE Europe CEO Stephan Reimelt claimed in the discussion, <strong>have become a major source of volatility for companies, providing a challenge to businesses</strong>.  The way of internalizing social costs is important. Instead of imposing  a carbon tax or an effective ETS with predictable carbon costs, Europe  has followed a second-best strategy of protected markets, subsidies, and  regulation. This strategy has been successful in stimulating necessary  technology development and increasing energy efficiency, but it is not  reducing emissions enough. The second-best approach has resulted in  inconsistent and varying signals to companies. The system thus exposes  investors to unnecessary policy risks, thereby adding to the financing  costs of the energy transition. <a href="https://www.entsoe.eu/major-projects/ten-year-network-development-plan/tyndp-2014/Pages/default.aspx">Transmission system operators</a> call for a stable investment climate to reduce the risk to those making huge investments.</p><p><strong>Internalizing environmental costs can provide the stable investment climate requested by industry. </strong>The  EU should introduce a price floor for the emissions allowances in its  emissions trading system (ETS) by charging a minimum price for handing  out the allowances. Better still, <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21639501-fall-price-oil-and-gas-provides-once-generation-opportunity-fix-bad">it could replace the ETS by a carbon tax</a>.  A more predictable price of carbon would reduce the market volatility  for energy efficiency, transmission and other energy investments and  thus reduce the costs of financing the energy transition. It will also  reduce the need for regulation, thus further reducing the costs to  business.</p><p>Today, some electric utilities in Europe are in a difficult economic position, as<a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9c358caa-78cf-11e4-b518-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3PXQrFZnn"> the split of Germany’s EON shows</a>. They have <strong>created an overcapacity of fossil fuel fired power plants</strong>,  because they expected more demand growth and maybe did not believe the  planned renewable generation would be realized. Their investment  decisions were based on a higher carbon price, but their own  overestimates for required emission allowances are to blame for the glut  in the ETS. Utilities today complain that guaranteed feed-in tariffs  for renewables are to blame for their poor return on investment, but  both feed-in tariffs and EU renewable energy targets were in place when  they invested in the most recent fossil capacity additions. Sure, few  have predicted the shale gas revolution and its effect on the price of  coal, so gas was a poor bet. Higher carbon prices improve the position  of gas, but it would not go all the way making it competitive with coal  today. Right now, some utilities lobby for capacity payments – a way to  subsidize fossil fuel power plants in a manner comparable to the  protected markets for renewable power. I am not convinced that more  subsidies are the right decision.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: We can reach 2°C if we *replace* polluting technology
slug: we-can-reach-2degc-if-we-replace-polluting-technology
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2014-11-15
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [http://www.ipcc.ch] shows  that
  hope is not forsaken: rigorous climate politics locally and  nationally has
  spurred development of new technology sooner than  expected. Increased pressure
  in the pursuit of climate protection is  still required to reach 

excerpt:
  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [http://www.ipcc.ch] shows  that
  hope is not forsaken: rigorous climate politics locally and  nationally has
  spurred development of new technology sooner than  expected. Increased pressure
  in the pursuit of climate protection is  still required to reach the 2°C Target.

  Carbon Budget: Trillion tons of CO2

  The report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the
  climate climate system launched last year has a clear message: emittin

html:
  <p>The <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch"><em>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</em></a> shows  that hope is not forsaken: rigorous climate politics locally and  nationally has spurred development of new technology sooner than  expected. Increased pressure in the pursuit of climate protection is  still required to reach the 2°C Target.</p><p><strong>Carbon Budget: Trillion tons of CO2</strong></p><p>The report from the <em>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) </em>on the climate climate system launched last year has a clear message: emitting <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/full/nature08017.html">more than one trillion tons</a> of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels risks moving us far beyond the target of limiting global warming to <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/02/1402277-global-warming-2-degree-target/"><em>2</em>°C</a><em> above preindustrial level</em>.   This carbon budget stems from the climate sensitivity – the correlation  between the increased concentration of greenhouse gases and the  resulting temperature rise.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Picture1-300x239.jpg" class="kg-image" alt="Following the climate sensitivity, temperature increases as we put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The level of increase is largely independent of the rate of emissions; it depends on the cumulative amount emitted. A higher emissions rate means the temperature will increase faster. If we want to limit the warming to a certain level, one can read the carbon budget (cumulative emissions we are allowed to produce) off the figure. Credit: IPCC WG1." loading="lazy"></figure><p>Following  the climate sensitivity, temperature increases as we put more carbon  dioxide into the atmosphere. The level of increase is largely  independent of the rate of emissions; it depends on the cumulative  amount emitted. A higher emissions rate means the temperature will  increase faster. If we want to limit the warming to a certain level, one  can read the carbon budget (cumulative emissions we are allowed to  produce) off the figure. Credit: IPCC WG1.</p><p>One thousand billion tons sounds tremendous. But think again! In 2050  we will have a nine to ten billion humans on earth; the budget is  equivalent one hundred tons per person. If we give ourselves hundred  years to learn how to live without a net carbon dioxide emission, that  is a ton per year for each of us.</p><p>Currently the greenhouse gas emissions in Norway count about ten tons  per person, adding the carbon footprint, which includes imported goods  and international flights, the average rises to approximately fifteen  tons per person. The global average is seven tons. At the current  emission rate, we will have consumed the<em> budget in 20 years.</em></p><p><strong>Rapidly increasing emissions</strong></p><p>Unfortunately the development is heading in the wrong direction. In  the 2000s greenhouse gas emissions increased more rapidly than previous:  2.2 % per anno compared to 1.7% per anno in the period 1970-2000.</p><p>Combustion of coal – the <em>dirtiest </em>energy source – rose  faster than otherwise energy production. China’s state-run capitalism  boosts growth through investments in mines, power plants,  infrastructure, buildings and machinery, all financed by savings of  relatively poor Chinese. It is easy to feel blue on behalf of the  climate!</p><p>However, the picture is not entirely devastating. In my work with the <em>IPCC-report</em> on climate change mitigation, I have discovered a series of bright  spots. Perhaps we have made more progress with climate protection than  the pessimists among us realize? Here are my reasons for optimism.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SPM6-300x248.png" class="kg-image" alt="The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased at an unprecedented rate in the 2000s due to a rapid rise in population and economic output and a failure to shift to low-carbon energy sources." loading="lazy"></figure><p>The  atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased at an unprecedented rate in  the 2000s due to a rapid rise in population and economic output and a  failure to shift to low-carbon energy sources.</p><p><strong>Testing of instruments on a large scale</strong></p><p>While the summary report, that is the abstract for policy makers, is  rather cautious in its discussion of instruments for climate protection,  the chapters of the main report offers more interesting reading. It  describes climate policy measures implemented by countries, cities,  regions and multinational organizations. The instruments include systems  with emission constraints and trade with emission allowances such as  the EU emissions trading system (EU ETS) that Norway also is a part of,  various kinds of support for renewable energy and energy efficiency  improvements in amongst others China and India, regulations and  voluntary agreements for more efficient cars, airplanes, washing  machines, and much more.</p><p>Quite many climate policy measures have been implemented since the  publishing of the former climate report in 2007. Not every measure works  as good as foreseen; but at least we have the opportunity to harvest  important learnings that may become the basis for a more effective  policy in the future.</p><p><strong>We can live without fossil energy – can we?</strong></p><p>If we search to limit global warming we need energy technologies  producing little or no greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Scenario models  that the IPCC has applied in several reports indicate that renewable  energy will be an important element of climate protection. Previously it  seemed rather optimistic, given that solar energy only could supply  relatively small cabins with light. Back then wind energy only had an  important role in little Denmark. Today, however, utilities built wind  farms that produce as much power as coal power plants. (For a 6000 MW  windfarm in the Gansu province in China, see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gansu_Wind_Farm">here</a>.) Engineers have designed solar thermal power plants can supply electricity based on storage of heat. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_thermal_power_stations">One such plant produces as much electricity as the controversial gas-fired power plant at Mongstad</a>.  The IPCC report informs us that the capacity of renewable energy  production in 2012 increased by 105 gigawatts – roughly equally  distributed between solar, wind and hydropower. Solar power continues  its growth in 2013. One gigawatt is the effect of one large atomic power  plant, or four times the power rating of Mongstad.  A comparison with  the IEA’s 2°C scenario shows that we have already achieved the required  rate of expansion renewable energy production. We just have to continue  on the same level. The maturation of renewable energy technologies ought  to be celebrated as a climate politic success!</p><p>Recent years we have seen the arrival for electric cars that are  attractive, comfortable, and with acceptable range. Electric cars are  only environmental friendly if supplied with clean electricity; reducing  energy consumption in battery production is imperative for climate  mitigation. Still, electric cars will become a technology that offers us  more opportunities to face the transport demands with fewer emissions  than current cars do. In addition to various forms of state support,  electrical cars are driven forward through customer interest in  sustainable transportation. Meanwhile engineers have learned to build  houses that barely consume energy for heating and identified new ways to  reduce emissions through recycling of components and materials. I have  also learned from the report that nuclear power is not as dangerous as I  presumed; actually the human body is able to handle low-intensity  radiation from accidents such as the Fukushima accident. The realization  of a low carbon society still requires a number of technological  innovations, but it appears that we can manage these challenges. It is  less certain whether we really are able to apply all the environmentally  friendly technology to reduce emissions.</p><p><strong>Do we manage to use the technology to reduce emissions?</strong></p><p>Coal consumption continues its rapid growth as coal is readily  available and inexpensive to produce in regions experiencing high  economic growth, such as China, Malaysia, Turkey, India and South Africa  (f<a href="http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/SPM5.png">igure</a>).  The amount of emissions also grows because industrialized countries  fail to reduce their emissions and import steadily more goods from coal  dependent economies, mainly in Asia. While technology has presented us  the opportunity to replace the use of fossil fuels through a combination  of energy efficiency, renewable and nuclear energy – this is not what  we use the technology for. We can stop global warming if we cease to use  fossil energy without capture and storage of CO<sub>2</sub>.</p><p>Of the many climate political instruments implemented, the reduction  in the use of fossil energy has been the least successful. The European  emission trading systems is based on the distribution of free emission  allowances that has given large revenues to many industry actors. As a  result of intensive lobbyism too many emission allowances have been  distributed and the price has dropped close to zero. Meanwhile,  financial support to fossil energy, good conditions for the fossil  industry and other promoting measures that enhance fossil energy,  continue.</p><p>Gasoline is subsidized amongst in Brazil, India, Nigeria and many  other places. The level of security in the coal mines in China and  Turkey is so low that hundreds of lethal accidences occur every year.  NATO and the United States maintain an extensive and pricey presence in  the Middle East that serves to ensuring the continued access to  petroleum. In Norway, the petroleum industry opposes the electrification  of oil platforms at Utsirahøgda and has seemingly failed implementing  CO2 capture at Mongstad. Unless we confront the support for fossil  energy and at the same time manage to gain approval for effective  measures that restrict the use of fossil fuels, emissions will continue  to increase.</p><p><strong>We choose the path</strong></p><p>Even though the latest report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), <a href="http://www.iea.org/etp/etp2014/"><em>Energy Technology Perspectives 2014</em></a> is very optimistic regarding renewable energy and predicts a bright  future especially for solar power, it is not so that renewable energy  simply emerges by itself. The financial crisis has reduced the  investment in renewable energy production and has worsened conditions in  some pioneering countries such as Spain. In 2013, investments in  renewable energy production had dropped by a quarter from the peak in  2011 according to Bloomberg. In Germany, the value of renewable energy  is decreasing due to a large fluctuating production that result in  energy prices close to or below zero when the production is high.</p><p>Essential for renewable energy in the time to come is two things.  First, new markets and countries must acquire framework conditions for  implementation of renewable energy. For the climate it would be  desirable that this would happen through quota markets or emission taxes  rather than subsidies. Second, we must increase our effort to develop  and implement solutions to address variable energy production from  renewables. Part of the solution lies in power plants with more  operating hours (wind power at sea rather than on land) and sources that  vary independently of sun and wind, such as wave and tidal power.  Further, energy systems can be adapted to variable energy supply through  flexible demand, more transmission capacity over larger areas, and  energy storage.</p><p>Maybe some of these alternatives seem somewhat unrealistic? Possibly  just as unrealistic as gigawatt-scale solar power plants seemed to be in  2007? Renewable energy is not enough. We must also scrutinize emissions  from industry, transport, agriculture and deforestation. The IPCC has  examined novel options, such as recycling of building components,  spatial planning as a tool to reduce the need for transport,  restructuring of nutrition away from the high and unhealthy meat and  dairy consumption, reducing food waste, and carbon storage in products.  Many of these solutions have different advantages, from better health  and more leisure time to the preservation of natural resources. It is  hard to see that we could manage foregoing these options if we want to  continue economic development for a growing population and limit climate  change.</p><p>I think we should regain courage by the successful development and  the introduction of new energy technologies such as solar power,  electric cars, and passive houses. These options provide us great  opportunities! We should also learn lessons from how various measures  have been more or less effective. It is time to let technology replace  fossil energy use.</p><p><em>This article appeared first in Norwegian, initially in Bergens Tidene, <a href="http://www.adressa.no/meninger/kronikker/article9496063.ece">Adresseavisen</a> and in the full version in <a href="http://energiogklima.no/kommentar-analyse/ny-teknologi-gjor-togradersmalet-mulig/">2/C</a></em></p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Breathe easier with renewable energy
slug: breathe-easier-with-renewable-energy
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2014-10-14
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  If we want to limit air  pollution and reduce greenhouse gas emissions while
  meeting unmet demand  in developing countries, renewable electricity is a
  promising option,  as our new research
  [http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312753111] shows.
  By Edgar Hertwich [http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/auth

excerpt:
  If we want to limit air  pollution and reduce greenhouse gas emissions while
  meeting unmet demand  in developing countries, renewable electricity is a
  promising option,  as our new research
  [http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312753111] shows.
  By Edgar Hertwich [http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/author/edgar-hertwich/], 
  Thomas Gibon [http://www.ntnu.edu/employees/thomas.gibon] and Anders Arvesen
  [http://www.ntnu.edu/employees/anders.arvesen], NTNU

  The use of fossil energy sources has made it po

html:
  <h3 id="if-we-want-to-limit-air-pollution-and-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions-while-meeting-unmet-demand-in-developing-countries-renewable-electricity-is-a-promising-option-as-our-new-research-shows-">If we want to limit air  pollution and reduce greenhouse gas emissions while meeting unmet demand  in developing countries, renewable electricity is a promising option,  as our <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312753111">new research</a> shows.</h3><p>By <a href="http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/author/edgar-hertwich/">Edgar Hertwich</a>, <a href="http://www.ntnu.edu/employees/thomas.gibon">Thomas Gibon</a> and <a href="http://www.ntnu.edu/employees/anders.arvesen">Anders Arvesen</a>, NTNU</p><p>The use of fossil energy sources has made it possible for cities,  population and prosperity to grow. It has also led to the pollution of  air, water and soil. The main product of the combustion of fossil fuels  is carbon dioxide, a gas that holds back the Earth’s heat radiation so  that the surface and ocean temperature increases. To prevent dangerous  anthropogenic warming, we have to either switch to non-fossil energy  sources or adopt clean technologies that prevent carbon dioxide from  reaching the atmosphere. Fossil energy is not only the main cause of  climate change, but is also the most significant source of air pollution  and an important cause of several other environmental problems. As many  people die from air pollution every year as in battlefields of World  War II: 7 million per year, according to the World Health Organization.  About half of these deaths are caused by fossil fuels; a tenth by fossil  power plants. In a new study, we investigate how the replacement of  normal coal and gas power with climate friendly alternatives affects the  pollution and hence damage to humans and ecosystems.<br>The production of electricity from renewable sources causes little or no  emissions directly, but the construction, maintenance and scrapping of  plants such as wind farms requires materials, electricity, and  transport. These activities lead to emissions, which can be quantified  using life cycle analysis. In <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312753111">our study</a>,  we analyzed solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower plants and compared  them to different types of coal and gas fired power plants. Technology  experts in several countries have contributed data and assessments. We  have both compared the <a href="http://public.tableausoftware.com/profile/#!/vizhome/ElectricityTechnologyComparisonsPNAS2014/UnitDashboard">environmental impact of producing a single kilowatt hour</a> and assessed the global environmental effects of a reorganization of the entire global energy supply.<br>Our study calculates the amount of materials necessary to produce power.  We conclude that wind power and solar thermal energy demand up to ten  times more steel and concrete than coal and twenty times more than gas.  Solar cells need much copper for wires and aluminum for frames.</p><p>It’s not just the final production of these materials results in  emissions, but also the extraction of raw materials, processing and  transport. In spite of the large quantity of materials and equipment  required, renewable energy causes much less pollution than fossil fuels.  Thermal solar energy, PV, onshore and offshore wind turbines are  clearly better than coal on all environmental indicators we have  examined, and beat gas power on several indicators. Many hydroelectric  and geothermal power plants are also environmental champions, although  not all such projects are good. The use of carbon capture and storage to  clean fossil fuel power plants results in a moderate increase of  emissions other than carbon dioxide, compared to plants without capture.  Even though the demand of space for renewables is often emphasized, the  increase deployment of renewables would lead to lower space  requirements than a continued expansion of fossil based power due to the  large land use of coal mining.<br>The comparison of our various global future scenarios shows that a  further development of fossil power production to meet a growing demand,  as foreseen in the IEA Baseline scenario, will lead to a doubling of  air pollution to 2050, even the use of modern and more efficient fossil  power plants. It will also lead to a doubling or tripling of various  types of pollution to water and soil that are harmful to ecosystems. A  global adoption of low carbon power generation, as foreseen in the IEA 2  degree scenario, will however stabilize air pollution and reduce  emissions of other pollutants, although the power production almost  doubled. Further reductions in emissions are possible if we use more  renewable energy and less carbon capture to meet emission targets. Our  study shows that a global transition from fossil to renewable  electricity will reduce not only global warming but also limit damage to  human health and ecosystems. While some challenges remain on the way to  power systems that rely on a large degree of variable renewable energy  sources, technologies such as compressed air or thermal energy storage  offer part of the solution.</p><p>Hertwich, E. G.; Gibon, T.; Bouman, E. A.; Arvesen, A.; Suh, S.;  Heath, G. A.; Bergesen, J. D.; Ramirez, A.; Vega, M. I.; Shi,  L. Integrated life cycle assessment of electricity supply scenarios  confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies. <em>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</em>, 2014. <a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1312753111">www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1312753111</a></p><p>Read more in:</p><p><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/renewables-are-as-green-as-you-d-expect/">Scientific American</a></p><p><a href="http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/erneuerbare-energien-trotz-materialaufwand-den-fossilen-ueberlegen-a-995864.html">Der Spiegel</a></p><p><a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2014/10/09/la-transition-energetique-est-aussi-benefique-pour-l-environnement_4502813_3244.html">Le Mond</a></p><p><a href="http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/58895">Environmental Research Web</a></p><p><a href="http://www.altmetric.com/details.php?domain=www.pnas.org&amp;citation_id=2746937">Article level metrics</a></p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: What’s new in the IPCC report
slug: whats-new-in-the-ipcc-report
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2014-04-13
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  After 4 years of intensive work, the fifth assessment report of climate change
  by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
  [http://mitigation2014.org/]has  finally been published. It says that it is
  urgent to begin reducing  emissions, otherwise we will not be able to stay below
  the arti

excerpt:
  After 4 years of intensive work, the fifth assessment report of climate change
  by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
  [http://mitigation2014.org/]has  finally been published. It says that it is
  urgent to begin reducing  emissions, otherwise we will not be able to stay below
  the articulated  limit of two degree temperature rise. Sure, but that was
  already the  main message of the fourth asssessment report in 2007. Having
   contributed to this report as a lead author of the energy 

html:
  <p>After 4 years of intensive work, the<a href="http://mitigation2014.org/"> fifth assessment report of climate change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) </a>has  finally been published. It says that it is urgent to begin reducing  emissions, otherwise we will not be able to stay below the articulated  limit of two degree temperature rise. Sure, but that was already the  main message of the fourth asssessment report in 2007. Having  contributed to this report as a lead author of the energy chapter, I  have made my personal list of most important findings.</p><p>Key findings – IPCC WGIII AR5<br>1. The past decade has seen an unprecedented rate of increase in  Greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of the  global rise in emissions. The primary cause for the rise in emissions  was the rapid coal-fueled industrialization and urbanization of emerging  economies, combined with continued high emissions in industrialized  countries. The carbon footprint of rich countries has kept rising, but  mainly due to the increased import of emissions-intensive products from  middle income countries (see figure; for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_%28nominal,_Atlas_method%29_per_capita">country classification</a>). The world is now on the upper end of the emissions scenarios considered in earlier IPCC assessments.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/SPM5-219x300.png" class="kg-image" alt="A &quot;Glen Peters&quot; chart showing the emissions embodied in trade and how carbon footprints (broken lines) have developed over time." loading="lazy"></figure><p>A “Glen Peters” chart showing the emissions embodied in trade and how carbon footprints (broken lines) have developed over time.</p><p>2. A strident development of low carbon technologies demonstrates now  the viability of climate mitigation. Progress includes substantial  reductions in cost and initial market penetrations of technologies such  as wind power, solar heat and power, highly efficient building shells,  and electric vehicles. These technologies present alternatives to  established technologies based on fossil fuel combustion. Our capacity  to build solar and wind power plants is now nearly large enough to  achieve the share of renewables of mitigation scenarios.<br>3. A range of national, regional and local climate policies have been  implemented. While these policies have been insufficient to halt the  global rise in emissions, they provide important experiences with  various policy approaches and instruments, such as emissions trading,  carbon taxes, technology standards, and market penetration programs.   They also constitute an important reason for the technological progress  achieved.<br>4. Limiting the global average temperature increase to the  internationally agreed target of 2 degrees centigrade or even 3 degrees  above the preindustrial levels requires the cessation of CO2 emissions  from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes already within this  century. Considering the long investment horizons of infrastructure and  industrial equipment, a continued increase of CO2 emissions for a  decade or more will most likely results in an “overshoot” of both  atmospheric concentrations and temperature above the 2 degree target.  Reducing the global average temperature back to 2 degrees above  preindustrial level would require a massive employment of so-called  negative-emissions technologies, such as bioenergy with CO2 capture and  storage or CO2 removal from the atmosphere, by 2070. These are unproven  and expensive technologies, shouldering future generations with  substantial costs.<br>5. Replacing fossil fuel utilization by energy efficiency and a range of  renewable and nuclear energy technologies, if properly chosen, may lead  to a substantial reduction of pollution and associated health and  ecological impacts, as well as a reduction of fatalities related to  severe accidents.  The extraction and utilization of fossil fuels, in  particular of coal and unconventional oil, causes a range of serious  environmental and occupational health and safety issues. Low-carbon  energy technologies also cause such impacts, but rates of pollution and  severe accidents are commonly lower. In addition, for many countries,  reducing fossil fuel use will result in a reduced dependency on imported  resources.  Climate mitigation may hence help societies to achieve  other social objectives, such as clean air and autonomy.<br>6. The efficiency of industrial production processes and transportation  technologies has increased in the past decades. Gains from a further  improvement of individual technologies, while important, are by  themselves not sufficient to deliver the necessary emissions reductions,  and more systemic solutions need to be achieved, such as urban design  approaches to limit emissions from transportation and construction, or  longer lived products, urban mining, reuse and recycling approaches to  reduce emissions from materials production. The field of Industrial  Ecology has delivered significant insights into these more systemic  approaches to climate mitigation.</p><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6rxr8a4d6U&amp;list=UUzREXrW52KMSaZsurQ9UiSQ">Here</a> is a video where I describe one issue I contributed to the report.</p><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqvKuknc5o">Here</a> is my summary presentation of the report (in Norwegian).</p><p><a href="http://www.adressa.no/meninger/kronikker/article9496063.ece">Lyspunkter i klimapolitikken</a></p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Carbon footprint of hydro power
slug: carbon-footprint-of-hydro-power
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2013-09-17
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  I took a deep breath after a brisk climb up the soft hill near the  border to
  Sweden. The sun peaked out under the clouds and the light was  beautifully
  reflected by the water of Nesjøen [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesj%C3%B8en],
   while reindeer was munching away on delicious blueberries a little 

excerpt:
  I took a deep breath after a brisk climb up the soft hill near the  border to
  Sweden. The sun peaked out under the clouds and the light was  beautifully
  reflected by the water of Nesjøen [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesj%C3%B8en],
   while reindeer was munching away on delicious blueberries a little  further
  down the ridge. The reservoir below contrasted to the barren  land on the other
  side, making it more tranquil and interesting at the  same time. No wonder that
  hydropower has a good reputatio

html:
  <figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/01/image-3.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p>I took a deep breath after a brisk climb up the soft hill near the  border to Sweden. The sun peaked out under the clouds and the light was  beautifully reflected by the water of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesj%C3%B8en">Nesjøen</a>,  while reindeer was munching away on delicious blueberries a little  further down the ridge. The reservoir below contrasted to the barren  land on the other side, making it more tranquil and interesting at the  same time. No wonder that hydropower has a good reputation as an  environmentally benign source of electricity, renewable and carbon-free.  But is it really? The answer turns out to be: it depends.</p><p>One of the more remarkable environmental impacts of hydropower is the generation of the powerful greenhouse gas methane (CH<sub>4</sub>)  from the rotting of organic material; plant matter inundated when the  dam was filled as in the horrible case of the Balbina power station in  the Brazilian Amazon (<a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7119/full/444524a.html">Nature</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balbina_Dam">Wikipedia</a>),  organic matter transported by tributaries, and algae and phytoplankton  growing in the reservoir itself. The methane is generated when the water  is depleted of oxygen, as it often happens in lower layers of still  water. The amounts of methane and CO<sub>2</sub> generated from the degradation of plant matter can be substantial; in <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JG001465/abstract;jsessionid=A0088EB1CA26BC05B0F751611734A154.d03t02">Balbina</a>, the amount of methane released corresponds to 2 kg of CO<sub>2</sub> equivalents per kWh of electricity generated – twice the global warming  impact as that of a coal fired power station. In addition, 8 kg of CO<sub>2</sub> is released. The huge area of inundated dead trees – 1770 km<sup>2</sup> for a mere 250 MW in capacity – indicates that Balbina may be an extreme, an outlier.</p><p>How serious is the issue on a global scale? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its <a href="http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report">special report on renewable energy</a> published in 2011, had investigated the issue, but not offered a  conclusion. Methane emissions were presented as they were measured, in  grams of methane per square meter of reservoir surface. This provides an  insufficient basis for comparison with other technologies. I have hence  matched published measurements to the power generation and a number of  potential explanatory variables such as reservoir area, latitude, and  natural biological productivity of an area and analyzed the data. The  findings of my work were recently published in <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401820p"><em>Environmental Science &amp; Technology</em></a>. Here are some highlights:</p><ol><li>For the global average hydro power station, methane emissions correspond to 70 gCO<sub>2</sub> equivalent per kWh, which is more than the 2-40 gCO<sub>2</sub>/kWh  from the construction of the power station. This is a lot less than the  impact of fossil fuel power stations, but a lot more than the impact of  wind power.</li><li>The emissions rate ranges by many orders of magnitude, in a  distribution we call log-normal. Such a distribution has a peak near  zero and a very long tail. Most hydropower stations are really benign,  while the majority of emissions is created by a few plants.</li><li>The best predictor for the emissions rate is the reservoir area per  unit of electricity output. If the reservoir measures below 0.1 square  meter per kWh/year of electricity generation, you are on the save side.</li><li>Apart from the energy density, the age of the power station and the  biological productivity of the area influence the emissions. Emissions  go down with time at least for the first 10 years, as the biomass  inundated by the reservoir decays. Naturally, one would expect that the  amount of biomass and soil organic carbon originally present at the site  are also important, but I had no data on that matter. However, the  natural primary productivity of the area, the amount of biomass growth  per land area, also plays a role, with dams on more productive land  giving rise to higher emissions.</li></ol><p>Today, a lot of hydropower plants in developing countries receive  support through the so called Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a  mechanism created through the Kyoto protocol to allow rich countries to  off-set their emissions. Wisely, the CDMs are issued only to hydropower  plants with a high power density. My research indicates that the  threshold set for the funding is able to avoid some but not all highly  emitting projects.</p><p>The Vessingfoss power station at Nesjøen generates 44 GWh per year, the energy density is 0.75 m<sup>2</sup> per kWh/y. I am not sure I could recommend the creation of this beautiful lake today. It is borderline.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Ecological tragedy, economic naiveté
slug: ecological-tragedy-economic-naivete
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2013-06-03
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  The tragic extinction of species, from the black r
  [http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/10/world/africa/rhino-extinct-species-report/index.html]
  hinoceros
  [http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/10/world/africa/rhino-extinct-species-report/index.html] 
  to plants remaining undiscovered, is unfortunately one of th

excerpt:
  The tragic extinction of species, from the black r
  [http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/10/world/africa/rhino-extinct-species-report/index.html]
  hinoceros
  [http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/10/world/africa/rhino-extinct-species-report/index.html] 
  to plants remaining undiscovered, is unfortunately one of the hallmarks of
  humans on the planet. This week, the Trondheim Conference of Biodiversity
  [http://www.dirnat.no/tk13/] celebrated its 20 year anniversary by gathering 400
  scientists and  international 

html:
  <figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/01/image-4.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p>The tragic extinction of species, from the <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/10/world/africa/rhino-extinct-species-report/index.html">black r</a><a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/10/world/africa/rhino-extinct-species-report/index.html">hinoceros</a> to plants remaining undiscovered, is unfortunately one of the hallmarks of humans on the planet. This week, the <a href="http://www.dirnat.no/tk13/">Trondheim Conference of Biodiversity</a> celebrated its 20 year anniversary by gathering 400 scientists and  international negotiators to an exchange of knowledge and ideas. The  focus of this conference was on the economy and options for engaging  companies and economic approaches to protect biodiversity, as well as  making biodiversity relevant for economic decision makers. Key words are  externalities, payment for ecosystems services and natural capital. In  general, the gist of this effort is in the right direction and deserves  to be supported. There are hopeful successful examples to follow, but at  the same time the framework rests on an insufficient theory and some of  the examples cannot be upscaled or generalized. There is no coherent  strategy of how to protect ecosystems on a larger scale.</p><p>I would like to offer a friendly critique and options for improvements.</p><p>(1)    A microeconomic approach is both insufficient and impractical.  Microeconomics is concerned with markets for individual products and  the prices and quantities of these markets; it treads decision makers as  rational and well-informed. Higher extinction levels than those that  would be <em>economically optimal</em>, according to this analysis as presented by <a href="http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/2013/06/03/ecological-tragedy-economic-naivete/www.dirnat.no/attachment.ap?id=3232">Ed Barbier</a>, occur because individual decision makers are not affected by the disappearance of the <a href="http://www.eoearth.org/topics/view/49575/">ecosystem services</a> provided by a species – these services accrue to someone else. These  economists hence engage in the valuation of ecosystem services,  estimating the value provided by species through looking, e.g., at the  value of crops dependent on pollination by bees, or the expenditure of  visitors of a nature park, or by asking for a willingness to pay. Now  they have taken the next step, promoting the correction of these  externalities through payments in order to stop behavior that threatens  species.<br><a href="http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1808958?uid=3738744&amp;uid=2&amp;uid=4&amp;sid=21102280159281">Robert U. Ayres and Ralph Kneese</a> have already in 1969 identified important shortcomings of the  usefulness of the externality concept: it makes sense only when looking  at certain individual decisions and if externalities are few and small.  Environmental externalities, however, are pervasive and large. Just  think about climate change, land use or the nitrogen cycle: practically  every human activity causes these externalities, either directly or  indirectly. The same is true for ecosystem services; we are all entirely  dependent on them. Determining the right level of prices is hence  problematic, as current prices are a poor reference; they are affected  by externalities. Ayres and Kneese proposed an alternative research  program; the field that has emerged reflecting their recommendations is  now called <a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Industrial_ecology">Industrial Ecology</a>.  In addition, with regards to the payment concept, there is now  convincing psychological evidence that payments can have  counterintuitive effects, taking away the sense of social obligation  that makes people do good.</p><p>(2)    The focus on specific cases obscures the larger picture.  Stories of specific populations that are threatened and how they can be  protected are interesting, but collectively may provide the wrong basis  for analysis. Case studies suggest that biodiversity is threatened by a  sum of independent, local decisions; just getting these decisions right  would protect biodiversity. This picture is most certainly incorrect.  There are larger drivers for biodiversity loss. Protecting the whale  shark off the Indian West Coast from local fishermen is laudable, but it  implies that these fishermen need to find their livelihoods and food  somewhere else.  Protecting one population or ecosystem may just pass  the pressure on to another place. Pressures are systemic, as the  Millennium Ecosystem Assessment showed. Protective action in one  location may enhance overall biodiversity, as the worst offences are  curbed, or it may not, if levels of protectiveness differ across  localities, as they certainly do across countries. What is needed is a  more macro-level analysis of the problem of biodiversity loss,  addressing the drivers for biodiversity loss in a more systematic  manner. Fortunately, the conference had a range of presentations that  attempted to do so, in particular those by <a href="http://www.dirnat.no/attachment.ap?id=3265">Arne Geschke</a>, <a href="http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/2013/06/03/ecological-tragedy-economic-naivete/www.dirnat.no/attachment.ap?id=3264">Paul Leadley</a>,<a href="http://www.dirnat.no/attachment.ap?id=3267"> Rob Alkemade</a> and <a href="http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/2013/06/03/ecological-tragedy-economic-naivete/www.dirnat.no/attachment.ap?id=3266">me</a>.  I think there is a general awareness of these issues among the  negotiators of the biodiversity convention; however, our understanding  of these drivers and their effect mechanisms are spotty.</p><p>If my argument is correct that we need to pay more attention to the  systematic drivers of biodiversity loss, there is probably a common  cause to be made between climate protection and biodiversity  preservation. Climate finance already supports reducing deforestation  and forest degradation. Reducing food waste, as well as improving  rich-world diets with fewer calories and less meat could contribute  significantly to both causes. Our understanding of other interactions,  however, is still very poor. Naïve perspectives on the economy do not  bring us any further; rather we need a solid understanding of the  biophysical dimensions of our economy in order to understand its  interactions with the physical environment and how to reduce pressures  on ecosystems.</p><p>PS: See <a href="http://www.iisd.ca/biodiv/tcb/2013/29may.html">IISD</a> for reporting on the conference.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Rich Pressure Poor Ecosystems
slug: rich-pressure-poor-ecosystems
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2013-03-11
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  I just returned from my weekly trip to the supermarket: in  addition to Kenyan
  roses, Brazilian melons, Israeli oranges, Dutch  tomatoes, Kiwis from New
  Zealand, and potatoes from Saudi Arabia (!), I  have, for the first time, found
  minced beef from Botswana, sold for just  over half the price of th

excerpt:
  I just returned from my weekly trip to the supermarket: in  addition to Kenyan
  roses, Brazilian melons, Israeli oranges, Dutch  tomatoes, Kiwis from New
  Zealand, and potatoes from Saudi Arabia (!), I  have, for the first time, found
  minced beef from Botswana, sold for just  over half the price of the Norwegian
  one. We have over the years become  accustomed to the increasing variety and
  prettiness of food we find on  supermarket shelves, regardless of the season.
  Meanwhile, we are  generally obli

html:
  <figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/01/image-5.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p>I just returned from my weekly trip to the supermarket: in  addition to Kenyan roses, Brazilian melons, Israeli oranges, Dutch  tomatoes, Kiwis from New Zealand, and potatoes from Saudi Arabia (!), I  have, for the first time, found minced beef from Botswana, sold for just  over half the price of the Norwegian one. We have over the years become  accustomed to the increasing variety and prettiness of food we find on  supermarket shelves, regardless of the season. Meanwhile, we are  generally oblivious to the ecological cost of this bounty. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.010">New scientific research</a> now  shows that, indeed, consumers in some rich countries live well above  their ecological means and in the process threaten global biodiversity  (see also <a href="http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/post/extinction_footprints/">previous post</a>). They can do so only because of international trade.</p><p>The increasing intensity and extent of human land use is a major threat to ecosystems. Estimates by the <a href="http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_basics_overview/">Gobal Footprint Network</a> show that humanity already uses two thirds of the fertile land available on this planet; calculations by the <a href="http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/socec/eng/inhalt/1.htm">Institute of Social Ecology</a> in Vienna demonstrate that <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/104/31/12942.full.pdf+html?sid=8f9ad5c8-ebf3-4ba8-afb1-357387feeab8">humans in fact appropriate a full quarter of terrestrial biomass</a>. According to the <a href="http://www.maweb.org/">Millennium Ecosystem Assessment</a>,  habitat loss – mostly through land use – is the number reason for the  extinction of species on the planet. Climate change, hunting and  fishing, the release of nitrogen and phosphorus – in large part due to  fertilizers used in agriculture, and alien species also contribute  significantly to the largest mass extinction event since the  disappearance of the dinosaurs.</p><p>In the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.010">most encompassing and detailed study of the processing, trade and consumption of products of land use, we quantify </a>the  land footprint of 87 individual countries and 26 more aggregate  regions, covering the entire global economy. We express land use in  terms of hectares of global average crop land productivity, the measure  of the well-established Ecological Footprint. Our analysis shows that  the land footprint for different countries can be largely explained by  only two factors: wealth and the availability of fertile land. Richer  countries have a higher footprint: the per capita footprint of Germany  and France in 2004 was 2.7 global hectares per person, China’s 0.8 and  India’s only 0.6 gha/p. At the same time, countries with a lot of land  available use more of it; Canada’s land footprint at 3.9 gha/p was much  large than Japan’s (2.0 gha/p); Brazil used 2.3 gha/p, while Bulgaria  with the same GDP per person used only 1.7 gha/p. (If you want to know  your country’s footprint, see our <a href="http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/content/environmental_footprint_of_nations/">visualization</a>.)  Throughout our dataset, a doubling of per capita income increases the  footprint by 35%; while a doubling of domestic land availability  increases the footprint by 23%.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="http://69.195.124.91/~carbonf5/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Screen-Shot-2013-03-22-at-2.23.51-PM-1024x656.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p>You are forgiven to think that, well, overall, this is not so  surprising. The study, in the meantime, resolves a scientific mystery.  If you measure biomass use in different countries, as the aforementioned  Institute of Social Ecology has done, <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es1028537">it varies a lot but does not depend much on wealth</a>. If you look historically at biomass use per capita, it has gone down instead of up (see <a href="http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Publications/Decoupling/tabid/56048/Default.aspx">metabolic rate</a>). This trend is contrary to the observation for <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/108/50/20260">food consumption</a>, which increases with increasing wealth; just witness the present obesity epidemic. The explanation, in our eyes, lies in the <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/108/9/3465.short">displaced land use</a> which  was not fully considered in the work of the colleagues from the  Institute for Social Ecology. Displaced land use, in fact, increases  proportional to income per capita and does not depend at all on the  domestic availability of land. The replacement of draught animals and  fire wood by fossil fuels probably also plays a role for the historical  development.</p><p>Paradoxically, the beef from Botswana I found in the supermarket today is <a href="http://www.framtiden.no/200504283471/aktuelt/bedrifters-samfunnsansvar/blodig-urettferdig.html">a success for Friends of the Earth</a> and  other green and development groups who have long lobbied for a greater  access of developing countries’ agricultural products to the markets of  the rich world. We have not investigated whether the ecological impact  of beef production in Botswana is higher or lower than in Norway.  Looking just at a package of minced meat, it may be a good thing, not  least because it provides income to a relatively poor population. The  problem is that international trade moves the ecological impact out of  our sight. Ecological limits disappear. Our results show that Japan and  South Korea displace twice as much land use as they have fertile land  available domestically. Also in Europe, we live above our biocapacity:  Germany’s land footprint is 30% higher than the amount of fertile land  available, the land footprint of the Netherlands and Belgium is two and a  half times their biocapacity.</p><p>Our study indicates that as emerging economies get richer and the  population grows further, nature will be squeezed. By 2050, basically  all available fertile land will be used to satisfy increased consumption  levels of a larger population. Some relief for nature may come from an  intensification of land use and an increase of fertile land area through  irrigation. At the same time, climate change, erosion, salinization of  soils as a result of irrigation, and urbanization will reduce the  available fertile land. Reduced biodiversity will make us more  vulnerable to pests. Given the systematic net displacement from rich to  poor countries, we can expect that biodiversity will be especially  threatened in those remaining poor countries which have underdeveloped  institutions and hence no capacity to protect biodiversity.</p><p>None of this is inevitable; we can reduce our land footprints by  reducing the overconsumption and waste of calories, limiting the  consumption of animal products which already cause 28% of global land  use, preserve forests and avoid sealing too many surfaces. Avoiding a  further squeeze of poor countries’ ecosystems requires changing the  current global land use pattern that has been identified in our  research. Displacing land use to poor countries makes us co-responsible  for protecting their biodiversity, and mechanisms need to be developed  for doing so.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Germany: Solar influence on climate in public spotlight
slug: germany-solar-influence-on-climate-in-public-spotlight
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2012-08-08
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  Surprisingly, a book co-written by a well-known former German  environmental
  activist presents a strong revisionist story and is able  to capture both 
  headlines [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Vahrenholt] and spot on the
  best-seller list. I read the book
  [http://www.amazon.de/Die-kalte-Sonne-Kl

excerpt:
  Surprisingly, a book co-written by a well-known former German  environmental
  activist presents a strong revisionist story and is able  to capture both 
  headlines [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Vahrenholt] and spot on the
  best-seller list. I read the book
  [http://www.amazon.de/Die-kalte-Sonne-Klimakatastrophe-stattfindet/dp/3455502504/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344103051&sr=1-1] 
  “The  cold sun: why the climate catastrophe is not happen” by Fritz  Vahrenholt
  and Sebastian Lüning (VL) fo

html:
  <figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/01/image-6.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/01/image-7.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p>Surprisingly, a book co-written by a well-known former German  environmental activist presents a strong revisionist story and is able  to capture both <a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Vahrenholt">headlines</a> and spot on the best-seller list. I read the <a href="http://www.amazon.de/Die-kalte-Sonne-Klimakatastrophe-stattfindet/dp/3455502504/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1344103051&amp;sr=1-1">book </a> “The  cold sun: why the climate catastrophe is not happen” by Fritz  Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning (VL) for a coherent revisionist  argument.</p><p>The book was written with strong conviction and a very pervasive  style. It is richly illustrated with charts displaying the time series  of climatic and other variables. Not satisfied with the inability of  climate models to predict shorter term climate variability on an annual  to decadal scale, VL argue that the influence of solar activity and  cosmic rays has been underestimated and are responsible for much of the  warming observed from 1980 to 2000. As a trained chemist, V understands  the absorption of heat radiation by CO2 and acknowledges the greenhouse  effect caused by it (ca. 1.1 °C for a doubling of the CO2  concentration). However, VL dispute feedbacks that produce a stronger  climate effect and claims that temperature variations are driven mainly  by solar activity. The core of the argument:</p><ol><li>No water-vapor feedback. In climate models, the warming caused by  additional CO2 leads to the increased evaporation of water and a higher  concentration of heat-trapping water vapor in the atmosphere. Through  the water-vapor feedback mechanism, the warming effect of a doubling of  the CO2 concentration is commonly assumed to be 2.8-4.5°C instead of  1.1°C for the direct effect of CO2.  VL dispute the existence of the  water vapor feedback mechanism. Without such a feedback, alternative  explanations are needed for the already observed temperature increase.  VL argue that such an explanation is offered by an increased solar  activity since 1900, measured in the increase in total solar energy  reaching the earth and especially increased UV radiation in the number  of sunspots, the doubling of the solar magnetic field, and the resulting  reduction by 20% in the cosmic radiation which is shielded from earth  through the increased magnetic field. To explain the increased  temperature, they offer, in particular, two potential mechanisms.</li><li>Increased UV radiation. The sun’s total energy output varies  cyclically by ca. 0.1%, where the strongest cycle is the 11 year cycle.  VL recognize that the variation in energy output cause only tiny  variations in global temperature. (1/4 of 0.1% of the global avg.  temperature following the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law">Stefan-Boltzmann law</a>,  or 0.07°C ). The 10% of the total energy flux emitted in the  ultraviolet part of the solar spectrum, in the meantime, varies by as  much as 2-3%. VL now suggest that the effect of the UV radiation  explains the observed increase in surface temperature.</li><li>Less cloud-seeding through reduced cosmic radiation. Low clouds can  have a cooling effect on the surface. VL suggest that reduced cosmic  radiation due to an increased solar magnetic field causes the formation  of fewer cloud condensation nuclei, which again cause fewer clouds and  hence an increased temperature.</li></ol><p><strong>Water vapor feedback examined</strong></p><p>I was quite surprised by the bold claim that the water vapor feedback  mechanism does not exist. Already in Middle School I had learned about  the <a href="http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-saturation-pressure-air-d_689.html">strong temperature dependence of the ability of air to hold water</a> and  the need to define a relative humidity, which expresses the water vapor  content of air relative to that capacity. When the relative humidity  reaches 100%, water condenses and clouds form. It is not only that a  warmer atmosphere can hold more water, the evaporation rate also  increases with increased temperature, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation">ensuring the production of more water vapor</a>.  For there to be no water vapor feedback, relative humidity must  decrease as climate warms. Mechanisms must exist to explain the quicker  condensation of water vapor in a relatively dryer atmosphere. Even  though the lack of a water vapor feedback is central to their  hypothesis, the claim that a warmer atmosphere will not hold more water  is supported only with reference to three scientific papers. One paper  reports measurement of the water vapor in the stratosphere over Bolder,  Colorado, which shows a reduction of water vapor since 2000. The  stratosphere, lying above most of the greenhouse gases, is not expected  to have increased temperatures as a result of the greenhouse effect. The  second paper cited,<a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf">Lindzen and Choi</a>,  does not explicitly address the water vapor feedback but feedbacks more  broadly and offers no basis at all for dismissing the existence of the  water vapor feedback (For a discussion, see <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/">here</a>). Only <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/m2054qq6126802g8/">one</a> of  the three papers actually reports measurements of water vapor (by  radiosondes) and sets it in connection with temperature, providing some  support to VL’s theory. VL neglect to tell the reader that the paper  itself reports contradicting satellite measurements and cautions the  reader regarding the interpretation of the results. VL also fail to  inform their readers of many <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523.abstract">other measurements</a> that<a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JD014192.shtml">conform to</a> the theory of a water vapor feedback also in the tropics, e.g. from<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html">satellites</a>. A <a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009RG000301.shtml">recent review</a>, while acknowledging remaining uncertainty, supports a water-vapor feedback.<br><strong>Alternative Explanations for Warming</strong></p><p>Given that the solar cycles, while very regular, lead only to tiny  variations in the total solar output which, based on an energy balance,  will have very little influence on global temperature, VL suggest the  variation in certain UV wavelengths or in the magnetic field could be  responsible for the observed temperature changes.<br>The problem with UV radiation is that it is mostly absorbed in the  stratosphere, 10-50 km above ground, as VL recognize. Therefore,  additional energy emitted as UV is hence not amplified by the greenhouse  effect. VL do not present any plausible mechanism by which increased UV  radiation could influence the climate more strongly than accounted for  in the present climate models. Of course, increased UV radiation  increases the concentration of ozone, a strong greenhouse gas. However,  the increases are too small to have a significant effect and changes in  the ozone concentration are included in climate models.<a href="http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/5737/2012/acp-12-5737-2012.pdf">Measurements</a> show  that the ozone concentration has gone down 1980-2000, the period of the  most rapid warming, due to a combination of the effect of  ozone-depleting chemicals (by 3%) and the solar cycle (by 1.5%). The  amplification and feedbacks VL suggest for UV are the same feedbacks  which they deny for CO2. The suggested feedback mechanisms amplifying  the effect of UV radiation directly contradict their discussion of cloud  cover by Lindzen and Choi.</p><p>The seeding of clouds by cosmic rays has been suggested as an  important driver for the global climate by Svensmark. Potential  mechanisms behind this theory are currently being investigated by the <a href="http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/">CLOUD</a> experiment  as CERN and by a number of other scientists. VL present Svensmark’s  hypothesis as already confirmed. This is not the case, and the CLOUD  experiment at CERN has been set up to test Svensmark’s hypothesis.</p><p>There are <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/cosmic-rays-and-clouds-potential-mechanisms/">two potential mechanisms</a> discussed by atmospheric scientists by which cosmic rays could influence cloud formation and hence temperature. The<a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html">CLOUD results</a> published  so far investigated only a single connection in a long causal chain:  Whether ions formed from cosmic rays could influence the formation of  cloud condensation nuclei. Yes, there is an influence. Further steps  need to be investigated, such as whether an increased number of cloud  condensation nuclei lead to the formation of more cloud droplets and how  this could potentially influence cloud properties. The experiment at  CERN also showed that the concentration of pollutants such as sulfuric  acid, and ammonia has a large influence on the formation of cloud  condensation nuclei.<br>If cosmic radiation had a significant influence on the climate through  the mechanism investigated in the CLOUD experiment, the changes in  emissions of conventional pollutants in the 20th century must have had a  strong influence on the climate as well. None of the regression charts  presented by VL includes an influence of air pollution, and nor does  their alternative explanation.</p><p>On close inspection of VL’s figures, abstracting away suggestive  trend lines and arrows, one can in fact see that there can be no strong  correlation between cosmic rays and global temperature. The figure shown  above presents a smoothed development of temperature and cosmic rays  (from a <a href="http://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/2012/03/die-kalte-sonne-von-vahrenholtluning-wo-ein-trend-ist-das-bestimmen-wir.php">discussion of the techniques for data presentation and analysis used by VL</a>).Other <a href="http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/surf/publikationen/2010/2010/2010_calogovic.pdf">observations contradicting Svensmark’s theory</a> have recently been published.</p><p><strong>No Coherent Alternative Theory</strong></p><p>In “The cold sun: Why the climate catastrophe is not happening”,  Vahrenholt and Lüning present a new truth. Through a very selective and  biased presentation of the available scientific literature and through  the extensive use of suggestive correlations in absence of known  mechanisms, they give the impression to possess a new theory that can  better explain the evolution of the climate of the past century. Looking  at the underlying science, I find mechanisms by which the sun could  potentially influence the climate as strongly as suggested are not well  understood and most likely not as effective as suggested. The level of  uncertainty about the processes addressed by VL is much higher than the  uncertainty about the effect of CO2 and greenhouse gases. The level of  cosmic radiation <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/">has oscillated but not decreased over the past 50 years</a> and as such does not present a likely cause for the warming.</p><p>Despite its best efforts and effective rhetoric, the book is not able  challenge the role of CO2 and other anthropogenic factors as a  important factors influencing our climate.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Extinction footprints
slug: extinction-footprints
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2012-06-13
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  It is a sad result of human civilisation that we are driving other species into
  extinction. A new study
  [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11145.html] 
  highlights the main driving forces – rich countries’ consumption.

  Humans have always affected their environment. Environme

excerpt:
  It is a sad result of human civilisation that we are driving other species into
  extinction. A new study
  [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11145.html] 
  highlights the main driving forces – rich countries’ consumption.

  Humans have always affected their environment. Environmental history  is
  littered with stories of modifications of the environment to enhance  the growth
  of fruit-bearing plants and the impact of our hunting. In the  Americas, the
  late arrival of humans re

html:
  <figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/01/image-8.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p>It is a sad result of human civilisation that we are driving other species into extinction. <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11145.html">A new study</a> highlights the main driving forces – rich countries’ consumption.</p><p>Humans have always affected their environment. Environmental history  is littered with stories of modifications of the environment to enhance  the growth of fruit-bearing plants and the impact of our hunting. In the  Americas, the late arrival of humans resulted in an extinction of most  large game – and their predidators, a story repeated quite impressively  and even more rapidly by the Polynesians who settled in New Zealand. The  scale of our impact on nature, however, has never been larger. And  while climate change looms as an important threat to species, it is  other mechanisms with which we are currently endangering biodiversity.  According to the <a href="http://www.maweb.org/">Millenium Ecosystem Assessment</a>,  the most important causes for ecosystem impacts are habitat change  (land use change, river change etc), the overfertilization of ecosystems  with phosphorus and nitrogen, invasive species, and unsustainable  fishing and hunting practices.</p><p><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11145.html">A new analysis by Manfred Lenzen and his team at the University of Sydney</a>,  published in the prestigious journal NATURE, provides us with new  insight into the human causes of extinctions, in this case specifically  animal extinctions. The analysis is based on the information on causes  of individual species threats and extinctions of animals listed in Red  Lists of threatened species. These listings provide a specific  assessment of the threat, like hunting, poaching, specific types of  agriculture etc. The analysis connects these causes to economic  activities and traces these activities through the world economy. What  we learn from the analysis is that about 30% of all species threats are  caused by products that are traded internationally. The main products  are agricultural products, including coffee, tea and tabacco, but  forestry products also feature prominently. This is in fact an amazingly  large number, given that most of the food consumed is still grown  locally. The cause behind this high number is that it is high value  products that are traded internationally, and these appear to cause a  high impact.</p><p>The pattern that further emerges from the analysis is that rich  country’s consumption causes species threats in poor countries. This is a  pattern familiar also from the carbon footprint of nations, and it is  the same countries that are the main perpetrators, but it is different  countries where the species go extinct from where the coal is fired:  countries like Papua New Guinea, Madagaskar, and the large Pacific  Island nations of Southeast Asia feature prominently.</p><p>In a <a href="http://worldmrio.com/biodivmap/">snazzy web tool</a>,  the Sydney team displays the results of their analysis on a country  level. Here you can find out that Norway threatens 35 species on Red  Lists through domestic economic activity, mostly through fishing and  forestrly, that its imports cause 31 species threats in other countries,  and that of the 35 species threats, 14 are connected to exports. This  means that Norway is a net importer, and that its consumption causes 52  species threats, and that is quite a lot for such a small country.</p><p><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/486036a.html">I have had the honor to comment this paper in NATURE</a>.  In my comment, I point to the need to better understand the mechanism  of these extinctions. I also question whether the extinctions can really  be effectively reduced by more benign production methods helped through  product labelling, or whether it is the overall scale of the human  enterprise that requires the land use and thus endangeres a lost of life  forms on Earth.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Guarantees of origin and their misuse in carbon footprint calculations
slug: guarantees-of-origin-and-their-misuse-in-carbon-footprint-calculations
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2012-02-15
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  In the development of the international standard for product carbon footprint
  analysis, there are now forces
  [http://www.gaia.fi/news/gaia_news_2011/know_your_electricity.html] arguing
  [http://ostfoldforskning.no/uploads/prosjektsider/publikasjon/Memo_GHG_Power_Accounting_to_TWG_Eligibility_Ostfold_

excerpt:
  In the development of the international standard for product carbon footprint
  analysis, there are now forces
  [http://www.gaia.fi/news/gaia_news_2011/know_your_electricity.html] arguing
  [http://ostfoldforskning.no/uploads/prosjektsider/publikasjon/Memo_GHG_Power_Accounting_to_TWG_Eligibility_Ostfold_Research_August_2011.pdf] 
  that so-called guarantees of origin
  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarantee_of_origin] (GO)  should be used to
  calculate the greenhouse gas emissions associated  with electr

