Content uploaded by Joshuah Kane Stolaroff
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joshuah Kane Stolaroff on Mar 24, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Products, Packaging and
US Greenhouse Gas Emissions
by Joshuah Stolaroff - PhD* September 2009
Executive Summary
White Paper
Product
Policy
Institute
PO Box 48433
Athens, GA 30604 USA
+1-706-613-0710
info@productpolicy.org
www.productpolicy.org
Products & Packaging
44%
Use*
Provision
of Food
12% Building HVAC
and Lighting
21%
Provision of Goods
37%
*Use of Appliances
and Devices
7%
Local Passenger
Transport
13%
Non-Local Passenger
Transport
9%
Infra-
structure
1%
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Systems-based view
including emissions embodied in international trade.
(Provision of Goods: all consumer goods including building components and vehicles.)
* About the author
Joshuah Stolaroff is a former AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow, placed at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Offi ce of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. He was the
technical lead for the report “Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions rough Materials
and Land Management Practices.” He can be reached at josh@rationalcontemporary.com.
Disclaimer: is paper has not been reviewed by EPA. e views expressed in this document are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily refl ect those of the Agency.
is paper builds on a new report from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, “Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through
Materials and Land Management Practices,” which off ers new insight into the
impact of products and packaging on climate change. Based on the report, non-
food products are associated with 37 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
is paper extends the EPA analysis to include the impacts from producing
products abroad that are consumed in the U.S. is brings the share of
products and packaging to 44 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
A comparison with these national-level fi gures is made with previous research
on U.S. household carbon footprints, which similarly fi nds that products
make up a large share of the average household’s greenhouse gas impact and a
signifi cantly larger share when international emissions are included. Examples
are given of how state and local governments can measure and reduce
emissions associated with products. Extended Producer Responsibility is
discussed as a policy option to reduce the greenhouse gas impact of products.
Page 2
Products and packaging are responsible for a
large share of greenhouse gas emissions in the
United States.
Products and packaging are an essential part of daily life for North
Americans. Along with food, shelter, and transportation, products are the
spoils of an industrial economy that fulfi ll the needs and wants of modern
consumers. However, in its current structure, this economy has many
environmental impacts, including a growing and dangerous infl uence on the
Earth’s climate.
Transportation, buildings, and, increasingly, food production, are known to
contribute to global climate change. But products are an often-overlooked
driver of global emissions.
e typical lens through which to view greenhouse gas emissions is through
the economic sectors in which they are released. By allocating emissions
according to economic sectors, we fi nd the vast majority of greenhouse gas
emissions occur in the electric power, transportation, and industrial sectors
(34, 28, and 19 percent of emissions, respectively).1 is view suggests that
these three sectors are the most important to control in order to reduce overall
emissions and address climate change.
Products do not play an obvious role in this picture. Most products do not
emit greenhouse gas directly. e notable exceptions are appliances that run
on natural gas and paper products, which emit methane as they decompose
in landfi lls, but neither of these comprises a large share of total greenhouse
gas emissions. On the other hand, if we view the impacts of products more
completely, across the life cycle of extracting raw materials, processing,
manufacturing, transporting, using, and disposing of products, a diff erent
picture emerges.
e U.S. EPA recently released a report, “Opportunities to Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management
Practices.”2 Instead of sectors, this report allocates U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions to “systems” (see Figure 1). According to the report, “each system
represents and comprises multiple parts of the economy that work together
to fulfi ll a particular need.” is systems view is “helpful for framing
opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through prevention-oriented
mitigation strategies that act across an entire system.”
What the report calls “prevention-oriented mitigation strategies” include
many of the strategies that can reduce the impact of products, like green
design, waste prevention, and recycling. EPA’s systems view is useful, then, for
understanding the impacts of products and means of reducing those impacts.
Considering only
emissions that are
released within
U.S. borders,
the total share of
U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions
associated with
products and
packaging is
37 percent.
Page 3
e “Provision of Goods” system in Figure 1 is similar to what we consider
the impact of products and packaging in the full life cycle sense, except for the
use phase of the life cycle. It includes emissions from extracting raw materials,
processing materials, manufacturing, transporting, and disposing of non-food
goods, and accounts for 29 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. e
goods in this system include all non-food products, all packaging (including
for food), vehicles, and materials for buildings and construction (except for
heavy infrastructure).
Emissions associated with vehicle manufacturing and building construction
(including manufacturing of furnaces, hot water heaters, and air conditioners)
cannot be separated from other products in the EPA data, so the Provision of
Goods slice represents products in a very broad sense.
e use phases of products are split among various other slices in Figure 1.
Aside from vehicles and buildings, the use phases of most products are
included under “Use of Appliances and Devices.” is system accounts for
9 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Combining Use of Appliances
and Devices with Provision of Goods, that is, combining the use phase with
other phases of the product life cycle, gives us one picture of the impact of
products and packaging. Considering only emissions that are released within
U.S. borders, the total share of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions associated with
products and packaging is 37 percent.
Based on EPA’s formulation, the products represented in Use of Appliances
and Devices represents a narrower set of products than what is represented
in Provision of Goods. Depending on how broadly one defi nes products, the
Products & Packaging
37%
Use* Provision of Goods
29%
Provision
of Food
13% Building HVAC
and Lighting
25%
*Use of Appliances
and Devices
8%
Local Passenger
Transport
15%
Non-Local Passenger
Transport
9%
Infra-
structure
1%
Figure 1: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Systems-based view.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2009.
(Provision of Goods: all consumer goods including building components and vehicles.)
Page 4
combined estimate for the GHG impact of products either under-counts the
impact of the use phase (because it excludes the use phase of air conditioners
and cars, for instance), or an overestimate of the impact of the the production
phases (because it includes those goods). Although 37 percent should not
be considered a precise fi gure, we feel it is the best picture of the impacts of
products and packaging available from the EPA data.
Products and packaging account for an even
larger share of emissions when products imported
for consumption in the U.S. are included.
e EPA report referenced above includes only direct emissions in the U. S.
However, a great deal of the products consumed here are produced elsewhere.
e environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, from
producing those products originate in other countries. Emissions that occur
elsewhere but are driven by local consumption are referred to as “indirect”
emissions. In the context of U.S. national greenhouse gas impacts, the indirect
emissions are international.
Many approaches for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, for example a cap-
and-trade system or renewable electricity standard, act on direct emissions.
Implementing these approaches requires knowing where the emissions are
physically released. In these cases, only domestic emissions can be addressed.
e sectors view is useful in these cases because it tells you the share of
emissions coming from a particular type of facility, like electric power plants.
Other approaches reduce emissions by changing the ways we produce,
consume, and dispose of products and packaging. Manufacturers may
improve their design or production process to reduce greenhouse gas impacts.
Recycling systems can be improved. Or consumers may choose to buy more
sustainable products. All of these changes can reduce emissions in other
countries. In these cases, it makes sense to consider the life cycle emissions
of products, including international emissions. EPA’s report, though it goes a
long way to connecting these approaches to climate change by presenting the
systems view, does not attempt to quantify the international impacts.
In the paper “Embodied environmental emissions in U.S. international trade,
1997-2004,” Weber and Matthews estimate that the carbon dioxide emissions
from producing goods imported and consumed in the U.S. were equivalent to
13-30 percent of U.S. direct emissions in 2004.3 Using output from the
same model of emissions associated with international trade used in that
paper,4 we can break out the emissions associated with imported goods into
the various systems in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows a version of the systems
When one
includes
emissions from
producing goods
imported into and
consumed in the
U.S., products and
packaging account
for 44 percent of
greenhouse gas
emissions.
Page 5
allocation of greenhouse gas that accounts for international trade. We can call
this a consumption-based accounting of U.S. emissions, because it represents
emissions from goods and services used and consumed in the U.S. (emissions
from producing goods domestically that are consumed in other countries are
subtracted).
From the consumption perspective, the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions pie is
12 percent bigger than the direct emission perspective in Figure 1. Also,
products make up a larger share of this larger total. When one includes
emissions from producing goods imported into and consumed in the U.S.,
products and packaging account for 44 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.
Previous research on household carbon
footprints shows similar results.
e EPA report allocates greenhouse gas emissions at a national level.
A similar accounting can be done at the state, local, or household level.
Another recent study by Weber and Matthews assesses household carbon
footprints using surveys of consumer expenditures.5 Using data from that
study,6 we can show the shares of greenhouse gas emissions of various
categories of consumption for the average U.S. household (see Table 1).
By examining the components of each of Weber’s and Matthews’ consumption
categories, we determined which categories best represent products and
packaging. Grouping those categories together, we fi nd that products and
services account for 23 percent of the household carbon footprint when only
U.S. direct emissions are considered.
Figure 2: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Systems-based view
including emissions embodied in international trade.
(Provision of Goods: all consumer goods including building components and vehicles.)
Products & Packaging
44%
Use*
Provision
of Food
12% Building HVAC
and Lighting
21%
Provision of Goods
37%
*Use of Appliances
and Devices
7%
Local Passenger
Transport
13%
Non-Local Passenger
Transport
9%
Infra-
structure
1%
Page 6
e value is not directly comparable to EPA’s Provision of Goods slice
discussed above for several reasons. e goods in EPA’s slice include some
products that are accounted for elsewhere in the household consumption
categories, such as building materials and vehicles. e 23 percent value
does not include energy used by appliances and devices, which is not
separated from other building energy use in the household categories. Finally,
the household consumption analysis does not account for government
spending, which would shift the category shares. Overall, the systems view
discussed above is most useful for framing broad government polices. e
household view is most useful for consumers to understand and reduce their
own footprints and for framing policies aimed at assisting or infl uencing
consumers. However, given the very diff erent perspectives (household versus
national), diff erences in category defi nitions, and independent methodologies,
the household carbon footprint study illustrates a similar point to the EPA
report: products account for a large share of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Weber and Matthews also fi nd that by adding the international impacts
of imports, the average household’s carbon footprint increases by 54 percent,
from 30 to 46 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. e share associated
with products and services increases to 33 percent, as shown in Table 1. Most
of the 46 tons per year of emissions associated with the average household are
indirect emissions. Only 8 tons of carbon dioxide per year are direct emissions,
produced primarily by driving and home heating. A household “imports,” in a
sense, most of the goods and services that result in greenhouse gas emissions.
Table 1: Average U.S. household carbon footprint by consumption
category, including international emissions embodied in im-
ported goods. Categories that best represent products and packag-
ing are grouped to show total impact. Source: Weber and Matthews,
2008 and Weber, 2009.
Total [tons CO2/
Consumption Category household] % Total
Food/Beverages 6.7 15%
Transportation 6.5 14%
Housing and Utilities 12.9 28%
Health 4.6 10%
Furnishings, Equipment, Maintenance 2.1 5%
Recreation and Culture 1.7 4%
Miscellaneous Goods/Services 7.6 17%
Clothing/Footwear 2.5 5%
Communications 0.7 1%
Education 0.6 1%
Total 45.9 100%
Products & Services Combined 33%
By adding the
international
impacts of
imports ...
the share
associated with
products and
services increases
to 33 percent.
Page 7
States and localities can control their
greenhouse gas footprints by addressing
products and packaging.
Most states and localities import a high proportion of products relative
to what they produce. So, as with households, the diff erence between direct
emissions and consumption-based emissions can be pronounced. Consumption-
based emissions come with more uncertainty and are more complex to calculate
than direct emissions, which is part of why most offi cial greenhouse gas
inventories use only the direct approach. However, using consumption-based
accounting allows one to pursue many more options for reducing a greenhouse
gas footprint. A household using direct emissions accounting, for example, can
only reduce its carbon footprint by driving less and turning the heat down, or
perhaps buying a more effi cient car or furnace. A household using consumption-
based accounting could reduce its footprint by choosing lower-impact products,
by reusing devices rather than buying new ones, by recycling, and many other
strategies, in addition to driving less and turning down the thermostat.
When developing a state or local greenhouse gas inventory, a full
consumption-based accounting may not be immediately possible due to data
or analytical limitations. Eff orts to develop consumption-based accounting
systems for communities are underway in Oregon and elsewhere. However,
one can use a hybrid approach that doesn’t involve the complexity and data
demand of accounting for all types of goods consumed locally, but that
does include some consumption categories that can be infl uenced to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.7 For example, using a hybrid approach the township
of Maplewood, New Jersey, found that “solid waste”, a category that includes
the impacts from only a portion of all products, accounts for 9 percent of the
community’s total emissions and 13 percent of emissions that can be addressed
locally.8 e City of Denver found that “embodied energy in materials,” a
category that covers only a portion of impacts from products and packaging,
accounts for 10 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions.9
If accounting for emissions associated with products, a state or locality can
use strategies like recycling and waste prevention to meet greenhouse gas
reduction targets. e State of Connecticut, for example, identifi ed recycling
and waste prevention as one of its top ten strategies to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.10 e City of Ft. Collins, Colorado, estimates that it will reach
17 percent of its greenhouse gas reduction goals in 2020 through recycling.11
Page 8
State, local, and federal governments should
adopt policies to reduce the greenhouse gas
impact of products and packaging.
Products and packaging account for a substantial share of greenhouse gas
emissions. In order to make the deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
that are necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change, like the 83 percent
reduction by 2050 that President Obama has called for,12 emissions associated
with products will clearly have to be reduced. Of the emissions under state
and local control, those associated with products and packaging provide an
opportunity for substantial and low-cost reductions. Most states and localities
do not have infl uence over many sources of emissions in a sectors framework.
ey can not set their own regulations on industry, power plants, or vehicles.
However, from a consumption standpoint, states and localities infl uence a
much larger share of emissions.
e EPA report “Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
through Materials and Land Management Practice” calculates the greenhouse
gas reduction potential of a variety of scenarios in waste prevention, recycling,
and waste management. It fi nds that substantial greenhouse gas reductions are
possible from these strategies. States and localities can capture the benefi ts in
a variety of proven ways. For example, instituting Pay-As-You- row pricing
for refuse reduces waste and encourages recycling. Improvements in recycling
programs and infrastructure can also be a cost-eff ective way to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Many additional opportunities for reducing emissions can best be realized
by improving product design and production. For the vast majority of
products and materials that end up in a landfi ll, most of the environmental
impacts occur during the production phase. Similarly, most of the benefi ts
from reusing or recycling a product come from avoiding the extraction of raw
materials and production of a new product to replace it.13 Because product
design infl uences all the stages of the product life cycle, improving product
design has the most potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated
with products. Designs which improve product durability, reusability,
recyclability, and materials effi ciency all can reduce impacts from the
production, transport, and disposal of products and packaging while reducing
waste management burdens on local governments.
States and localities can encourage this type of design with Extended
Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies.14 EPR makes producers responsible
for their products at end of life. For example, with a product take-back
mandate, manufacturers and/or retailers are required to take back products
after use. e mandate is typically coupled with a recycling rate target that
producers must meet. Another approach is to hold producers fi nancially
responsible for their products through producer-managed advanced recycling
Because product
design infl uences
all the stages of the
product life cycle,
improving product
design has the
most potential to
reduce greenhouse
gas emissions
associated with
products.
Page 9
fees. e fee is charged according to product sales to cover the cost of
recycling, and may in turn be used to subsidize recycling over disposal.
Many states, communities, and countries have successfully implemented
EPR policies for a variety of product types. EPR programs are well-known to
reduce waste associated with consumer products and documented increases in
recycling have occurred in all countries which have implemented it.15
To learn more about EPR and other ways to reduce impacts from products
and packaging, visit the Product Policy Institute at www.productpolicy.org.
Conclusions
is paper discusses two major fi ndings. e fi rst, supported by the new
EPA report, “Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions though
Materials and Land Management Practices,” is that products and packaging
are associated with a large share of greenhouse gas emissions. A life cycle or
systems perspective is needed to understand this impact. e second fi nding,
illustrated by extending the EPA analysis here and supported by previous
research by Weber and Matthews, is that the full impact of products can
only be understood using consumption-based accounting. e greenhouse
gas emissions associated with products are greater when the global impact of
making products is taken into account.
Both the systems and consumption-based perspectives are more complex
and entail greater uncertainty than the conventional sectors and direct-
emissions paradigms. However, both provide more opportunities to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions at low cost and with co-benefi ts. State and local
governments can especially benefi t from systems thinking and consumption-
based accounting. is paper suggests improved recycling practices and
Extended Producer Responsibility policies among the many tools available to
reduce emissions associated with products.
References
1 U.S. EPA. 2008. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
2 U.S. EPA. 2009. Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land
Management Practices. http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/ghg_land_and_materials_management.pdf
3 Weber, Christopher L., and Matthews, H. Scott. 2007. “Embodied environmental emissions in U.S.
International Trade, 1997-2004.” Environmental Science and Technology. 41: 4875—4881.
4 Weber, Christopher L. 2009. Personal communication. July.
5 Weber, Christopher L., and Matthews, H. Scott. 2008. “Quantifying the global and distributional
aspects of American household carbon footprint.” Ecological Economics. 66: 379—391.
6 Weber, Christopher L. 2009. Personal communication. July.
7 Ramaswami, Anu, Hillman, Tim, Janson, Bruce, Reiner, Mark, and omas, Greg. 2008. “A
demand-centered, hybrid life-cycle methodology for city-scale greenhouse gas inventories.”
Environmental Science and Technology. Vol. 42, No. 17, pp. 6455—6461.
8 McCoy, Bob. 2009. “Waste Reduction and Recycling: A Key Element of a Community Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Action Plan.” Northeast Forum on Climate-Waste Connections (webinar).
Environmental Protection Agency. June 4.
States and
localities can
encourage this
type of design
with Extended
Producer
Responsibility
(EPR) policies.
Page 10
About PPI
Product Policy Institute is a North American non-partisan, non-profi t research,
communication, and educational organization. It promotes policies that advance
sustainable production, consumption, and good governance. Founded in 2003,
PPI works with communities and their local governments to advocate for
public policies that protect public health and safety and address climate change
by encouraging waste prevention and clean production. PPI has helped local
governments establish Product Stewardship Councils in California, New York,
Vermont, and Texas, and is currently working in other states.
© August 2009, Product Policy Institute. All rights reserved.
Product
Policy
Institute
PO Box 48433
Athens, GA 30604 USA
+1-706-613-0710
info@productpolicy.org
www.productpolicy.org
9 Mayor’s Greenprint Denver Advisory Council. 2007. City of Denver Climate Action Plan.
Available at: http://www.greenprintdenver.org/about/climate-action-plan-reports/
10 Governor’s Steering Committee on Climate Change. 2005. Connecticut Climate Change Action
Plan. Available at: http://ctclimatechange.com/StateActionPlan.html
11 City of Ft. Collins. 2008. Fort Collins Climate Action Plan. Available at: http://www.fcgov.com/
climateprotection/
12 U.S. Climate Action Partnership. 2009. “Issue Overview: Comparison of Emissions Targets.”
Available at: http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/USCAP-Issue-Brief-Target-Comparison.pdf
13 U.S. EPA. 2006. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Lifecycle Assessment
of Emissions and Sinks. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/
SWMGHGreport.html
14 Tojo, N., Lindhqvist, T. and Dalhammar, C. 2006. “Extended producer responsibility as a driver for
product chain improvements.” Contribution in Scheer, D. and F. Rubik. Governance of Integrated
Product Policy: In Search of Sustainable Production and Consumption. Greenleaf Publishing.
15 Walls, Margaret.2006. “Extended Producer Responsibility and Product Design.” Resources for the
Future. March.
Data for Figure 1:
U.S. GHG Emissions by System MMTCO2E % Total
Provision of Goods 2040 29.2%
Use of Appliances and Devices 581 8.3%
Provision of Food 895 12.8%
Local Passenger Transport 1019 14.6%
Infrastructure 72 1.0%
Building HVAC and Lighting 1719 24.6%
Non-Local Passenger Transport 666 9.5%
Total 6992 100%
Products & Packaging Combined 37.5%
Data for Figure 2:
U.S. GHG Emissions by System Embodied
including Emissions Embodied Domestic In Trade Net
in International Trade [MMTCO2E] [MMTCO2E] [MMTCO2E] % Total
Provision of Goods 2040 849 2889 36.9%
Use of Appliances and Devices 581 -20 561 7.2%
Provision of Food 895 11 906 11.6%
Local Passenger Transport 1019 16 1035 13.2%
Infrastructure 72 0 72 0.9%
Building HVAC and Lighting 1719 -61 1658 21.2%
Non-Local Passenger Transport 666 42 708 9.0%
Total 6992 838 7830 100%
Products & Packaging Combined 44.1%