WWF SWEDEN 2008:

An Analysis of Sweden’s Carbon Footprint

2

Report for WWF prepared by

Jan Minx, Kate Scott, Glen Peters* and John Barrett Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York, Heslington, YO10 5DD, UK

*Industrial Ecology Programme, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway

3

Contents Executive summary 4–7 1. Introduction 8

Living beyond limits 8 Living in a changing climate 10 A low carbon Sweden – governments, business and people acting together 12 Accounting for climate change – the carbon footprint 13 Structure of the report 16

2. The Swedish situation 17

Trends in Sweden’s territorial CO2 emissions 17 Drivers of industrial CO2 emissions 19 Sweden’s carbon footprint 21 The carbon footprint of Sweden’s imports 24

3. The carbon footprint of households 28 4. The carbon footprint of government 32 5. Businesses: sectoral contributions to the carbon footprint 34 6. Towards a low carbon Sweden 40 7. References 43 Methodology 45 Methodology references 48

4

Towards a low carbon Sweden: executive summary Ecological debt day arrives earlier each year – our insatiable consumer wants are driving us to use up the Earth’s resources at a rate which the planet cannot regenerate them, known as overshoot. Yet these consumption patterns are not met equally around the world, instead the poverty gap is widening. Growing populations in the poorest parts of the world is putting even more pressure on them to meet their basic needs for food, water and shelter. Figure I shows the trend in global CO2 emissions in the last century, highlighting that in 1956 we started releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the recommended volume necessary to keep our climate stable (70% below current levels, Stern, 2007).

Figure I: Global carbon dioxide emissions overshoot (adapted from Marland et al., 2007) We are releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than can be absorbed by ecosystems, oceans and geological systems. There are signs already today that global pollution is too much for the planet to cope with: our climate is warming causing ice sheets to melt and sea levels to rise, droughts and flooding are increasingly common, crops are failing and species are becoming extinct. These are strong signals that we need to deal much more carefully with our planet’s resources, if we want to avoid ecological disaster. It is the world’s poorest countries that are most vulnerable to the effects of global warming and ecological disaster as they do not have the resources to cope. Industrialised countries have developed their economies,

5

and as a result are responsible for the majority of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today. Poorer countries will need to increase their emissions to allow more people to meet their basic needs, and so industrialised countries must therefore lead the way out of crisis by drastically reducing global emissions. This is recognised as economically the most efficient solution to deal with climate change. Leading Sweden to a low carbon economy is not an easy route to take, but it will secure the future for Sweden, providing a better quality of life for all. No one is exempt from the effects of climate change. We must make immediate changes to the way we produce and consume goods and services in order to contribute to the necessary global reductions of CO2 emissions This report assesses Sweden’s contribution to climate change from two perspectives: Sweden’s territorial CO2 emission account and Sweden’s carbon footprint. Whilst CO2 is just one of several greenhouse gases and climate change is just one of the implications of resource overshoot, they represent the greater part of the problems we face today. We have highlighted the issues associated with purely taking territorial emissions into account, which does not reflect the full climate change impacts of life in Sweden. The global climate change impacts of Swedish citizens are 17% higher than suggested by the territorial emission account, and so unless the territorial emission account is adjusted to include emissions embodied in traded products consumed within Sweden, Sweden’s contribution to climate change, like most other industrialised countries, will be under-estimated. To achieve a low carbon economy, Sweden must reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its territory, whilst also reducing global emissions from consumption, addressing the production of products in other countries. The analysis of the Swedish context results in the following conclusions and raises some key areas for policy consideration:

• Sweden has not succeeded in reducing its territorial emissions since the start of climate change negotiations in 1992

Sweden has shown its commitment to climate change and has been acknowledged as a leader in climate performance and will succeed in achieving its Kyoto targets, allowing Sweden an overall increase in emissions of 4% 1990 levels, within the EU combined reduction target of 8%. However, maybe due, therefore, to a lack of motivated policy goals, Sweden has not succeeded in reducing its territorial emissions since the start of climate change negotiations in 1992, over 15 years ago. Current levels of CO2 emissions are not enough to prevent dangerous climate change and Sweden must push for more ambitious reductions. In order to reduce domestic emissions in line with necessary longer term climate targets, policy needs to focus on energy, transport and food. Technological carbon-efficiency improvements have been achieved in all sectors, with the exception of ‘agriculture, forestry and fishing’ and much more notably the transport sector. The majority of the transport industry is reliant on fossil fuels, mainly oil. The government needs to see though its target of ending its dependence on oil by 2020. This should not be at the expense of increasing its reliance on nuclear power.

6

There are more than enough renewable energy sources in Sweden to provide a diverse, secure low carbon electricity supply, alongside appropriate options for improvements in energy efficiency. Nuclear power comes with considerable uncertainty and risk, and the option of increasing biofuel use is also not without controversy. It is important to note that the carbon tax and energy certificates promote investment in the least cost renewable resources, which is creating a firm demand for biofuels. However, biofuels have been criticised for causing a loss in biodiversity, placing increased pressure on water resources, adding to deforestation and taking away land that could feed a growing world population. This demand for biofuels, partly due to its cost effectiveness compared with other alternatives, does not encourage wind power, which needs strong, targeted support.

• Sweden’s carbon footprint is higher than its territorial emissions, with the majority of CO2 attached to imports coming from the EU

Territorial emissions do not reflect the full climate change impacts of Swedish citizens. When taking global consumption emissions into account, Sweden’s emissions are 17% higher. Therefore, the government’s framework must take account the CO2 attached to traded products. It’s too easy to say that Swedish consumers should be held fully responsible or that Sweden should take care of all these emissions as they have paid for the products. Yet it is more an issue of costing not taking into account the full externalities of the product, such as the environmental impacts of that product. Another important issue relating to this is the current design of the Kyoto Protocol that means Non-Annex parties, such as China and India, have no targets to meet (as oppose to Annex I parties such as Sweden) as of yet. Industrialised countries need to be aware of this and make efforts to help reduce these emissions through mechanisms outlined in the Kyoto agreement. As the majority of emissions attached to Swedish imports are from the EU (40%), Sweden should continue to be a leader in sustainability policies within the EU and push for stronger climate change agreements between Member States. The EU Emission Trading Scheme is having little success as caps (the overall limit of emissions per country) have been set too high, meaning that countries do not need to trade for carbon allowances. Most importantly, Sweden should ensure trading takes place by pushing for considerable reductions of caps. This will add to greener supply chains for products consumed by its inhabitants through reduced CO2 embedded in imports.

• Over three quarters of Sweden’s greenhouse gas emissions come from households – mainly energy, transport and food

In the past policies have focused on industry and cleaner production. Over time industry has improved its carbon-efficiency; however, technology alone can’t fix the problem. These gains have been largely offset by rapidly increasing consumption levels; therefore there is an obvious need for government policy to target household consumption, mainly in energy, transport and food, making up 80% of household emissions. The bottom line of changing lifestyles is that everyone is aware of the problem and that they think it matters to them. The government and regulatory authorities need to ‘help people help climate’ by making sustainable

7

solutions easier to take up. This starts from helping people understand the problem, supporting them in their choices through the provision of information, and adjusting the incentive system to reward sustainable lifestyles (Barrett et al., 2007).

• Territorial emissions are driven by the growth effect

The growth effect has been evident in Sweden. The carbon-efficiency of industries has improved and as a result has lead to cheaper products, which has caused a rise in their consumption. Policy needs to target improving energy efficiency, whilst reducing emissions from consumption caused through increased demand. One efficient way to counteract the growth effect is through fiscal levers or ecological taxation (Barrett et al., 2007). Incentives, subsidies and grants will provide a pricing framework that rewards sustainable behaviours. This would involve placing higher taxes on unsustainable activities, and lifting taxes or subsidising sustainable ones to encourage people to a more sustainable lifestyle. This report leads us to the conclusion that it’s not just about consuming differently, but it might be that we could consume less. Whilst we are exercising greener choices, our efforts are being offset by our increasing levels of consumption. We can address this issue through looking at our life-work balance. It is often acknowledged that people would be happy to work less and have more leisure time, for example to spend with their family. Through working less and earning less, we would consume less, yet we have the incentive to improve our quality of life in doing so.

• The government has immediate influence over more than 50% of its domestic emissions

The government should lead by example and adopt strong regulations in accordance with the environmental impacts of all its activities. The government need to strengthen public procurement and adopt more stringent standards where they purchase the most ecologically sound products. Most importantly, the Swedish government must provide leadership through a collective framework for change. People and businesses cannot be expected to swim against the tide. The government need to put the infrastructure in place to enable businesses and individuals to make the change towards more sustainable behaviours, through communicating change, adopting strong climate regulations and providing incentives to reward sustainable businesses, behaviours and lifestyles.

8

1. Introduction

1.1. Living beyond limits

Our planet possesses only a limited amount of land and natural resources to provide for all humanity’s needs and wants and only a limited capacity to absorb pollution and wastes. However, there are signs already today that global resource use and pollution are too much for the planet to cope with: our climate is warming causing ice sheets to melt and sea levels to rise, droughts and flooding are increasingly common, forests are disappearing, fisheries are collapsing, crops are failing and species are becoming extinct. These are strong signals that we need to deal much more carefully with our planet’s resources, if we want to avoid ecological disaster. The Ecological Footprint, a calculation of the productive area we need to live the way we do today, provides evidence that humankind would need the biocapacity of more than one planet to sustain today’s lifestyle over time (see Figure 1). 1987 saw our first Ecological Debt Day, where we started using our planet’s resources more rapidly than the planet could regenerate them. Each year, our demands on the environment are rising, and we use up the available resources earlier. In 1987, Ecological Debt Day fell on 19th December. It jumped to 21st November by 1995, and 2007 fell on October 6th.