html:
  <p>In the development of the international standard for product carbon footprint analysis, there are now <a href="http://www.gaia.fi/news/gaia_news_2011/know_your_electricity.html">forces</a> <a href="http://ostfoldforskning.no/uploads/prosjektsider/publikasjon/Memo_GHG_Power_Accounting_to_TWG_Eligibility_Ostfold_Research_August_2011.pdf">arguing</a> that so-called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarantee_of_origin">guarantees of origin</a> (GO)  should be used to calculate the greenhouse gas emissions associated  with electricity. This sound innocuous, but one should not be deceived  by a misleading term! Guarantees of origin are not what they sound to  be: they do not guarantee that the electricity you buy is actually from  the source that it is claimed to be from. GO are papers that are issued  when electricity is produced specifying the source and they can be sold  independent of the physical product. If you are a utility in Malta and  produce all your electricity from an oil fired power plant, you can  still offer your customers clean Norwegian hydropower by buying GOs from  a Norwegian utility! There is no way for the Norwegian hydropower to  travel to Malta, and as a consumer you still get electricity from a  dirty petroleum-fired power plant, but with the electricity you get, for  a small fee, a piece of paper that has originally been issued to a  hydropower producer and that this producer has decided to sell on.</p><p>What is the problem with that? Well, a Maltese hotel owner can thus  for a small fee claim to use renewable power in his operations and buy  himself a green image. A carbon footprint label would show that the  hotel has a very low carbon footprint.</p><p>Guarantees of Origin for electricity are misleading and should not be  used in LCA or carbon footprint labels. The purpose of life-cycle  assessment (LCA) is to truthfully assess the emissions and resource use  that is associated with a product system, from the extraction of raw  materials to the disposal of the final product. As a scientific tool,  LCA aims to accurately represent the actual connections between  materials and processes along the life cycle and associated emissions,  and to assign these emissions to the product systems that require the  materials or are produced by the processes in question. The use of GOs  in LCA obscures the real connection between electricity production and  the emissions associated with it. It contravenes the purpose of LCA and  carbon footprint labeling and has the potential to discredit it.</p><p>I argue that the actual electricity mix of the utility you buy  electricity from should be used for assessments of the carbon footprint,  not some phony papers displaying physically unrealizable electricity  sales.</p><p>Why should GOs not be used in LCA and carbon footprint labels? Well,  first, because they systematically give you the wrong answers. If you  stay in the above hotel and choose to keep the AC on all night, more oil  will be burned in the Maltese power plant, causing more CO2 emissions.  This should be truthfully represented by an LCA. Second, because such  labels would lead to the wrong decisions. If the Maltese hotel owner  does an assessment of whether she should in the winter months heat the  Hotel’s swimming pool with electricity or solar collectors, the  assessment would identify electricity as most climate-friendly energy  source. In reality, however, the use of solar heat is clearly much more  climate friendly. Third, because we should not treat electricity  differently from any other inputs in carbon footprinting. For all of  these reasons, we should use the electricity mix of the actual  electricity supplier as a basis for calculating carbon footprints.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Unsustainable Developments
slug: unsustainable-developments
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2011-12-12
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  It seems like we right now are running hard from facing the  truths and some
  associated pain, and that in at least two instances that  are striking for their
  similarities: the global financial crisis and  climate change. Let me begin with
  the financial crisis. The main problem  of the financial cris

excerpt:
  It seems like we right now are running hard from facing the  truths and some
  associated pain, and that in at least two instances that  are striking for their
  similarities: the global financial crisis and  climate change. Let me begin with
  the financial crisis. The main problem  of the financial crisis is that levels
  of debt have become too large  and cannot be repaid by the original debtors.
  Lenders and many  politicians are now desperately searching for others to take
  on these  debts, and throu

html:
  <p>It seems like we right now are running hard from facing the  truths and some associated pain, and that in at least two instances that  are striking for their similarities: the global financial crisis and  climate change. Let me begin with the financial crisis. The main problem  of the financial crisis is that levels of debt have become too large  and cannot be repaid by the original debtors. Lenders and many  politicians are now desperately searching for others to take on these  debts, and throughout the crisis unfortunately governments have been all  too willing to take over the liabilities of banks and other financial  institutions. They should not have done that!</p><p>How do I know that debt levels are too large? An analysis by <a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/MGI/Research/Financial_Markets/Mapping_global_capital_markets_2011">McKinsey</a> shows that debt levels have reached a new high in 2010 at 212 trillion dollars (T$ – Teradollars). The global,<a href="http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf"> total GDP</a>,  for a reference, was T$63. The global GDP measures all the income of  all humans in a year, 2010.  If you are a homeowner looking for a  mortgage, lending 3.5 times your annual income is about as high as it  gets. Then you need to put up your home as a guarantee. What is the  global value of ‘homes’? The World Bank puts the <a href="http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/wealth-of-nations">total value of all produced assets</a> –  buildings, roads, railroads, factories and machines – at T$124. (The  latest available estimate is for 2005 and has probably risen since then  due to the massive investment in China, but the debt in 2005 was already  higher, at over T$150.) Debt hence exceeds the total value of all the  physical capital in the world. Therefore, if you hence try to unwind all  the debt in bankruptcy proceedings, you end up with physical capital  being redistributed to the lenders, but not sufficient cover the nominal  value of the debt. As some of the capital is owned by people who have  no or little debt, there is even less real value out there that backs up  the existing loans.(For more on this issue, check out <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/10/stop-another-great-depression-debt">Keen</a>.)</p><p>Financial markets are now desperate for government action. Market  analysts describe stock valuations being driven by government action,  not economic fundamentals. Markets call for more credit, for more  liquidity to enable more lending and to rescue financial institutions  that have made loans that cannot be repaid. They want governments to  take on more of the liability of private actors. For those governments  who would now longer be solvent if they accepted the bank debt  accumulated in their countries, markets want Germany and – through the  World Bank, China – to take on the liability of governments . This is a  process of burdening the future tax payer with liabilities she has no  responsibility for. What does she get in return? Market actors who  have learned that they can offload risk to others. We are turning our  children into debt slaves. Future tax income is mostly from taxes on  labor and consumption, and if these liabilities are accepted taxes will  have to be raised. Accepting these debts means burdening future  generations in order to rescue capital owners from the collective  consequences of their poor decisions.</p><p>The only way out of this crisis is to write off bad debt. We should have started with this in 2007, as <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/30/freefall-global-economy-joseph-stiglitz">Stiglitz</a> argues.  We should certainly do it now. Creating more debt by national banks  producing excessive liquidity and governments nationalizing debt only  makes the problem worse and the ultimate pain larger. It is  irresponsible.</p><p>Now let’s turn to climate change: We have understood the problem for a  long time and the evidence is becoming increasingly stark. Currently,  we are experiencing a rapidly increasing rate of emissions of greenhouse  gases (for an analysis by the <a href="http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/10/files/GCP2011_CarbonBudget2010.pdf">Global Carbon Project</a> co-authored by Glen Peters, see <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n1/full/nclimate1332.html">here</a>) at a time when we should be rapidly decreasing the emissions. The IEA’s <a href="http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2011/factsheets.pdf">Global Energy Outlook</a> confirms  that emissions need to peak by 2015-2017 the latest for us to have any  chance at all to reduce emissions to levels which allow temperatures to  stabilize at 2 degrees of warming. What is instead happening is that we  continue a mode of development which so systematically leads us to a  projected temperature rise with +6 degree by the end of the century. The  implications of such a policy will be dramatic. Why do we postpone  action? Because the evidence is not 100% air tight, according to the  standard of proof required by some? The evidence will be so only once it  is too late. It is irresponsible to further postpone actions.</p><p>Here, the room for even drastic action to succeed limiting climate  change to a level that might still be acceptable is running out if we do  not act more quickly. What we will need to do is to revise our mode of  economic development. Not doing so will result in an economy that is not  fit for the future, and in a rapidly changing climate that is  threatening much of our natural capital. Again, our children will be the  ones who will suffer as a result of our inaction.</p><p>Climate change and the global financial crisis are similar: our  actions are such that we currently make bad problems worse. We postpone  dealing with the problem so that our children will be left to sort out  the mess. They will be in a much worse position to do so.</p><p>Some of the solutions to the two problems are the same. We need to  find a new mode of economic development that does not rely on debt to  finance overconsumption or to build assets we cannot afford to operate.  We need to invest our savings in things that have a return on  investment: infrastructure that furthers human well-being by promoting  human-powered transport and that requires little energy to operate, a  renewable energy supply system, skills, and natural assets. The  parallels do not stop here. Why do we hesitate pursuing this course of  action?</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: PC and TV purchases shape EEE carbon footprint
slug: pc-and-tv-purchases-shape-eee-carbon-footprint
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2011-11-04
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  The rapid proliferation of electronic entertainment and  communication equipment
  has eclipsed traditional household appliances  like washing machines and
  refrigerators as the equipment with the  highest residential carbon footprint;
  apart from heating, hot water and  lighting.

  The Norwegian state b

excerpt:
  The rapid proliferation of electronic entertainment and  communication equipment
  has eclipsed traditional household appliances  like washing machines and
  refrigerators as the equipment with the  highest residential carbon footprint;
  apart from heating, hot water and  lighting.

  The Norwegian state broadcaster sent a wonderful story
  [http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nrk_sogn_og_fjordane/1.7855911] on our new
  study [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es201459c]:  a home electronics
  seller is in

html:
  <figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/01/image-9.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p>The rapid proliferation of electronic entertainment and  communication equipment has eclipsed traditional household appliances  like washing machines and refrigerators as the equipment with the  highest residential carbon footprint; apart from heating, hot water and  lighting.</p><p>The Norwegian state broadcaster sent a <a href="http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nrk_sogn_og_fjordane/1.7855911">wonderful story</a> on <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es201459c">our new study</a>:  a home electronics seller is interviewed, listing the number of TVs his  customers have in a household: in the living room, the kitchen, the  bedroom and each of the kids rooms. He also confirms that these are  replaced frequently. Our study showed that the manufacture of  electronics purchased by Norwegian households causes about 350 kg of CO2  per person and year. Assuming a relatively clean Norwegian or Nordic  electricity mix, this is more than is caused by household appliances.  The development shows a reversal compared to conventional wisdom in  energy analysis: for this equipment, the emissions during manufacturing  are really more important than those during the use phase. And what  energy analysts have previously been labelled the “miscellaneous”  category is now more important than (or of comparable importance with  the relatively dirty EU electricity mix as) what used to be the  big-ticket items: freezers, refrigerators, washing machines,  dishwashers, and electric ovens and ranges. A more detailed summary of  the paper was published in <a href="http://cicero.uio.no/fulltext/index.aspx?id=9156&amp;lang=no">KLIMA</a> and<a href="http://www.peachreport.com/2011/10/laptops-tvs-surprisingly-large-contributors-to-climate-change/">Chemical &amp; Engineering News</a>.</p><p>The study triggered a number of reactions by Norwegian actors that  were reported by the Norwegian broadcaster. One of the factors we  criticized was the high acquisition rate, suggesting that relatively new  and working equipment is discarded. An environmental organization hence  argued for an extension of the mandatory warranty period to 5 years.   However, most reactions were prompted by the comments of climate policy  professor <a href="http://www.bi.no/en/Research/Academic-homepage/?ansattid=fgl99096">Jørgen Randers</a>, famous for being a co-author of the seminal “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth">Limits to growth</a>” report.<a href="http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nrk_sogn_og_fjordane/1.7857065"> He argued</a> that  there was no point in focusing on PCs and TVs, as there would be little  gain and people want to have those anyway. Instead, he suggested we  should focus our efforts on electric vehicles.</p><p>This is what happens in a hectic media day: Randers really missed the  deeper implications of our research. We argue that one reason why  operational energy use went down was the successful policy of the EU to  increase the efficiency and decrease the stand-by losses of energy-using  equipment. Despite of these successes, we see a high carbon footprint  from EEE, electric and electronic equipment. Just now, it is coming from  something else: new consumption of equipment we did not use before,  like computers, home electronics, multiple TV sets. In addition, the  rapid technological obsolescence due to technological improvement drives  the turn-over especially for flat-panel TVs, PCs and mobile phones,  which is also why longer warranties will not help. I do think this  instance demonstrates on a specific case a mechanism that happens more  widely: that we, with our ingenuity, constantly find new ways to  stimulate and satisfy our curiosity which create consumption that comes  in addition to what we had before. Like other stuff, this is made out of  materials using energy to shape it, and it thus causes GHG emissions.  It is a demonstration that efficiency gains and better technology alone  will not be sufficient to save us from climate change.</p><p>The work on household electronics was conducted by MSc student  Charlotte Roux under my supervision and I checked, modified and wrote up  the results. It was published in <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es201459c">Environmental Science &amp; Technology</a> (ES&amp;T). PhD students Anders Arvesen, Ryan Bright and I <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.013">just published a discussio</a>n of the larger mechanisms counteracting climate mitigation efforts, based on reading in a PhD course.</p><p>And by the way, I learned today that our Carbon Footprint of Nations  study from 2009 was still among the top downloaded papers in ES&amp;T in  the third quarter of 2001. We are being cited in about 25 other  articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Carbon Footprint 1990-2008
slug: carbon-footprint-1990-2008
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2011-10-28
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  We present now a time series of carbon footprints in the Ranking tab
  [http://www.carbonfootprintofnations.com/content/emissions_worldwide/].  Our
  data lets you trace the development of carbon footprints over the  period
  1990-2008. You need an Adope Flash player installed to see this.  This data
  repr

excerpt:
  We present now a time series of carbon footprints in the Ranking tab
  [http://www.carbonfootprintofnations.com/content/emissions_worldwide/].  Our
  data lets you trace the development of carbon footprints over the  period
  1990-2008. You need an Adope Flash player installed to see this.  This data
  represents national CO2 emissions corrected for trade and  shows that some
  countries that have had reductions of national emissions  have nonetheless
  increased their carbon footprint, like the UK. You  ju

html:
  <figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/01/image-10.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/01/image-11.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p>We present now a time series of carbon footprints in the <a href="http://www.carbonfootprintofnations.com/content/emissions_worldwide/">Ranking tab</a>.  Our data lets you trace the development of carbon footprints over the  period 1990-2008. You need an Adope Flash player installed to see this.  This data represents national CO2 emissions corrected for trade and  shows that some countries that have had reductions of national emissions  have nonetheless increased their carbon footprint, like the UK. You  just need to click on the country and you see the time series. You can  click several countries after each other to produce a comparative chart.  Unfortunately, for most countries, the trend is upward, but there are a  number of European nations that have succeeded to stablize and even  reduce their carbon footprints over this time period, especially Germany  and formerly communist countries. One can only hope that more countries  adopt the stringent policies that Germany has adopted and similarily  become leaders in renewable energy and energy efficiency without  compensating in some other dimension.</p><p>The StatPlanet tool we employ also lets you compare per capita  emissions and per capita GDP (see figure), and to let this run as a film  forward from 1990 to 2008. You can choose whether you prefer the real  GDP in constant prices or the GDP corrected for purchasing power parity  (PPP). Of course, I would also have liked to let you choose whether you  want a linear axis or logarithmic. I personally favour logarithmic axes  because this reflects better the real distribution and lets you see  differences on the lower end. It also reflects the way economists  calculate elasticities.</p><p>This wonderful time series is based on a set of extrapolations from  the GTAP database in three years along with known macroeconomic data. It  was produced by my former colleague Glen Peters in collaboration with  Jan Minx, Christopher Weber and Ottmar Edenhofer and introduced in an <a href="http://www.carbonfootprintofnations.com/post/emissions_from_consumption_may_offset_reported_carbon_emission_reductions_in_industrialized_countries/">earlier blog by Jan Minx</a>. The work has been published in the prestigious<a href="http://www.carbonfootprintofnations.com/post/emissions_from_consumption_may_offset_reported_carbon_emission_reductions_in_industrialized_countries/"> Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</a>.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2011-04-26
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
title:
  Emissions from consumption may offset reported carbon emission reductions in industrialized countries

slug:
  emissions-from-consumption-may-offset-reported-carbon-emission-reductions-in-industrialized-countries

summary:
  An increasing share of global  emissions is from the production of
  internationally traded goods and  services, according to a new study published
  today in the Proceedings of  the National Academy of Sciences. Due to current
  reporting practices,  this has allowed some countries to increase their carb

excerpt:
  An increasing share of global  emissions is from the production of
  internationally traded goods and  services, according to a new study published
  today in the Proceedings of  the National Academy of Sciences. Due to current
  reporting practices,  this has allowed some countries to increase their carbon
  footprints  while reporting stabilized emissions.

