Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options

Abstract

Background. Around two-thirds of global GHG emissions are directly and indirectly linked to household consumption, with a global average of about 6 tCO2eq/cap. The average per capita carbon footprint of North America and Europe amount to 13.4 and 7.5 tCO2eq/cap, respectively, while that of Africa and the Middle East—to 1.7 tCO2eq/cap on average. Changes in consumption patterns to low-carbon alternatives therefore present a great and urgently required potential for emission reductions. In this paper, we synthesize emission mitigation potentials across the consumption domains of food, housing, transport and other consumption. Methods. We systematically screened 6990 records in the Web of Science Core Collections and Scopus. Searches were restricted to (1) reviews of lifecycle assessment studies and (2) multiregional input-output studies of household consumption, published after 2011 in English. We selected against pre-determined eligibility criteria and quantitatively synthesized findings from 53 studies in a meta-review. We identified 771 original options, which we summarized and presented in 61 consumption options with a positive mitigation potential. We used a fixed-effects model to explore the role of contextual factors (geographical, technical and socio-demographic factors) for the outcome variable (mitigation potential per capita) within consumption options. Results and discussion. We establish consumption options with a high mitigation potential measured in tons of CO2eq/capita/yr. For transport, the options with the highest mitigation potential include living car-free, shifting to a battery electric vehicle, and reducing flying by a long return flight with a median reduction potential of more than 1.7 tCO2eq/cap. In the context of food, the highest carbon savings come from dietary changes, particularly an adoption of vegan diet with an average and median mitigation potential of 0.9 and 0.8 tCO2eq/cap, respectively. Shifting to renewable electricity and refurbishment and renovation are the options with the highest mitigation potential in the housing domain, with medians at 1.6 and 0.9 tCO2eq/cap, respectively. We find that the top ten consumption options together yield an average mitigation potential of 9.2 tCO2eq/cap, indicating substantial contributions towards achieving the 1.5 °C–2 °C target, particularly in high-income context.

The unequal distribution of household carbon footprints in Europe and its link to sustainability

“…Our results are in agreement with prior evidence (Bjørn et al , 2018; O'Neill et al , 2018) that substantial decarbonization of consumption is needed to ensure a good life within planetary boundaries. With an average CF in Europe of 7.5 tCO 2 eq/cap (Ivanova et al , 2020), there is a need to reduce the GHG intensity of consumption by a factor of 3 or more to meet climate targets (Bjørn et al , 2018).…”

“…Land travel drives 21% and 32% of the average CF of the EU top 1% and top 10% of households, respectively. Radical emission reductions in this category require decreases in the number of vehicles and travel distance and the shift to low-carbon transport modes (Ivanova et al , 2020). Research on car dependence exposes the difficulty of moving away from a car-dominated, high-carbon transport system and draws attention to the political-economic factors underpinning that dependence (Mattioli et al , 2020).…”

Improving Climate Change Mitigation Analysis: A Framework for Examining Feasibility

“…reduction achieved if all conventional vehicles were replaced. 65,66 However, actual mitigation also depends on the extent to which potential initiatives to encourage electric vehicles can be implemented (IF), 10 and on the extent to which, once implemented, the initiatives result in the intended behavior change (BP). 15,67 Thus, for any mitigation opportunity, there are many ways to try to achieve its TP, and these can vary greatly in terms of IF and BP.…”

Household Sharing for Carbon and Energy Reductions: The Case of EU Countries

“…Particularly in the context of household dynamics, the product detail was insufficient to distinguish between consumption of items that are more likely to be shared within and between households (e.g., use of shared appliances vs. individual equipment). Difficulties in allocating land use change emissions to specific economic activities have been previously recognized [41,42].…”

“…Targeting the trend towards smaller households and under-occupation of homes in the EU and globally is a key option to reduce per capita carbon and energy contributions, with a higher mitigation potential compared to efficiency improvements such as upgrading the thermal insulation or more efficient appliances [42,63]. Understanding needs and expectations about personal space as well as changing social norms [18] are key for the upscaling of "downsizer homes" [63] and other alternatives to encourage within household sharing.…”