From 81d8f04f7ed573923f34e0c7234baf9d7d1f3ac0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: jaccard <jaccard@pik-potsdam.de>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 09:50:26 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] edit references
---
analysis/paper/paper.Rmd | 2 +-
analysis/paper/references.bib | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/analysis/paper/paper.Rmd b/analysis/paper/paper.Rmd
index 1ca1043..42c8b23 100644
--- a/analysis/paper/paper.Rmd
+++ b/analysis/paper/paper.Rmd
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ We first decomposed national household final demand expenditure in the Environme
The energy footprint is the gross total energy use energy extension in EXIOBASE, which converts final energy consumption in the IEA energy balance data from the territorial to residence principle following SEEA energy accounting (ref - Stadler et al.). The carbon footprint includes CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6, HFCs and PFCs, from combustion, non-combustion, agriculture and waste, but not land-use change. For both environmental footprints, direct energy use and carbon emissions from households is included, with the total split between shelter, transport and manufactured goods using further data from EUROSTAT on this split.
-Finally, we aggregated the data of 28 European countries with 5 income groups each into 10 European expenditure groups, to decompose the total European household energy and carbon footprint by European expenditure decile, ranking each national income group according to their mean consumption expenditure in PPS. We call these European expenditure deciles, although only countries with EUROSTAT data from 2005 to 2015 are included, which excludes Italy and Luxembourg, but includes the UK, Norway and Turkey. Data on decarbonization scenarios, especially final energy use, is from the IIASA scenario database [ref], and work by Grubler et al. (2018) [ ] and Millward-Hopkins et al. (2020) [ ]. (IEA, Boell?)
+Finally, we aggregated the data of 28 European countries with 5 income groups each into 10 European expenditure groups, to decompose the total European household energy and carbon footprint by European expenditure decile, ranking each national income group according to their mean consumption expenditure in PPS. We call these European expenditure deciles, although only countries with EUROSTAT data from 2005 to 2015 are included, which excludes Italy and Luxembourg, but includes the UK, Norway and Turkey. Data on decarbonization scenarios, especially final energy use, is from the IIASA scenario database [@riahi_shared_2017 @gea_gea_nodate], and work by Grubler et al. (2018) [@grubler_low_2018] and Millward-Hopkins et al. (2020) [@millward-hopkins_providing_2020]. (IEA, Boell?)
Our unit of analysis through the paper is households normalized by adult equivalent unit, following the income stratified households expenditure data from EUROSTAT. The adult equivalent units from EUROSTAT adjust for household size in different countries and income groups for comparability purposes. When we discuss our household energy and carbon footprints per European expenditure decile in the context of decarbonization scenarios, we adjust total final energy use per capita output from the scenarios to household final energy use per adult equivalent. As inequality measure through the study, we divide the average value of the population in the top decile by that of the bottom decile, a 10:10 ratio. For example, in expenditure, a 10:10 ratio of 5 means that adult equivalents in the top decile spend 5 times more on average than those in the bottom decile.All data and procedures are described in detail in the supplementary information (SI).