Figure 1: Ecological overshoot (GFN, 2007)

9

The main driver of our increased demands on the planet over the last decades is an explosion in global consumption driven by seemingly insatiable consumer wants. However, countries have not equally benefited from this consumption growth. While there is a global consumer class – mainly based in industrialised countries – growing in extent and affluence, more and more are slipping deeper and deeper into poverty and are not able to meet their basic needs for food, water and shelter. Today the overall consumption of the richest fifth of the world’s population is nine times that of the poorest fifth (UNEP, 2002). In line with these disparities in the global geography of consumption, the lifestyle of people in different countries poses very different demands on the planet and countries have contributed very differently to global environmental problems. While the Ecological Footprint of the average American, for example, is 9.4 gha/cap, a person in India only has a footprint of 0.9 gha/cap. The Ecological Footprint of Sweden is 5.1 gha/cap. In comparison to the recommended 2,1 gha/cap that the planet is able to cope with (WWF, 2008), we would need another 2 planets to sustain our lifestyle if everyone in the world would live like we do in Sweden.

Therefore, the world is faced with a twofold challenge. We need to reduce the overall demands on the planet while meeting our present needs more widely and to allow future generations to meet their needs. This is the idea behind the concept of sustainable development, which we hope will lead to “the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer more prosperous future” (UN, 1992). In 1992 countries met at the UN Conference on Environment and Development, also known as the Earth Summit, to discuss how sustainable development can be addressed globally. Climate change was of specific concern, because it is currently seen as one of the major challenges to mankind. Figure 2 shows the trend in global CO2 emissions in the last century, highlighting that in 1956 we started releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the recommended volume necessary to keep our climate stable (70% below current levels, Stern, 2007).

10

Figure 2: Global carbon dioxide emissions overshoot (adapted from Marland et al., 2007) This report focuses on climate change – and particularly Sweden’s contribution to it. We analyse carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from Swedish production and consumption. Carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas with the largest anthropogenic contribution to climate change causing around three quarters of the total warming effect (Stern, 2007). Like others, we discuss the CO2 emissions from Swedish territory. However, this does not reflect the full climate change impacts of life in Sweden. To deal with this issue, we introduce the carbon footprint, which assesses the global CO2 emissions from final consumption activities in Sweden – in whichever country they might occur.

1.2. Living in a changing climate We are releasing more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than can be absorbed by ecosystems, oceans and geological systems. The IPCC (2007) present strong evidence showing that the accumulation of these in the atmosphere is causing global temperatures to rise, and having irreversible consequences on our planet. “The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response” (Stern, 2007) Global mean temperatures will continue to rise unless stocks of GHG in the atmosphere are stabilised at a level that the Earth system can naturally absorb from the atmosphere annually. Concentrations of greenhouse gases are currently 430 ppm, adding 2–3 ppm a year. If we continue to release GHG in the volumes we are producing just now, these will reach detrimental levels of over 700 ppm by the end of the century (Stern, 2007). Serious and immediate action is required to cut GHG emissions globally. For example, to stabilise at 550 ppm CO2 equivalent, we would need to be 25% below current levels (2000 levels) in 2050 and see a reduction of at least 1 – 3% per year. To stabilise at 450 ppm CO2 equivalent we would need to be 70% below current levels in 2050, with a 5% reduction per year (see figure 3). The lower the concentration of stabilisation, the less the

11

risk of severe climatic events. AccordingtotheScientificCouncilonClimateIssues1,theEU'stwo‐degreetargetismorelikelytobeachievedifGHGconcentrationintheatmosphereisstabilisedinthelongtermat400ppmcarbondioxideequivalents. Figure 3: Emissions paths to stabilisation and the associated temperature change (Stern, 2007)

The next question is who should cut emissions and how much? This question is at the heart of the climate change negotiations. Even though this must not necessarily be the case in the future, GHG emissions have so far been closely related to countries’ economic success and grown together with GDP. Therefore, industrialised nations are the source of most past and current emissions. At the same time the poorest countries have contributed least, but are often most vulnerable to the consequences of climate change. Of the 262 million people affected by climate disasters annually from 2000 to 2004, over 98 percent of them were from less developed countries. Tuvalu, a disappearing country under the rising sea, highlights the immediacy of climate change, presenting what are likely to be the first permanent climate change refugees (see Box 1). Hence, there is a divide: The main causers of climate change have most resources to protect themselves against the consequences of climate change and are not the ones who feel the impacts most severely. Climate

1 Commissioned by the Swedish Government to provide a scientific assessment as a basis for the work of the Swedish Climate Committee, the all-party committee for the review of climate policy

12

Change has therefore become a wider issue of meeting basic human needs more widely across the planet. This is reflected in the title of the most recent Human Development Report published by the United Nations: “Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World” (UNDP, 2007) “In today’s world, it is the poor who are bearing the brunt of climate change. Tomorrow, it will be humanity as a whole that faces the risks that come with global warming.” (UNDP, 2007)

Box 1: Tuvalu – a disappearing country Probably one the most striking examples for the impacts of climate change and proof of a world being in a state of emergency is Tuvalu. Located in the Pacific Ocean, it is one of the smallest and most remote countries on earth. Made up of 9 small low-lying islands, with no point reaching 3 meters above sea level, the country is in danger of disappearing. The sea is inextricably linked to Tuvalu’s natural and social systems. With rising sea-levels, warming temperatures and frequent stormy weather, the islands are at massive risk. The population’s livelihoods are dependent on agriculture, their food supply is dependent on fish stocks and island vegetation vulnerable to the climate and their land is being lost to the sea. Plans for evacuation are being made and Tuvalu seems to be destined to become one of earth’s first nations to be washed away due to the effect of global warming. This would make Tuvaluans the first complete nation of climate refugees, banned from their islands with their culture and identity taken away. In April 2007 the Permanent Representative of Tuvalu made his statement to the United Nations at a Special Session of the Security Council on Energy, Climate and Security. Without having contributed to climate change but yet facing the full consequences, he appeals to the United Nations to find a global strategy and he longs for solutions and decisions to be taken at the highest level of government (Pita, 2007).

It is clear that many of the poorer countries will need to increase their GHG emissions to allow more people meeting their basic needs. Industrialised countries must therefore lead the way out of the crisis by drastically reducing emissions in a global process of contraction and conversion. The Kyoto agreement was a first step into this direction even though much stronger commitments will be required in the future. The incentives are there. Looking to the future, no country – however wealthy or powerful – will be immune to the impact of global warming. The Stern report has further highlighted that immediate, strong action lead by developed countries is also the economically most efficient solution to deal with climate change.

1.3. A low carbon Sweden – Governments, business and people acting together If we act now, we can avoid the most serious impacts of climate change. We need ambitious action from around the world to achieve the 80% reduction in GHG emissions required to stabilise atmospheric concentrations at a level which is likely to avoid dangerous climate change. Sweden is amongst the 56 countries that together are responsible for over 90% of global energy-related CO2 emissions. While Sweden

13

will have no problems in meeting its climate changes target as established in the Kyoto Protocol, there is still much to be done to achieve what might be considered as a low carbon/one planet economy:

• GHG emissions from Swedish territory will need to be further reduced; • Global GHG emissions from Swedish consumption occurring in the production of products in other

countries will need to be addressed. In order to progress towards a low carbon/one planet economy, government, business and people need to act together in a 'triangle of change' (figure 4). Different corners lead at different times by doing what they can do best. It is difficult to expect any stakeholder group to act alone; instead it is good to think of the notion ‘I will if you will’ where a coordinated approach will create the opportunities and responsibilities to accelerate change (SDC and NCC, 2006). Figure 4: The ‘triangle of change’

1.4. Accounting for climate change – the carbon footprint A precondition for effective action is to develop an understanding of Sweden’s full climate change impacts based on sound scientific evidence. There are different ways in which we can account for greenhouse gases. Emission inventories, as used in international climate negotiations, usually focus on emission sources: CO2 emissions from cars on Swedish roads, machines in Swedish factories or methane emissions from cattle raised in Sweden. We will refer to emissions directly emitted by an activity as direct emissions. The sum of all emissions from Swedish soil is referred to as territorial emissions.

The products and services people use, and the infrastructure available, link government with business and people

Government

Business People

14

However, our livelihood depends on consumption and it is equally important to evaluate how and what we consume (see Peters, 2008). Opposed to public perception, the majority of climate impacts of individuals are not associated with the direct emissions from heating our houses and driving our cars, but with the products we buy. For example, the climate change impacts of a car are not only related to the emissions of driving it, but also to emissions associated with raw material extraction, manufacturing, distribution and disposal of the car (see Box 2). Many of these occur outside the Swedish boundaries in other countries. Hence, consumption of final products instigates a whole chain of production activities throughout the global economy. We will refer to these upstream and downstream emissions triggered by a final consumption activity as indirect emissions.

Box 2: Emissions associated with the purchase of a car

In the production process there is a hierarchy of production layers, and each one of them needs inputs like materials and energy. The (raw) materials and parts to manufacture the car will be purchased from a range of specialised industries upstream. It is likely that they themselves obtained materials from other industries and so on. The parts of the car are transported downstream to factories in order to put the car together and deliver it to retailers. All these steps use up resources and emit pollution in the process, pollution and resource use that should be accounted for when calculating the emissions associated with purchasing a car. Once the car is sold to consumers, additional resources are required and pollution is generated when people drive it. The literature suggests that the most direct environmental impact comes from the fuel used to power it. Whilst many people think only of these emissions when they consider a car, this example demonstrates that there are a lot of indirect environmental impacts hidden in the complex combination of production layers, sectors and even countries involved in its fabrication.

