122
Table 6.3 shows the distribution of different sources of CO 2 emissions in the
KMC study area. Of all CO 2 emission sources, use of electricity was the leading
source because most households are highly dependent on electricity to fulfill their
basic lighting and other energy needs, and the source of the lowest CO 2 emissions is
utilization of firewood in the household sector. The highest CO 2 emissions from use
of electricity (526,800 kg CO 2 e) were recorded in ward number 127, and the lowest
were recorded in ward number 53 (188,773 kg CO 2 e).
Table 6.4 shows the distribution of primary CO 2 emissions from various sources
among households in different income groups in KMC. It was found that emissions
of CO 2 from electricity consumption were highest in very high-income households
(693,825 tCO 2 e), while the lowest values were seen in low-income households
(27,041 tCO 2 e). Low- and middle-income households had higher emissions from
consumption of wood (186 and 210 tCO 2 e, respectively) and coal (1565 and
6455 tCO 2 e, respectively), whereas high- and very high-income households had
high emissions from consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and from use of
petrol- and diesel-powered vehicles, leading to increased CO 2 emissions in the city
environment.
Table 6.5 shows spatial differences in CO 2 e emissions at the household level in
KMC. Of the total sample, ward number 127 had the largest household carbon
footprint (7.9 tCO 2 e) and the largest per capita carbon footprint (2.0 tCO 2 e),
whereas ward number 4 had the smallest household and per capita carbon footprints (5.2 and 1.23 tCO 2 e, respectively). With regard to the other wards, the
household and per capita carbon footprints were 5.6 and 1.30 tCO 2 e, respectively,
in ward number 15; 5.7 and 1.35 tCO 2 e, respectively, in ward number 100; 6.4 and
1.44 tCO 2 e, respectively, in ward number 53; and 6.9 and 1.41 tCO 2 e, respectively,
in ward number 133.
On a per capita basis, the carbon footprint in an Indian city is just 30% of the
global average and 6% of that in the USA (Table 6.2). With regard to households
(Table 6.6), a low-income household in Kolkata has a mean household carbon
footprint of 1.65 tCO 2 e and a per capita carbon footprint of 0.62 tCO 2 e. Even in
very high-income Kolkata households, the average household and per capita carbon footprints (11.50 and 2.30 tCO 2 e, respectively) are only 57.5% and 11.5%,
respectively, of the per capita carbon footprint in the USA (20.0 tCO 2 e).
Meanwhile, because low-income households in Kolkata consume minimal energy,
they generate only minor CO 2 e emissions and their per capita carbon footprint is
only 0.62 tCO 2 e, which is just over one quarter of that in very high-income Kolkata
households.
Figure 6.1 illustrates the relationship between family size and the per capita carbon footprint at the household level. Per capita CO 2 e emissions are negatively correlated with the household family size, because per capita CO 2 e emissions decrease
with an increase in population size. The value of the correlation is (−0.4596),
whereas Figs. 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 show positive correlations. The per capita carbon
footprint is highly positively correlated with the per capita energy consumption at
Rukhsana and Md. F. Molla
Table 6.3 shows the distribution of different sources of CO 2 emissions in the
KMC study area. Of all CO 2 emission sources, use of electricity was the leading
source because most households are highly dependent on electricity to fulfill their
basic lighting and other energy needs, and the source of the lowest CO 2 emissions is
utilization of firewood in the household sector. The highest CO 2 emissions from use
of electricity (526,800 kg CO 2 e) were recorded in ward number 127, and the lowest
were recorded in ward number 53 (188,773 kg CO 2 e).
Table 6.4 shows the distribution of primary CO 2 emissions from various sources
among households in different income groups in KMC. It was found that emissions
of CO 2 from electricity consumption were highest in very high-income households
(693,825 tCO 2 e), while the lowest values were seen in low-income households
(27,041 tCO 2 e). Low- and middle-income households had higher emissions from
consumption of wood (186 and 210 tCO 2 e, respectively) and coal (1565 and
6455 tCO 2 e, respectively), whereas high- and very high-income households had
high emissions from consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and from use of
petrol- and diesel-powered vehicles, leading to increased CO 2 emissions in the city
environment.
Table 6.5 shows spatial differences in CO 2 e emissions at the household level in
KMC. Of the total sample, ward number 127 had the largest household carbon
footprint (7.9 tCO 2 e) and the largest per capita carbon footprint (2.0 tCO 2 e),
whereas ward number 4 had the smallest household and per capita carbon footprints (5.2 and 1.23 tCO 2 e, respectively). With regard to the other wards, the
household and per capita carbon footprints were 5.6 and 1.30 tCO 2 e, respectively,
in ward number 15; 5.7 and 1.35 tCO 2 e, respectively, in ward number 100; 6.4 and
1.44 tCO 2 e, respectively, in ward number 53; and 6.9 and 1.41 tCO 2 e, respectively,
in ward number 133.
On a per capita basis, the carbon footprint in an Indian city is just 30% of the
global average and 6% of that in the USA (Table 6.2). With regard to households
(Table 6.6), a low-income household in Kolkata has a mean household carbon
footprint of 1.65 tCO 2 e and a per capita carbon footprint of 0.62 tCO 2 e. Even in
very high-income Kolkata households, the average household and per capita carbon footprints (11.50 and 2.30 tCO 2 e, respectively) are only 57.5% and 11.5%,
respectively, of the per capita carbon footprint in the USA (20.0 tCO 2 e).
Meanwhile, because low-income households in Kolkata consume minimal energy,
they generate only minor CO 2 e emissions and their per capita carbon footprint is
only 0.62 tCO 2 e, which is just over one quarter of that in very high-income Kolkata
households.
Figure 6.1 illustrates the relationship between family size and the per capita carbon footprint at the household level. Per capita CO 2 e emissions are negatively correlated with the household family size, because per capita CO 2 e emissions decrease
with an increase in population size. The value of the correlation is (−0.4596),
whereas Figs. 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 show positive correlations. The per capita carbon
footprint is highly positively correlated with the per capita energy consumption at
Rukhsana and Md. F. Molla