  If you buy a sweater or a  refrigerator, emissions from the production processes
  are allocated to  the producing country. In the consuming country

html:
  <p>An increasing share of global  emissions is from the production of internationally traded goods and  services, according to a new study published today in the Proceedings of  the National Academy of Sciences. Due to current reporting practices,  this has allowed some countries to increase their carbon footprints  while reporting stabilized emissions.</p><p>If you buy a sweater or a  refrigerator, emissions from the production processes are allocated to  the producing country. In the consuming country these emissions remain  invisible. In this way, some countries can increase their consumption  (carbon footprint) while their officially reported emissions remain  stable.</p><p>An international team of researchers  has now compiled a trade-linked global database of carbon dioxide  emissions running from 1990 to 2008 and for 57 economic sectors in 113  countries. This dataset allows, for the first time, a detailed analysis  of the role of international trade in the development of emissions in  individual countries over time.</p><p>The production of traded goods and  services, the authors report, accounted for 20 percent of global  emissions in 1990 and this increased to 26 percent in 2008.</p><p>“A key explanation for this finding  is that increased imports to rich countries have led to increased  production and emissions in developing countries”, said Glen Peters at  the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo  (CICERO), lead author of the study.</p><p>“The consumption-driven emissions in  many developed countries, sometimes called the carbon footprint, rose  faster than the officially reported territorial emissions”.</p><p>“International trade has enabled much  needed economic development in emerging economies, but at the same  time, many rich countries have benefited as they increased consumption  without increasing their reported territorial emissions”, said Glen  Peters. According to the authors, only by shifting emissions to the  developing world industrialised countries are currently able to meet  their climate protection targets with comparatively little efforts  despite their growing consumption levels.</p><p>“Through their consumption most industrialised countries contributed  more to emission increases in developing countries than they cut  emissions at home”, said Jan Minx, one of the authors based at the  Departments Economics of Climate Change and Sustainable Engineering at  Technical University Berlin. In 2008, emission increases in developing  countries from industrialised countries’ consumption exceeded the  emission savings made in industrialised nations by five times.</p><p>Many developed countries have  reported stable emission levels, thanks in part to the accounting rules  established under the united Nations Framework Convention on Climate  Change that require countries to report only territorial emissions.</p><p>“In today’s accounting system  developed nations do not need to report emissions caused by their  consumption even if this contributes to global emissions growth. Our  findings suggests there is a need to additionally report and monitor  emissions transfers that occur through international trade”, said Glen  Peters. The study questions the sufficiency of the territorial  accounting principle in an international climate regime in which only  some regions have emission restrictions.</p><p>“This does not mean that we should  abandon regional rules for climate mitigation. Instead, the extension of  these rules is necessary”, explains Ottmar Edenhofer from the Potsdam  Institute for Climate Impact Research, who also leads the Department  Economics of Climate Change at Technical University Berlin, which is  co-financed by the Michael-Otto-Foundation. At present the international  climate regime is fragmented. “We need pathways to a global deal now”,  Edenhofer emphasises.</p><p>“Today,  developed countries have to report their CO2 emissions, but we consume a  lot of stuff that is produced in China and other developing countries.  Their CO2 emissions are helping support my consumption. This study shows  that consumption is increasingly depending on CO2 emissions in other  countries. If we want to be able to control emissions, we need to keep  tabs on emissions transfers that occur through international trade”,  comments Ken Caldeira from the Carnegie Institution for Science in the  United States. Caldeira authored a study on the issue in 2010  (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/23/0906974107.abstract).</p><p>The study “Growth in emission  transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008” has been conducted  by researchers at the Center for International Climate and Environmental  Research – Oslo (CICERO), Technical University Berlin, Science and  Technology Policy Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, and Potsdam  Institute for Climate Impact Research.</p><p>“Growth in emission transfers via  international trade from 1990 to 2008,” by Glen P. Peters, Jan C. Minx,  Christopher L. Weber, and Ottmar Edenhofer, Proceedings of the National  Academy of Sciences (PNAS)</p><p><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/04/19/1006388108.full.pdf+html">Link to study</a></p><p>MEDIA CONTACT: Glen P. Peters,  Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo,  Norway; tel: +4722858780; mon: +4792891638 e-mail: &lt;<a href="mailto:glen.peters@cicero.uio.no">glen.peters@cicero.uio.no&gt;</a></p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="http://69.195.124.91/~carbonf5/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/42483-glen-225x300.jpg" class="kg-image" alt="42483-glen" loading="lazy"></figure>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Recognition for the Carbon Footprint
slug: recognition-for-the-carbon-footprint
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2010-12-13
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  NATURE recently recognized the work presented in this web page, and more
  specifically the Carbon Footprint of Nations paper
  [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es803496a]. In the category ‘Community
  choice – the most viewed papers in science’, the paper was reviewed under the
  title Where greenhouse

excerpt:
  NATURE recently recognized the work presented in this web page, and more
  specifically the Carbon Footprint of Nations paper
  [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es803496a]. In the category ‘Community
  choice – the most viewed papers in science’, the paper was reviewed under the
  title Where greenhouse gases start
  [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/pdf/467637e.pdf]. At the same
  time, we got word that the Resource Panel Report Priority Products and Materials
  [http://www.unep.fr/scp/rpa

html:
  <p>NATURE recently recognized the work presented in this web page, and more specifically the <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es803496a">Carbon Footprint of Nations paper</a>. In the category ‘Community choice – the most viewed papers in science’, the paper was reviewed under the title <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/pdf/467637e.pdf">Where greenhouse gases start</a>. At the same time, we got word that the Resource Panel Report <a href="http://www.unep.fr/scp/rpanel/productsandmaterials.htm">Priority Products and Materials</a> –  which triggered the work presented here – has been downloaded over half  a million times from the UNEP webservers since its launch in June. Not  at all bad!</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: The Carbon Footprint of Municipalities
slug: the-carbon-footprint-of-municipalities
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2010-12-13
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  A consumption-based account of greenhouse gas emissions reveals true climate
  impacts of public services.

  Analysis based on the environmental impacts of consumption often  focuses on
  household consumption. Some consumption, however, is provided  by public
  authorities and paid for through taxes, not 

excerpt:
  A consumption-based account of greenhouse gas emissions reveals true climate
  impacts of public services.

  Analysis based on the environmental impacts of consumption often  focuses on
  household consumption. Some consumption, however, is provided  by public
  authorities and paid for through taxes, not prices.  Education, health care,
  elderly care, street cleaning and – important  for Norway! – snow plowing are
  examples for that. What are the  environmental impacts of these activities. In a
  series o

html:
  <p>A consumption-based account of greenhouse gas emissions reveals true climate impacts of public services.</p><p>Analysis based on the environmental impacts of consumption often  focuses on household consumption. Some consumption, however, is provided  by public authorities and paid for through taxes, not prices.  Education, health care, elderly care, street cleaning and – important  for Norway! – snow plowing are examples for that. What are the  environmental impacts of these activities. In a series of papers, my PhD  student <a href="http://www.misa.no/staff/hogne_nersund_larsen_/">Hogne Nersund Larsen</a> takes up the issue and illustrates the usefulness of a carbon footprint account for municipalities. In<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;_udi=B6VDY-511PH6K-2&amp;_user=586462&amp;_coverDate=11%2F15%2F2010&amp;_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=high&amp;_orig=search&amp;_origin=search&amp;_sort=d&amp;_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;_acct=C000030078&amp;_version=1&amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;_userid=586462&amp;md5=b7f00d0f7c7177c6ade809844f50f90e&amp;searchtype=a">Identifying important characteristics of municipal carbon footprints</a>,  we present a calculation of the carbon footprint of public services  provided by all municipalities in Norway. The figure shows the  per-capita carbon footprint for each municipality in a map produced with  help of Statens Kartverk. The carbon footprint of municipalities varies  substantially, from 0.3 to 3 tons per-capita, with small, rich  municipalities having the highest per-capita carbon footprints. The  optimal size in terms of the lowest CF is somewhere around 50’000  inhabitants. We investigate the contribution of different purchases to  the municipal CF. This paper demonstrates the usefulness of the  underlying model which combines the standard financial accounting system  of public entities in Norway with the input-output table. It allowed  for a rapid calculations of CF for all the municipalities.</p><p>The second paper <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00295.x/abstract">Implementing Carbon-Footprint-Based Calculation Tools in Municipal Greenhouse Gas Inventories</a> investigates  the use of CF calculations by two municipalities in their climate  decision making.Following a detailed analysis of the <a href="http://www.klimakost.no/content/example/">Carbon footprint of Tromsø</a>,  the paper discusses a case study focusing on primary schools. It  presents the activities that really produce the CF – such as the  conveyance of pupils and purchase of food. It also compares different  schools to each other, identifying a large variation in CF per pupil.  The analysis tool developed by Hogne allows for an easy disaggregation  of results to the unit level. It is here, in discussion with the  responsible unit leaders, that the ultimate usefulness of the  calculations becomes apparent. The tool identifies problem areas. It is  less suited to evaluate improvement options, as the measurement offered  by input-output analysis is too crude to distinguish different options  of delivering the same service. Still, we see in both Tromsø and  Trondheim that the results are utilized in municipal climate action  plans.</p><p>The case of Tromsø points to the importants of green purchasing  strategies in reducing the carbon footprint of public services: direct  emissions through fuel combustion by the municipality account for only  10% of the total emissions. We see similar results for other  municiplities. What the <a href="http://www.ghgprotocol.org/">Greenhouse Gas Protocol</a>labels  “Scope 3” emissions, those resulting from the purchases of goods and  services other than energy, are clearly the most important. These are  the big issues we need to focus on.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Contributing to the IPCC
slug: contributing-to-the-ipcc
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2010-07-13
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  I have the great honor to be selected to serve on the IPCC as  lead author of
  the fifth assessment report. It has always been my desire  to contribute to
  addressing environmental problems. Climate Science is  fascinating – the ways
  scientists have found to tease out evidence about  past climate are 

excerpt:
  I have the great honor to be selected to serve on the IPCC as  lead author of
  the fifth assessment report. It has always been my desire  to contribute to
  addressing environmental problems. Climate Science is  fascinating – the ways
  scientists have found to tease out evidence about  past climate are amazing. It
  is scary to see how the various pieces of  the puzzle – not all of them yet
  found or correctly placed – provide an  increasingly complete and compelling
  picture that – in rich and  unfores

html:
  <figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/01/image-12.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p>I have the great honor to be selected to serve on the IPCC as  lead author of the fifth assessment report. It has always been my desire  to contribute to addressing environmental problems. Climate Science is  fascinating – the ways scientists have found to tease out evidence about  past climate are amazing. It is scary to see how the various pieces of  the puzzle – not all of them yet found or correctly placed – provide an  increasingly complete and compelling picture that – in rich and  unforeseen detail –confirms the basic physics laid out by the Swedish  scientist <a href="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/">Svante Arrhenius</a> 110 years ago.</p><p>My task is to contribute to the volume on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation">Climate Change Mitigation</a> – how to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases as to limit climate change to a not-too-disruptive level (<a href="http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/">IPCC WG3</a>).  Specifically, I am selected to serve as lead author to the chapter on  energy systems. The selection comes somewhat as I surprise – my group  has become a leader in another aspect, connecting the emissions of  greenhouse gases to the ultimate causes of their emissions – the goods  and services enjoyed by final consumers. This topic would have fit to  other chapters. My qualification for the chapter on energy systems comes  from work on the life-cycle assessment of various energy conversion  technologies, such as<a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/h707627300735282/">bioenergy</a>, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;_udi=B6V4S-4ST45R5-1&amp;_user=586462&amp;_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2009&amp;_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=high&amp;_orig=search&amp;_sort=d&amp;_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;_acct=C000030078&amp;_version=1&amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;_userid=586462&amp;md5=d3fa0d64ba62577b026b76bdced91a87">wind power</a> and fossil fuels with <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;_udi=B83WP-4YTM6HX-2&amp;_user=586462&amp;_coverDate=04%2F10%2F2010&amp;_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=high&amp;_orig=search&amp;_sort=d&amp;_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;_searchStrId=1416328111&amp;_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&amp;_acct=C000030078&amp;_version=1&amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;_userid=586462&amp;md5=c889f310dfa0cb8d81e85e7bb0311560">CO2 capture and storage</a>.  For the nomination, I suggested that life-cycle environmental impacts  need to be addressed for the full scale at which the technologies will  be implemented.  ‘Impacts’ should include resource requirements,  pollution, and a quantification of net-greenhouse gas benefits. I plan  to draw heavily on the expertise of my collaborators and my colleagues  at NTNU.</p><p>Without prejudging the outcome of our work, my impression is that  assessments so far have ignored some of the environmental costs of  climate-friendly technologies. They have thus been overly optimistic  regarding the prospects of technologies – the degree of mitigation that  can be offered and the associated costs. I am not yet satisfied about  the scientific information available on the environmental impacts and  resource requirements of those technologies compared to resource  availabilities. It is premature to judge the effect of these  limitations. This information is important because resource and  environmental factors must be considered in our decisions about what  energy technologies to develop and deploy.</p><p>Knowledge gaps regarding the constraints and costs of climate  mitigation technologies illustrate that details of climate mitigation  have not yet received the required level of attention, compared to the  science of the greenhouse effect or the economic assessment of whether  to mitigate or not. The research investment has been smaller, as it can  easily be seen from just the references in the three different volumes  of the IPCC’s 4th assessment report. Technology development is finally  receiving more focus, but is still not at an adequate level especially  when it comes to large-scale demonstration and deployment. Mitigation  science, however, is developing rapidly and I am optimistic about the  prospect of offering important, interesting insights to the world once  the 5th assessment report will be published in 2013.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: UN Resource Panel highlights food and fossil fuel as global problems
slug: un-resource-panel-highlights-food-and-fossil-fuel-as-global-problems
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2010-06-30
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  It was my big day in Brussels: The deputy director of the United Nations
  Environment Programme, Angela Kropper
  [http://www.unep.org/documents.multilingual/default.asp?DocumentID=43&ArticleID=5457&l=en]
  , and the EU’s Commissioner for the Environment, Janez Potocnik
  [http://europa.eu/rapid/pressRelea

excerpt:
  It was my big day in Brussels: The deputy director of the United Nations
  Environment Programme, Angela Kropper
  [http://www.unep.org/documents.multilingual/default.asp?DocumentID=43&ArticleID=5457&l=en]
  , and the EU’s Commissioner for the Environment, Janez Potocnik
  [http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/657&format=HTML&aged=0&language=DE&guiLanguage=en]
  , were there for the launch of our report, The Environmental Impact of
  Production and Consumption: Priority Products and

html:
  <p>It was my big day in Brussels: The deputy director of the United Nations Environment Programme, <a href="http://www.unep.org/documents.multilingual/default.asp?DocumentID=43&amp;ArticleID=5457&amp;l=en">Angela Kropper</a>, and the EU’s Commissioner for the Environment, <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/657&amp;format=HTML&amp;aged=0&amp;language=DE&amp;guiLanguage=en">Janez Potocnik</a>, were there for the launch of our report, <a href="http://www.unep.fr/scp/rpanel/productsandmaterials.htm">The Environmental Impact of Production and Consumption: Priority Products and Materials</a>.  It was the request for the report that prompted me to work on the  Carbon Footprint of Nations. The report was written by a working group  of the Resource Panel and published by UNEP. The evening before we spent  on our mobile phones, giving interviews to <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65121X20100602">Reuters</a>, the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet">Guardian</a> and <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100609094353.htm">other news outlets</a>.</p><p>The story, as we framed it, was of a top-down assessment to identify  the most important causes of environmental problems – the most important  consumption categories, materials and industry sectors. Our assessment  clearly pointed to the importance of food production and fossil fuels.  Agriculture, pastures and fishing emerged in many assessments as  important – to a degree that surprised me. The problem with fishing is  that we do too much of it, at least in some location: we are destroying  the base of this renewable resource. There are more problems, however,  with agriculture: it is the dominant cause of land use and hence the  change of habitats for animals and plants, threatening biodiversity. It  contributes 70% our water use – and you know that water is getting  scarce in many regions. In Europe, food production contributes 60% to  the overfertilization with nitrogen and phosphorus – another important  cause of biodiversity loss according to the Millennium Ecosystem  Assessment.  Furthermore, food production causes 20-30% of GHG  emissions.</p><p>The work by Ester van der Voet, one of my co-authors, on the  environmental impacts of material flows in Europe clearly identified  meat and dairy products as the main culprits. “<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet">UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet</a>”  was the title in the Guardian – somewhat in contradiction to what I  tried to communicate in my interviews. It was, of course, not an  incorrect conclusion to draw from our findings, but it was not our  mission to produce recommendations. Rather, we wanted to put facts on  the table.</p><p>What I thought as the really novel contribution of our report in the  concert of international scientific assessments was not the food story –  it was the consumption perspective. It provides novel insights – into  what activities, consumption categories and products cause environmental  impacts. Our review confirms the triad of shelter, food and  transportation as important consumption categories, with the caveats  that transportation matters little in poor countries and manufactured  products overtake food in some rich countries – as readers of this  website will know. Our report highlights clearly that our causation of  environmental impacts is a strong function of our income – more  consumption implies more impact.</p><p>Looking at products and consumption clusters, one also finds that  much of what we consume is produced abroad. In fact, for some products,  the concept of location of production makes little sense – we see  increasingly complex products with value chains spanning the entire  globe.</p><p>I was pleased to see that at least some news stories picked up this aspect.</p><p>In our report, we took a life-cycle perspective. We looked at many  aspects and many impacts. Inevitably, there are trade-offs to make. The  picture was complex – reflecting a complex reality. Those who bothered  to look at the detail will still recognize a consistent picture in which  a web of causal relations and interconnections becomes quite apparent –  including those aspects we should focus on. The BBC’s headline captured  this wonderfully: “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/sustainability_choices_choices.html">Sustainability: Choices, choices, choices</a>.”</p><p>It is those we need to understand.</p><p>And to make.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Carbon footprint calculation methods matter for policy
slug: carbon-footprint-calculation-methods-matter-for-policy
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2010-04-09
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  Recently, the idea of monitoring the carbon footprint of a  nation as one option
  for climate policy has found its way into the  legislative process in the UK. A 
  Private Members Bill
  [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/013/10013.1-i.html] 
  has  been put forward in the House of

excerpt:
  Recently, the idea of monitoring the carbon footprint of a  nation as one option
  for climate policy has found its way into the  legislative process in the UK. A 
  Private Members Bill
  [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/013/10013.1-i.html] 
  has  been put forward in the House of Lords – the Bill seeks to put in place  a
  consumer emissions target (the current UK Climate Change Act which  sets an 80%
  reduction target only addresses production, i.e.  territorial, emissions). Lo

html:
  <p>Recently, the idea of monitoring the carbon footprint of a  nation as one option for climate policy has found its way into the  legislative process in the UK. A <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/013/10013.1-i.html">Private Members Bill</a> has  been put forward in the House of Lords – the Bill seeks to put in place  a consumer emissions target (the current UK Climate Change Act which  sets an 80% reduction target only addresses production, i.e.  territorial, emissions). <a href="http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/consumeremissionsclimatechange.html">Lord Teverson who initiated the bill said</a>: <em>“The  Defra report considered the position in the United Kingdom in 2004 and  came to the conclusion-I was surprised by the accuracy with which the  figures can be worked out by academics-that the consumption emissions of  the United Kingdom economy were some 37 per cent higher than our  production emissions.”</em>Apart from the fact that this is the first such initiative to base a  policy on consumption-based GHG accounting, the statement about the  methodology also deserves attention. What is routine for the national  carbon footprint analyst might be puzzling to others who are not  involved in the calculations: How can one work out all the emissions  created somewhere in the world associated with consumption activities in  a completely different place?The prevailing method for national Carbon Footprint accounting is  environmentally extended multi-region input-output analysis (IOA). In  such an environmental-economic model, national input-output tables,  representing financial transactions between economic sectors within a  country and greenhouse gas emissions data by sector are linked together  in one coherent accounting framework with trade flow tables, showing the  value of exports and imports by country and economic sectors. Thousands  of analysts and researchers use analytical input-output techniques and  countless scientific publications have impressively demonstrated the  ability of IOA to support the quantification of environmental impacts of  economic activities.Despite a politically important and wide-ranging field of  applications in carbon footprinting there is still not a widespread  acknowledgment of the potential for (hybrid) input-output analysis in  other areas. Examples are corporate footprinting which aims at capturing  the economy-wide GHG impact of a company and product carbon  footprinting aimed at summarising the life-cycle-wide GHG emissions of a  specific commodity. One possible reason for this lack of recognition  might be the relative initial complexity of implementing environmental  input-output models. Specialist knowledge in economic and environmental  theory and frameworks is required, the terminology might be more  specialised and the input-output mechanism might be intuitively less  accessible than the more practical mapping of process flows. Whether due  to actual, practical problems or only perceived complexity, few  practitioners have so far acquired the skills to carry out (hybrid)  carbon footprint or life cycle assessments. However, once established,  input-output models are easy to operate and require relatively little  data input compared to bottom-up approaches.</p><p>A Special Issue of the journal Economic Systems Research on <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09535310903541256">‘Carbon Footprint and Input-Output Analysis’</a> has  recently been published, featuring six articles ranging from product,  corporate and sector carbon footprinting to national and multi-national  carbon accounting. The Special Issue brings together state-of-the-art  research in environmental-economic modelling with the practice of  greenhouse gas accounting at various levels. &gt; <a href="http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g919302222">Link to the Special Issue: </a></p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Carbon Footprint – Updated
slug: carbon-footprint-updated
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2010-03-11
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  A recent update of our study on the carbon footprint of nations highlights the
  role of China, Russia, the USA and the EU.

