2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- ItemThe energy and carbon inequality corridor for a 1.5 °C compatible and just Europe(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2021-6-15) Jaccard, Ingram S; Pichler, Peter-Paul; Többen, Johannes; Weisz, HelgaThe call for a decent life for all within planetary limits poses a dual challenge: provide all people with the essential resources needed to live well and, collectively, not exceed the source and sink capacity of the biosphere to sustain human societies. We examine the corridor of possible distributions of household energy and carbon footprints that satisfy both minimum energy use for a decent life and available energy supply compatible with the 1.5 °C target in 2050. We estimated household energy and carbon footprints for expenditure deciles for 28 European countries in 2015 by combining data from national household budget surveys with the environmentally-extended multi-regional input–output model EXIOBASE. We found a top-to-bottom decile ratio (90:10) of 7.2 for expenditure, 3.1 for net energy and 2.6 for carbon. The lower inequality of energy and carbon footprints is largely attributable to inefficient energy and heating technologies in the lower deciles (mostly Eastern Europe). Adopting best technology across Europe would save 11 EJ of net energy annually, but increase environmental footprint inequality. With such inequality, both targets can only be met through the use of CCS, large efficiency improvements, and an extremely low minimum final energy use of 28 GJ per adult equivalent. Assuming a more realistic minimum energy use of about 55 GJ ae−1 and no CCS deployment, the 1.5 °C target can only be achieved at near full equality. We conclude that achieving both stated goals is an immense and widely underestimated challenge, the successful management of which requires far greater room for maneuver in monetary and fiscal terms than is reflected in the current European political discourse.
- ItemIntegrating Life Cycle and Impact Assessments to Map Food's Cumulative Environmental Footprint(Amsterdam : Elsevier, 2020) Kuempel, Caitlin D.; Frazier, Melanie; Nash, Kirsty L.; Jacobsen, Nis Sand; Williams, David R.; Blanchard, Julia L.; Cottrell, Richard S.; McIntyre, Peter B.; Moran, Daniel; Bouwman, Lex; Froehlich, Halley E.; Gephart, Jessica A.; Metian, Marc; Többen, Johannes; Halpern, Benjamin S.Producing food exerts pressures on the environment. Understanding the location and magnitude of food production is key to reducing the impacts of these pressures on nature and people. In this Perspective, Kuempel et al. outline an approach for integrating life cycle assessment and cumulative impact mapping data and methodologies to map the cumulative environmental pressure of food systems. The approach enables quantification of current and potential future environmental pressures, which are needed to reduce the net impact of feeding humanity. © 2020 The AuthorsFeeding a growing, increasingly affluent population while limiting environmental pressures of food production is a central challenge for society. Understanding the location and magnitude of food production is key to addressing this challenge because pressures vary substantially across food production types. Applying data and models from life cycle assessment with the methodologies for mapping cumulative environmental impacts of human activities (hereafter cumulative impact mapping) provides a powerful approach to spatially map the cumulative environmental pressure of food production in a way that is consistent and comprehensive across food types. However, these methodologies have yet to be combined. By synthesizing life cycle assessment and cumulative impact mapping methodologies, we provide guidance for comprehensively and cumulatively mapping the environmental pressures (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, spatial occupancy, and freshwater use) associated with food production systems. This spatial approach enables quantification of current and potential future environmental pressures, which is needed for decision makers to create more sustainable food policies and practices. © 2020 The Authors