Climatic Change

, Volume 86, Issue 1–2, pp 51–66 | Cite as

Post-Kyoto greenhouse gas inventories: production versus consumption

  • Glen P. Peters
  • Edgar G. Hertwich


For the long-term stabilization of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations it is important that post-Kyoto policy has broad participation to ensure environmental integrity. Many post-Kyoto frameworks have been debated, but surprisingly approaches that focus on consumption have received little attention in the climate change literature despite broader interest in other areas. In this article we extend the argument for constructing GHG inventories using a country’s consumption rather than production. First, we argue that constructing GHG inventories using a country’s economic activity instead of geographic territory solves allocation issues for international activities such as international transportation and carbon capture and storage. Second, we argue that consumption-based GHG inventories have many advantages over production-based inventories. The main advantages are to address carbon leakage, reduce the importance of emission commitments for developing countries, increase options for mitigation, encourage environmental comparative advantage, address competitiveness concerns, and naturally encourage technology diffusion.


Gross Domestic Product Kyoto Protocol Environmental Kuznets Curve International Transportation Ecol Econ 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahmad N, Wyckoff A (2003) Carbon dioxide emissions embodied in international trade of goods. DSTI/DOC(2003)15, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)Google Scholar
  2. Aldy JE (2005) An environmental Kuznets curve analysis of U.S. state-level carbon dioxide emissions. J Environ Dev 14(1):48–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldy JE (2006) Divergence in state-level per capita carbon dioxide emissions. Discussion Paper 06-07, Resources for the FutureGoogle Scholar
  4. Aldy JE, Barrett S, Stavins RN (2003) Thirteen plus one: a comparison of global climate policy architectures. Clim Policy 3:373–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aldy JE, Orszag PR, Stiglitz JE (2001) Climate change: an agenda for global collective action. Prepared for the conference on “The Timing of Climate Change Policies”, Pew Center on Global Climate Change,
  6. Babiker MH (2005) Climate change policy, market structure, and carbon leakage. J Int Econ 65(2):421–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrett S, Stavins R (2003) Increasing participation and compliance in international climate change agreements. Int Environ Agreem: Politics, Law and Econ 3:349–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bastianoni S, Pulselli FM, Tiezzi E (2004) The problem of assigning responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions. Ecol Econ 49:253–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Battjes J, Noorman K, Biesiot W (1998) Assessing the energy intensities of imports. Energy Econ 20:67–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bodansky D, Chou S, Jorge-Tresolini C (2004) International climate efforts beyond 2012: a survey of approaches. Pew Center on Global Climate Change,
  11. Bosi M, Riey B (2002) Greenhouse gas implications of international energy trade. IEA Information Paper: Presented at COP 8, New Delhi, International Energy AgencyGoogle Scholar
  12. CAIT (2005) Climate analysis indicators tool (CAIT) Version 3. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC,
  13. Chung H-S, Rhee H-C (2001) Carbon dioxide emissions of Korea and Japan and its transmission via international trade. Int Econ J 15(4):117–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper RN (1998) Toward a real global warming treaty. Foreign Aff 77(2):66–77Google Scholar
  15. de Cendra J (2006) Can emissions trading schemes be coupled with border tax adjustments? An analysis vis-á-vis WTO law. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 15(2):131–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Haan M, Keuning SJ (1996) Taking the environment into account: the NAMEA approach. Rev Income and Wealth 42(2):131–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dimaranan BV (ed) (2006) Global trade, assistance, and production: the GTAP 6 data base. Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue UniversityGoogle Scholar
  18. Eder P, Narodoslawsky M (1999) What environmental pressures are a region’s industries responsible for? A method of analysis with descriptive indices and input–output models. Ecol Econ 29: 359–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eskeland GS, Harrison AE (2003) Moving to greener pastures? Multinationals and the pollution haven hypothesis. J Dev Econ 70(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. European Commission (2001) Nameas for air emissions: results of pilot studies. European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferng J-J (2003) Allocating the responsibility of CO2 over-emissions from the perspectives of benefit principle and ecological deficit. Ecol Econ 46:121–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fisher B, Costanza R (2005) Regional commitment to reducing emissions. Nature 438:301–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gallego B, Lenzen M (2005) A consistent input–output formulation of shared producer and consumer responsibility. Econ Syst Res 17(4):365–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Global Commons Institute (2005) Contraction & convergence. Web page accessed: December 2005,
