Exploration of High-emitting Households in the UK  

Xinfang Wang June 2014

Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester xinfang.wang@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk  

Aim

Distribution of UK household emissions

High-emitting households’ socioeconomic characteristics & identify clusters

How policy in UK may accelerate carbon mitigation by focusing on high-emitters

Background

International agreement on limiting global temperature rise up to 2oC

80% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 comparing to 1990 [5]

Understanding drivers of UK GHG emissions from consumption perspective/final demand

76% - households, 24% - government (11%) & capital investment (13%) [3]

Large difference between low and high impact households on total CO2 emissions [6]

Ignoring the unequal distribution in climate mitigation policy leads to more serious polarization

Stage 1 – Distribution of UK household emissions Consumption-based accounting VS production-based accounting

Figure 1. Largest interregional fluxes of emissions embodied in trade from dominant net exporting countries (blue) to the dominant net importing countries (red) [7] .

Emissions

Direct  energy  emissions

Emissions  embodied  in  products  and  

services

Include  imports

Exclude  Export

5  

Household  GHG  

emissions

Direct  energy  use    (not  include  avia<on)  –  38%  

(2004)

gas

electricity  

Other  fuel    

Personal  transport  

fuel  

Emissions  embedded  in  products  and  

services    (include  avia<on)  –  62%  

(2004)

Stage 1 – Distribution of UK household emissions Consumption-based accounting for household emission estimation

6  

Stage 1 – Distribution of UK household emissions Consumption-based accounting for household emission estimation

Dividing emissions according to the final demand, UK households are responsible for 76% of UK carbon emissions averaged between 1990 and 2004 while the remainder attributes to government expenditure (11%) and capital investment (13%) [3].

Stage 1 – Distribution of UK household emissions

Data and Method

xij = Xj * ( yij / Yj)

xij is carbon emissions of household i on consumption category j, (tonnes CO2 yr-1/household)

yij is expenditure on consumption category j from household i, (£ yr-1/household)

Xj is UK total household carbon emissions of consumption category j, (£ yr-1)

Yj is UK total household expenditure of consumption category j, (tonnes CO2 yr-1)

Stage 1 – High-emitting households’ socioeconomic characteristics

Table 1: Household expenditure and carbon emissions in the UK for 2004 (SEI, 2008)

Category UK household expenditure

(£million in 2004 current price)

Percentage out of total

UK household

expenditure

UK household actual carbon

emissions in 2004 (tonnes CO2)#

Percentage out of total UK household

actual carbon emissions in 2004

Housing 147,702 22.77% 192,516,784 39.16% Transport 106,669 16.44% 163,891,440 33.34% Consumables 177,123 27.30% 78,394,465 15.94%

Private services 217,199 33.48% 56,789,698 11.55%

Total of housing, transport, consumables, and private services

648,693 100% 491,592,387 100%##

# The UK household actual carbon emissions in 2004 (tonnes CO2)= the carbon footprint in 2004 from REAP database (tonnes CO2/capita) × the 2004 UK total population from the REAP database. ##There is 0.01% round error due to showing two decimal places for the percentages.

Stage 1 – Distribution of UK household emissions Results of high-emitting activity categories (~84%)  

Reference: [1] [2] [3]

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

cumula<

ve  percentage  of  CO2  em

ission

s    

cumula<ve  percentage  of  UK  households  

Equality

Total weekly household carbon emissions

Weekly household housing carbon emissions

Weekly household transport carbon emissions

Weekly household consumables carbon emissions

Weekly household private services carbon emissions

Stage 1 – Distribution of UK household emissions Results of high-emitting activity categories  

Reference: [1] [2] [3]

Table 2. Percentage of household emissions from HEGs and non-HEGs in the UK

Percentages HEGs   Non-­HEGs   Total  

Total UK household carbon emissions 24%   76%   100%  

UK household carbon emissions from housing 23%   77%   100%  

UK household carbon emissions from transport 37%   63%   100%  

UK household carbon emissions from consumables 41%   59%   100%  

UK household carbon emissions from Private services

32%   68%   100%  

Stage 2 – Clustering analysis of the high-emitting groups Methods •  First, use hierarchical clustering procedure to define the number

of clusters

•  Second, use the k-means clustering technique for running the clustering analysis based on the defined number of clusters

•  Also consider which result makes more sense

Table 3 Cluster proportions Number of Cases in each Cluster Percentage of HEGs

Cluster 1 81 12%

2 105 15%

3 494 73%

Valid 680 100%

Missing 0 0

Stage 2 – Main different socioeconomic factors in each cluster

•  No large difference between the HEGs and average UK households, but larger differences across the three identified clusters within the HEGs.

