Home⇛Annals of Tropical Research⇛vol. 38 no. 2 (2016)

The Rising Carbon Footprint Of Philippine Households: An Estimation Using Consumption Expenditure And Input-Output Analysis

Moises Neil V. Seriño

 

Abstract:

This study aimed to estimate the carbon footprint of Philippine households from consuming various goods and services. Data from the Philippine Input-Output Table and Global Trade Analysis Project's carbon emission coefficients were used to extract the carbon intensities of different economic sectors. The embodied carbon emission from different consumption items was estimated by tracing the associated emission down to its intermediate inputs used in the production. The total household carbon footprint was derived by summing up the carbon emission from each consumption category. Results showed that the highest carbon emitting goods consumed by households are related to expenditure on fuel, light and transportation while nondurable and recreation goods were the least carbon intensive. Different socio-economic characteristics of the households matter in explaining total household carbon footprint. By using non-parametric estimation, results showed a strong positive relationship between household carbon footprint and income but the effect varies across the distribution. This implies that further increases in carbon footprint are to be expected as households get richer. Policy makers should devise policies promoting green consumption or low-carbon lifestyle; else it is likely that households will be leading a carbon intensive lifestyle as they become more affluent.



References:

  1. BAIOCCHI, G., J. MINX, J., and K. HUBACEK. 2010. The impact of social factors and consumer behavior on carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom. Journal of Industrial Ecology 14, 50-72.
  2. BIN, S., and H. DOWLATABADI. 2005. Consumer lifestyle approach to US energy use and the related CO2 emissions. Energy Policy 33, 197-208.
  3. BÜCHS, M., and S. SCHNEPF. 2013. Who emits most? Associations between socio-economic factors and UK households’ home energy, transport, indirect and total Co2 emissions. Ecological Economics 90: 114-23.
  4. DRUCKMAN, A., and T. JACKSON. 2009. The carbon footprint of UK households 1990-2004: A socio-economically disaggregated, quasi-multi-regional input-output model. Ecological Economics 68, 2066-2077.
  5. GALEOTTI, M., M. MANERA and A. LANZA. 2009. On the robustness of robustness checks of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Environ Resource Economics 42,551-574.
  6. GERMANWATCH. 2014. Global climate risk index. http://germanwatch.org/en/cri (accessed 6.23.14).
  7. GIROD, B., and P. DE HAAN. 2010. More or better? A model for changes in household greenhouse gas emissions due to higher income. Journal of Industrial Ecology 14:31-49.
  8. HEERINK, N., A. MULATU, and E. BULTE. 2001. Income inequality and the environment: Aggregation bias in environmental Kuznets curves. Ecological Economics 38, 359-367.
  9. HEIL, M.T., and Q.T. WODON. 1997. Inequality in CO2 emissions between poor and rich countries. The Journal of Environment and Development 6 (4), 426-452.
  10. IEA. 2013. International Energy Agency (IEA): CO2 emissions from fuel combustion.
  11. IPCC. 2013. Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Press Human influence on climate clear Release http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/press_ release_ar5_wgi_en.pdf (accessed 6.23.14).
  12. KENNY, T., and N.F. GRAY. 2009. Comparative performance of six carbon footprint models for use in Ireland. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29: 1-6.
  13. KOK, R., R.M.J. BENDERS, and H.C. MOLL. 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.
  14. LENZEN, M. 1998. Energy and greenhouse gas cost of living for Australia during 1993/94. Energy 23,497-516.
  15. LENZEN, M., M. WIER, C. COHEN, H. HAYAMI, S. PACHAURI, and R. SCHAEFFER. 2006. A comparative multivariate analysis of household energy requirements in Australia, Brazil, Denmark, India and Japan. Energy 31, 181-207.
  16. LEONTIEF, W. 1986. Input-Output Economics, 2nd ed. New York, Oxford University Press.
  17. MINX, J.C., T. WIEDMANN, R. WOOD, G.P. PETERS, M. LENZEN, A. OWEN, K. SCOTT, J. BARRETT, K. HUBACEK, G. BAIOCCHI, A. PAUL, E. DAWKINS, J. BRIGGS, D. GUAN, S. SUH, and F. ACKERMAN. 2009. Input-output analysis and carbon footprinting: An overview of applications. Economic Systems Research 21:187-216.
  18. NSCB. 2009. National Statistical Coordination Board. Philippine poverty statistics. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/2009/default.asp
  19. PADILLA, E., and A. SERRANO. 2006. Inequality in CO2 emissions across countries and its relationship with income inequality: A distributive approach. Energy Policy 34: 1762-1772.
  20. SERIÑO, M.N.V. 2014. Decomposing drivers of rising household carbon emission in the Philippines. Advance in Economics and Business 2 (1), 22-28.
  21. SERIÑO, M.N.V. 2015. Rising emission inequality among households in the Philippines. Journal of Society and Technology 5, 70-81.
  22. SERIÑO, M.N.V., and S. KLASEN. 2015. Estimation and determinants of the Philippines’ household carbon footprint. The Developing Economies 53 (1),44-62.
  23. STERN, D.I. 2004. The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Development 32, 1419-1439.
  24. SUH, S. 2009. Handbook of input-output analysis Economics in Industrial Ecology. Springer.
  25. The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change. 1999. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/phinc1.pdf
  26. WEBER, C., and S. MATTHEWS. 2008. Quantifying the global and distributional aspects of American household carbon footprint. Ecological Economics 66, 379-391

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic