Environmental impacts of natural resource use

Hellweg, Stefanie; Pfister, Stephan; Cabernard, Livia; Droz-Georget, Helen; Froemelt, Andreas; Haupt, M.; Mehr, Jonas; Oberschelp, Christopher; Piccoli, Emile; Sonderegger, Thomas; Sudheshwar, A.; Walker, Christie; Wang, Zhanyun

doi:10.18356/64c3b469-en

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, we rely on the International Resource Panel (IRP) definition, where material resources include metals, non-metallic minerals, biomass and fossil resources that are processed into materials (steel, cement, textiles, plastics, paper, etc), food products, and fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc) [1]. In a recent report, the IRP has shown that the extraction and processing of material resources into ready-tobe used materials, food products, and fuels, summarized as material production in this study, causes about half of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, onethird of global particulate matter (PM) health impacts and more than 90% of global water stress and landuse related biodiversity loss [9,10]. With the global material demand expected to more than double by 2050 [11,12], strategies for a more sustainable production and consumption are crucial to comply with the Paris Agreement and many Sustainable Development Goals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Improved sustainability assessment of the G20’s supply chains of materials, fuels, and food

Cabernard

Pfister

Hellweg

2022

Environ. Res. Lett.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transparency in global value chains of materials, fuels, and food is critical for the implementation of sustainability policies. Such policies should be led by the G20, who represent more than 80% of global material, fuel, and food consumption. Multi-regional input-output (MRIO) analysis plays an important role for consumption-based assessment, including supply chains and their environmental impacts. However, previous accounting schemes were unable to fully assess the impacts of materials, fuels, and food. To close this gap, we provide an improved method to map key aspects of sustainability along value chains of materials, fuels, and food. The results show that the rise in global coal-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions between 1995 and 2015 was driven by the G20’s metals and construction materials industry. In 2015, the G20 accounted for 96% of global coal-related GHG emissions, of which almost half was from the extraction and processing of metals and construction materials in China and India. Major drivers include China’s rising infrastructure and exports of metals embodied in machinery, transport and electronics consumed by other G20 members. In 2015, the vast majority (70–95%) of the GHG emissions of metals consumed by the EU, USA, Canada, Australia, and other G20 members were emitted abroad, mostly in China. In contrast, hotspots in the impact displacement of water stress, land-use related biodiversity loss, and low-paid workforce involve the G20’s food imports from non-G20 members. Particularly high-income members have contributed to the G20’s rising environmental footprints by their increasing demand for materials, food and fuels extracted and processed in lower-income regions with less strict environmental policies, higher water stress and more biodiversity loss. Our results underline the G20’s importance of switching to renewable energy, substituting high-impact materials, improving supply chains, and using site-specific competitive advantages to reduce impacts on water and ecosystems.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Improved sustainability assessment of the G20’s supply chains of materials, fuels, and food

Cabernard

Pfister

Hellweg

2022

Environ. Res. Lett.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the rapid growth in China’s steel production meant a shift to the newest production technology. A study estimated that such a shift to the most energy efficient technologies could reduce the global energy demand for steel by 10% . The increasing concentration of global steel production in China would also explain why the emission intensity is an upward driver for all regions (Figure b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The production of steel in electric arc furnaces is an example of a secondary metal production technology that can be powered by renewable energy sources and therefore emits significantly less GHG emissions. It has been estimated that a shift to secondary steel and aluminum could reduce the emissions by 10–38 and 3.5–20%, respectively . However, the scope of this paper is only limited to primary metals due to data limitations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…None of these papers study the drivers of climate change impact specifically associated with metal use on a regional and global level. This study fills that gap by further progressing on the findings of recent studies that have analyzed the supply chain impacts in material production and consumption. − , It does so in two ways. First, it provides a detailed IDA of emissions over time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Some international organizations, governments, and scenario models argue or assume that decoupling between increasing affluency and GHG emissions is possible through the concept of green growth. − On the other hand, some scientists have been critical of the possibility of a green growth pathway. − It is however uncertain if such decoupling in a green growth scenario is universally feasible, or if it is only the case for specific metals and their GHG emissions . These emissions can be reduced through both technological developments and environmental policies. , Since the early 1990s, efforts have been made in mitigating GHG emissions through international agreements. , Studies have shown that emissions in the upstream supply chain of metals have increased significantly in the last two decades especially due to the rapid expansion of metal refining in China, which relies heavily on coal. − However, it is not clear how different technological and socioeconomic drivers have impacted these emissions and what role they have played in a potential decoupling.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Decomposition Analysis of the Carbon Footprint of Primary Metals

Rasul

Hertwich

2023

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates how different technological and socioeconomic drivers have impacted the carbon footprint of primary metals. It analyzes the historical evidence from 1995 to 2018 using new metal production, energy use, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission extensions made for the multiregional input–output model EXIOBASE. A combination of established input–output methods (index decomposition analysis, hypothetical extraction method, and footprint analysis) is used to dissect the drivers of the change in the upstream emissions occurring due to the production of metals demanded by other (downstream) economic activities. On a global level, GHG emissions from metal production have increased at a similar pace as the GDP but have decreased in high-income countries in the most recent 6 year period studied. This absolute decoupling in industrialized countries is mainly driven by reduced metal consumption intensity and improved energy efficiency. However, in emerging economies increasing metal consumption intensity and affluency have driven up emissions, more than offsetting any reductions due to improved energy efficiency.

show abstract