  25. Gravgård Pedersen O, de Haan M (2006) The system of environmental and economic accounts – 2003 and the economic relevance of physical flow accounting. J Ind Ecol 10(1–2):19–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grubb M (2004) Kyoto and the future of international climate change responses: from here to where? Int Rev Environ Strategies 5(1):15–38Google Scholar
  27. Grubb MJ, Hope C, Fouquet R (2002) Climatic implications of the Kyoto protocol: the contribution of international spillover. Clim Change 54(1–2):11–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hasselmann K, Latif M, Hooss G, Azar C, Edenhofer O, Jaeger CC, Johannessen OM, Kemfert C, Welp M, Wokaun A (2003) The challenge of long-term climate change. Science 302:1923–1925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hovi J, Holtsmark B (2006) Cap-and-trade or carbon taxes? The feasibility of enforcement and the effects of non-compliance. Int Environ Agreem 6:137–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. IEA (2005) Energy statistics manual. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and International Energy AgencyGoogle Scholar
  31. IPCC (1996) Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories (3 volumes). Intergovernmental panel on climate changeGoogle Scholar
  32. IPCC (2000) Good practice guidance and uncertainty management in national greenhouse gas inventories. Intergovernmental panel on climate changeGoogle Scholar
  33. IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: mitigation. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  34. Keller W (2004) International technology diffusion. J Econ Lit 42(3):752–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kondo Y, Moriguchi Y, Shimizu H (1998) CO2 emissions in Japan: influences of imports and exports. Appl Energy 59(2–3):163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lenzen M (1998) Primary energy and greenhouse gases embodied in Australian final consumption: an input–output analysis. Energy Policy 26:495–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lenzen M (2003) Environmentally important paths, linkages and key sectors in the Australian economy. Struct Chang Econ Dyn 10(6):545–572Google Scholar
  38. Lenzen M, Murray J, Sack F, Wiedmann T (2007) Shared producer and consumer responsibility – theory and practice. Ecol Econ 61(1):27–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lenzen M, Pade L-L, Munksgaard J (2004) CO2 multipliers in multi-region input–output models. Econ Syst Res 16(4):391–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leontief W (1970) Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: an input–output approach. Rev Econ Stat 52(3):262–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Machado G, Schaeffer R, Worrell E (2001) Energy and carbon embodied in the international trade of Brazil: an input–output approach. Ecol Econ 39:409–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Metz B, Davidson O, de Coninck H, Loos M, Meyer L (eds) (2005) IPCC Special report: carbon dioxide capture and storage. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  43. Mongelli I, Tassielli G, Notarnicola B (2006) Global warming agreements, international trade and energy/carbon embodiments: an input–output approach to the Italian case. Energy Policy 34(1):88–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Munksgaard J, Pedersen KA (2001) CO2 accounts for open economies: producer or consumer responsibility? Energy Policy 29:327–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Muradian R, O’Connor M, Martinez-Alier J (2002) Embodied pollution in trade: estimating the ‘environmental load displacement’ of industrialised countries. Ecol Econ 41:51–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nakicenovic N, Swart R (eds) (2000) Special report on emission scenarios. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  47. Nijdam D, Wilting HC, Goedkoop MJ, Madsen J (2005) Environmental load from Dutch private consumption: how much pollution is exported? J Ind Ecol 9(1–2):147–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nordhaus WD (2001a) After Kyoto: alternative mechanisms to control global warming. A paper prepared for a joint session of the American Economic Association and the Association of Environmental and Resource EconmistsGoogle Scholar
  49. Nordhaus, W. D., (2001b) Global warming economics. Science 294:1283–1284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Olivier J, Peters J (1999) International marine and aviation bunker fuel: trends, ranking of countries and comparison with national CO2 emissions. RIVM report 773301 002, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), The Netherlands,
  51. Oppenheimer M, Petsonk A (2005) Article 2 of the UNFCCC: historical origins, recent interpretations. Clim Chang 73:195–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pacala S, Socolow R (2004) Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305:968–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Peters GP, Hertwich EG (2006a) Pollution embodied in trade: the Norwegian case. Global Environ Chang 16:379–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Peters GP, Hertwich EG (2006b) Structural analysis of international trade: environmental impacts of Norway. Econ Syst Res 18(2):155–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Peters GP, Hertwich EG (2006c) Trade and the environment: implications for climate change policy. In: Ninth biennial conference of the international society for ecological economics on ecological sustainability and human well-being. New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  56. Peters GP, Hertwich EG (2007) The application of multi-regional input–output analysis to industrial ecology: evaluating trans-boundary environmental impacts. In: Suh S (ed) Handbook of input–output analysis for industrial ecology. Springer, Dordrecht (in press)Google Scholar
  57. Philibert C (2004) Lessons from the Kyoto protocol: implications for the future. Int Rev Environ Strategies 5(1):311–322Google Scholar
  58. Rodrigues J, Domingos T, Giljum S, Schneider F (2006) Designing an indicator of environmental responsibility. Ecol Econ 59:256–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rothman DS (1998) Environmental Kuznets curves – real progress or passing the buck? A case for consumption-based approaches. Ecol Econ 25:177–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sánchez-Chóliz J, Duarte R (2004) CO2 emissions embodied in international trade: evidence for Spain. Energy Policy 32:1999–2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sijm J, Jansen J, Torvanger A (2001) Differentiation of mitigation commitments: the multi-sector convergence approach. Clim Policy 1(4):481–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Statistics Norway (2003) National accounts 1995–2002: production, uses and employment. NOS D 258, Statistics Norway,
  63. Strømman AH (2005) Selected developments and applications of Leontief models in industrial ecology. Ph.D. thesis, Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  64. Subak S (1995) Methane embodied in the international trade of commodities: implications for global emissions. Global Environ Chang 5(5):433–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Suh S, Kagawa S (2005) Industrial ecology and input–output economics: an introduction. Econ Syst Res 17(4):349–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Suri V, Chapman D (1998) Economic growth, trade and energy: implications for the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecol Econ 25:195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tjernshaugen A (2005) United States participation in future climate agreements: an assessment. CICERO Policy Note 2005:01, CICEROGoogle Scholar
  68. Turner K, Lenzen M, Wiedmann T, Barrett J (2007) Examining the global environmental impact of regional consumption activities – Part 1: a technical note on combining input–output and ecological footprint analysis. Ecol Econ 62(1):37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. UNFCCC (1997) Australia: data and supporting information on differentiation indicators listed in Annex B of the Revised Negotiating Text. FCCC/AGBM/1997/MISC.3/Add.2, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  70. UNFCCC (2003) Methodoligical issues: emissions resulting from fuel used in international aviation and maritime transportation. FCCC/SBSTA/2003/INF.3, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  71. UNFCCC (2005) Key GHG Data: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data for 1990–2003. United NationsGoogle Scholar
  72. United Nations (1992) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United NationsGoogle Scholar
  73. United Nations (1993) System of national accounts 1993. United NationsGoogle Scholar
  74. United Nations (2003) Handbook of national accounting: integrated environmental and economic accounting 2003. United Nations, European Commission, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, World BankGoogle Scholar
  75. Victor DG, House JC, Joy S (2005) A Madisonian approach to climate policy. Science 309:1820–1821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wackernagel M, Rees W (1996) Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. New Society PublishersGoogle Scholar
  77. Watson R, the Core Writing Team (eds) (2001) Climate Change 2001: synthesis report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  78. Wiedmann T, Lenzen M, Turner K, Barrett J (2007) Examining the global environmental impact of regional consumption activities – Part 2: review of input–output models for the assessment of environmental impacts embodied in trade. Ecol Econ 61:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. WTO (2001) Ministerial Declaration (Fourth Session, Doha, 9–14 November 2001). WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, World Trade OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  80. WTO (2005) International trade statistics: Statistics database. Online database. Accessed: 29 April, 2005, World Trade Organization,
  81. Wyckoff AW, Roop JM (1994) The embodiment of carbon in imports of manufactured products: Implications for international agreements on greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Policy 22:187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ziesing H (2005) Worldwide CO2 emissions reached new record high. Weekly Report 29/2005, DIW Berlin,

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Industrial Ecology ProgrammeNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations