The Use of Ecological and Carbon Footprint Analysis in Policy Making using the REAP model

Transcription

1 The Use of Ecological and Carbon Footprint Analysis in Policy Making using the REAP model Dr Robin Curry. Institute for a Sustainable World (ISW)@QUB r.curry@qub.ac.uk

2 Contents of the Session The evaluation of Climate and Sustainable Development policies in Northern Ireland using the REAP EF and CF Model; Setting out a low-carbon Footpath using REAP; Identifying ongoing research priorities.

3 Background/Timeline/ Methods Northern Limits. A Resource Flow Analysis and Ecological Footprint of Northern Ireland. (2004) Island Limits. A Material Flow, Environmentally-Extended Input-Output Analysis and Ecological Footprint of Ireland (2008) Northern Visions: Footpaths to Sustainability. (2008)

4 First Steps Towards Sustainability. (2006)

5 Drivers and context: Towards Sustainability Vision Our Vision is of Northern Ireland as a one planet economy Targets Stabilise the Northern Ireland Ecological Footprint by 2015 and reduce it thereafter Reduction of GHG emissions by 25% below 1990 levels by 2025 By 2008 produce a Sustainable Consumption Action Plan for Northern Ireland

6 Some thoughts on Carbon Footprint/s Production/Territorial. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Consumption. Allocated using Environmentally-Extended Input-Output Analysis (EE-IO) What's the difference?

7 Carbon Omissions? Consumption-based accounting for international carbon emissions

8 The Relevance of Consumptionbased Accounting (CBA) CBA complements the territorial-based approach; CBA quantifies the economic and environmental trade linkages between countries; CBA raises awareness of indirect emissions in Governments, businesses and consumers.

9 Curry, R. Maguire, C.M., and McClenaghan, A. (2008) Northern Visions: Footpaths to Sustainability.

10

11 The Resources and Energy Analysis Programme (REAP) software model Methodology: Environmentally extended input-output analysis

12

13 Recent Developments

14 Benchmarking performance and setting the baseline (2003) Private services Consumables Food Transport Housing 1 0 Ecological Footprint (gha/cap) Carbon Footprint (t/cap) Private services Consumables Food Transport Housing

15 Analysing what makes the difference 5 Ecological Footprint (gha/cap) Consumables Transport Food Housing 0 South East Northern Ireland East London UK East Midlands North West Scotland West Midlands Yorkshire and the Humber South West North East Wales 10 9 Carbon Footprint (t/cap) Consumables Transport Food Housing 1 0 South East Northern Ireland East London UK East Midlands North West Scotland West Midlands Yorkshire and the Humber South West North East Wales

16 Regional Policy Framework Economic Vision For NI Organic Action Plan Rural Strategy Empty Homes Strategy Programme for Government Strategic Energy Framework Towards Resource Management Fuel Poverty Strategy Sustainable Development Strategy Key Strategies Investment Strategy for NI Regional Development Strategy Renewable Energy Action Plan Regional Transportation Strategy Daughter Strategies And Policies Sub-regional Transport Plans Housing Strategy Domestic Energy Efficiency Scheme Departmental Strategies and Plans

17 High Level Results Over three-quarters of Northern Ireland s Ecological Footprint (or 80% of all household carbon emissions) are related to three consumption categories housing, travel and food. We developed scenarios focused on the policy opportunities related to them.

18 Business as Usual Variable Demographics Assumption Household Projections for Northern Ireland: NISRA. January Vehicle km Increase of 3% per annum (Regional Development Strategy) for cars. Vehicle numbers Increase of 4% per annum (Regional Transport Strategy) for cars and light goods vehicles. Air travel Electricity consumption Industrial production efficiency Increase of 3% per annum for international flights and 4% per annum for domestic (UK statistics, Stockholm Environment Institute). Increase of 2% per annum (Strategic Energy Framework) in domestic consumption. Increase of 0.5% per annum (UK figures, Stockholm Environment Institute).

19 Housing comparing different policy options Energy supply efficiency - 1.5% p.a. improvement Renewables and energy mix - 12% by 2012, 25% by 2026; gas to 60% by 2026; displacement primarily of coal New building regulations - Code for Sustainable Homes Retrofit of housing stock - 10 years of investment in upgrading double glazing, wall and loft insulation, condensing boilers

20 Housing comparing different policy options Ecological Footprint (gha/cap) Ecological Footprint Reduction from BAU: Energy supply efficiency -14% Renewables and energy mix 21% CSH Level % Retrofit % Retrofit Max % CO 2 emissions (gha/cap) BAU Energy supply efficiency Renew ables and energy mix CSH Level CSH Level CSH Level Retrofit Carbon Footprint Retrofit Max Reduction from BAU: Energy supply efficiency -15% Renewables and energy mix 24% CSH Level % Retrofit % Retrofit Max % BAU Energy supply efficiency Renew ables and energy mix CSH Level CSH Level CSH Level Retrofit 2018 Retrofit Max 2018

21 Housing comparing different policy options

22 Food synergy between policy areas Green Farming on farm renewables so that sector is operating on 80% renewable energy Efficient processing sector improves by 20% by 2050 Less waste five year campaign by WRAP to reduce waste 30% fruit/veg, 20% bread/cakes, 16% meat/fish, 16% ready meals by 2012 Lower carbon diet increase in fruit/veg (1% p.a.); decrease in meat/fish (2% p.a.); fats (1% p.a.), organic increases to 7.9% by 2018 and decrease in spending on catering services by 30% by 2012

23 Food and health a win-win scenario Ecological Footprint Carbon Footprint BAU BAU Ecological Footprint (gha/cap) CO 2 emissions (t/cap) Green Farming Efficient Processing Less Waste Low er Carbon Diet Green Farming Efficient Processing Less Waste Low er Carbon Diet Reduction from BAU: Green Farming - 0.8% Efficient Processing 0.3% Less waste 14% Lower carbon diet 5% Reduction from BAU: Green Farming - 2% Efficient Processing 2% Less waste 6% Lower carbon diet 11%

24 Food relative impact of different diets Ecological Footprint Catering services 0.7 Alcoholic beverages Other juices and drinks 0.6 Fruit juices Carbon Footprint Catering services Alcoholic beverages Other juices and drinks Fruit juices Ecological Footprint (gha/cap) Soft drinks and mineral 0.5 w aters Other food products Confectionery 0.4 Sugar Carbon Footprint (t/cap) Bread, biscuits etc. 0.3 Flour and cereals Dairy products 0.2 Oils and fats Soft drinks and mineral w aters Other food products Confectionery Sugar Bread, biscuits etc. Flour and cereals Dairy products Oils and fats 0.2 Fruit 0.1 Meat Fruit Meat 0 Average diet Healthy diet 2008 Low carbon diet 2008 Fish and fish products Vegetables 0 and farm productsaverage diet Healthy diet 2008 Low carbon diet 2008 Fish and fish products Vegetables and farm products

25 Transport comparing different policy options Improved car efficiency -10% per decade Improved car occupancy increase 50% by 2020 Travelling less 2% p.a. reduction until 2025 Modal shift (with current growth trends)- car (-15%), bus & rail (+300%), 3% growth in vehicle km Modal shift (without growth) as above with 0% growth in vehicle km

26 Transport comparing different policy options Ecological Footprint (gha/cap) Ecological Footprint CO 2 emissions (t/cap) BAU Improved car efficiency Improved car occupancy rates Travelling less Modal shift w ithout grow th Modal shift w ith grow th Carbon Footprint BAU Improved car efficiency Improved car occupancy rates Travelling less Modal shift w ithout grow th Modal shift w ith grow th Reduction from BAU: Car efficiency 7% Car occupancy 21% Travelling less 39% Modal shift 11% Modal shift no growth 34% Reduction from BAU: Car efficiency 9% Car occupancy 22% Travelling less 40% Modal shift 15% Modal shift no growth 36%

27 Sustainable Footpath? Good Practice RTS modal shift achieved by 2012 Growth in vehicle km reduced from 3% to 2% p.a. HECA target of 34% improvement achieved by 2018 EU renewables target achieved by 2012 Sustainable Footpath Modal shift with no growth achieved by 2025 Car efficiency improvements All new housing carbon neutral by 2016 Decade long retrofit programme achieves Retrofit Max reductions by 2018 Renewables provide 25% of domestic energy by 2025

28 Sustainable Footpath? Ecological Footprint Carbon Footprint 5 11 NI baseline 10.5 NI baseline Ecological Footprint (gha/cap) CO 2 emissions (t/cap) BAU Good Practice 8 BAU 3 Good Practice Sustainable 7Footpath Sustainable Footpath Reduction from BAU: Good Practice 15% Sustainable Footpath 34% Reduction from BAU: Good Practice 14% Sustainable Footpath 35%

29 Identifying ongoing research priorities EE-IO is the only method that fully captures all economic activity (including imported goods and services) and associated material and energy flows; So it s Complete, but how Accurate is it? Policy makers are already using models such as REAP and Eureapa, without fully understanding the methodology and potential inaccuracies.

30 Identifying ongoing research priorities Identification those areas of EE-IO models with the most uncertainty and potential for inaccuracy; Development of standardised guidance on Environmentally Extending economic I-O Tables; Development and publication of peer-reviewed inventories for sources, coefficients and conversion factors; and Guidance for policy makers on use of EE-IO.

31 Related research Curry, R, Maguire, C, Simmons, C, Lewis, K. (2012). Island Limits? Measuring the sustainability of a national economy using Material Flow Analysis, environmentally extended input-output analysis and the Ecological Footprint. Local Environment (in press) Curry, R and Maguire, C. (2011) The use of Ecological and Carbon Footprint Analysis in regional policy making: application and insights using the REAP model. Local Environment. DOI: / Volume 16, Issue 9, pages Curry, R, Maguire, C, Simmons, C, Lewis, K. (2011). The use of Material Flow Analysis and the Ecological Footprint in regional policy making: application and insights from Northern Ireland. Local Environment. Volume 16, Issue 2, 2011, Pages DOI: /

32 Thank you for listening