•  The highest-income cluster (cluster 2) － most wealthy, younger Household Reference Person (HRP), better educated, higher socioeconomic classes, large household sizes.

•  Cluster 1 and cluster 3 (the highest-emitting cluster and highest-proportion cluster) are similar. Their disposable income is lower than UK average, but have older HRPs in general.

•  Difference between cluster 1 and 3 is household composition. Cluster 1 has more households with two adults and at least one child. Cluster 3 have more households with one or two adult(s) but no children at all. Besides, cluster 1-slightly better educated, larger houses, higher socioeconomic class, more disposable income than cluster 3.

Stage 2 – Main different socioeconomic factors in each cluster

Table 4 Final Cluster Centres Clusters within the High-emitting groups (HEGs)

UK HEGs average

UK average

1 2 3

Weekly CO2 / Household (kgCO2/£)

1290 701 675 744 311

Housing emissions 439 258 275 292 154

Transport emissions 450 241 216 247 82

Consumable emissions

221 125 119 132 44

Private services emissions

109 78 65 72 31

Stage 2 – Clustering analysis of the high-emitting groups

•  Infrequent activities and durable household equipment - two-week diary

•  Expenditure is less accurate in measuring some emitting activities (e.g. flying tickets vs. flying distance)

•  Number of rooms is used instead of floor area to represent house size

•  No information on whether the household prefer emission-intensive or imported products

•  Changes in emission factors between year 2004 and year 2009

Stage 2 – High-emitting households’ socioeconomic characteristics Data Limitations  

Stage 3 – Distributional effects of policy on reducing household emissions Examples of Carbon Mitigation Policies

Stage 3 – Socio psychology/ sociology for policy interventions on the HEGs

•  Ineffectiveness of existing behaviour change focused policy for carbon mitigation

•  Increasing awareness of applying practice approach into policy-making (meaning, value, material)

•  But practice approach has three main disadvantage for carbon mitigation policy 1. Can not provide clear enough information for policy makers on what to

do with changing context, social and physical structure, and broad social value

2. Difficult to achieve the speed required for carbon mitigation challenges in short to medium term.

3. Do not deal with different practices across different groups, e.g. high-emitting groups and others.

•  Multiple models of behaviour (Wilson and Chatterton, 2011)- use the criteria of actors, scope, durability and domains of behaviour (geographical, temporal and structural of action).

•  Integrated approach- ‘carbon literacy’ (Whitmarsh et al, 2011). (1) knowledge, skills, and motivations of actors (2) individual behaviour (3) broader engagement with systems of provision and governance. – different from the narrower and more individual focused behaviour literature

•  Integrated approach- ‘The Model of Recursive Cultural Adaptation’ (Boldero and Binder, 2013). Unsustainable practice can be modified by changing the situation/norms, and by facilitation perceptions of change (e.g. showering). – different from descriptive and theoretical focused practice literature

Stage 3 – Socio psychology/ sociology for policy interventions on the HEGs

- Direct rebound effects

- Indirect rebound effects

Others related- Rebound effects

Rebound effects within the high emitters

*Different ranges of rebound

effects in selected categories-

home energy, transport

- Energy efficiency improvements

- Behavioural change actions

References: [8] [9]

Next steps

•  Undertake clustering analysis for HEGs within different consumption categories

•  Further explore how carbon mitigation policy may focus on the high-emitting groups to accelerate emission reduction in short to medium term

•  Get feedback of high-emitter focused policy framework from academics working on climate mitigation policy (workshop or survey)

[1] Living Cost and Food Survey 2009, UK Office of National Statistics [2] Understanding the Society 2009, UK Office of National Statistics [3] Druckman and Jackson (2009), Mapping our Responsibilities: More Key

Results from the Surrey Environmental Lifestyle Mapping (SELMA) Framework

[4] Gough, I. (2013), Carbon Mitigation Policies, Distributional Dilemmas and Social Policies

[5] Climate Change Act 2008 [6] Weber, C. L., Matthews, H. S. (2008), Quantifying the Global and

Distributional Aspects of American Household Carbon Footprint [7] Davis, S. J., Caldeira, K. (2010), Consumption-based accounting of CO2

emissions, Stanford, USA: Department of Global Ecology [8] Cellura, M., Gangi, A. D., Longo, S., Orioli, A. (2013), An Italian input-output

model for the assessment of energy and environmental benefits arising from retrofit actions of buildings

[9] Murray, C. K. (2013), What is consumers decided to all 'go green'? Environmental rebound effects from consumption decisions

References