183
summer smog and land use. Combined analysis of the fi ve impact categories found
that food has the largest environmental impact,
3 whereas analysis of greenhouse gas
emissions alone indicated that housing has the largest impact. Nevertheless, climate
change caused by anthropogenic carbon emissions is currently accepted as the most
urgent environmental threat ( IPCC 2014 ) and is thus considered a useful indicator
for the focus of this chapter.
2 Consumption Accounting and Carbon Footprinting
In this Section, we fi rst set out the importance of the type of accounting framework
used for exploring household carbon footprints, and explain how this is different
from the default framework normally applied by governments in assessing their
emissions and in international treaties. The framework is best introduced by posing
the question: to what extent should Western consumers take responsibility for the
things they buy? If, say, a UK consumer purchases a TV manufactured in China ,
which nation should take responsibility for the emissions incurred during its manufacture? This dilemma illustrates two different accounting approaches that must be
untangled as we strive to devise strategies for a more sustainable future. According
to accounting by the production perspective , China should take responsibility as the
emissions arose on Chinese territory. This is the approach used in the Kyoto Protocol
and is the most commonly used accounting approach (Bows and Barrett 2010 ;
Wiedmann 2009 ). An alternative is the consumption perspective. According to this
perspective, the UK should take responsibility, as export to the UK was the driving
force motivating production, and a UK consumer is the primary benefi ciary of the
fi nal product (Druckman et al. 2008 ; Peters and Hertwich 2008a ; Peters et al. 2011 ;
Lenzen 2008 ; Lenzen et al. 2007 ; Jackson et al. 2006 ).
The accounting perspective used is particularly important because accounting
according to the production perspective shows that many Western economies are
successfully reducing their carbon emissions. However, when the consumption perspective is used for accounting, not only are carbon emissions often found to be
higher than compared to the production accounts, but they also tend to exhibit a
rising trend (CCC 2013 ; Baiocchi and Minx 2010 ; Ahmad and Wyckoff 2003 ;
Peters and Hertwich 2006a ; Baiocchi et al. 2010 ). The reason for the differences
shown between the two accounting perspectives is the quantity of carbon emissions
embedded in trade, which is the subject of Wiedman’s chapter (Chap. 8 ) in this
book. An example of the importance of the carbon embedded in trade is given by Li
and Hewitt ( 2008 ) who found that, through trade with China , the UK reduced its
production based carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 11 % in 2004, compared with a non-trade scenario in which the same type and volume of goods are
produced in the UK.
3 They analysed 12 COICOP domains: Food , alcohol & tobacco, clothing, housing, furniture,
health, transport, communication, recreation, education, restaurants, others.
9 Understanding Households as Drivers of Carbon Emissions
summer smog and land use. Combined analysis of the fi ve impact categories found
that food has the largest environmental impact,
3 whereas analysis of greenhouse gas
emissions alone indicated that housing has the largest impact. Nevertheless, climate
change caused by anthropogenic carbon emissions is currently accepted as the most
urgent environmental threat ( IPCC 2014 ) and is thus considered a useful indicator
for the focus of this chapter.
2 Consumption Accounting and Carbon Footprinting
In this Section, we fi rst set out the importance of the type of accounting framework
used for exploring household carbon footprints, and explain how this is different
from the default framework normally applied by governments in assessing their
emissions and in international treaties. The framework is best introduced by posing
the question: to what extent should Western consumers take responsibility for the
things they buy? If, say, a UK consumer purchases a TV manufactured in China ,
which nation should take responsibility for the emissions incurred during its manufacture? This dilemma illustrates two different accounting approaches that must be
untangled as we strive to devise strategies for a more sustainable future. According
to accounting by the production perspective , China should take responsibility as the
emissions arose on Chinese territory. This is the approach used in the Kyoto Protocol
and is the most commonly used accounting approach (Bows and Barrett 2010 ;
Wiedmann 2009 ). An alternative is the consumption perspective. According to this
perspective, the UK should take responsibility, as export to the UK was the driving
force motivating production, and a UK consumer is the primary benefi ciary of the
fi nal product (Druckman et al. 2008 ; Peters and Hertwich 2008a ; Peters et al. 2011 ;
Lenzen 2008 ; Lenzen et al. 2007 ; Jackson et al. 2006 ).
The accounting perspective used is particularly important because accounting
according to the production perspective shows that many Western economies are
successfully reducing their carbon emissions. However, when the consumption perspective is used for accounting, not only are carbon emissions often found to be
higher than compared to the production accounts, but they also tend to exhibit a
rising trend (CCC 2013 ; Baiocchi and Minx 2010 ; Ahmad and Wyckoff 2003 ;
Peters and Hertwich 2006a ; Baiocchi et al. 2010 ). The reason for the differences
shown between the two accounting perspectives is the quantity of carbon emissions
embedded in trade, which is the subject of Wiedman’s chapter (Chap. 8 ) in this
book. An example of the importance of the carbon embedded in trade is given by Li
and Hewitt ( 2008 ) who found that, through trade with China , the UK reduced its
production based carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 11 % in 2004, compared with a non-trade scenario in which the same type and volume of goods are
produced in the UK.
3 They analysed 12 COICOP domains: Food , alcohol & tobacco, clothing, housing, furniture,
health, transport, communication, recreation, education, restaurants, others.
9 Understanding Households as Drivers of Carbon Emissions