diff --git a/analysis/paper/references.bib b/analysis/paper/references.bib
index a2d4c54..8544db3 100644
--- a/analysis/paper/references.bib
+++ b/analysis/paper/references.bib
@@ -95,6 +95,24 @@
keywords = {Input-output analysis, health pnas}
}
+@article{moran_convergence_2014,
+ title = {Convergence {Between} the {Eora}, {Wiod}, {Exiobase}, and {Openeu}'s {Consumption}-{Based} {Carbon} {Accounts}},
+ volume = {26},
+ issn = {0953-5314},
+ url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2014.935298},
+ doi = {10.1080/09535314.2014.935298},
+ abstract = {In this paper, we take an overview of several of the biggest independently constructed global multi-regional input–output (MRIO) databases and ask how reliable and consonant these databases are. The key question is whether MRIO accounts are robust enough for setting environmental policies. This paper compares the results of four global MRIOs: Eora, WIOD, EXIOBASE, and the GTAP-based OpenEU databases, and investigates how much each diverges from the multi-model mean. We also use Monte Carlo analysis to conduct sensitivity analysis of the robustness of each accounts’ results and we test to see how much variation in the environmental satellite account, rather than the economic structure itself, causes divergence in results. After harmonising the satellite account, we found that carbon footprint results for most major economies disagree by{\textless}10\% between MRIOs. Confidence estimates are necessary if MRIO methods and consumption-based accounting are to be used in environmental policy-making at the national level.},
+ number = {3},
+ urldate = {2018-08-15},
+ journal = {Economic Systems Research},
+ author = {Moran, Daniel and Wood, Richard},
+ month = jul,
+ year = {2014},
+ keywords = {Footprint, MRIO, Uncertainty, MRIO Uncertainty, CBA, Confidence, Monte Carlo, Reliability, health pnas},
+ pages = {245--261},
+ file = {Snapshot:/home/jaccard/.mozilla/firefox/67kb6jd5.default/zotero/storage/CQSUGC2P/09535314.2014.html:text/html;Snapshot:/home/jaccard/.mozilla/firefox/67kb6jd5.default/zotero/storage/QIBL8PME/09535314.2014.html:text/html}
+}
+
@article{grubler_low_2018,
title = {A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 °{C} target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies},
volume = {3},
@@ -2237,24 +2255,6 @@ Publisher: Nature Publishing Group},
file = {Bianco et al. - 2019 - Understanding energy consumption and carbon emissi.pdf:/home/jaccard/.mozilla/firefox/67kb6jd5.default/zotero/storage/7S288FHH/Bianco et al. - 2019 - Understanding energy consumption and carbon emissi.pdf:application/pdf;ScienceDirect Snapshot:/home/jaccard/.mozilla/firefox/67kb6jd5.default/zotero/storage/IC3NYGVP/S0360544218324927.html:text/html}
}
-@article{moran_convergence_2014,
- title = {Convergence {Between} the {Eora}, {Wiod}, {Exiobase}, and {Openeu}'s {Consumption}-{Based} {Carbon} {Accounts}},
- volume = {26},
- issn = {0953-5314},
- url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2014.935298},
- doi = {10.1080/09535314.2014.935298},
- abstract = {In this paper, we take an overview of several of the biggest independently constructed global multi-regional input–output (MRIO) databases and ask how reliable and consonant these databases are. The key question is whether MRIO accounts are robust enough for setting environmental policies. This paper compares the results of four global MRIOs: Eora, WIOD, EXIOBASE, and the GTAP-based OpenEU databases, and investigates how much each diverges from the multi-model mean. We also use Monte Carlo analysis to conduct sensitivity analysis of the robustness of each accounts’ results and we test to see how much variation in the environmental satellite account, rather than the economic structure itself, causes divergence in results. After harmonising the satellite account, we found that carbon footprint results for most major economies disagree by{\textless}10\% between MRIOs. Confidence estimates are necessary if MRIO methods and consumption-based accounting are to be used in environmental policy-making at the national level.},
- number = {3},
- urldate = {2020-09-30},
- journal = {Economic Systems Research},
- author = {Moran, Daniel and Wood, Richard},
- month = jul,
- year = {2014},
- keywords = {Footprint, MRIO, Uncertainty, CBA, Confidence, Monte Carlo, Reliability},
- pages = {245--261},
- file = {Snapshot:/home/jaccard/.mozilla/firefox/67kb6jd5.default/zotero/storage/CQZA739G/09535314.2014.html:text/html}
-}
-
@article{madeddu_co2_2020,
title = {The {CO}2 reduction potential for the {European} industry via direct electrification of heat supply (power-to-heat)},
issn = {1748-9326},
@@ -2517,4 +2517,30 @@ Publisher: Nature Publishing Group},
institution = {Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.},
author = {{Myhre, G.} and {Shindell, D.} and {Bréon, F.-M.} and {Collins, W.} and {Fuglestvedt, J.} and {Huang, J.} and {Koch, D.} and {Lamarque, J.-F.} and {Lee, D.} and {Mendoza, B.} and {Nakajima, T.} and {Robock, A.} and {Stephens, G.} and {Takemura, T.} and {Zhang, H.}},