  Steven Davis and Ken Caldeira
  [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/23/0906974107.abstract?maxtoshow=&hits=1&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&fullte

excerpt:
  A recent update of our study on the carbon footprint of nations highlights the
  role of China, Russia, the USA and the EU.

  Steven Davis and Ken Caldeira
  [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/23/0906974107.abstract?maxtoshow=&hits=1&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=Sustainability+Science&andorexactfulltext=phrase&searchid=1&usestrictdates=yes&resourcetype=HWCIT&ct] 
  have  just published an analysis of the carbon footprint of nations using the
   GTAP 7 database

html:
  <p>A recent update of our study on the carbon footprint of nations highlights the role of China, Russia, the USA and the EU.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/01/image-13.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/23/0906974107.abstract?maxtoshow=&amp;hits=1&amp;RESULTFORMAT=&amp;andorexacttitle=and&amp;andorexacttitleabs=and&amp;fulltext=Sustainability+Science&amp;andorexactfulltext=phrase&amp;searchid=1&amp;usestrictdates=yes&amp;resourcetype=HWCIT&amp;ct">Steven Davis and Ken Caldeira</a> have  just published an analysis of the carbon footprint of nations using the  GTAP 7 database, allowing for a comparison of the years 2004 and 2001.  The paper published in the prestigious <em>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</em> (PNAS  for short) uses the same methods, research questions and data sources  as our 2008 and 2009 papers. It highlights the role of the most  important polluters and largest trade flows by emissions embodiment.</p><p>According to Davis and Caldeira, 23% of the global CO2 emissions from  fossil fuel burning were connected to the production of goods  ultimately consumed in a different country. The largest trade flows in  terms of pollution required to produce the goods traded (embodied  emissions) were from China to the United States, Europe, and Japan. The  flows from Russia at Europe and from the Arab Middle East to EU and US  were also significant, as was the trade between US and EU (see figure).</p><p><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18620-us-still-responsible-for-most-co2-emissions.html">News stories on the article in the New Scientist </a>and the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8557461.stm">BBC</a> emphasize  the point that many European countries have a larger difference in  emissions between the consumption and production perspectives than the  United States, measured per capita. In other words, the difference in  emissions embodied in imports and emissions embodied in exports is  larger. In my opinion, this is really not a relevant way of interpreting  the results. What counts is the fraction of the national carbon  footprint (consumption based emissions) outsourced to other countries.  Europe can hardly be criticized for having a much lower emissions  intensity than the United States, which is the reason for why the net  trade balance is higher for the EU than the US.</p><p>I think that Davis and Caldeira do a particularly nice job  highlighting the increasing specialization of production in the global  economy and the differences in the imports and exports of different  countries. It is striking that the emissions intensity of exports from  Russia, China and India are more than 2 kg of CO2 per $ traded, while  those of European countries listed are between 0.17 and 0.25 kg per $.  The reason for this difference is most likely a combination of the  difference in the emissions intensity of the energy mix, the energy  efficiency and the value of the products produced.</p><p>The split of emissions embodied in trade by traded commodities also  indicates the importance of global value chains. The largest flows for  most countries shown are “intermediate goods”. The logical next step  will be to investigate the makeup of global value chains, analyzing the  through-trade of carbon of countries. Given global value chains, how are  the carbon footprints of specific products distributed across  countries?</p><p>Davis and Caldeira did not go through the trouble of adding the  emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases and could also not assess  emissions from land use change. As a result, the emissions in some poor  countries are very low – 0.12 tons per capita in Ethiopia and Malawi,  compared to 22 tons per capita in the United States. As we have observed  in our analysis, for such poor countries, the emissions of methane and  nitrous oxide from food production are much more important than the  emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel consumption. The lower limit for  carbon footprints including these emissions are around 1 ton  CO2-equivalent per capita.</p><p>For Norway, the analysis shows that Norway had more emissions  embodied in imports than in exports. This is a reversal from 2001, when  the emissions embodied in exports were still dominating. The reason for  this is a steady increase in import volumes and associated emissions.  Emissions embodied in exports remain constant over time, as we will show  in a future time series analysis.</p><p>The paper by Davis and Caldeira, allowing a comparison with our  numbers, underlines the importance of emissions embodied in trade. As  this paper confirms, rich countries risk fooling themselves by focusing  on territorial emissions while their carbon footprints are growing. The  objective of climate policy should be to reduce carbon footprints, and  not to reduce territorial emissions. This can only be achieved by paying  attention to carbon footprints!</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Top Environmental Policy Paper
slug: top-environmental-policy-paper
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2010-03-11
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  The Carbon Footprint of Nations has been recognized as the Top Environmental
  Policy Paper [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es100414j] in 2009 by 
  Environmental Science & Technology (announcement
  [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es100678t]).

  It is a big honor for us to win that award. ES&T

excerpt:
  The Carbon Footprint of Nations has been recognized as the Top Environmental
  Policy Paper [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es100414j] in 2009 by 
  Environmental Science & Technology (announcement
  [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es100678t]).

  It is a big honor for us to win that award. ES&T is the  most important journal
  in environmental science and environmental  technology, publishing 1500 papers
  in 2009. We were apparently among 80  papers nominated for the award. Most
  likely, the po

html:
  <p>The Carbon Footprint of Nations has been recognized as the <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es100414j">Top Environmental Policy Paper</a> in 2009 by <em>Environmental Science &amp; Technology</em> (<a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es100678t">announcement</a>).</p><p>It is a big honor for us to win that award. <em>ES&amp;T</em> is the  most important journal in environmental science and environmental  technology, publishing 1500 papers in 2009. We were apparently among 80  papers nominated for the award. Most likely, the popular appeal and  policy relevance of our paper was an important factor in our favor.</p><p>We have previously been awarded by <em>ES&amp;T</em>. In 2007, Glen Peters and his collaboration parters won the award for <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es070108">their analysis of China’s growing CO2 emissions</a>, identifying the growth of the urban population and investment in infrastructure as important causes.</p><p>In 2005, Edgar Hertwich was the runner-up to the Top Environmental Policy Paper for his <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es0497375">review of methods for household carbon footprints</a>.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="http://69.195.124.91/~carbonf5/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/47046-est_logo2-300x140.jpg" class="kg-image" alt="47046-est_logo2" loading="lazy"></figure>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Sharing the atmosphere
slug: sharing-the-atmosphere
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2009-12-28
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  The Climate Conference in Copenhagen [http://en.cop15.dk/] has  ended as
  expected: with a political declaration instead of a legally  binding agreement.
  Nonetheless, there seems to be wide-spread  disappointment among the public.
  Commentators are busy portioning out  blame for the failure
  [http://ww

excerpt:
  The Climate Conference in Copenhagen [http://en.cop15.dk/] has  ended as
  expected: with a political declaration instead of a legally  binding agreement.
  Nonetheless, there seems to be wide-spread  disappointment among the public.
  Commentators are busy portioning out  blame for the failure
  [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal] of the
  negotiations, where the U.S.
  [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/21/copenhagen-failure-us-senate-vested-interests]
  , Chin

html:
  <p>The <a href="http://en.cop15.dk/">Climate Conference in Copenhagen</a> has  ended as expected: with a political declaration instead of a legally  binding agreement. Nonetheless, there seems to be wide-spread  disappointment among the public. Commentators are busy portioning out  blame for the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal">failure</a> of the negotiations, where the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/21/copenhagen-failure-us-senate-vested-interests">U.S.</a>, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas">China</a>,  and the unwieldy UN procedures receive the largest shares. Those  involved in the negotiations process see Copenhagen as a stepping stone  rather than a finish line: they point out that the <a href="http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf">Copenhagen Accord</a> keeps  going the process towards a final agreement – scheduled for next  winter’s meeting in Mexico City. Furthermore, as a first international  document to trace developing country commitments, the Accord is  necessary to get the US Senate to pass climate legislation. From my  perspective, the most remarkable feature of the conference has been that  the most difficult arguments evolved around climate justice.</p><p>The Copenhagen climate conference clearly demonstrates the inadequacy  of the political response to the climate challenge. It reflects and is  the result of a lack of political will to pursue the necessary changes  in development on part of most national governments and their (special  interest) constituencies. The politically problematic aspect of the  UNFCCC process is that it provides cover for those politicians  responsible for inaction on the national level. It allows them to claim  that they act – by partaking in the process – and at the same time to  blame other parties for the slow progress. We are not on track to reduce  greenhouse gas emissions enough to prevent dangerous levels of climate  change, and political leaders should not give the impressions that this  is a problem they have under control. Far from it!</p><p>Having said so much, in light of the dismal record of this now ending  “lost decade”, the Accord is a quite remarkable document. It  acknowledges that global warming should be limited to no more than 2°C,  and that a deep cut in greenhouse gas emissions are required to achieve  this target. Industrialized countries commit to establishing new targets  for emissions cut for 2020, and developing countries commit to  implementing mitigation actions. Both targets and mitigation actions  will be specified in the coming months. In addition, industrialized  countries commit to establishing a Copenhagen Green Climate Fund for  financing mitigation and adaptation in developing countries and to  establishing a Technology Mechanism for development and transfer of  climate-friendly technology. Let’s hope the targets and mitigation  action commitments lead to serious actions being implemented, which is  what counts in the end.</p><p>I was surprised about the degree to which the negotiations focused on  distributional issues and climate justice, even though I myself had  raised these issues in pre-conference interviews. I also thought that  the effectiveness of the developing countries coalition (G77+China) was  remarkable. Their message was loud and clear: industrialized countries  are responsible for (most of) the historical carbon dioxide emissions  and they have benefited tremendously from those emissions. It is now the  industrialized countries’ responsibility to reduce their emissions  first and to provide financial assistance to developing countries both  as a compensation for the climate damage already occurring and as a way  to share the economic gains incurred as a result of the historical  emissions.</p><p>The <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es803496a">Carbon Footprint of Nations</a> study  shows a remarkable correlation between the national per capita  consumption level and carbon footprint. Historical studies also indicate  a similar connection between rising incomes and rising fossil energy  used. But to what degree is the high energy use the cause of, or the  consequence of, economic growth? There is some scientific controversy  about this question. A seminal analysis of the United States’ economic  development over a 100 year time period by <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;_udi=B6VFN-4BSB1PF-1&amp;_user=10&amp;_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=&amp;_orig=search&amp;_sort=d&amp;_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;_searchStrId=1148417332&amp;_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&amp;_acct=C000050221&amp;_version=1&amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;_userid=10&amp;md5=a17d39fef024d00a98b4ac49dc66202b">Bob Ayres and Ben Warr</a> indicates  that access to cheap fossil fuels has indeed played an important role  in fostering economic growth. Increased input of useful physical work  explains more than half of economic growth, while increased input of  labour and capital account for the remainder. Physical work is the  product of the input of energy resources and the efficiency of energy  conversion.</p><p>If energy input is indeed as central to economic activity as these  statistical studies indicate, the access to and price of this energy  input is of highest political importance. Fossil fuels and hence CO2  emissions have allowed us to gain access to this energy input at low  prices and have hence made possible the unprecedented consumption levels  that we enjoy. If access to the atmosphere as a cost-free dump for the  waste products of fossil fuel combustion really determines our possible  consumption levels, we must not be surprised that this access is subject  to really tough negotiations. National leaders are occupied by their  countries’, and constituencies’, economic interest.</p><p>Our atmosphere is a globally shared, common resource that has been  over-utilized by a mere 20% of the global population. In principle, all  humans should have equal rights to use this resource. The climate  negotiations are the only global negotiations allowing developing  countries to raise the issue of unfair access to globally shared  resources. Their positioning in the negotiations may at times seem  self-serving, trying to extract bribes for pursuing a low-carbon  development course which should be in the developing countries interest  anyway, given their disproportional vulnerability to climate change. It  would be a mistake not to take seriously the issue of climate justice  and the connection of global resource access and economic product.   These issues must be accorded more importance by industrialized  countries, which must be more willing to stop their irresponsible  overuse of the atmosphere. (For an interesting suggestions of allocating  responsibility for emissions reductions, see <a href="http://cmi.princeton.edu/research/pdfs/one_billion_emitters.pdf">this</a>).</p><p>Negotiations must not be a zero-sum game. Yes, we must equitably  share our common resources among humans, both current and future  generations. However, there is a large scope to improve energy and  resource efficiency and to generate energy with much less emissions.  International cooperation will in fact help us to take advantage of  those opportunities, because it allows us to share technical progress  and implement solutions more widely and thereby reduce their price.   Still, the climate debate has been so long dominated by technological  optimists that issues of justice have been overlooked. I think it is  about time to accord them more importance. We must start a debate about  how to fairly share our global resources, both in principle and  practically. A debate of principles is necessary to make clear to those  guilty of too high emissions that the status quo is not right. A debate  of practicalities is necessary to find low-carbon development options  for poor countries and to avoid transfer mechanisms that corrupt  developing country elites and impede development in ways that payments  for the extraction of other resources often do.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Exported Emissions at COP15
slug: exported-emissions-at-cop15
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2009-12-14
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  The Guardian and industry actors call for considering Carbon Embodied in Trade
  as part of a climate deal at Copenhagen.

  On December 7, 2009, 56 newspapers from 20 countries
  [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/06/copenhagen-editorial] 
  published  a joint editorial calling world leaders

excerpt:
  The Guardian and industry actors call for considering Carbon Embodied in Trade
  as part of a climate deal at Copenhagen.

  On December 7, 2009, 56 newspapers from 20 countries
  [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/06/copenhagen-editorial] 
  published  a joint editorial calling world leaders to use the 14 days of climate
   negotiations in Copenhagen in order to come to an effective and fair  agreement
  to limit climate change.

  At the time I am writing this, it is too early to see whether 

html:
  <figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/01/image-14.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p>The Guardian and industry actors call for considering Carbon Embodied in Trade as part of a climate deal at Copenhagen.</p><p>On December 7, 2009, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/06/copenhagen-editorial">56 newspapers from 20 countries</a> published  a joint editorial calling world leaders to use the 14 days of climate  negotiations in Copenhagen in order to come to an effective and fair  agreement to limit climate change.</p><p>At the time I am writing this, it is too early to see whether the  call will be heeded. The editorial points correctly to what has emerged  as the core element of the negotiations: the need to fairly distribute  the responsibility for reducing emissions. A critical passage of the  editorial, calls for recognizing the issue of<a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Pollution_embodied_in_trade">emissions embodied in trade</a>:</p><p>Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into  its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate  change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically  without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty  must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair  rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported  emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared  between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them.</p><p>I find it personally gratifying that the issues of forests and trade are finally being recognized, as <a href="http://springerlink.com/content/1976p75463860416/">we have spend considerable effort to raise these issues</a>.  Together with Glen Peters and Anders Stømman, I have personally worked  on quantifying and modeling the emissions embodied in trade.</p><p>We have shown that for Norwegian household consumption, most of the  carbon footprint is located abroad, where consumer goods and materials  are produced. (Our calculations are now included in the official  Norwegian climate calculator.) We have quantified the <a href="http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0804/full/climate.2008.25.html">emissions embodied in trade for all major economies for 2001</a>,  using the same data that was also used to calculate the national carbon  footprints displayed in this web page. Our results show that in 2001  more than 20% of global CO2 emission was caused by the production of  exported products. The <a href="http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0804/fig_tab/climate.2008.25_F2.html">figure</a> shows single country results from our study.</p><p>Since then, the fraction has probably increased substantially, as  national-level studies suggest. My colleague Richard Wood has just  updated the calculations for Norway, which indicate a dramatic growth of  the emissions embodied in imports by 50% from 1999 to 2007, while  emissions embodied in exports have stayed approximately constant. The  changes in the emissions embodied in trade are much larger than  emissions reductions due to Norway’s Kyoto target. In the UK, a similar  increase in exported emissions has occurred, as results obtained by  colleagues at SEI and the University of Surrey show.<br>Maybe the strongest evidence for the global shift in emissions is <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V2W-4T1SFRC-1/2/cf8906ef3be99e992f09a8ef53adb59c">evidence from China</a>, unearthed by <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090224133507.htm">Glen Peters</a>, Dabo Guan, Chris Weber and Klaus Hubacek (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/23/china-co2-emissions-climate">Also discussed in the Guardian</a>).  Their modeling indicates that emissions embodied in export have  increased from 21% of the total national emissions to 33% from 2001 to  2005, at a time when total emissions increased by 40%. Growth in  emissions embodied in China’s export was the most important factor for  the exceptional global emissions growth during this period.</p><p>Why does this matter? Economists argue strongly in favor of economic  instruments to reduce global emissions. Carbon pricing provide an equal  incentive for reducing emissions both through shifts in energy  technologies, through increases in energy efficiency, and through  changes in consumption patterns. We will need all these strategies to  achieve climate stabilization. If, however, we have unequal carbon  prices in different regions of the world, the danger is that carbon  intensive production is relocated to where it is cheapest. This is, in  any case, where growth is today. If that happens, gains from efficiency  and structure are jeopardized.</p><p>What can be done? Most of the schemes to avoid carbon leakage and the  relocation of energy-intensive industries to countries without  emissions obligations are subsidy schemes: The EU Emissions Trading  System (ETS) provides free emissions quotas to energy-intensive  industry. There are plans to compensate the Aluminium industry directly  for the high electricity price produced by the ETS. (Only from 2012, and  it is not clear whether there will be any Al electrolyses left in  Europe to protect.) These schemes all result in reduced costs for  energy-intensive products also to consumers in carbon-limited  industrialized countries and do nothing to impose the true carbon costs  on imports.</p><p>The only solution that avoids these negative effects is a so-called  “border tax adjustment”. This adjustment would imply that an incremental  carbon tax is imposed at the border, reflecting the emissions embodied  in the product imported. For most products, such a tax would be small.  The global average GHG emissions per $ GDP is about 700g. A 100$/t tax  implies an average 7% tax. For other products, it would be prohibitive.  It would not make sense for Europe to import Aluminium produced with  Chinese or South African coal power – but that is precisely the point!</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: The Environmental Footprint of Biofuels
slug: the-environmental-footprint-of-biofuels
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2009-11-15
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  A new UN report emphasizes the importance of addressing land use, water, and
  biodiversity impacts of biofuels.
  The jury is now in on biofuels: Current government mandates in the  United
  States, Europe and other countries to blend biofuels into  ordinary car fuels
  cause substantial environmental dama

