GREEN CONSUMPTION ENERGY USE AND CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSION
Postgraduate
Introduction
Background
It did not all start at the Earth summit in Rio in
1992, but the writing in Agenda 21 has been extremely influential and spurred
further research on the interrelationship of human activities, lifestyles, and
the environment. In chapter 4 of Agenda 21, unsustainable patterns of
production and consumption particularly in industrial countries, are identified
as the major causes of the continued deterioration of the global environment.
Agenda 21 calls upon developed countries to take the lead by developing national
policies and strategies to achieve sustainable consumption patterns (United
Nations, 1992).
The developed countries have responded to the call in
Agenda 21. The measures taken have focused on influencing consumption directly,
by changing consumer behaviour, and indirectly, by encouraging and in some
cases forcing industry (the market) to shift production towards more
environmentally benign goods and services. The concept “green consumers” has
emerged and is today established (Wagner, 1997). The Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency has published reports titled: “To eat for a better
environment” (Naturvårdsverket, 1997), “To shop for the future”
(Naturvårdsverket, 1998), etc.
Although these titles are primarily chosen to be catchy, they reflect what the
messages to consumers have been and still are: change the consumption pattern
and there are “greener” alternative types of consumption.
Historically, efforts put into improving the natural
environment have often produced good results. In many ways the environment has
improved considerably in Sweden and in other industrialised countries during
the last decades (Bernes and Grundsten, 1992; Jernelöv, 1996). Especially,
pollution detected by human senses has been reduced. Both air and water are
much cleaner, rivers previously polluted are now clean enough to swim in and
the smell of car-fumes is, in Sweden, nearly gone, even from the
city-centres.
A major unresolved issue today is the probable onset of
rapid global warming caused by increased levels of greenhouse gases (carbon
dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) in the atmosphere (IPCC, 2001). Whether the
warming of the earth is cause by human activity; primarily combustion of fossil
fuels, deforestation and agricultural practices or cause by natural fluctuations
in for example solar activity is a matter of scientific debate. Indisputable
the level of greenhouse gases has increased in the atmosphere.
The greenhouse gas that has received the most attention
is carbon dioxide (CO2). The reason for this is that CO2
is the green house gas that according to IPCC has contributed the most to the
warming of the global climate since pre-industrial times (IPCC, 2001). Another
reason is that CO2 emissions have a relatively long residence time
in the atmosphere in the order of a century or more (IPCC, 1995). This means
that even if net emissions were to be stabilised at current levels there would
still be a constant rate of increase for at least two centuries.
The reasons why CO2 emissions continue to
increase are: (1) the carbon can not be efficiently filtered or captured as can
most other pollutants, (2) the global energy supply relies heavily on fossil
fuels (80%) as its main energy source and, (3) while economic growth has been a
prerequisite for the reduction of many types of environmental problems the
correlation between CO2 emissions and economic growth is the
opposite. The latter is problematic and a source of obvious conflict as the
reduction of CO2 is not the only target for the international
community, governments and individuals. Increasing income levels, improving the
quality of the education system, care for the elderly and reducing unemployment, etc. are in many instances considered
a higher priority or at least more urgent.
There are two ways of reducing CO2
emissions. One is to reduce the consumption of energy, preferably while
maintaining or even increasing utility and performance, the idea behind the
Factor 4[1] and Factor 10 concepts
(Weizsäcker, Lovins et al., 1997). A second is to replace fossil fuels by new
types of energy sources which either have lower CO2 intensities (CO2
per energy output) than current sources or result in no emission of carbon at
all, for example renewable energy sources and nuclear power.
These methods for reducing CO2 emissions
have been applied. Technological improvements have increased energy
efficiencies substantially, for example, fuel-efficiency in cars has improved,
light bulbs are more energy efficient, whilst still providing the same amount
of light, etc. New cleaner fuels have
resulted in a substantial “decarbonisation” i.e.
less carbon per energy output, and ongoing research is trying to find feasible
carbon sequestration techniques. In spite of all these improvements, CO2
emissions are still increasing and in many cases offsetting the
improvements.
In addition to various technical solutions, the demand
side has therefore received increasing attention. Most reports dealing with the
question of how to reduce emissions by policy and/or technological change argue
that in addition to technological change, “changes
in lifestyles and consumption patterns” are of crucial importance (Duchin,
1998; OECD, 1998; Lundgren, 1999). However in most cases it is not clear what
is meant by changed lifestyles, changed consumption patterns or “the need to
change peoples values and attitudes”. What is unclear is if these changes
involve changes in the level of consumption and/or changes in the pattern of
consumption. This distinction is vital as the level of consumption (income) is
probably one of the most important determinants of energy consumption and CO2
emissions.
Most earlier studies on the environmental impact of
different lifestyles or consumption patterns at the household level have either
focused on attitudes towards the environment without any data on actual impact
or have used a “thematic approach” i.e.
have studied “isolated” sources of emission, primarily due to lack of
comprehensive data. The thematic studies indicate fairly high potentials for
reducing energy consumption from, for example, the housing or transport sector,
through changes in behaviour.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have been developed
during the last decade allowing for analyses of the environmental impact of
products throughout their life cycle i.e.
throughout the entire production process up to the point of consumption. LCA
studies have shown that similar products can differ substantially in terms of
environmental impact including energy requirements and related CO2
emissions. Thus through behavioural changes that lead to individuals choosing
products with lower environmental impact, for example, lower embodied energy
requirements and CO2 emissions compared to other products, energy
requirements and CO2 emissions from this type of consumption can be
reduced.
However LCA studies are only a limited systems analysis
and do not cover the whole system. For instance costs (prices) are not
included, nor an analysis of the household budget. By not considering costs one
fails to capture second order effects related to a changed pattern of
consumption. If making a green choice not only reduces energy requirements and
CO2 emissions but also reduces costs, the analysis should include an
analysis of what happens to the saved money. Assuming that household
expenditures are not reduced then this means that the saved money will be used
on other consumption, which will take back some of the initial savings in
energy requirements and CO2 emissions. If a consumer reduces car-travel and instead
uses public transport, walks or cycles for short distance trips the consumer
not only reduces fuel consumption but also saves money. How the household uses
this saved money determines the net effect of adopting a green consumption
pattern. If the saved money is spent on a holiday trip abroad, a large part of
the energy savings are “taken back” resulting in a substantially smaller net
saving. If the reduced consumption item has a lower energy intensity than the
substitute the result is a net increase in energy consumption.
The first (to my knowledge) quantitative study on
household lifestyles and CO2 emissions, including both direct and
indirect energy consumption and using a systems analysis approach, was
conducted in the course of the Dutch National Research Programme on Global Air
Pollution and Climate Change between 1990 and 1995. Within the project a method
for calculating the energy requirements for more than 350 household consumption
categories was developed. As household consumption is measured in expenditures
in the Netherlands (CBS) the same as in Sweden (SCB) the methodological
development involved a translation of “money into energy”, expressed as energy
intensities (energy per monetary unit), later extended to include CO2
emissions equally expressed as CO2 intensities (CO2 per
monetary unit).
This methodology was used to study the relationship
between household expenditures and energy intensities (Vringer and Blok, 1995)
and to study the potential for CO2 emission reductions by changing
lifestyles and/or consumption patterns (Biesiot and Moll, 1995). Biesiot and
Moll’s study approached the question of the potential to reduce CO2
emission by looking at empirical differences in energy consumption between
households at similar levels of consumption and the future effects of changes
in the energy intensities of goods and services given unchanged production
structures and consumption patterns. This thesis builds on the basic
methodology developed in the Netherlands but extends its scope by modelling the
effect of changes in the pattern of consumption by simulating the effect of
adopting hypothetical green consumption patterns.
The core idea of the thesis is to explore the potential
for reducing energy requirements and CO2 emissions from altered
consumption patterns, by implementing the energy and CO2 intensity
concept into a microsimulation model that models individual household
consumption while keeping total consumption constant.
By modelling individual households the demographic and geographic constraints and possibilities of each household can be taken into account. Types of geographic constraint are, for example, climatic differences inhibiting the possibility of reducing heating consumption for households in cold regions and lack of access to public transport for households not living in municipal areas.