year = {2013}
+}
+
+@misc{gea_gea_nodate,
+ title = {{GEA} {Scenario} database (public)},
+ url = {https://www.iiasa.ac.at/web-apps/ene/geadb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=about},
+ urldate = {2021-01-20},
+ author = {{GEA}},
+ file = {GEA Scenario database (public):/home/jaccard/.mozilla/firefox/67kb6jd5.default/zotero/storage/VYWCLUIW/dsd.html:text/html}
+}
+
+@article{riahi_shared_2017,
+ title = {The {Shared} {Socioeconomic} {Pathways} and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: {An} overview},
+ volume = {42},
+ issn = {0959-3780},
+ shorttitle = {The {Shared} {Socioeconomic} {Pathways} and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications},
+ url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300681},
+ doi = {10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009},
+ abstract = {This paper presents the overview of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and their energy, land use, and emissions implications. The SSPs are part of a new scenario framework, established by the climate change research community in order to facilitate the integrated analysis of future climate impacts, vulnerabilities, adaptation, and mitigation. The pathways were developed over the last years as a joint community effort and describe plausible major global developments that together would lead in the future to different challenges for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. The SSPs are based on five narratives describing alternative socio-economic developments, including sustainable development, regional rivalry, inequality, fossil-fueled development, and middle-of-the-road development. The long-term demographic and economic projections of the SSPs depict a wide uncertainty range consistent with the scenario literature. A multi-model approach was used for the elaboration of the energy, land-use and the emissions trajectories of SSP-based scenarios. The baseline scenarios lead to global energy consumption of 400–1200 EJ in 2100, and feature vastly different land-use dynamics, ranging from a possible reduction in cropland area up to a massive expansion by more than 700 million hectares by 2100. The associated annual CO2 emissions of the baseline scenarios range from about 25 GtCO2 to more than 120 GtCO2 per year by 2100. With respect to mitigation, we find that associated costs strongly depend on three factors: (1) the policy assumptions, (2) the socio-economic narrative, and (3) the stringency of the target. The carbon price for reaching the target of 2.6W/m2 that is consistent with a temperature change limit of 2°C, differs in our analysis thus by about a factor of three across the SSP marker scenarios. Moreover, many models could not reach this target from the SSPs with high mitigation challenges. While the SSPs were designed to represent different mitigation and adaptation challenges, the resulting narratives and quantifications span a wide range of different futures broadly representative of the current literature. This allows their subsequent use and development in new assessments and research projects. Critical next steps for the community scenario process will, among others, involve regional and sectoral extensions, further elaboration of the adaptation and impacts dimension, as well as employing the SSP scenarios with the new generation of earth system models as part of the 6th climate model intercomparison project (CMIP6).},
+ urldate = {2021-01-20},
+ journal = {Global Environmental Change},
+ author = {Riahi, Keywan and van Vuuren, Detlef P. and Kriegler, Elmar and Edmonds, Jae and O’Neill, Brian C. and Fujimori, Shinichiro and Bauer, Nico and Calvin, Katherine and Dellink, Rob and Fricko, Oliver and Lutz, Wolfgang and Popp, Alexander and Cuaresma, Jesus Crespo and Kc, Samir and Leimbach, Marian and Jiang, Leiwen and Kram, Tom and Rao, Shilpa and Emmerling, Johannes and Ebi, Kristie and Hasegawa, Tomoko and Havlik, Petr and Humpenöder, Florian and Da Silva, Lara Aleluia and Smith, Steve and Stehfest, Elke and Bosetti, Valentina and Eom, Jiyong and Gernaat, David and Masui, Toshihiko and Rogelj, Joeri and Strefler, Jessica and Drouet, Laurent and Krey, Volker and Luderer, Gunnar and Harmsen, Mathijs and Takahashi, Kiyoshi and Baumstark, Lavinia and Doelman, Jonathan C. and Kainuma, Mikiko and Klimont, Zbigniew and Marangoni, Giacomo and Lotze-Campen, Hermann and Obersteiner, Michael and Tabeau, Andrzej and Tavoni, Massimo},
+ month = jan,
+ year = {2017},
+ keywords = {Adaptation, Climate change, Community scenarios, Mitigation, RCP, Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, SSP},
+ pages = {153--168},
+ file = {ScienceDirect Full Text PDF:/home/jaccard/.mozilla/firefox/67kb6jd5.default/zotero/storage/TWI3D553/Riahi et al. - 2017 - The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy.pdf:application/pdf;ScienceDirect Snapshot:/home/jaccard/.mozilla/firefox/67kb6jd5.default/zotero/storage/T73XZZIS/S0959378016300681.html:text/html}
}
\ No newline at end of file
--
GitLab