excerpt:
  A new UN report emphasizes the importance of addressing land use, water, and
  biodiversity impacts of biofuels.
  The jury is now in on biofuels: Current government mandates in the  United
  States, Europe and other countries to blend biofuels into  ordinary car fuels
  cause substantial environmental damage, do little to  reduce greenhouse gas
  emissions, and have a questionable contribution to  energy security. A new UN
  report [http://www.unep.fr/scp/rpanel/publications/]and a new book
  [http://www.spr

html:
  <p>A new UN report emphasizes the importance of addressing land use, water, and biodiversity impacts of biofuels.<br>The jury is now in on biofuels: Current government mandates in the  United States, Europe and other countries to blend biofuels into  ordinary car fuels cause substantial environmental damage, do little to  reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and have a questionable contribution to  energy security. <a href="http://www.unep.fr/scp/rpanel/publications/">A new UN report </a>and <a href="http://www.springer.com/engineering/power+engineering/book/978-1-84882-137-8">a new book </a>document  many, sometimes fascinating facets of this intricate issue. There are  many types of biomass, different options for growing this biomass, a few  technologies for converting the biomass to various liquid fuels. It is  not surprising that the environmental impacts depend on the  particularities of the growing, harvesting, transporting, converting and  use of the fuels. However, there are only very few production routes  currently used, and these routes are harmful to the environment in  several ways.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2020/01/image-15.png" class="kg-image" alt loading="lazy"></figure><p>The report <strong>“Towards sustainable production and use of resources: Assessing Biofuels”</strong> was  produced by the International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management  (IPSRM) and relased by the head of the United Nations Environment  Program Achim Steiner on 23 October. I am also a member of IPSRM, but  have not contributed to this report. The book ‘”<strong>Biofuels for Road Transport: A Seed to Wheel Perspective”</strong>,  was written by the Dutch environmental scientists Lucas Reijnders and  Mark Huijbregts. Both works present an extensive review of scientific  work on biofuels.</p><p>To understand biofuels, one must look at thermodynamics, that is, to  account for energy flows in a biomass system similar to how one would  account for money flows. Already in 1982, <a href="http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6742981">Perezblanco and Hannon</a> published  an analysis of the energy required to produce one unit of energy in the  form of corn-ethanol and wood-methanol. They showed that the energy  used to run tractors, produce fertilizers, and convert corn to ethanol  is more or less equal to the energy in the ethanol produced – so that  there is little point in whole exercise. Methanol from wood, however,  has a substantial net energy gain. These results have since then been  confirmed by a great number of studies, also for other biofuel products  derived from these biomass resources.</p><p>If there is little energy gain, there is also little benefits in  terms of greenhouse gas emissions. The figure illustrates the reduction  GHG emissions reductions – or the lack thereof – achieved by different  biofuel production routes. Today’s biofuel comes all from food crops –  maize, wheat, vegetable oil, and sugar cane, which are easy to convert  but require high inputs of fertilizer and machine power to produce –  with the exception of sugar cane.</p><p>The substantial insights of the two new publications, however, is the insight of the <em>high  ecological impacts that come from converting land for biofuel  production, emissions from land use, as well as the runoff of fertilizer  and pesticides</em>. These effects are often not sufficiently considered  in life-cycle assessment. In the United States, it is reported that  increased fertilizer application for biofuels has lead to increased  runoff of phosphorus and nitrogen, which stimulates increased algae  growth in waterways and leads to oxygen depletion and fish death as a  result.</p><p>The issue of land conversion and its effect on carbon stored in soil  and plants has been discussed prominently in recent years and months. It  is central to determining the greenhouse gas benefit of biofuels. The  report underlines that declining yield increases and increasing food  demand imply that the current global cropland needs to expand further.  Increase biofuels product will hence inevitably require the conversion  of virgin land to cropland. Certifying biofuels grown on already  established agricultural land has hence little effect, as this only  displaces food production to previously marginal land.</p><p>The effect of this is quite clear, as the report underlines: “<em>Increased  biofuel production is expected to have large impacts on biological  diversity in the coming decades, mostly as a result of habitat loss,  increased invasive species and nutrient pollution. Habitat loss will  mainly result from cropland expansion. Species and genotypes of grasses  suggested as future feedstocks of biofuels may become critical as  invaders. Nutrient emissions to water and air resulting from intensive  fuel cropping will impact species composition in aquatic and terrestrial  systems.</em>”<br>We afford climate mitigation measures that are so ineffective in  reducing greenhouse gas emissions but destroy ecosystems and  biodiversity. It is time to reconsider biofuel mandates!</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Carbon Market Promises and Woes
slug: carbon-market-promises-and-woes
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2009-10-18
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  Economists argue that the carbon market suffices to reduce  greenhouse gas
  emissions and attack additional policy tools for  increasing mitigation costs.
  Time to look at how the carbon market works  in practice!

  In my last blog I have pointed to the campaign of a few Norwegian economists
  [http://e2

excerpt:
  Economists argue that the carbon market suffices to reduce  greenhouse gas
  emissions and attack additional policy tools for  increasing mitigation costs.
  Time to look at how the carbon market works  in practice!

  In my last blog I have pointed to the campaign of a few Norwegian economists
  [http://e24.no/makro-og-politikk/article3315038.ece]against  climate policy
  tools such as the newly established green certificate  market, which ensures a
  higher electricity price for renewable  electricity. I 

html:
  <p>Economists argue that the carbon market suffices to reduce  greenhouse gas emissions and attack additional policy tools for  increasing mitigation costs. Time to look at how the carbon market works  in practice!</p><p>In my last blog I have pointed to the <a href="http://e24.no/makro-og-politikk/article3315038.ece">campaign of a few Norwegian economists</a>against  climate policy tools such as the newly established green certificate  market, which ensures a higher electricity price for renewable  electricity. I published a similar critique in Dagens Næringsliv, a  business daily. The prompt response by Professor Michael Hoel of the  University in Oslo was that I did not understand the quota market.  Professor Hoel lectured me on basic microeconomics, pointing to the fact  that increased renewable energy would lead to reduced prices for  emissions allowances and hence increased emissions somewhere else in the  European Emissions Trading System (ETS). The emissions reductions  achieved through subsidies for energy efficiency or renewable would  necessarily be more expensive than the marginal emissions reductions in  the ETS. The response did not my argument that technology learning  required niche markets which the green certificates created, and that  without new technologies we would not be able to reduce emissions  sufficiently. Instead, Hoel suggests that <a href="http://e24.no/kommentar/article3281991.ece">Norway should buy large amounts of emissions allowances and retire them</a> – just to drive up the price. Let’s have a look at how the carbon market really works to see what would happen.</p><p>The <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/index_en.htm">EU ETS</a> has  been in operation since 2005, and the market for project-based  mechanisms has existed even longer. The experience with these markets  provides a good basis for assessing the ability of carbon market to  address the climate crisis. In the European carbon market, large  industrial facilities and power stations require emissions allowances  (EUA) for every ton of CO2 they emit. Allowances are distributed by  governments to cover most, but in theory not all of the needs by  industry. The problem in the first period 2005-2007 was that<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5126402.stm">some national governments had given out too many allowances</a>. Up until the EUA market collapsed in 2007, the price varied in the €10-30 per ton range (<a href="http://www.pointcarbon.com/polopoly_fs/1.912721!Carbon_2008_dfgrt.pdf">Fig.2.5 in Carbon 2008</a>).  In that period, it became obvious that power companies who had  allowances for free passed almost all of the costs through to the  customers – as if they had paid for the allowances. As a result, the  carbon market generated <a href="http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?term=windfallprofit#windfallgains">windfall profits</a> for power generators and redistributed tens of billions of Euros from electricity <a href="http://www.cembureau.be/Cem_warehouse/2-INDIRECT%20IMPACT%20OF%20EMISSIONS%20TRADING%20ON%20ELECTRICITY%20PRICES.PDF">consumers</a> to producers – apparent in the balance sheet of utilities. (<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8164042.stm">BBC documents new examples of windfall profits</a>.)</p><p>The overallocation of EUAs and the resulting collapse of the carbon  market was an embarrassing for the European Commission, which responded  by restricting the national allocation of allowances by member states  for the 2008-2012 period. Estonia and Poland were not satisfied with the  amount of allowances they were allowed to distribute and sued the EC in  front of the European Court of Justice. In September 2009,<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8273016.stm"> the Court ruled in favor of Estonia and Poland</a>.  It said it was up to member states not the EC to set national emissions  targets. It is uncertain how this wrangle will continue, but Eastern  European member states have received a joker in the political tug-of-war  about emissions rights.</p><p>The very political nature of the process by which emissions  allowances worth billions of Euros are created and allocated was also  apparent in <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7780700.stm">the negotiations about the continuation of the European ETS for the 2013-2020 period</a>.  In a recommendable move to improve the system, the European Commission  proposed to sell the emissions allowances instead of giving them away  for free, something that would make the system a lot better. Industries  which are exposed to tough international competition would continue to  receive free allowances. Poland managed to negotiate an allocation of  free allowances to its power sector – which certainly is not exposed to  international competition from outside the ETS area! The argument was  that Polish industry and households could not bear the high electricity  prices. If experience with the ETS is any guide, Polish utilities will  pass on the carbon costs to their customers and take the free allowances  as a subsidy.</p><p>Now, one can imagine what the reaction of EU countries would be to a  sudden purchase of a large amount of emissions allowances by the  Norwegian government. Instead of allowing the carbon price to rise, EU  governments would simply distribute more allowances, thus turning the  Norwegian purchase into a subsidy for allowance-receiving industry.  Polish coal-fired power stations are favored candidates for receiving  these gifts of Norway.</p><p>There is plenty of documentation of phony projects and cheating at  the heart of the project-based emissions reductions, especially Clean  Development Mechanisms. It reminds me of the story of economic  incentives for catching rats, which some Caribbean government had tried  as a measure to control this pest. At first, it brought down the density  of rats, but then it gave rise to organized rat breeding. The <a href="http://www.iea.org/W/bookshop/add.aspx?id=370">International Energy Agency </a>has now proposed a different mechanism for providing incentives to emissions reductions in developing countries.</p><p>One may wonder how the carbon market would work if politicians  managed to solve the problems with allocation and cheating. There is  another aspect which is not normally reflected in the economists’  models: the variation of the carbon price in response to economic  cycles, uncertainty and imperfect information. The economic risk to  investors in energy technology posed by the medium-term uncertainty in  the quota price is a significant deterrent to investments, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/29/carbon-trading-warning-emissions">as energy companies recently told a hearing by the UK House of Commons</a>.  It is totally unnecessary to generate such a varying price signal  because we know already today that in the long run, polluting fossil  power stations are not acceptable.</p><p>I agree with an increasing number of analysts that emissions  allowances should be replaced by a pollution tax, which is simpler to  implement, gives much less opportunity to cheat the system or achieve  huge gains through lobbying. The problem with carbon pricing in general  and a tax in particular is that it costs the public a lot, and that the  amounts of money that needs to be rechanneled are much larger than the  marginal changes in investment costs that are affected by this policy.  The political price of carbon pricing is hence high. To limit that  price, it is advantageous to also use more targeted, effective policy  tools to achieve emissions reductions, such as energy efficiency  regulations for houses, cars, and gadgets, subsidies for all sorts of  technology development, information tools, and subsidies/niche markets  for emerging low-carbon technologies.</p><p>Emissions allowances are funny money – a fantasy creation that works  well in economists’ highly stylized model world, but unfortunately not  (yet?) in reality. It is time that economists return to their  forefathers’ understanding of “political economy” (which considers the  interests of different parties) and observe real markets before  intervening in politics.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Hurra for Green Electricity!
slug: hurra-for-green-electricity
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2009-09-13
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  Some economists argue that support for renewable electricity  leads to more coal
  power. Their reasoning is curiously flawed and  oversees the crucial role of
  technological learning.

  A curious discussion about climate policy has arisen in Norway now that the
  country has agreed with Sweden to join Sw

excerpt:
  Some economists argue that support for renewable electricity  leads to more coal
  power. Their reasoning is curiously flawed and  oversees the crucial role of
  technological learning.

  A curious discussion about climate policy has arisen in Norway now that the
  country has agreed with Sweden to join Sweden’s  ”green certificate
  [http://www.eoearth.org/article/Green_certificate]” market (a.k.a.
  el-certificate, similar to the renewable portopholio standard
  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_port

html:
  <p>Some economists argue that support for renewable electricity  leads to more coal power. Their reasoning is curiously flawed and  oversees the crucial role of technological learning.</p><p>A curious discussion about climate policy has arisen in Norway now that the country has agreed with Sweden to join Sweden’s  ”<a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Green_certificate">green certificate</a>” market (a.k.a. el-certificate, similar to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_portfolio_standard">renewable portopholio standard</a>)  . This policy tool creates de-facto a niche-market for specific kinds  of renewable energy, which are traded at higher prices than on the spot  market for electricity. Economists like <a href="http://www.ssb.no/publikasjoner/DP/pdf/dp581.pdf">Böhringer and Rosendahl</a>,  Michael Hoel and Odd Godal (DN 9 and 11 Sept.) now argue that the  increased production of renewable electricity in Nordic countries will  have no effect on the emissions of greenhouse gases in Europe, and it  may even contribute to increasing greenhouse gas emissions globally by  leading to a reduced price of fossil fuels.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="http://69.195.124.91/~carbonf5/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/86018-learning2.gif" class="kg-image" alt="86018-learning2" loading="lazy"></figure><p>On some level, the argument is really silly: Since lawmakers have set  absolute limits on the allowed emissions, reduced production of  coal-based electricity in Scandinavia will free up emissions allowances  which will be used somewhere else in Europe to emitt CO2. The support  for renewable energy hence undercuts other emissions-reducing efforts.  Of course, the same argument can be applied to any emissions-reducing  effort anywhere within the EU’s cap! If the argument is hence followed  through and applied everywhere, everybody would stop their  emissions-reduction efforts, and there would be no reduction at all.  Europe would fail it’s goals to reduce emissions. Renewable electricity  is one of the many measures  required to achieve emissions reduction  targets and is hence not futile.</p><p>Of course the econmists could respond that I misread their argument,  which could be more subtle than it comes across in the media: Dedicated  support for renewable electricity reduces the quota price (which is part  of the argument) and hence leads to a shift in what measures are  adopted to achieve the goal. Instead of energy conservation in Poland,  you get wind power in Norway, but on total the measures are (not  necessarily, but possibly) more expensive. That’s fair,  in the  economists’ idealized world, having one emissions price as the only  policy tool to achieve emissions reductions is most efficient. However,  this oversees some crucial realities.</p><p>First and foremost, there are other criteria than efficiency which  affect the desirablity of a policy, such as political feasibility and  distributive justice.  There is a limit to level of carbon and  electricity price that is politically acceptable, and that limit varies  by country. Poland has already managed to negotiate concessions from  other EU countries: a large allottment of free emissions allowances  their coal-fired power plants. Sharing the pain of emissions reductions  means that also in countries high cost level measures will have to be  implemented, even if they are more expensive.</p><p>Second, if it is easier to achieve the emissions reductions aimed for  in 2012, the ambition level for the next period will be higher. Hence,  the amount of emissions is not really fixed as the reasoning of  Böhringer and Rosendahl implies, but depends on the ease and success of  effort to reduce emissions, and the green certificates will help this  effort. Besides, the installed renewable plants will be in operation  beyond the time horizon of existing cap-and-trade systems.</p><p>Third, carbon pricing strategies such as the <a href="http://www.indecol.ntnu.no/indecolwebnew/publications/newsletter/webnews/webnews3_05.htm">EU’s Emissions Trading System lead to windfall profits</a>:  anybody who already has low-emissions power production such as large  hydro or nuclear plants profits from the resulting increase in  electricity price. The amount of money redistributed to owners of  existing facilities is much larger than the investment costs for the  required emissions reductions, as I have argued elsewhere. Of course t  here are other arguments for high electricity prices, as these lead to  conservation. However, this can be achieved through taxes which benefit  the general public instead of multi-billion Euro windfall profits for  power companies. By reducing the quota and hence electricity price,  subsidies for renewables reduce the windfall profits of power companies,  which should be seen as a good thing.</p><p>Fourth and most importantly, niche markets are required for new technologies to mature and bring down cost. As <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Paul_Wright">Wright </a>has  shown in an analysis of the cost of making air planes published in  1936, costs are reduced with cumulative production because of <a href="http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/csp/summaries/learningcurve.html">technological learning</a>. <a href="http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2000/curve2000.pdf">This has been extensively documented also for energy technology</a>: for successful technologies, a doubling of cumulative production brings on average a 20% reduction in per-unit cost (<a href="http://energy.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Pages/ArticlesETD.htm">Figure source</a>)  Niche markets are required to provide an opportunity for improving the  technology, working out the kinks, developing the organisation of new  value chains. Policy support for nacent technologies is hence justified  by long-term benefits that the development of these technologies brings.  While this ”technology learning” rationale has been central for  creating the green certificate markets and similar policy initatives, it  has been totally ignored in the economists’ arguments against these  instruments.</p><p>While I don’t think that renewables alone are sufficient to stop  climate change and more fundamental changes to our economies are  required, they are an indispensible element of any climate strategy.  Green certificates could be criticized for being less effective in  supporting new technology than feed-in tariffs, the successful approach  taken e.g. by Germany, but better some support than none.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Can Technology Spare the Earth?
slug: can-technology-spare-the-earth
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2009-08-27
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  The IPCC says that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by  at least 80 %
  by 2050 to achieve the goal of limit global warming to not  more than 2°C,
  agreed to by the EU and the G8.

  Recent research
  [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/abs/nature08017.html] indicates
   that the cumul

excerpt:
  The IPCC says that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by  at least 80 %
  by 2050 to achieve the goal of limit global warming to not  more than 2°C,
  agreed to by the EU and the G8.