Therefore, the total climate change impact of economic activities in Sweden is not captured by a territorial emissions account. Trade and all the emissions arising globally to produce the products consumed in Sweden

15

need to be taken into account. We will refer to the direct and indirect emissions from final consumption within Sweden as its carbon footprint. Box 3 defines the carbon footprint and summarises the relationship between territorial emissions and the carbon footprint.

Box 3: Territorial emissions and the carbon footprint – which to chose?

Sweden’s carbon footprint = the global CO2 emissions from consumption within Sweden The carbon footprint is the global emissions produced from final demand in Sweden, with the emissions from imports consumed within Sweden included and the emissions attached to exported products excluded, whilst territorial emissions are the emissions produced in Sweden, including those which are attached to products consumed abroad (figure 5).

Swedish consumption

Production in Sweden

Final consumption in Sweden

Exports from Sweden

Production abroad

Consumption abroad

Arrows should be read as “Emissions occurring in [beginning of arrow] due to [end of arrow]” Figure 5: Emissions occurring through Swedish economic activity, including trade and different principles of emissions accounting (adapted from Wiedmann et al., 2007).

• 1) Domestic Swedish emissions due to Swedish final consumption • 2) Domestic Swedish emissions due to export • 3a) Imported emissions to domestic industry due to Swedish final consumption • 3b) Imported emissions to domestic industry due to Swedish exports • 4a) Imported emissions direct to final demand due to Swedish final consumption • 4b) Imported emissions direct to final demand due to Swedish exports • 5a) Swedish residential emissions due to travel • 5b) Swedish residential emissions not due to travel (e.g. housing) • Territorial emissions: 1 + 2 + 5a + 5b • Carbon footprint: 1 + 3a + 4a + 5a + 5b

When setting targets, both national and international, they are set according to territorial emissions. It is the principle presumed in the Kyoto agreement of the UNFCCC.

1

2

3 4

5a, 5b

3a

3b 4a

4b

16

Having a closer look at accounting in this way, it reveals its inherent problems: as developed countries shift to a more highly skilled and service economy they tend to import carbon-intensive products from less developed countries. Thus, the production of CO2- intensive goods takes place in other countries and the emissions are charged to their national emission-account. This is one of the reasons why highly developed countries like Sweden have low carbon emissions – less developed countries take responsibility for demands by the industrialised world. Therefore, international trade has an increasing influence on the ability to fulfil national CO2 targets as a significant amount of CO2 is embodied in goods traded internationally (Munksgaard and Pederson, 2001). There are a variety of other reasons why it is important to take into account the global emissions from consumption. First, only by taking a consumption perspective the full climate change impacts of life in Sweden can be quantified. Particularly, in carbon efficient economies like Sweden, consumption activities tend to have larger climate change impacts than production activities. Second, the Kyoto agreement only sets emission targets for industrialised countries like Sweden. Territorial emission targets could be achieved by these countries through shifting carbon intensive production activities to countries without binding targets. This is commonly known as the problem of carbon leakage. Third, with global trade currently growing twice as fast as global GDP, the increased number of imported products from less carbon efficient economies might remain the ultimate challenge for Sweden to reduce its global climate change impacts.

1.5. Structure of the report This report establishes and analyses territorial and carbon footprint accounts of Sweden. To fully account for the climate change impacts of trade it uses an 87 country model to reflect carbon intensity of production processes in different parts of the world adequately. To our knowledge such a comprehensive analysis has not been undertaken before. The structure of the report is as follows: In the first Section we deal with trade related issues and associated differences between territorial emissions and carbon footprint. The remainder Sections of the report each discusses one of the corners of the triangle of change representing one actor. In particular, we identify what activities in Swedish households contribute to high emissions, where government have the ability to reduce their emissions; we also identify the most carbon-intensive industries and supply chains, and consider the hidden emissions of services. Based on this in-depth understanding we outline implications for Swedish efforts in reducing their climate change impacts – at home and abroad.

17

2. The Swedish situation

2.1. Trends in Sweden’s territorial CO2 emissions

*United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (international transports are not included)

Figure 6: Development of direct territorial CO2 emissions by producer Sweden has recently been highlighted as one of the most successful countries in combating climate change in a study which measures territorial emissions (Germanwatch, 2007). The climate change performance index assesses a countries’ progress in reducing CO2 emissions by taking into account the current levels in energy-related territorial CO2 emissions, current trends as well as the climate change policies implemented so far. Sweden’s good performance has mainly been driven by its low levels of CO2 emissions. Our results confirm that with 60 million tons or 6.6t tons of CO2 per capita Sweden emits much less CO2 emissions from its own territory than other industrialised countries. This is particularly driven by the low carbon nature of Sweden’s electricity producing sector. The results in this report are based on CO2 emissions from Swedish national environmental accounts, which are slightly higher than the estimates from the UNFCCC (as presented in figure 5); however, the trend remains the same. The UNFCCC territorial accounts do not allocate international transportation to a country due to problems assigning responsibility and poor data (Peters, 2008). Sweden’s success in reversing trends in territorial CO2 emissions has been rather limited (see Figure 6). Since the beginning of the international climate change negotiations at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, Sweden has not managed to stabilise the carbon output from its domestic territory. Between 1993 and 2003

18

direct carbon emissions have risen by 4.3% or 2.6 Mt.2 The main cause of this rise have been increasing levels of CO2 emissions from industries: in 2003 the industrial sectors emitted 6.8Mt3 or 16% more CO2 than in 1993. Direct emissions from households and government have been reduced significantly by 17% and 49% respectively over the same period of time. However, it is important to highlight that these are purely direct emissions, and that we shouldn’t underestimate the influence of indirect emissions from government and households as drivers of CO2 emissions. While these developments might still be sufficient to reach Sweden’s modest short terms targets and Kyoto commitment of reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions by at least 4% by 2008-2010, these developments indicate the lack of ambitious climate change policies so far. Overall the Germanwatch (2007) study therefore paints a bleak picture: if climate change was an Olympic discipline, no country would deserve to climb the winner’s victory podium. If the world wants to stabilise atmospheric carbon concentrations at levels which are likely to prevent dangerous climate change (see IPCC, 2007), none of the assessed countries is even close to being a sustainable low carbon economy. The Swedish ClimateCommittee,theall‐partycommitteeforthereviewofclimatepolicyhas agreed that at least a 75-90% reduction is needed from Sweden by 2050 and close to zero by 2100. WWF support a 90% reduction by 2050. This report tries to contribute to scoping Sweden’s climate change challenge through the analysis of existing trends and a rigorous assessment of Sweden’s global contribution to climate change. Due to data availability we will concentrate our analysis on the time series 1993 to 20034.

Message 1: Sweden has not succeeded in reducing CO2 emission from its own territory since the start of the international climate change negotiations at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Message 2: While households and government have managed to reduce their direct emissions, CO2 emissions from industrial sources keep rising.

2 This has been reduced to 0.8Mt by 2005 as shown in the most recent environmental account data. In this report we focus on 2003, because of the better data situation of this year. This will allow us to establish a solid consumer emission account, which would be more difficult for 2005. 3 This includes an adjustment for the higher climate change impacts of aviation fuels emitted in higher altitudes as recommended by the IPCC. Without this adjustment the increase would be 6.3 Mt as shown in the Environmental accounts. 4 This report uses input-output tables to analyse the full consumer emission account for Sweden. The most recent year available is 2003; therefore, our analysis is based on 2003 data.

19

2.2. Drivers of industrial CO2 emissions

Figure 7: Drivers behind increases in CO2 emissions 1993-2003 Sweden’s rise in CO2 emissions have been caused by a 6.8Mt increase in carbon output of domestic industries. There are various technological, socio-economic and demographic driving forces which have influenced this trend. For example, the total CO2 emissions of a company that produces in an environmentally friendly (eco-efficient) and socially responsible way, might increase because of the increased demand for greener products. At the same time, additional demand could just be caused over time through a rapidly increasing population. It would, therefore, be far too simple just to blame industry for their lack of progress in combating climate change. In order to get a more comprehensive picture, we distinguish 6 drivers behind emissions trends of industries between 1993 and 2003: • Carbon-efficiency: The contribution of changes in sectoral carbon intensity (tCO2/SEK sectoral output); • Procurement: The contribution of changes in sectoral supply chains; • Consumer choices: The contribution of changes in the average consumption basket; • Exports: The contribution of changes in the contribution of exports to final consumption; • Consumption levels: The contribution of changes in the levels of final consumption per capita; • Population: The contribution of changes in Sweden’s total population.

