24 February 2016, Science Daily, Consumers have huge environmental impact. We like to blame the government or industries for the Earth’s problems, but what we buy makes a big difference. The world’s workshop — China — surpassed the United States as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases on Earth in 2007. But if you consider that nearly all of the products that China produces, from iPhones to tee-shirts, are exported to the rest of the world, the picture looks very different. “If you look at China’s per capita consumption-based (environmental) footprint, it is small,” says Diana Ivanova, a PhD candidate at Norwegian University of Science and Technology’s Industrial Ecology Programme. “They produce a lot of products but they export them. It’s different if you put the responsibility for those impacts on the consumer, as opposed to the producer.” That’s exactly what Ivanova and her colleagues did when they looked at the environmental impact from a consumer perspective in 43 different countries and 5 rest-of-the-world regions. Their analysis, recently published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, showed that consumers are responsible for more than 60 per cent of the globe’s greenhouse gas emissions, and up to 80 per cent of the world’s water use. “We all like to put the blame on someone else, the government, or businesses,” Ivanova says. “But between 60-80 per cent of the impacts on the planet come from household consumption. If we change our consumption habits, this would have a drastic effect on our environmental footprint as well.” The analysis allowed Ivanova and her colleagues to see that consumers are directly responsible for 20 per cent of all carbon impacts, which result from when people drive their cars and heat their homes. But even more surprising is that four-fifths of the impacts that can be attributed to consumers are not direct impacts, like the fuel we burn when we drive our cars, but are what are called secondary impacts, or the environmental effects from actually producing the goods and products that we buy. Read More here
Tag Archives: Economy
4 February 2016 Global Footprint newsletter article , If an acre of forest burns up in flames, what’s the cost? Zero, was FEMA’s reply in 2013. The Federal Emergency Management Agency rejected California’s request for a federal “major disaster” declaration and funding after the devastating Rim Fire, because it only knew how to put a price tag on man-made structures. The 400 square miles of forests that had been reduced to ashes and charred stumps—including part of Yosemite National Park—couldn’t translate into dollar amounts.How times have changed. Two weeks ago, the state of California was named one of the 13 winners of the National Disaster Resilience Competition by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Rockefeller Foundation. California won more than $70 million to help fund several disaster preparedness projects in communities affected by the Rim Fire. What happened? As extreme weather events have become more frequent due to climate change, decision-makers are realizing that conventional project assessments won’t do, and that building strong, resilient communities requires drastically innovative approaches. In a first for a federal agency, the HUD Office of Economic Resilience, in collaboration with the Rockefeller Foundation, mandated that nature be a key element in the design of development projects submitted to the $1 billion competition. HUD required all applicants to use a more complete benefit-cost analysis developed by Earth Economics, a close partner of Global Footprint Network. It is exactly the kind of approach that Global Footprint Network and Earth Economics called for in July in our State of the States Report, which found the United States demands twice the resources that its ecosystems can regenerate. It is also similar to the approach that Global Footprint Network piloted with the state of Maryland when developing our Net Present Value Plus tool. Read more here
January 2016, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD): With the release of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) last fall, a debate has been growing over the so-called “trade” agreement among twelve Pacific Rim countries. Should governments ratify the deal? Will it expand trade in a significant way? Who will be the winners and losers? But defining winners and losers only in trade terms will miss the much broader impacts of the TPP and hide the broader basis required for assessing its real impacts. In Canada, where IISD is headquartered, Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland has initiated formal consultations on the TPP, promising it is open for full discussion. This is a welcome initiative. For IISD, this is a deal too far and its ratification should be rejected by the minister. In its place, there is a need to fundamentally re-consider the role that trade and investment agreements make to supporting inclusive and sustainable growth. This commentary summarizes IISD’s concerns with the TPP, and a follow up article will begin outlining solutions. Read More here
24 January 2016, Climate Home, 8 climate change takeaways from Davos. As global elite gather at the World Economic Forum1, moving to counter climate change competes with economic fears. It is the first major meeting of politicians and business leaders since 195 nations struck a landmark deal to limit carbon emissions in Paris in December. Thousands of luminaries have come to a Swiss ski resort to unpack the opportunities and challenges of the future. ‘Mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution’ is the theme meant to guide high-powered panel sessions. Among talk of robotics, 3D printing and nanotechnology, the Paris agreement should merit mention. It aims to radically shrink the usage of fossil fuels, which the world consumes for 87% of its energy. Innovation is crucial to neutralise carbon emissions in the next half-century. As the forum nears its end, here’s what we conclude. 1. Market turmoil dominates” A global selloff of stocks has crowded out much discussion of a new global warming pact at the World Economic Forum. Markets have plunged more than US$4 trillion in value since 1 January – the worst start in yearly trading since the 2009 financial crisis – on weak Chinese growth and low oil prices. Opinion is divided on the impact of cheap crude on climate plans. Benchmark prices of $30 a barrel are “very detrimental for any [clean energy] policy”, according to Total chief Patrick Pouyanne. But analysts Climate Home asked are not worried. 2. Climate action is the smaller conversation: A climate change-induced disaster was named the greatest threat to the global economy in 2016, in a WEF survey ahead of the event, but that wasn’t fully borne out in discussions. Cutting carbon is an “issue for mainstream business, but of course not everyone is paying attention,” says Paul Simpson at the Carbon Disclosure Project. Read More here