  Recent research
  [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/abs/nature08017.html] indicates
   that the cumulative emissions in the period 2000-2050 should be not  more than
  1000 billion tons of CO2. In the first 7 years of this 50 year  period; 234
  billion tons were already emitted. Even if we give up the  

html:
  <p>The IPCC says that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by  at least 80 % by 2050 to achieve the goal of limit global warming to not  more than 2°C, agreed to by the EU and the G8.</p><p><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/abs/nature08017.html">Recent research</a> indicates  that the cumulative emissions in the period 2000-2050 should be not  more than 1000 billion tons of CO2. In the first 7 years of this 50 year  period; 234 billion tons were already emitted. Even if we give up the  2°C goal, risking unpredictable feedback mechanisms disrupting the  climate in more severe manners, quick, deep emission reductions are  required to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Given that energy  access is so essential for the economy, we need to ask ourselves:</p><p>How can such reductions be achieved?</p><p>What is the role of technology, behavior change, and a change in our path of development?</p><p>It appears that policy makers and too many scientists have already  made up their mind. Technology is the solution! I was reminded of this  again by Norway’s Minister for Environment and Development, <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/About-the-Ministry/minister-of-the-environment-and-developm.html?id=486338">Erik Solheim</a>,  who started his speech on the political prospects for climate  protection at NTNU with a rhetorical question of where we would stand  without technology today, pointing to the increase in life expectancy  from 40 to 70 years since the industrial revolution. Without  technologies, it would be back to the caves. Solheim’s rhetoric  contributes to making a taboo of any other solution strategy, something  we can ill afford in the precarious situation we have put ourselves in.</p><p>Of course technology is an indispensible part of the solution! It  would be impossible to even feed the current population 6.9 billion  without technology, not to talk about the 9 billion we expect by 2050.  Alluding to a life in the caves, however, it not helpful when we  consider how we could lower our carbon footprint to less than one ton  per person and year, from 15-30 tons in developed countries today. One  needs to ask whether technology is sufficient, or whether other changes  are required as well? What are the environmental, social and monetary  costs of technological solutions, compared to other approaches? I see  that the exclusive focus on technology clouds our thinking about the  implications of climate change for our development.</p><p>The past century and a half have brought tremendous economic  development. The quality of life of individuals has improved greatly,  and a household’s possessions of everything from living space to  clothing and gadget have grown substantially, at least in the rich  quarter of the global population. Many take the expression <em>sustainable development</em> to  imply that the less wealthy and very poor would catch up with us, but  also that we would continue the expansion of possessions and travel  distances as we have done in recent decades. The base-line of our energy  scenarios is such economic development, where business-as-usual implies  that it occurs using incrementally improving technology with  improvement corresponding to current rates (1% energy efficiency gain  per year, technology learning for new energy technologies), while  mitigation scenarios imply the adoption of different energy technologies  to satisfy the needs of the ever-expanding economy.</p><p>In the mind of policy makers, technology is the ultimate band-aid  that solves the CO2 pollution problem from energy, allowing for a  continued expansion of energy services without any limits. The trouble  is that this perspective is not even supported by the energy technology  models from which it has emerged. My reading of the International Energy  Agency’s <a href="http://www.iea.org/Textbase/techno/etp/ETP_2008_Exec_Sum_English.pdf">Energy Technology Perspectives </a>is that climate mitigation to the 2°C level is simply not possible if the economy develops along a baseline scenario.</p><p>One reason is certainly food production, which already causes more  greenhouse gas emissions that we can afford globally from all  consumption activities. There it is methane from cows, nitrous oxide  emissions from soils and the fate of soil organic carbon which play an  essential role. This leaves little room for emissions from the energy  system. Even if we go to totally fossil-free energy technologies,  material production will require the oxidation of carbon. Furthermore,  there are resource constraints which affect carbon-free energy  production. Jesse Ausubel, from whose influential <a href="http://phe.rockefeller.edu/sparetheearth/">1996 American Scientist article</a> I borrowed the title of this blog, has pointed out that the <a href="http://www.inderscience.com/storage/f651710118931242.pdf">limited availability of land</a> constrains  all renewable sources. The increasing opposition to wind power projects  indicates that maybe we want to keep part of nature for other purposes.  Nuclear fission has its own resource limits. In addition, concerns  about proliferation need to be taken seriously in today’s world.</p><p>I think it should be possible to achieve our current level of  material wealth with much lower greenhouse gas emissions, even though I  would like to see the feasibility of a &lt;1 ton per year carbon  footprint demonstrated by model calculations that take both life-cycle  emissions and resource limits into account. The current development  path, however, does not stop there. The wealthier the individuals, the  more air travel they do, and there is no technology on the horizon to  take carbon out of the aviation business. Richard Branson’s Virgin  Galactic vision and enterprise demonstrates that we are on the  trajectory to commercial space-flight being available to the upper  classes. Such a development can never be sustainable.</p><p>We need to simply acknowledge the resource limits on this planet and  to change course towards a development that occurs within these limits.  The limit on greenhouse gas emissions is one crucial limit, but limits  on the yields of fish stock and land, as well as of energy and material  resources, are also important. It is not that we need to halt economic  growth – only totalitarian regimes can put a lid on human ingenuity –  but that we need to change the direction in which the economy develops.  Innovations and growth which rely on more energy, more resources need to  become impermissible. Enforcing such constraints will provide a new set  of opportunities for innovation and technological development, for  cultural expression and human well-being in harmony with nature.</p><p>We are still far away from having the constraints and price signals  in place under which economic growth could be environmentally  beneficial. As such, the current economic crisis is a blessing and an  opportunity to use the involuntary pause to change course, to reorient  development, to <a href="http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/">green the economy</a>. There are some efforts in that direction, but they need to be strengthened dramatically.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: What does the Carbon Footprint mean?
slug: what-does-the-carbon-footprint-mean
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2009-08-13
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  Many people have asked how a country’s carbon footprint  compares to the
  territorial emissions reported to the United Nations  Framework Convention on
  Climate Change (UNFCCC)?

  In hindsight, it was perhaps remiss of us not to include this data in the paper.
  However, it was not our motivation.

  Focus

excerpt:
  Many people have asked how a country’s carbon footprint  compares to the
  territorial emissions reported to the United Nations  Framework Convention on
  Climate Change (UNFCCC)?

  In hindsight, it was perhaps remiss of us not to include this data in the paper.
  However, it was not our motivation.

  Focusing on whether the emissions are bigger or smaller misses a  large part of
  the story. The main focus of the paper is on what  consumption categories cause
  emissions and how this varies across  countri

html:
  <p><strong>Many people have asked how a country’s carbon footprint  compares to the territorial emissions reported to the United Nations  Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)?</strong></p><p>In hindsight, it was perhaps remiss of us not to include this data in the paper. However, it was not our motivation.</p><p>Focusing on whether the emissions are bigger or smaller misses a  large part of the story. The main focus of the paper is on what  consumption categories cause emissions and how this varies across  countries with different incomes. The current approach in the UNFCCC  reveal what the emissions are from electricity, transportation, and so  on. This is vital information, however, only a carbon footprint can  reveal what the emissions are to produce food, car, television, or to  get a hair cut. This information is needed by consumers if they want to  reduce their own personal footprint (<a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/1976p75463860416/">http://www.springerlink.com/content/1976p75463860416/</a>).  The real value of a carbon footprint is the information it reveals, not  necessarily if the footprint is bigger or smaller than the territorial  emissions.</p><p>In a broader global perspective, if a country’s carbon footprint  grows over time relative to territorial emissions then it means that the  country is increasingly importing products at the expensive of domestic  production. If that country has an emission limitation in the Kyoto  Protocol and the imports are coming from countries without emission  limitations then global emissions may increase while it “appears”  emissions are decreasing. This is known as carbon leakage (<a href="http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0804/full/climate.2008.25.html">http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0804/full/climate.2008.25.html</a>).</p><p>In fact, this is what is happening now. Since 1990 the emissions in  countries with an emission limitations have largely stabilized, while  the emissions in countries without emission limitations have increased  about 80%. The main reason for this is the explosive growth of China,  however, recent research has shown that about 50% of the growth in  Chinese emissions since 2000 is due to the production of products  exported from China and consumed in other countries (<a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036540.shtml">http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036540.shtml</a>).</p><p>An analysis of the carbon footprint is useful for an analysis of carbon leakage, but the footprint better measured another way (<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.10.014">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.10.014</a>).  The carbon footprint in our article only directly considers trade to  final consumers (such as households) and trade to industry is calculated  internally in the model. Thus, the footprint of the USA includes  emissions that occur to extract iron-ore in Australia, to produce steel  in China, to produce a car in Japan, which is consumed in the USA. While  this is perfectly logically, it means that the imported emissions are  not directly comparable to the import statistics which only consider the  first trading partner (the trade from Australia to China is not  included in the US trade statistics). To make trade statistics and  imported emissions consistent it is more intuitive to consider only the  first link in the supply chain, but include imports to both industry and  final consumers. This method was used in another of our papers (<a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es072023k">http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es072023k</a>) and we call a Consumption-Based Inventory.</p><p>In the two different approaches the imported emissions differ, but  the exported emissions need not differ if the arithmetic is done  correctly. In the Carbon Footprint of Nations paper, the imported  emissions cover the global emissions required to produce the final  consumption in each country, while in a Consumption-Based Inventory the  imported emissions cover the domestic emissions in each country to  produce total (final and industry) consumption in each country. If trade  to industry and final consumers is include, then only domestic  emissions are included to avoid double counting.</p><p>Both approaches do lead to some confusion, but they serve a different  purpose. A Carbon Footprint tells us what consumption categories are  important and how we may reduce emissions by consuming differently. The  Consumption-Based Inventory focuses on trade relationships and how the  trade relationships redistributed emissions between countries. Depending  on the question being asked, one method is usually preferred.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: News Stories on Carbon Footprint of Nations
slug: news-stories-on-carbon-footprint-of-nations
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2009-06-24
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  A good week has gone since the release of the website and the online version of
  our article [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es803496a].

  A number of news outlets picked up the story, including the venerable Neue
  Züricher Zeitung
  [http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/forschung_und_technik/der_klimatisc

excerpt:
  A good week has gone since the release of the website and the online version of
  our article [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es803496a].

  A number of news outlets picked up the story, including the venerable Neue
  Züricher Zeitung
  [http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/forschung_und_technik/der_klimatische_fussabdruck_des_konsums_1.2755249.html] 
  (Switzerland)  and the tabloid VG (Norway). It was really interesting to discuss
  our  research with numerous journalists and to see what they picked up. Her

html:
  <p>A good week has gone since the release of the website and the <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es803496a">online version of our article</a>.</p><p>A number of news outlets picked up the story, including the venerable <a href="http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/forschung_und_technik/der_klimatische_fussabdruck_des_konsums_1.2755249.html">Neue Züricher Zeitung</a> (Switzerland)  and the tabloid VG (Norway). It was really interesting to discuss our  research with numerous journalists and to see what they picked up. Here  is some highlights.</p><ul><li>Consumption as key driver for carbon footprints: Basically all  stories emphasize the importance of goods for personal and national  carbon footprints. <a href="http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive_articles/090619_hertwick_uh/index">ETH Life</a> and <a href="http://pressetext.com/news/090622022/shopping-beeinflusst-das-klima/">pressetexte</a> show  ladies shopping. (Ironically, men usually have higher carbon footprints  and are traditionally responsible for shopping high-impact items.) The  news stories also point out that increased consumption leads to  increased carbon footprints and that this tendency does not level off  even at high expenditure levels. There is no <a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Environmental_kuznets_curve">“Kuznets curve”</a> for  carbon footprints. This message is very much part of our intention to  alert the world to the fact that, even when consumed goods or services  do not require energy for their consumption, they cause greenhouse gas  emissions during their production and consumption.</li><li>The outsourcing of carbon footprints: The news stories also focus on  the contribution of countries to the climate problem and on how this  contribution changes if we take <a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Pollution_embodied_in_trade">emission embodied in trade</a> into account (<a href="http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=58827&amp;CultureCode=en">1</a>,<a href="http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2009/juni/223512">2</a>).  Our analysis shows that for most OECD countries, the emissions caused  by the production of imports are clearly higher than that caused by the  production of exports. A carbon footprint accounting would have clear  implications for the assignment of responsibility for future emissions  reduction. In the interviews, I have emphasized the importance of using  carbon footprints as a complementary indicator to the conventional  national emissions inventories in international climate policy. We want  to ensure that measures that are taking to not lead increases in  emissions somewhere else. I would also argue that the development of the  national carbon footprint over time is much more relevant for the  success of climate policies than the development of national emissions.</li><li>Some stories have also picked up on the relevance of the results for  integrated product policy. Our study has focused on the importance of  eight different consumption categories. Integrated product policy <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ipp/">(IPP)</a>has  been successfully applied by the EU to influence the content of  electronic products, reducing toxic compounds, and to reduce energy  consumption of energy using products. Now the EU is interested in  extending product policy to also reduce energy use in the manufacturing  of the products. Our study will hopefully help the EU to target its  policy on the largest problems.</li></ul>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: The importance of national carbon footprint accounting
slug: the-importance-of-national-carbon-footprint-accounting
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2009-06-15
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  Congratulations to Edgar Hertwich, Glen Peters and the  NTNU team for presenting
  the ‘Carbon Footprint of Nations’ as a  politically relevant way of accounting
  for greenhouse gas emissions,  based on a sound methodology.

  The publication and website comes at an important time – the decisive  climate

excerpt:
  Congratulations to Edgar Hertwich, Glen Peters and the  NTNU team for presenting
  the ‘Carbon Footprint of Nations’ as a  politically relevant way of accounting
  for greenhouse gas emissions,  based on a sound methodology.

  The publication and website comes at an important time – the decisive  climate
  policy negotiations in Copenhagen are only half a year away –  and it will be a
  useful input to this process. For both, producers and  consumers, as
  individuals, companies and nations are responsible

html:
  <p><strong>Congratulations to Edgar Hertwich, Glen Peters and the  NTNU team for presenting the ‘Carbon Footprint of Nations’ as a  politically relevant way of accounting for greenhouse gas emissions,  based on a sound methodology.</strong></p><p>The publication and website comes at an important time – the decisive  climate policy negotiations in Copenhagen are only half a year away –  and it will be a useful input to this process. For both, producers and  consumers, as individuals, companies and nations are responsible for  emissions and both have a joint responsibility to address the problem  with determination. The burden of this responsibility must be shared,  only then can a meaningful and comprehensive deal to cut global  emissions be achieved. The exact nature of this sharing is yet to be  determined in negotiations but it is certainly useful to provide the  viewpoint of both, production-based and consumption-based emission  inventories.</p><p>The work is also important from a methodological point of view.  Whilst it is, of course, not the first publication to present findings  from an environmentally extended multi-region input-output (EE-MRIO)  model (numerous other researchers and the authors themselves have driven  forward this field of research), it clearly emphasises the  applicability and usefulness of this method. The consistent combination  of existing, mostly standardised, environmental and economic accounts  and the unambiguous allocation of impacts to consumption categories are  the strengths of EE-MRIO. It is also an acknowledgement that  international trade is the key element in separating production from  consumption in a globalised world and that the complex trade  relationships need to be addressed in a methodological sound manner.  Clearly, much more needs to be done to make the method robust enough for  political target setting. An upcoming report from the recent European  EIPOT project makes suggestions on methods, data and institutions to  develop EE-MRIO in that direction (<a href="http://www.eipot.eu/">www.eipot.eu</a>).</p><p>Looking at greenhouse gas emissions from a consumption perspective is  politically significant and addresses arguably the most important  environmental challenge faced to date. But it cannot provide the full  picture of relevant impacts and it will be necessary to monitor other  indicators alongside the carbon footprint, such as the ecological  footprint, water footprint and results from more specialised ecological  impact models, informing about biodiversity, ecosystem health and other  categories.</p><p>I wish the ‘Carbon Footprint of Nations’ website plenty of attention  and hope it helps in conveying the message of consumption-based  accounting.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


title: Welcome to the Carbon Footprint site!
slug: welcome-to-the-carbon-footprint-site
authors: Edgar Hertwich
published_at: 2009-06-12
author: Edgar Hertwich
author_image: https://blog.indecol.no/content/images/2019/12/Edgar-hertwich-e1370508329193-150x150.jpg
author_url: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarhertwich/
summary:
  We are excited about launching this web site. Many years  of our research have
  gone into developing models and analyzing data on  the connection of industrial
  production, consumption and environmental  pressures.

  Profound insights have been gained, and an approach has matured which  we think
  is ind

excerpt:
  We are excited about launching this web site. Many years  of our research have
  gone into developing models and analyzing data on  the connection of industrial
  production, consumption and environmental  pressures.

  Profound insights have been gained, and an approach has matured which  we think
  is indispensible to address climate change and resource  scarcity. Now, we feel
  that the world really should pay attention! We  want to use this website to
  communicate our research findings to a  broader pu

html:
  <p><strong>We are excited about launching this web site. Many years  of our research have gone into developing models and analyzing data on  the connection of industrial production, consumption and environmental  pressures.</strong></p><p>Profound insights have been gained, and an approach has matured which  we think is indispensible to address climate change and resource  scarcity. Now, we feel that the world really should pay attention! We  want to use this website to communicate our research findings to a  broader public and to enter into a dialogue with those interested.</p><p>Climate change is now increasingly acknowledged as the most urgent  global environmental problem. Humans have changed the composition of the  atmosphere in a manner that disturbs our planet’s energy exchange with  the rest of the universe, thereby leading to a small but measurable  increase in temperature on our planet. The main process by which we have  changed the atmospheric composition is combustion. Combustion happens  on fields, in industry, in stoves and car engines, mostly intentionally  and for a specific purpose.</p><p>Our problem is that while politicians are waffling about how to  address the climate challenge, the rate at which the concentration of  greenhouse gases increase is itself increasing. <a href="http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6929&amp;contentId=7044622">Energy consumption increases</a>, and the <a href="http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/">fraction of carbon dioxide absorbed by the biosphere and oceans may be going down</a>. It is hence important to act – but to act, we need to know what to do.</p><p>The occasion of opening this website is the publication of a paper by  Dr. Glen Peters and myself, modeling and analyzing the carbon footprint  of 73 nations. Here you can find out whether, in your country, it is  nutrition which contributes most to the average person’s footprint,  housing or mobility. You can see how your country does, compared to  others, and how much of the carbon footprint is due to imported goods.</p><p>Our main message is: all of our purchases are relevant to the  climate. The attention often focuses on the direct use of energy. Yes,  that is where we are causing the highest emissions of greenhouse gases  per unit money spent. But on the aggregate, the emissions caused by the  production of goods and services we consume are more important. We need  to reduce both direct and indirect. We need to be careful that the  reduction of direct emissions does not shift emissions elsewhere.</p><p>Of course, the problem is exceedingly complex, and there is much more  to the story than the headline. I hope this website will be able to  shed some light on important aspects that have often been overlooked.</p>

author_bio:
[cell repeats an earlier one in this file: 136 characters]