Figure 7 shows that industrial sectors themselves have not done badly in combating climate change. Through improvements in carbon efficiency (-4.3Mt) and decarbonising their domestic supply chains (-3.5Mt) a total of 7.8 Mt of carbon has been saved between 1993 and 2003. Also Swedish consumers saved 2Mt of carbon through their choice of greener products. However, all these carbon savings were off-set through rising per capita levels of consumption, which triggered an additional 15Mt of CO2 between 1993 and 2003. Sweden’s consumer culture is, like many industrialised countries, growing in extent and affluence. Therefore, we find evidence that Sweden’s progress in the climate change challenge is counter-acted by the existence of an economy-wide growth effect: carbon savings through technological and organizational carbon efficiency improvements, essentially reducing the relative price of a product, have been fully-offset by CO2

20

emissions arising from increased consumption. The conclusion is clear: efficiency gains are not keeping in pace with the rising demand for goods and services. Moreover, Figure 7 also highlights that it would be too simple just to blame industries for Sweden’s slow progress in reducing its territorial carbon emissions. Production and consumption are directly interlinked and influenced by a variety of economic, social and demographic factors. The demand for products can influence the volume and method of production. Substantial progress on climate change will only be made if both are jointly considered. Climate change is a challenge we all face together and we will only be successful in facing it if all stakeholders work together in reducing emissions on the production and consumption side of the economy. Recent evidence in the UK has highlighted that such mutual societal consensus is fundamental as encapsulated in the notion of “I will if you will”, where all stakeholders must act together (as illustrated in figure 4). From a policy perspective Figure 7 could indicate that sustainable consumption might not only about consuming differently, but also about consuming less. Therefore, there might be the need to revive the discussion about the relationship between consumption and well-being. Enabling people to re-balance their work and private life, might well serve as an adequate way of framing this discussion to mutual societal benefit.

Message 3: There is evidence for a growth effect in the Swedish economy. The reductions in CO2 emissions through advances in eco-efficiency have been off-set through additional consumption of Swedish citizens. Message 4: Swedish consumers have limited the increase in Sweden’s territorial emissions through greener choices. Message 5: It would be too simple just to blame industries for Sweden’s slow progress in reducing its territorial carbon emissions. Climate change is a challenge we all face together and we will only be successful in facing it, if all stakeholders work together on the production and consumption side of the economy.

21

2.3. Sweden’s carbon footprint

Figure 8: Territorial emissions vs. carbon footprint Sweden’s territorial carbon emissions are low compared to other countries. This is mainly driven by the low carbon structure of its electricity production. Over 90% of Sweden’s domestic electricity is produced by hydropower and nuclear power (however, approximately a third of Sweden’s energy supply depends on imports, mainly imported oil (EC, 2007)). While we firmly believe that nuclear power should not be part of the energy mix of a sustainable low carbon economy (see Box 4) and emphasise the importance of continuing the phase out of existing nuclear plants, the 7.2 tons of CO2 per capita do still not represent the full climate change impacts of Swedish citizens.

Box 4: On the use of nuclear power in a one planet economy

With the majority of its electricity generated from hydropower and nuclear power, Sweden’s energy sector has a much lower carbon output than most other countries of the world. Even though there is no doubt that nuclear power is a low carbon technology, it is questionable to what extend the other risks attached are reconcilable with the principle of a one planet economy, which produces its goods and services along a sustainable path. In this spotlight section we will discuss some of the important arguments with particular considerations of climate change and discuss the importance for Sweden to continue its nuclear phase-out. There is no doubt that nuclear energy has its merits in the context of climate change even though it is sometimes falsely depictured as a carbon free technology. To produce 1 GWh of electricity 16.2 tons of CO2 are produced throughout the life cycle of nuclear power.5 This compares to 356 tons of CO2 for gas and 892

5 However, this figure still excludes the carbon emissions from the decommissioning of the plants as well as the wastes themselves, which are not well known. Moreover, commentators have suggested that any move to low grade uranium ore could substantially increase the carbon intensity of nuclear power even though it is currently difficult to predict when such a shift might be required. However, there are some quasi carbon-free ways to produce electricity. The fossil fuel used over the life cycle of a wind turbine, for example, can be “repaid” in less than 10 month, as turbines themselves generate zero carbon energy.

22

tons for coal. An increasing reliance on nuclear can therefore have the potential to drastically reduce the carbon output of the Swedish economy even though some renewables can do even better from this perspective. However, there are other considerations, which need to be taken into account within the context of climate change as well as within wider sustainability considerations. Having nuclear as a central part of the energy mix causes difficulties in providing a level playing field for all other technologies – particularly renewables. Electricity generation with heavy reliance on nuclear power tends to lock economies into a central grid system. However, the in-efficiencies of such central solutions are well-described in the literature. Secondly, experience from all over the world shows that nuclear energy tends to receive very large subsidies for R&D, the building of the plants and the expensive decommissioning of the wastes. These are not reflected in the price for electricity from nuclear sources, which commonly only reflects the low operating costs of plants. This biases price formation and leads to an economically inefficient outcome. Many renewables have difficulties to compete with these artificially low electricity prices. At the same time economic incentives to increase energy efficiencies are weakened. Within a larger sustainability context there are all unresolved issues associated with the decommissioning of the plants and wastes as well as the possibility of nuclear accidents. With regard to the latter, there is no doubt that the probability of a major nuclear accident is extremely low. However, the consequences would be disastrous. The fact that there is no insurer in the world, which can insure a nuclear power plant strikingly highlights the fact that reliance on nuclear power cannot be seen as responsible decision making. Finally, there is another caveat of nuclear power associated with international climate change with regard to concerns about proliferation of uranium. Even reactor grade nuclear fuel can be used by terrorist groups for the production of ‘dirty bombs’, which can cause large losses in human life. Moreover, enrichment of reactor-fuels can lead to the development of nuclear weapons. If Sweden argued that it could only sufficiently reduce its carbon emissions with nuclear in the energy mix, every other country participating in the international climate change process should have the same right. The UNFCCC explicitly encourages “the development, application and diffusion, including transfer of technologies, practices and processes that control, reduce or prevent anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases”.

A number of difficulties in the relationship between civil and military applications continue to cause concern among many commentators, including: • the difficulties of enforcing international treaty obligations; • proliferation risks associated with the widespread use of nuclear technologies in countries with very

diverse systems of governance; • the capacity and resources available to enforce international obligations in a potentially growing number

of states with a nuclear capacity; • how to deal with states that withdraw from treaties or develop nuclear capability outside of them.

Nuclear power is a choice rather than a necessity for a low carbon future of Sweden. There are more than enough renewable energy resources in Sweden to provide a diverse, secure low carbon electricity supply, if sufficient energy efficiency options are considered at the same time. To be a sustainable, low carbon society it therefore seems crucial that Sweden continues on its path to phase-out nuclear power from the energy mix.

23

In order to meet the demands of Swedish citizens, a lot of goods are imported into the country. The production of these goods in other countries causes CO2 emissions outside Sweden, which should be added to Swedish CO2 account. Territorial emission accounting, therefore, provides a potential mechanism to high consuming countries to shift environmental pollution to distant land. If Sweden imports carbon-intensive products, these are currently not included in its national emissions account. For local pollutants this may be viewed as a rational option for consumers, but for global pollutants consumers will bear the costs regardless of where production occurs. Consequently one would expect the optimal policy for global pollutants is to consider the implications of international trade. The carbon footprint is an alternative consumption based CO2 accounting measure, which fully accounts for trade and is able to reflect the full climate change impacts associated with the way people in Sweden live. It subtracts all CO2 emissions from exports from the territorial emissions account and adds import related CO2. The carbon footprint of exports would be added to the emissions account of the country that consumes the exported products. Figure 8 highlights that the global climate change impacts of Swedish citizens are 1.2t/cap or 17% higher than suggested by the territorial emission account. Unless the territorial emission account is adjusted for trade activities, Sweden’s contribution to climate change will be under-estimated. Developing Sweden towards a low carbon society will require taking full responsibility for all CO2 related to Sweden’s consumption. The government should therefore take measures to reduce Sweden’s entire carbon footprint rather than its territorial emissions. This will need to involve increased efforts in reducing Sweden’s climate change impacts abroad through exporting sustainable energy solutions, technology transfer (joint implementation and clean development mechanism) as well as joint policies with other countries on a supranational level such as the EU tradable permit scheme. Equally the 2050 reduction target should be reviewed in light of the higher carbon footprint estimate. Then it might well be that a 75-90 percent reduction of domestic carbon dioxide emissions is insufficient for a fair contribution to global efforts of stabilising global carbon concentration in the atmosphere at levels which avoid dangerous climate change.

Message 6: Unless Sweden’s carbon account is adjusted for trade activities, it will under-estimate Sweden’s contribution to climate change. Sweden’s carbon footprint is 8.4 tons of CO2 per capita. This is 17% higher than its territorial emissions. Message 7: For global pollutants like CO2 or other greenhouse gases, consumers will bear the costs of polluting regardless where it occurs. Consequently, one would expect for optimal policy formation that climate change impacts from trade are fully taken into account.

24

2.4. The carbon footprint of Sweden’s imports

Figure 9: Sectoral monetary and CO2 trade balances for Sweden Sweden’s carbon footprint is higher than its territorial CO2 emissions. This means that it has a negative CO2 or physical trade balance (PTB). Sweden is a net importer of CO2; importing almost 11 million tons of CO2 more than it exports. Interestingly, its monetary trade balance is positive; Sweden is a net exporter of goods and services in terms of their value (see Figure 9). Such a pattern might be seen as a typical one for industrial countries with high material consumption and high input levels of skilled labour in their own production processes. These balances of trade vary considerably on a sectoral level. “Transport, storage and communications”, “Wholesale and retail trade”, “Manufacturing of cars, machinery, electrical equipment and furniture” and “Manufacture of pulp and paper products” are the only sectors with a positive monetary and physical trade balance. Hence, they export more of these products than they import, and are important to the economy in terms of the profit they generate. The “Electricity, gas and water supply” sector shows by far the highest CO2 trade deficit. In addition to this, more than a third of Sweden’s energy supply depends on imports, mainly oil from Denmark, Norway and Russia (EC, 2007). The government intends to have ended its dependence on oil by 2020. The Swedish domestic energy sector provides low carbon electricity and so Sweden could reduce its carbon footprint if all imports were produced with domestic technology (however, see box 4 for discussion on Sweden’s nuclear power). If Sweden succeeds in improving its energy efficiency, saving energy, using renewable resources and thus reducing its environmental burden, it can at the same time reduce its import of fossil fuels and become more independent.

25

On the other hand, while there is no doubt that the Swedish economy is more carbon efficient than most other industrialised economies in the world, it is equally clear that the output of some Swedish sectors might be of quite different type than the output of their counterparts abroad. Swedish sectors might to some extent just engage in less carbon intensive activities. For example, the Swedish electronic industry might mainly focus on research, science and technology, whereas more carbon intensive activities upstream, such as the manufacture of the hardware itself, might not take place in Sweden anymore. Such patterns of specialisation are common in an increasingly specialised global supply chain. A comparison of sectoral Swedish CO2 intensities might mainly reflect these specialisation patterns rather than any particular carbon efficient management regime. While recognising the global patterns of specialisation, which might leave the Swedish economy with less material and carbon intensive production processes, there is no doubt that Sweden has one of the most carbon efficient economies. The consumption of domestic products, therefore, is one way how Sweden could reduce its carbon footprint. At the same time, we need to take into consideration the potential of trade to stimulate the development of low carbon products in emerging economies. Message 8: Sweden has a negative physical trade balance and a positive monetary trade balance. Whilst more CO2 is embodied in Sweden’s imports than in its exports, the value of exported goods is higher than of imported goods. Message 9: Directing consumer and industry choices towards goods produced in Sweden could help to reduce Sweden’s carbon footprint. At the same time, we need to recognise the potential of trade to stimulate the development of low carbon products in emerging economies.

26

Figure 10: Imports of CO2 (Mt) by country of origin Figure 10 shows in which countries the CO2 emissions from the production of Swedish imports occur based on a fully integrated multi-regional input-output model, which accounts for multi-lateral trade and represents the production technologies in 87 different regions (which have been further aggregated above). The model shows that 40% of the import related share of Sweden’s carbon footprint comes from production of imports in the EU-15. The remaining EU-27 and Baltic States with 4.95 million tons and the U.S. with 3.24 million tonnes of CO2 emissions also contribute substantially to the import share of Sweden’s carbon footprint. The production of goods and services for Swedish consumption generates 3 Mt of CO2 in China and another 3.95 Mt in the rest of Asia. Given the increasing trade particularly with China and India there are reasons to believe that the Swedish carbon footprint in these countries is on the rise, similar to what has been shown in a recent Norwegian study (cf Reinvang & Peters 2008).

27

Taking into consideration the emissions intensities attached to imported products (the CO2 emitted per unit output); generally European products are less carbon intensive than those produced in China and similar countries. So while the aggregated emissions are higher from Europe (as one would expect since Sweden is in Europe), it is probably beneficial in terms of carbon footprint to trade more with Europe than China. However, as the current increase in trade with China continues, it is important to improve technology in China compared to European technology. These results seem to suggest that international efforts to combat climate change including joint efforts to develop carbon efficiency in China and India could also have a major influence in reducing Sweden’s carbon footprint. Particularly, it seems to be in Sweden’s full interest to drive forward ambitious climate change agreements on the European level and to take a leading role in driving forward the EU’s emission trading scheme. Sweden is an active member in the EU, and a leader in sustainable development and climate policies. Swentec, Swedish Environmental Technology Council was started in 2005 by the Swedish Government to have a business-policy assignment to strengthen Swedish companies’ business opportunities and competitiveness within clean-tech, environmentally adapted goods, manufacturing processes and services in both the national and international market.

Message 10a: Almost half of the import related share of Sweden’s carbon footprint comes from production activities in the EU15. Ambitious and rigorous joint climate change policies and initiatives on the European and international level are vital for reducing Sweden’s carbon footprint. Message 10b: Emissions intensities are generally lower for European products than those produced in China. In line with current trends of increasing trade with China, Sweden should look to improve Chinese technology compared to European technology.

28

3. The carbon footprint of households Emissions from Swedish consumers is the carbon dioxide emitted based on the domestic consumption of goods and services, rather than production. By far, the single largest contributor to consumer CO2 emissions is households, making up 76% of Swedish consumption. This includes the CO2 attached to imports used by households. We have seen that increasing household spending in recent years has lead to significant increases in CO2 emissions, and so changing household consumption patterns is central to achieving sustainable development. Figure 11 shows the CO2 emissions from household consumption, highlighting the household activities with the highest and lowest carbon impact. CO2 emissions from residential energy demands include emissions from the direct demand for energy (heating, electrical appliances and private transport) as well as emissions from the energy needed to manufacture consumer goods and services - the household indirect energy demand. This means that in the case of purchasing a car, the environmental impact is not caused in driving the car alone, but also through the raw material extraction, manufacturing, distribution, use and disposal of the car (see Box 2). In Sweden, these indirect emissions through consumption currently contribute to 64% of the total household emissions, with direct consumption contributing to 36% household emissions.

29

Figure 11: CO2 emissions from household consumption

30

Swedish household emissions are driven by energy and transport which make up 70% of household emissions. The average floor space in residential homes is steadily rising, Swedes are travelling 50% more than they did 25 years ago, people are eating more than ever, and on average people are buying more products. Currently being implemented are energy declarations on buildings. These declarations contain certain information about a building’s energy use and indoor environment, which will have to be presented when buildings are constructed, sold or rented. This is intended to enable consumers to take decisions on their energy use on the basis of accessible and objective information and thus reduce their energy costs through improved energy efficiency measures. Increasing consumption rates have lead to a rise in the number of households owning, for example, freezers, dishwashers and washing machines. However, overall we have seen that households have reduced their direct emissions since 1993. People have been exercising greener choices. The Energy Labelling Scheme is compulsory and common to all EU states, and was introduced in 1995. By means of colour coded labelling on certain domestic appliances (fridges, freezers, ovens, dishwashers, washing machines, tumble dryers and some lighting), customers are able to choose more energy-saving appliances. Appliances are shown on a scale from A, green colour and low consumption to G, red colour and high consumption. Our results (see figure 7) support that the sales of more eco-efficient models is increasing year on year. If government policy meant that the choice of products on the market was limited to A-rated appliances, households on average would become more energy efficient. The indirect emissions required to produce consumables contributes 15% of total household emissions. A rise in the demand for household goods has triggered high emissions through the supply chain of consumer products. As discussed earlier (see Figure 6), whilst domestic industry has improved its carbon efficiency, household expenditure has offset the CO2 saved (the growth effect). Swedish consumers can reduce their emissions through the purchase of eco-efficient products, however, again the emissions saved through greener choices has been offset by a rise in the level of household spending. This raises several issues around the topic of consumption. Should we slow our consumption or can we rely on technological improvements to reduce our emissions? Slowing consumption may be perceived as a cause of a loss of jobs and economic recession; where as green growth appears to be problematic as environmental gains through improved efficiency are offset by the growth effect. Should we think about extending the lifespan of products in order to reduce the throughput in an economy or should we replace a product when a more eco-efficient one comes onto the market? It is important to look at product lifetime optimisation in sustainable consumption. This involves looking at the dilemma of extending or shortening a product lifetime, depending on, for example, how much energy can be saved through the eco-efficient design. Transport also produces 30% of all household emissions, with private transport being the single largest contributor to emissions (28% of total household emissions). Direct emissions from fuels make a significant contribution to this. Boverket, the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, released a publication in 2002 called ‘Making Towns’. It highlights the problems that have lead to an increased reliance on private cars for getting around and aims to make planners think about the connections between traffic, the built environment and human everyday life. During the last half of the twentieth century, and the possibilities

31

offered by the car, the development of towns have been characterised by thinning out and urban sprawl. Instead of a town built for proximity, we experience longer distances and heavier traffic. The car now dominates the town landscape. Sweden is relatively sparsely populated into small towns; however, city life is on the rise. This requires coordination in urban and transport planning, where town and traffic go hand in hand. We need a sustainable transport system, where transport is connected with the structure of a town. Towns need to be pedestrian and cycle friendly, and public transport needs to be convenient to use. Common to most developed economies, transport, energy and food are the sectors with highest environmental impact due to household demand. Food doesn’t appear to stand out significantly in this report; however, it is vital to note that this study only considers the CO2 footprint, excluding the effects of the greenhouse gas methane. Methane is the GHG of most concern in the agricultural sector, and also the extensive land requirement of the food sector is not included in this report. When looking at GHG (greenhouse gas emissions), the food sector has one of the worst environmental performances, emitting almost a third of Swedish household greenhouse gases. This should also be considered as an important sector, particularly when tackling climate change. Every day vast quantities of food are produced, processed, distributed and consumed, and these activities have impacts on the environment and human health. Over the last decades, agricultural practices have become more intensive, livestock have taken over huge amounts of land (causing high methane emissions) and we are increasingly dependant on global sources for our food leading to transport intensive eating habits. Supermarket shelves are filled with a variety of exotic foods from around the globe, all processed and packaged for us to take home and put in the microwave. Today, almost 40% of the food consumed in Sweden is from abroad (Regeringskansliet, 2006). Global food patterns are increasingly impacting on our environment. We are eating more than ever today, yet spending less on food items than before: we are not paying the environmental price for our choice of food. We can reduce our carbon footprint by making investments in our homes, and changing our behaviours. For example, by installing good insulation, we can reduce our heating bills as well as contributing to our sustainability. We can make simple changes in our everyday life that will not only benefit the environment but also our personal health and finances. We could think twice about the food we eat, how we travel, the efficiency of the appliances we buy, if we have left our TV and DVD player on standby and so on. The Swedish government has recognised this as an important area where policy is required through its action plan for sustainable household consumption, released mid 2006. An evaluation of the action plan is expected in 2009.

Message 11: Swedish household emissions are driven by energy and transport which make up 72% of Swedish household emissions Message 12: Swedish households contribute to 76% Swedish consumer emissions Message 13: Increased household expenditure is causing an overwhelming increase in emissions.

32

4. The carbon footprint of government Governments consume and contribute their share to Sweden’s carbon footprint. The government is responsible for implementing the appropriate policies and mandates for achieving the required cuts in CO2 emissions. These will require businesses and people to change their behaviours, and it is therefore vital that the government lead by example. 10.5Mt (14%) of Sweden’s carbon footprint are associated with government, as shown in figure 12.

Figure 12: The carbon footprint of government. The majority of climate change impacts of the government are associated with the consumption of imported goods. Transport and energy use make up the bulk of total domestic emissions (direct and indirect). Having successfully managed to half the direct CO2 emissions from government premises, the challenge ahead is to reduce the full carbon footprint of Swedish government consumption. A fundamental question for reducing the government’s carbon footprint is what share of the emissions it has immediate control over, for example through green procurement or measures to maximise the carbon efficiency of its buildings. The government does have an environmental management system in place, where environmental aspects are assessed in all procurement at government offices; however, this is still in its early stages and needs to be developed. Figure 13 breaks down the percentages of influence the government has over the different production layers. A part of the government’s climate change impacts occur in higher production layers. For example, the extraction of raw materials for the manufacturing of different parts required to produce the cars they drive and the desks they sit at (production layers 2 onwards). These emissions are difficult for the government to take responsibility of. However, more than 50% of its carbon footprint are associated with direct emissions (referred to as direct in Figure 13) and those that occur on

33

premises of the immediate providers of goods consumed by the governments (layer 1). Clearly, the government has full control over these emissions.

Figure 13: The governments influence over its consumer CO2 emissions from the different production layers. Figure 13 does not account for government influence over imports; it represents a purely domestic perspective. If emissions from imports are included, the government has less of an immediate influence over its consumer emissions, implying that most imports are required at the bottom end of the supply chain. None the less, the government has a unique opportunity for bringing its own house in order and taking the lead in reducing Sweden’s carbon footprint.

Message 14: The government has immediate influence on more than 50% of its total carbon footprint. This provides a unique opportunity for bringing its own house in order and taking the lead in reducing Sweden’s carbon footprint.

Message 15: The total carbon footprint of the Swedish Government is 10.5Mt (14%).

34

5. Businesses: sectoral contributions to the carbon footprint

Figure 14: Direct and indirect CO2 emissions of sectors Businesses mark the third corner in the triangle of change. They can be grouped into larger sectors. As we have juxtaposed territorial CO2 emissions and the carbon footprint on the national level, we can distinguish between on-site CO2 emissions of a sector and its lifecycle emissions throughout the domestic supply chain to provide its final products to Swedish consumers. If on-site emissions are higher than life cycle emissions, a sector emits more CO2 emissions than it would require producing only its own final goods and services. These additional emissions stem from the production of intermediate goods and services, which are used by other sectors for the provision of their final products to consumers. In such a case a sector can be seen as a net provider of CO2. Vice versa, if lifecycle emissions are higher than onsite emissions, a sector is a net recipient of CO2. Both measures have significant policy relevance. On-site accounts help identify target sectors, whereas lifecycle emissions help identify the most important supply chains. This information can be used to identify the most resource intensive processes within these supply chains. As industries are linked through complex supply chains, substantial reductions can only be achieved through a joint effort of industries. Industries cannot simply improve their own direct emissions, but are responsible for ensuring their supply chain is environmentally sound. Almost 75 per cent or 36.7 of the 49.6 million tons of all on-site CO2 emissions in the Swedish economy are generated in only three major sectors in Sweden: the “chemical industry”, “electricity, gas and water supply”

35

as well as “transportation, storage and communication” (see Figure 14). These sectors are net providers of CO2 and key for reducing the domestic share of Sweden’s carbon footprint and should be one focus of government policy. Even though 30 percent of their on-site emissions can be allocated to the production of final consumer goods in other sectors, life cycle emissions in these sectors still remain highest triggering 50 percent of the 49.6 million tons of CO2 throughout the domestic supply chain. Particularly service sectors are net receivers of CO2 with life cycle emissions being considerably higher than on-site emissions. To provide the final services of “public administration”, for example, eight times more CO2 is required throughout the domestic supply chain than indicated by the on-site emissions of that sector. Similarly, the life cycle emissions of the “finance” sector are three times higher than its on-site emissions. Regardless of the higher, economy-wide climate change impacts of the service sectors, the development towards a service-based economy still appears to be a way to reduce Sweden’s carbon footprint as total CO2 emissions attributable to service provision remains comparatively low.

Message 16: 75 per cent of all on-site emissions are generated in only three sectors

36

Figure 15: Top ten carbon efficient industries

Figure 16: Top ten carbon intensive industries This is re-emphasised once we benchmark sectors against their climate change performance. Figures 15 and 16 show how much CO2 emissions are required throughout the domestic supply chain of a sector to provide its final goods or services. This can be seen as a measure of the domestic carbon efficiency of a sector’s final

37

products. Figure 15 shows the ten most carbon efficient industries in Sweden. Based on our discussion above it might not come as a surprise that seven of these are service sectors. The most carbon intensive industries are mainly situated in the transport and energy sector, concerned with primary activities such as agriculture, fishing or mining and with the basic manufacturing of these primary materials (e.g. manufacturing of basic metals, coke manufacturing, and production of other non-metallic mineral products). This is an interesting result in itself as Sweden’s total domestic CO2 emissions from these primary and basic manufacturing sectors are not particularly high. A lot of these carbon intensive products seem to be imported from other countries as shown in Figure 10. Sustainable development is not only about the environment, but also about developing our economy and quality of life without jeopardising the environment. Ecological, social and economic considerations must be integrated into strategic decision making. Box 5 illustrates how you can assess and compare all Swedish industries to give an overview of how each sector contributes socially, economically and environmentally to the economy. The two case studies presented illustrate the differences and dilemma between Swedish primary and service industries. Box 5: A balancing act It is important to balance the goals of economic development with the societal and environmental consequences of the same economic development (Foran et al. 2005). In the past, it is feared that industries have focused too much on the economic benefits. In order to become a sustainable economy, decisions need to be made on a broader basis than a purely financial basis. This case study of two Swedish sectors, one primary and one service sector, takes standardised economic, social and environmental components into account to compare different sectors. This can be applied to all sectors of an economy to give an overview how each sector contributes to the economy. Values greater than one indicates that the sector performs worse than the economy wide average in that indicator. Values less than one mean the sector performs better than the economy wide average. For example, if the carbon footprint of a sector is below one, then the sector emits less CO2 per unit of final demand than the economy wide average, and hence performs better than most industries. If the employment value is below one, then the sector employs more people per unit of final demand than the economy wide average. Electrical energy, gas, steam and hot water The electrical energy sector is the most carbon intensive sector in the Swedish economy. It emits approximately 7 times more CO2 than the economy wide average. The sector has a relatively poor environmental report, performing worse than the average industry in terms of its Ecological Footprint, carbon footprint, contribution to acid rain and waste. It is mixed in terms of social and economic factors. Whilst generating better than average profits, it employs less people per unit of output to final demand in the sector compared to other sectors.

38

Figure 17: The ‘electrical energy, gas, steam and hot water’ sector Real estate services Real estate services look to have a better all round and balanced performance compared with the energy sector. It performs better than average on all environmental indicators, and it only falls below average with respect to employment, yet this is marginal.

Figure 18: The ‘real estate services’ sector

However, it is important to understand the full climate change impact of service industries. Service sectors rely on the input of primary and secondary products, and their emissions increase substantially when supply chains are taken into account. Whilst the emissions of service sectors are lower than those of other sectors, a shift towards a more service oriented economy may be desirable for meeting national climate change targets; global emissions will not be reduced. Service sectors rely on inputs from other sectors which will then need to be imported.

39

How have sectors contributed to reducing CO2 emissions through technological carbon-efficiency improvements between 1993 and 2003? Earlier we have highlighted that all other things being equal, sectors have jointly saved 4.3 Mt of carbon through improving their carbon efficiency. Figure 19 highlights that some sectors were more successful than others. Most savings have taken place in manufacturing and electricity producing sectors. Only the “transport” sector, which uses the majority of imported oil, has deteriorated in its carbon performance re-emphasising its key role in reducing Sweden’s carbon footprint.

Figure 19: Technological carbon-efficiency improvements of sectors Two EU directives have been put in place to encourage efforts to promote the use of biofuels in transport and the promotion of electricity production from renewable resources. The Swedish government is taking the lead in Europe and has implemented a strong energy policy to encourage the use of renewable fuels, especially biofuels and wind power. Two important policy instruments have been CO2 taxes and the electricity certificate. Sweden was the first country to introduce the CO2 tax in 1991. Since adopting this polluter pays principle, which applies to the transport sector, CO2 emissions have fallen. However, despite the fact that vehicles have become more energy efficient, vehicle emissions have risen since 1995 – 2005. The government are proposing to increase the tax (which does not tax biofuels), to encourage fuel users to use less polluting fuels (Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Environment, 2007). The electricity certificate was adopted in 2003, where the government set targets for how much renewable energy production must be used by certain dates. Quota obligations create the demand for these certificates. Suppliers receive a certificate for the production of electricity from renewable energy sources and when they sell these they get extra income in addition to the sale of electricity, which makes it profitable to invest in renewable energy production (Ministry of Sustainable Development, 2006). Focused work on low carbon transport technologies could therefore accelerate Sweden’s efforts to become a low carbon economy. The government needs to continue and push for ambitious targets.

40

6. Towards a low carbon Sweden Leading Sweden to a low carbon economy is not an easy route to take, but it is one that is required, to provide a better quality of life for all. No one is exempt from climate change. We must make immediate changes to the way we produce and consume goods and services to enable us to achieve a year on year reduction of CO2 emissions of at least 3%. This analysis was built on the premise that industrialised countries, like Sweden, are responsible for proportionally a much larger share of global emissions than less developed countries. This report assesses Sweden’s contribution to climate change from two perspectives: Sweden’s territorial CO2 emission account and Sweden’s carbon footprint. Whilst CO2 is just one of several greenhouse gases and climate change is just one of the implications of resource overshoot, they represent the greater part of the problems we face today. We have highlighted the issues associated with purely taking territorial emissions into account, which does not reflect the full climate change impacts of life in Sweden. From an analysis of the Swedish context the following recommendations of the report are: • Current territorial emission accounting is not adequate The global climate change impacts of Swedish citizens are 17% higher than suggested by the territorial emission account, and so unless the territorial emission account is adjusted to include emissions embodied in traded products consumed within Sweden, Sweden’s contribution to climate change, like most other industrialised countries, will be under-estimated. To achieve a low carbon economy, Sweden must reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its territory, whilst also reducing global emissions from consumption, addressing the production of products in other countries. In addition there is a need to measure emissions embedded in export as a way to provide information about Sweden’s export performance from a climate perspective and evaluate different policies and measures needed to improve this. The ability to calculate the effect of Swedish export on the carbon emissions of other countries can support a shift from a risk to an opportunity perspective in specific sectors and companies. • There is a need for year on year reduction targets Annual reduction targets need to be put in place and respected. If we hold off meeting long-term reduction targets until, say 2045 in time for 2050, we would accumulate more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in the meantime. This would therefore require further reductions than estimated, which are based on the current concentrations of atmospheric GHG levels. Annual reduction targets are vital for achieving long-term goals. • Technological improvement has failed to deliver overall emission reductions, therefore there also needs to be a focus on consumption In the past policies have focused on industry and cleaner production. Over time industry (with the exception of the transport sector) has improved its carbon-efficiency; however, technology alone can’t fix the problem. Advances in technology have failed to deliver overall reductions in emissions.

41

Improved energy efficiency is still essential, notably in the transport sector, which is reliant on fossil fuels, mainly oil. The government needs to see through its target of ending its dependence on oil by 2020. There are more than enough renewable energy sources in Sweden to provide a diverse, secure low carbon electricity supply, alongside appropriate options for improvements in energy efficiency. Nuclear power comes with considerable uncertainty and risk, and the option of increasing biofuel use is also not without controversy. It is important to note that the carbon tax and energy certificates promote investment in the least cost renewable resources, which is creating a firm demand for biofuels. However, biofuels have been criticised for causing a loss in biodiversity, placing increased pressure on water resources, adding to deforestation and taking away land that could feed a growing world population. This demand for biofuels, partly due to its cost effectiveness compared with other alternatives, does not encourage wind power, which needs strong targeted support. • There is a need to focus on consumption in three main areas – energy, transport and food Gains in energy efficiency have been largely offset by rapidly increasing consumption levels; therefore there is an obvious need for government policy to target the consumption of households (responsible for 76% of the carbon footprint), mainly in energy, transport and food. The bottom line of changing lifestyles is that everyone is aware of the problem and that they think it matters to them. The government and regulatory authorities need to ‘help people help climate’ by making sustainable solutions easier to take up. This starts from helping people understand the problem, supporting them in their choices through the provision of information, and adjusting the incentive system to reward sustainable lifestyles (Barrett et al., 2007). • There is a need to tackle the growth effect The growth effect has been evident in Sweden, resulting in increasing consumption levels outstripping efficiency gains. Policy needs to target improving energy efficiency, whilst reducing emissions from consumption caused through increased household demand for products. One efficient way to counteract the growth effect is through fiscal levers or ecological taxation (Barrett et al., 2007). Incentives, subsidies and grants will provide a pricing framework that rewards sustainable behaviours. This would involve placing higher taxes on unsustainable activities, and lifting taxes or subsidising sustainable ones to encourage people to lead a more sustainable lifestyle. • We need to value quality of life over economic growth This report leads us to the conclusion that it’s not just about consuming differently, but it might be that we could consume less. Whilst we are exercising greener choices, our efforts are being offset by our increasing levels of consumption. We can address this issue through looking at our life-work balance. It is often acknowledged that people would be happy to work less and have more leisure time, for example to spend with their family. Through working less and earning less, we would consume less, yet we have the incentive to improve our quality of life in doing so. • Progressing Sweden to a low carbon economy requires strong leadership The government should lead by example and adopt strong regulations in accordance with the environmental impacts of all its activities. The government need to strengthen public procurement and adopt more stringent standards where they purchase the most ecologically sound products.

42

Most importantly, the Swedish government must provide leadership through a collective framework for change. People and businesses cannot be expected to swim against the tide. A pre-condition for change is that people are aware of the problem. Whilst global warming is relatively widely known, familiarity with the issue does not necessarily result in behavioural change. It is often difficult for people to perceive a direct link between their individual behaviour and global challenges such as climate change. They do not necessarily see how their actions can benefit such a vast environmental impact. The government need to put the infrastructure in place to enable businesses and individuals to make the change towards more sustainable behaviours, through communicating change, adopting strong climate regulations and providing incentives to reward sustainable business, behaviours and lifestyles.

43

7. References Barrett, J., Minx, J., Paul, A. and Frey, S. (2007). Towards a low footprint Scotland, available from www.scotlandsfootprint.org/pdfs/LowFootprintScotland.pdf Boverket (2004), Make towns – instead of traffic planning and housing development, available from www.boverket.se/upload/publicerat/bifogade%20filer/2004/make_towns.pdf EC (2007). Sweden – energy mix fact sheet, available from www.ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_se_en.pdf EIA (Energy Information Administration) (1994). Energy use and carbon emissions: some international comparisons, DOE/EIA-0579(94), Distribution Category UC-950, available from http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/environment/0579.pdf Foran B., Lenzen M., Dey C. and Bilek, M (2005). Integrating sustainable chain management with triple bottom line accounting, Ecological Economics, 52, 143-157. Germanwatch, (2007). The climate change performance index, available from www.germanwatch.org/klima/ccpi2008.pdf GFN (Global Footprint Network) (2007), October 6 is Ecological Debt Day, available from www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?content=overshoot IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, available from www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm IPCC (2001). Climate Change 2001: Synthesis report, Summary for policy makers, available from www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-2001/synthesis-spm/synthesis-spm-en.pdf Marland, G., T.A. Boden, and R. J. Andres (2007). Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A. Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Environment (2007). Higher carbon dioxide tax for reduced emissions, Fact Sheet on the Swedish Governments budget bill for 2008. Ministry of Sustainable Development (2006), Renewable electricity with green certificates, Government bill 2005/06: 154. Munksgaard, J., Wier, M., Lenzen, M. and Dey, C. (2005). Using input-output analysis to measure the environmental pressure of consumption at different spatial scales, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9 (1-2), 169-185. Munksgaard, J. and Pederson, A. P. (2001). CO2 accounts for open economies: producer or consumer responsibility, Energy Policy, 29, 327-334. Pita, A.F. (2007). Statement Delivered by His Excellency, Mr. Afelee F Pita Ambassador/Permanent Representative of Tuvalu to the United Nations at the Special Session of the Security Council on Energy,

44

Climate and Security Tuesday 17th April 2007, available from www.tuvaluislands.com/un/2007/un_2007-04-17.html Regeringskansliet (2006), Think twice! – An action plan for sustainable household consumption, available from www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/06/57/11/3f3e2011.pdf Reinvang, R., Peters, G. (2008). Norwegian Consumption: Chinese Pollution. An Example of how OECD imports generate CO2 emissions in developing countries. WWF Norway, Oslo Stern (2007). The economics of climate change: the Stern review, available from www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm UK Sustainable Development Commission and National Consumer Council (2006), I will if you will, available from www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/I_Will_If_You_Will.pdf UN (2004). World population to 2300, ST/ESA/SER.A/236. UN (1992), Agenda 21, available from www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm UNDP (2007). United Nation’s Human Development Report 2007/2008, available from http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/ UNEP (2002). Sustainable Consumption – A Global Status Report, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. Wiedmann, T., Wood, R., Lenzen, M., Minx, J., Guan, D. and Barrett, J. (2007). Development of an Embedded Carbon Emissions Indicator – Producing a time series of input-output tables for the UK by using a MRIO data optimisation system, Report to the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by Stockholm Environment Institute at the University of York and Centre for Integrated Sustainability Analysis at the University of Sydney, Defra; London, UK. WWF (2008). Living Planet Report 2008 available from assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report.pdf

