Quantifying the global and distributional aspects of American household carbon footprint

By C. Weber, H. Matthews. 2008

565 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Environmental Engineering, Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ab3b6aa1ef4d656fa7bf506b5c0cd3fa1bf9035a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. G. P. Peters
2. T. Wiedmann
3. Manfred Lenzen
4. Richard Wood
5. Edgar G. Hertwich
6. Klaus Hubacek
7. J. Barrett
8. J. Minx

In Environmental Engineering

1. T. Wiedmann
2. G. P. Peters
3. Manfred Lenzen
4. Richard Wood
5. Edgar G. Hertwich
6. Klaus Hubacek
7. J. Barrett
8. D. Guan

In Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

1. T. Wiedmann
2. G. P. Peters
3. Manfred Lenzen
4. Edgar G. Hertwich
5. Richard Wood
6. Klaus Hubacek
7. J. Minx
8. J. Barrett

Citations in the corpus

• Income Inequality and Carbon Emissions in the United States: A State-level Analysis, 1997–2012 (2017, background): “Weber and Matthews (2008) alsofind large differences by income,with the highest expenditure households emitting 10 times that of the lowest (see also Boyce and Riddle, 2009; Kunke and Kammen, 2011).”
• A review of recent multi-region input–output models used for consumption-based emission and resource accounting (2009, background): “For the imported portion of the footprint, Weber and Matthews (2008b) show uncertainty bounds representing a rest-of-world group modelled with German technology with PPP exchange rates (lower) and Chinese technology with MER exchange rates (upper) (see also the section on uncertainty further below).”
• Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for U.S. households with input–output analysis Part 1: Theoretical framework (2013, background): “In part two, we apply the methods from part one in a numerical simulation of the indirect rebound effect using a U.S. economic input – output life-cycle assessment model for the year 2002 to estimate embodied energy and emissions from spending (Hendrickson et al., 2006; www.eiolca.net), the 2004 Con”
• INPUT–OUTPUT ANALYSIS AND CARBON FOOTPRINTING: AN OVERVIEW OF APPLICATIONS (2009, unknown): “When animal farming is linked to deforestation, the carbon footprint has been reported to be at least 30–40% higher (Steinfeld et al., 2006; Weber and Matthews, 2008).”
• Why achieving the Paris Agreement requires reduced overall consumption and production (2018, background): “Decades of research on sustainable consumption and production systems confirm that income levels are the primary predictors of material and energy use and GHG emissions (Ayres and Voudouris 2014; Hubacek et al. 2017; Weber and Matthews 2008).”
• Who bears the brunt? Distributional effects of climate change mitigation policies (2011, background): “So far, relatively few studies use multivariate regression analysis to examine the relative impact of different socio-economic factors (Baiocchi et al., 2010; Brand and Preston, 2010; DEFRA, 2008a; Lenzen et al., 2006; Weber and Matthews, 2008).”
• Income inequality and carbon consumption: Evidence from Environmental Engel curves (2019, background): “That literature has thus far focused on understanding the drivers of emissions as contained in household consumption (Weber and Matthews, 2008; Buechs and Schnepf, 2013) and quantifying the “rebound effect” (Thomas and Azevedo, 2013; Chitnis et al.”
• Mapping the carbon footprint of EU regions (2017, background): “Prior literature has suggested that increases in household size reduce emissions per capita and increase eco-efficiency, most pronounced in the housing domain (Tukker et al 2010, Weber and Matthews 2008, Wilson and Boehland 2005).”