Trade and Environmental Responsibility for Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Case of South Korea

  • Taelim ChoiEmail author
Part of the New Frontiers in Regional Science: Asian Perspectives book series (NFRSASIPER, volume 25)


A significant amount of embodied greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been and are currently being traded in the globalized economy. The conventional territorial approach to the control of GHGs released within a country fails to account for a large portion of GHGs for which a country may take responsibility, particularly from the perspective of consumption. Given the large volume of products traded among nations, a series of studies have underscored the need for the global monitoring of GHG emissions not only generated from production but also driven by consumptive activities. This study develops time-series GHG emission inventories from 1995 to 2009 from both production- and consumption-based perspectives in the case of South Korea and analyzes the factors that influence the increase and the decrease of GHG emissions. This empirical analysis has determined that production-based activities are more responsible for GHG emissions in South Korea than consumption-based activities. The analysis also found that the trade surplus of embodied GHG emissions in South Korea ranged from 0.31 to 1.01 tons per capita. A decomposition analysis showed that developments in environmental technology play a significant role in the reduction of GHG emissions, associated with a 45 % gross change in GHG emissions. However, this reduction was offset by increases in demand and changes in the input structure to energy-intensive sectors. The change of input structure is a critical factor contributing to trend in increasing embodied GHG emissions in not only South Korea but also nations linked with global trade.


Embodied emissions Trade Environmental responsibility Structural decomposition 


  1. Andrew, R., and V. Forgie. 2008. A three-perspective view of greenhouse gas emission responsibilities in New Zealand. Ecological Economics 68(1–2): 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett, J., G. Peters, T. Wiedmann, K. Scott, M. Lenzen, K. Roelich, and C. Le Quéré. 2013. Consumption-based GHG emission accounting: A UK case study. Climate Policy 13(4): 451–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Choi, T. 2015. Understanding environmental responsibility of cities and emissions embodied in trade. Economic Systems Research 27(2): 133–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eder, P., and M. Narodoslawsky. 1999. What environmental pressures are a region’s industries responsible for? A method of analysis with descriptive indices and input–output models. Ecological Economics 29(3): 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Erickson, P., D. Allaway, M. Lazarus, and E.A. Stanton. 2012. A consumption-based GHG inventory for the U.S. state of Oregon. Environmental Science & Technology 46(7): 3679–3686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jones, C.M., and D.M. Kammen. 2011. Quantifying carbon footprint reduction opportunities for U.S. households and communities. Environmental Science & Technology 45(9): 4088–4095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lenzen, M., and J. Murray. 2010. Conceptualising environmental responsibility. Ecological Economics 70(2): 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lenzen, M., and G.M. Peters. 2010. How city dwellers affect their resource hinterland. Journal of Industrial Ecology 14(1): 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lenzen, M., J. Murray, F. Sack, and T. Wiedmann. 2007. Shared producer and consumer responsibility — Theory and practice. Ecological Economics 61(1): 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Li, Y., and C.N. Hewitt. 2008. The effect of trade between China and the UK on national and global carbon dioxide emissions. Energy Policy 36(6): 1907–1914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marques, A., J. Rodrigues, M. Lenzen, and T. Domingos. 2012. Income-based environmental responsibility. Ecological Economics 84: 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Miller, R.E., and P.D. Blair. 2009. Input-output analysis: Foundations and extensions, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Pan, J., J. Phillips, and Y. Chen. 2008. China’s balance of emissions embodied in trade: Approaches to measurement and allocating international responsibility. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 24(2): 354–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Peters, G.P., J.C. Minx, C.L. Weber, and O. Edenhofer. 2011. Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(21): 8903–8908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rodrigues, J., T. Domingos, S. Giljum, and F. Schneider. 2006. Designing an indicator of environmental responsibility. Ecological Economics 59(3): 256–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Serrano, M., and E. Dietzenbacher. 2010. Responsibility and trade emission balances: An evaluation of approaches. Ecological Economics 69(11): 2224–2232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Timmer, M.P., E. Dietzenbacher, B. Los, R. Stehrer, and G.J. Vries. 2015. An illustrated user guide to the world input–output database: The case of global automotive production. Review of International Economics. 23: 575–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Turner, K., M. Munday, S. McIntyre, and C.D. Jensen. 2011. Incorporating jurisdiction issues into regional carbon accounts under production and consumption accounting principles. Environment and Planning A 43(3): 722–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. World Trade Organization. 2014. International Trade Statistics 2014. Accessed 10 Aug 2015.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Incheon Development InstituteIncheonKorea

Personalised recommendations