45

Methodology

Input-output analysis (IOA) and its applications Professor Wassily Leontief developed an analytical framework to analyse the interdependencies of industries in an economy in the 1930s, for which he later won a Nobel Prize in 1973. An input-output model is constructed from observed data for a particular economic region. The economic activity is divided into a number of sectors, such as agriculture, energy, manufacturing and services. An input-output table describes the flow of goods and services between all the individual sectors of an economy and to final demand, over a stated time period, say a year. For a more detailed description of IOA refer to Leontief (1986) and Miller and Blair (1985). Initially used by Leontief and applied to the US economy in WWII and the post war period, Leontief extended his structural economics framework to deal more explicitly with environmental topics such as air pollution, on the basis that pollution is a by-product of economic activities and is related in a measurable way to some particular production or consumption process. Since the 1960s economic input-output tables have been extended to account for environmental impacts. Duchin (1998) acknowledges their use in the field of sustainable development. Environmental IOA has become an established method in energy analysis. Kok et al. (2006) describe three methods of applying input-output analysis (input-output energy analysis based on national accounts, input-output energy analysis combined with household expenditure data and hybrid energy analysis, input-output analysis combined with process analysis) and applies them to an environmental analysis of household energy consumption in the Netherlands. Other studies using input-output analysis to measure the environmental impacts of consumption include: Lenzen (1998) on the energy and greenhouse gas requirements for Australian final consumption; Munksgaard et al. (2000) apply an input-output model to decompose CO2 emissions from Danish private consumption on the global scale, so as to account for emissions from imported commodities as well as commodities produced in Denmark. They look at emissions from 1966-1992 to analyse the factors affecting CO2 emissions over that time; and Kim (2002) uses environmental IOA to analyse changes in levels and patterns of consumption corresponding to income growth in Korea over a ten year period, and their effect on levels of CO2 and SO2. Turner et al. (2007) demonstrate how to apply input-output methods to estimating the Ecological Footprint whilst capturing the footprint embodied in traded products. They review existing applications of input-output techniques to estimate the environmental impacts embodied in trade. Turner et al. argue that multi-region input-output analysis (MRIO) is the appropriate method to allocate resource and/ or pollution embodiments of consumption correctly, however, this has issues of data availability. Part two of this study (Wiedmann et al., 2007) carries out a review of input-output models for the assessment of environmental impacts embodied in trade. It compares the advantages of using a MRIO model, outlines 6 models of where this approach has been used successfully and concludes that this is vital for reliable figures on environmental indicators of impacts embodied in trade, such as CO2 and the ecological footprint, to be derived

46

Peters et al. (2007) use Chinese input-output data and structural decomposition analysis to analyses how changes in China’s technology, economic structure, urbanisation, and lifestyles affect CO2 emissions. They analyse CO2 emissions from 1992 to 2002, focusing on indirect emissions caused through the production of consumable goods and services. They conclude that urbanisation and increasing consumption have outpaced efficiency improvements in CO2 emissions. This is intended to be useful for developing China’s climate change policies and for global climate change policies. Other recent applications include using an input-output framework to carry out scenario analysis of different consumption patterns, to evaluate which pattern is more sustainable. Takase et al. (2005) analysed three consumption patterns (extending the lifespan of products, eating out more often instead of cooking and travelling by different modes of transport) using Japanese input-output tables. Hubacek and Sun (2005) used IOA to predict the effects that economic and societal changes in China will have on water use.

Data description and strengths of the IOA approach The input-output method allows a complete assessment of many environmental and economic indicators in the production activities of various industrial sectors and by final consumers throughout the economy. The Swedish input-output table includes 53 product sectors, value added categories, and household, non-government organisations, government, stocks and capital investment and export ‘final demand’ sections. CO2 is the main indicator used throughout the report. With CO2 emissions available for 1993 to 2003 it is possible to determine the drivers behind changes in emissions over this time period using structural decomposition analysis (see Peters et al. 2007 for detailed methodology). This assesses changes in carbon-efficiency, economic structure, consumption levels and consumer choices, and population. We are able to see the effect of these on CO2 emissions. IOA takes into account the goods and services imported from the rest of the world to the national economy. This allows us to distinguish between consumer and producer emissions and calculate a CO2 trade balance. We can therefore calculate the emissions embodied in products imported to Sweden. Munksgaard and Pederson (2001) describe this in detail. When applied to economic and environmental indicators such as employment, carbon dioxide emissions and the Ecological Footprint, IOA yields ‘total indicator intensities’, which is the amount of an indicator required to produce and deliver a value unit of a particular commodity. Total indicator intensities include direct and indirect contributions. For example, energy use by households causes direct emissions of CO2 through consumption of energy and indirect emissions in the production of goods and services used by households. In the case of purchasing a car, the environmental impact is not caused by driving the car alone, but also through the raw material extraction, manufacturing, distribution, use and disposal of the car. This leads to an infinite number of production layers emitting CO2. The direct emissions occur from driving the car. A first-order indirect contribution could be the distribution of cars to sales establishments. A second-order indirect contribution might be the emissions caused in the assembly of the car. A third-order contribution might then be the manufacture of the different components of the car, and this goes on to an indefinite number of production layers, emitting CO2 in the process.

47

The method therefore provides a detailed supply chain perspective of the economic activity and CO2 emissions used throughout the Swedish economy in the provision of goods and services. This provides an estimate of the complete carbon footprint of Sweden and determines in what sectors these emissions occur.

Limitations to IOA Whilst this method does include imports, and hence accounts for the pollution embodied in trade, it assumes that imports are produced using the same technology as that of the country consuming the goods. This is particularly problematic for Sweden, as industry in Sweden uses low carbon-technologies, especially in the energy supply sector as its domestic energy supply primarily comes from nuclear and hydropower. Therefore, emissions embodied in imports can be grossly underestimated. However, this has been overcome in this study. Recent data on CO2 emissions based on a multi-regional input-output analysis (MRIO) covering 87 countries was provided by Glen Peters (for example of its use see Peters and Hertwich, 2006). This determines the emissions occurring in the country of production (and any emissions from imports from other countries) to produce the goods and services consumed in a given country. For example, to calculate the emissions embodied in the production of car in region A, the production levels and emissions in region A are determined. Production in region A requires imports from regions B and C. The resulting production and emissions in regions B and C also require imports from other regions and so on. This process continues indefinitely through the global production system. MRIO also distinguishes between trade that goes to intermediate and final consumption. Therefore, any imports used for exports are not assigned to the country initially importing the product, but to the country eventually consuming the product. This has provided the most detailed study on the Swedish carbon footprint to date.

Data sources Standard data sources were used, provided by Statistics Sweden. The most recent national input-output table was provided by Statistics Sweden for 2003. The indicators were consequently taken from Swedish Environmental Accounts 2003. Glen Peters provided the CO2 emissions embodied in traded products consumed in Sweden for 2001 (the most recent year the data is available for).

48

References Duchin, F. (1998). Structural Economics; measuring change in technology, lifestyles and the environment, Washington: Island Press. Hubacek, K. and Sun (2005), Economic and Societal changes in China and their effects on water use, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9 (1-2), 187-200. Kim, J. (2002). Changes in consumption patterns and environmental degradation in Korea, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 13, 1-48. Kok, R., Benders, R.M.J., and Moll, H.C. (2006). Measuring the environmental load of household consumption using some methods based on input-output energy analysis: a comparison of methods and a discussion of results, Energy Policy, 34, 2744-2761. Lenzen, M. (1998). Primary energy and greenhouse gases embodied in Australian final consumption: an input-output analysis, Energy Policy, 26 (6), 495-506. Leontief, W. (1986). Input-output economics, New York: Oxford University Press. Miller, R.E. and Blair, P.D. (1985). Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions, New Jersey: Eaglewood cliffs. Munksgaard, J. and Pederson, K. A. (2001). CO2 accounts for open economies: producer or consumer responsibility? Energy Policy, 29, 327-334. Munksgaard, J., Pederson, K. A. and Wien, M. (2000). Impact of household consumption on CO2 emissions, Energy Economics, 22, 423-440. Peters, G.P. & Hertwich, E.G. (2008). CO2 Embodied in International Trade with Implications for Global Climate Policy, Environmental Science and Technology, Forthcoming. Peters, G., Weber, C.L., Guan, D. and Hubacek, K. (2007). China’s growing CO2 emissions – a race between increasing consumption and efficiency gains, Environmental Science and Technology, 41(17), 5939-5944. Takase, K., Kondo, Y. and Washizu, A. (2005). An analysis of sustainable consumption by the waste input-output model, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9 (1-2), 201-219. Turner, K., Lenzen, M., Wiedmann, T. And 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, Ecological Economics, 62, 37-44. Wiedmann T., Lenzen M., Turner K. and 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, Ecological Economics, 61 (1), 15-26.

Världsnaturfonden WWF

Ulriksdals Slott 170 81 Solna

Tel 08-624 74 00 Fax 08-85 13 29 info@wwf.se www.wwf.se

plusgiro 90 1974-6 bankgiro 901-9746

Världsnaturfonden WWF är med sina närmare fem miljoner supportrar en av världens ledande ideella naturvårdsorganisationer.

WWF arbetar för att hejda förstörelsen av jordens naturliga livsmiljöer och bygga en framtid där människor lever i harmoni med naturen genom att:

• bevara världens biologiska mångfald

• verka för att förnybara naturresurser används på ett hållbart sätt

• minska föroreningar och ohållbar konsumtion.

DES

IGN

: ODEL

IUS

4535

. Try

ckt p

å FS

C-g

odkä

nt p

appe

r 200

8