Case study on the carbon consumption of two metropolitan cities

PurposeThe cities merit special attention in global warming since they produce up to 80% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. Even though this has been widely acknowledged, only few papers exist that have studied cities holistically from a demand, i.e., consumption, perspective. The study presents a detailed analysis of the carbon footprint of two metropolitan cities from a consumption perspective. With the analysis of consumer carbon footprints (carbon consumption), the distribution of emissions in the key source categories is presented and compared.Materials and methodsThe study utilizes Finnish consumer survey data by cities, regional emission data for key processes, and general emission data to produce a hybrid LCA model for a holistic assessment of city-level greenhouse gas emissions from the consumption perspective.Results and discussionThe study results showed the carbon consumption to be 13.2 t CO2e per person in Helsinki with a 17,400 € annual consumption expenditure and 10.3 t CO2e per person in Porvoo with a 15,900 € annual consumption expenditure, respectively. The dominant carbon sources for metropolitan living are heat and electricity, building and property, private driving, and services. Within the cities, some significant differences were found. The carbon emissions from energy consumption are 4.5 t CO2e for an average consumer in Helsinki, whereas an average consumer in Porvoo only causes 2.0 t CO2e due to the cleaner energy production in Porvoo. On the other hand, private driving causes 2.0 t CO2e in Porvoo, but only 1.3 t in Helsinki. The overall trip generation in Helsinki is only half of that in Porvoo, and also, the usage of public transport is at a substantially higher level in Helsinki. The current results contradict interestingly some earlier studies in finding that the theoretical carbon-reducing influence of city density is overridden with other factors, such as the type of energy production, energy efficiency of the housing stock, and increased use of services. In our study, Helsinki represents a metropolitan area with a denser structure and a more efficient public transport system, but still consuming around 25% more carbon emissions than the other city in the metropolitan area, Porvoo. The sensitivity analysis showed that even with the normalization of the key parameters between the two cities, the main finding still holds.ConclusionsThe evaluation of the carbon footprint of cities from the consumption perspective, instead of a more traditional production perspective, seems to offer an interesting new insight into the carbon footprints of the cities. It identifies similar key sources of carbon as production-oriented studies but further emphasizes the significance of the utilized services in the carbon footprint evaluations. In the future, the carbon footprint of services, especially in the service-intensive economies and cities that tend to outsource their manufacturing and carbon emissions, should be further examined since they cause an ever increasing proportion of the carbon consumption of consumers.

[1]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. , 2004, Environmental science & technology.

[2]  Robert Ries,et al.  Estimating Construction Project Environmental Effects Using an Input-Output-Based Hybrid Life-Cycle Assessment Model , 2008 .

[3]  W. Michael Griffin,et al.  The Economic and Environmental Footprints of Transportation , 2008 .

[4]  Charles J. Kibert,et al.  Construction ecology : nature as the basis for green buildings , 2002 .

[5]  Seppo I Junnila,et al.  Empirical comparison of process and economic input-output life cycle assessment in service industries. , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[6]  Aumnad Phdungsilp,et al.  Greenhouse gas emissions from global cities. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[7]  M. Lenzen,et al.  Examining the global environmental impact of regional consumption activities — Part 1: A technical note on combining input–output and ecological footprint analysis , 2007 .

[8]  R. Kates,et al.  Methods for estimating greenhouse gases from local places , 1998 .

[9]  S. Joshi Product Environmental Life‐Cycle Assessment Using Input‐Output Techniques , 1999 .

[10]  C. Kennedy,et al.  Comparing High and Low Residential Density: Life-Cycle Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions , 2006 .

[11]  Seppo Junnila,et al.  Alternative Scenarios for Managing the Environmental Performance of a Service Sector Company , 2006 .

[12]  Phillip John Jones,et al.  Towards sustainable urban infrastructure: assessment, tools and good practice , 2006 .

[13]  H. S. Matthews,et al.  Quantifying the global and distributional aspects of American household carbon footprint , 2008 .

[14]  James J. Kay,et al.  On complexity theory, exergy, and industrial ecology : Some implications for construction ecology , 2003 .

[15]  C. Kennedy,et al.  The Changing Metabolism of Cities , 2007 .

[16]  A. Horvath,et al.  Life-Cycle Assessment of Office Buildings in Europe and the United States , 2006 .

[17]  Arpad Horvath,et al.  A regional version of a US economic input-output life-cycle assessment model , 2007 .

[18]  Geoffrey J. D. Hewings Regional input-output models using national data: The structure of the West Midlands economy , 1969 .

[19]  Peter D. Blair,et al.  Input-Output Analysis , 2021 .

[20]  Kirsten Gram-Hanssen,et al.  Towards sustainable urban infrastructure , 2006 .

[21]  D. Dodman Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban greenhouse gas emissions inventories , 2009 .