IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v183y2023ics0301421523004366.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards BitCO2, an individual consumption-based carbon emission reduction mechanism

Author

Listed:
  • Golinucci, Nicolò
  • Tonini, Francesco
  • Rocco, Matteo Vincenzo
  • Colombo, Emanuela

Abstract

Human activities, such as burning fossil fuels for electricity generation, heating, and transport, are the primary drivers of a large amount of greenhouse gases emission. The individual consumers, able to influence the supply-chains behind the commodities their chose to fulfil their needs is the driver behind production and, consequently, its impacts. Thus, the active and willing participation of citizens in combatting climate change may be pivotal to address this issue. The present work is aimed at presenting and modelling a novel market-based carbon emission reduction mechanism, called BitCO2, designed to incentivize individual consumption choices toward lower carbon footprints. This mechanism is tested for the Italian private transportation sector thanks to an ad hoc developed System Dynamics model. The Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) adoption, if compared with the Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle (ICEV) one, cause less CO2 emissions per km travelled. After a certain number of travelled km, a BitCO2 token is assigned to BEV owners for each ton of avoided CO2. This token can be exchanged in a dedicated market and used to get a discount on insurance services. Assuming a Social Cost of Carbon of 9.22 [2.13–22.3] €/tonCO2eq, model results show that the BitCO2 mechanism would allow for a cumulated CO2 emission reduction of 973 [68.9–5’230] ktonCO2eq over 20 years of operation with a peak of 39.3 [5.34–189] thousand additional BEV registration per year.

Suggested Citation

  • Golinucci, Nicolò & Tonini, Francesco & Rocco, Matteo Vincenzo & Colombo, Emanuela, 2023. "Towards BitCO2, an individual consumption-based carbon emission reduction mechanism," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:183:y:2023:i:c:s0301421523004366
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113851
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421523004366
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113851?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jenkins, Jesse D., 2014. "Political economy constraints on carbon pricing policies: What are the implications for economic efficiency, environmental efficacy, and climate policy design?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 467-477.
    2. Erik Haites, 2018. "Carbon taxes and greenhouse gas emissions trading systems: what have we learned?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(8), pages 955-966, September.
    3. Mark Sommer & Kurt Kratena, 2020. "Consumption and production-based CO2 pricing policies: macroeconomic trade-offs and carbon leakage," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1), pages 29-57, January.
    4. Colgan, Jeff D. & Green, Jessica F. & Hale, Thomas N., 2021. "Asset Revaluation and the Existential Politics of Climate Change," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 75(2), pages 586-610, April.
    5. Michael Jakob & Jan Christoph Steckel & Ottmar Edenhofer, 2014. "Consumption- Versus Production-Based Emission Policies," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 297-318, October.
    6. Arnold Tukker & Hector Pollitt & Maurits Henkemans, 2020. "Consumption-based carbon accounting: sense and sensibility," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(S1), pages 1-13, April.
    7. Maxime Agez & Richard Wood & Manuele Margni & Anders H. Strømman & Réjean Samson & Guillaume Majeau‐Bettez, 2020. "Hybridization of complete PLCA and MRIO databases for a comprehensive product system coverage," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(4), pages 774-790, August.
    8. Breetz, Hanna & Mildenberger, Matto & Stokes, Leah, 2018. "The political logics of clean energy transitions," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 492-522, December.
    9. Stavros Afionis & Marco Sakai & Kate Scott & John Barrett & Andy Gouldson, 2017. "Consumption‐based carbon accounting: does it have a future?," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), January.
    10. Pauliuk, Stefan & Hertwich, Edgar G., 2015. "Socioeconomic metabolism as paradigm for studying the biophysical basis of human societies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 83-93.
    11. Carl-Johan H. Södersten & Manfred Lenzen, 2020. "A supply-use approach to capital endogenization in input–output analysis," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(4), pages 451-475, October.
    12. Sangwon Suh & Bo Weidema & Jannick Hoejrup Schmidt & Reinout Heijungs, 2010. "Generalized Make and Use Framework for Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 14(2), pages 335-353, March.
    13. Rocco, Matteo V. & Golinucci, Nicolò & Ronco, Stefano M. & Colombo, Emanuela, 2020. "Fighting carbon leakage through consumption-based carbon emissions policies: Empirical analysis based on the World Trade Model with Bilateral Trades," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 274(C).
    14. Mary O'Mahony & Marcel P. Timmer, 2009. "Output, Input and Productivity Measures at the Industry Level: The EU KLEMS Database," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(538), pages 374-403, June.
    15. Vanessa Bach & Annekatrin Lehmann & Marcel Görmer & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2018. "Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Pilot Phase—Comparability over Flexibility?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-18, August.
    16. Bjelle, Eivind Lekve & Wiebe, Kirsten S. & Többen, Johannes & Tisserant, Alexandre & Ivanova, Diana & Vita, Gibran & Wood, Richard, 2021. "Future changes in consumption: The income effect on greenhouse gas emissions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    17. Shepherd, Simon & Bonsall, Peter & Harrison, Gillian, 2012. "Factors affecting future demand for electric vehicles: A model based study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 62-74.
    18. Stefan Pauliuk & Guillaume Majeau-Bettez & Christopher L. Mutel & Bernhard Steubing & Konstantin Stadler, 2015. "Lifting Industrial Ecology Modeling to a New Level of Quality and Transparency: A Call for More Transparent Publications and a Collaborative Open Source Software Framework," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 19(6), pages 937-949, December.
    19. Khaqqi, Khamila Nurul & Sikorski, Janusz J. & Hadinoto, Kunn & Kraft, Markus, 2018. "Incorporating seller/buyer reputation-based system in blockchain-enabled emission trading application," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 8-19.
    20. Joseph Palazzo & Roland Geyer & Sangwon Suh, 2020. "A review of methods for characterizing the environmental consequences of actions in life cycle assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(4), pages 815-829, August.
    21. Azarova, Valeriya & Mier, Mathias, 2021. "Market Stability Reserve under exogenous shock: The case of COVID-19 pandemic," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 283(C).
    22. Bailu Fu & Zhan Shu & Xiaogang Liu, 2018. "Blockchain Enhanced Emission Trading Framework in Fashion Apparel Manufacturing Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-19, April.
    23. Stefan Pauliuk & Guillaume Majeau-Bettez & Daniel B. Müller, 2015. "A General System Structure and Accounting Framework for Socioeconomic Metabolism," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 19(5), pages 728-741, October.
    24. BenDor, Todd & Ford, Andrew, 2006. "Simulating a combination of feebates and scrappage incentives to reduce automobile emissions," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 1197-1214.
    25. Erik Dietzenbacher & Ignacio Cazcarro & Iñaki Arto, 2020. "Towards a more effective climate policy on international trade," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    26. Diana Ivanova & Konstantin Stadler & Kjartan Steen-Olsen & Richard Wood & Gibran Vita & Arnold Tukker & Edgar G. Hertwich, 2016. "Environmental Impact Assessment of Household Consumption," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 20(3), pages 526-536, June.
    27. Faye Duchin, 2017. "Resources for Sustainable Economic Development: A Framework for Evaluating Infrastructure System Alternatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-15, November.
    28. Bernhard Steubing & Arjan de Koning & Stefano Merciai & Arnold Tukker, 2022. "How do carbon footprints from LCA and EEIOA databases compare? A comparison of ecoinvent and EXIOBASE," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(4), pages 1406-1422, August.
    29. Gerardo Zarazua de Rubens & Lance Noel & Benjamin K. Sovacool, 2018. "Dismissive and deceptive car dealerships create barriers to electric vehicle adoption at the point of sale," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 3(6), pages 501-507, June.
    30. Robert S. Pindyck, 2017. "Coase Lecture—Taxes, Targets and the Social Cost of Carbon," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 84(335), pages 345-364, July.
    31. Katharine Ricke & Laurent Drouet & Ken Caldeira & Massimo Tavoni, 2018. "Country-level social cost of carbon," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(10), pages 895-900, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rocco, Matteo V. & Golinucci, Nicolò & Ronco, Stefano M. & Colombo, Emanuela, 2020. "Fighting carbon leakage through consumption-based carbon emissions policies: Empirical analysis based on the World Trade Model with Bilateral Trades," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 274(C).
    2. Jing Meng & Jingwen Huo & Zengkai Zhang & Yu Liu & Zhifu Mi & Dabo Guan & Kuishuang Feng, 2023. "The narrowing gap in developed and developing country emission intensities reduces global trade’s carbon leakage," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-10, December.
    3. Wu, Ran & Ma, Tao & Schröder, Enno, 2022. "The contribution of trade to production-Based carbon dioxide emissions," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 391-406.
    4. Heun, Matthew Kuperus & Owen, Anne & Brockway, Paul E., 2018. "A physical supply-use table framework for energy analysis on the energy conversion chain," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C), pages 1134-1162.
    5. Hanspeter Wieland & Stefan Giljum & Nina Eisenmenger & Dominik Wiedenhofer & Martin Bruckner & Anke Schaffartzik & Anne Owen, 2020. "Supply versus use designs of environmental extensions in input–output analysis: Conceptual and empirical implications for the case of energy," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(3), pages 548-563, June.
    6. Rahel Mandaroux & Chuanwen Dong & Guodong Li, 2021. "A European Emissions Trading System Powered by Distributed Ledger Technology: An Evaluation Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, February.
    7. Su, Dan & Zhang, Lijun & Peng, Hua & Saeidi, Parvaneh & Tirkolaee, Erfan Babaee, 2023. "Technical challenges of blockchain technology for sustainable manufacturing paradigm in Industry 4.0 era using a fuzzy decision support system," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    8. Pottier, Antonin, 2022. "Expenditure elasticity and income elasticity of GHG emissions: A survey of literature on household carbon footprint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    9. Richard S.J. Tol, 2021. "Estimates of the social cost of carbon have not changed over time," Working Paper Series 0821, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    10. Duarte, Rosa & Miranda-Buetas, Sara & Sarasa, Cristina, 2021. "Household consumption patterns and income inequality in EU countries: Scenario analysis for a fair transition towards low-carbon economies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    11. Max Rehberger & Michael Hiete, 2020. "Allocation of Environmental Impacts in Circular and Cascade Use of Resources—Incentive-Driven Allocation as a Prerequisite for Cascade Persistence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-28, May.
    12. Sadawi, Alia Al & Madani, Batool & Saboor, Sara & Ndiaye, Malick & Abu-Lebdeh, Ghassan, 2021. "A comprehensive hierarchical blockchain system for carbon emission trading utilizing blockchain of things and smart contract," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    13. Tol, Richard S.J., 2019. "A social cost of carbon for (almost) every country," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 555-566.
    14. Banacloche, Santacruz & Cadarso, Maria Angeles & Monsalve, Fabio & Lechon, Yolanda, 2020. "Assessment of the sustainability of Mexico green investments in the road to Paris," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    15. Silvia H. Bonilla & Helton R. O. Silva & Marcia Terra da Silva & Rodrigo Franco Gonçalves & José B. Sacomano, 2018. "Industry 4.0 and Sustainability Implications: A Scenario-Based Analysis of the Impacts and Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-24, October.
    16. Xu, Xueliu & Wang, Qian & Ran, Chenyang & Mu, Mingjie, 2021. "Is burden responsibility more effective? A value-added method for tracing worldwide carbon emissions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    17. Bernhard Steubing & Arjan de Koning & Stefano Merciai & Arnold Tukker, 2022. "How do carbon footprints from LCA and EEIOA databases compare? A comparison of ecoinvent and EXIOBASE," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(4), pages 1406-1422, August.
    18. Wang, Tianyang & Umar, Muhammad & Li, Menggang & Shan, Shan, 2023. "Green finance and clean taxes are the ways to curb carbon emissions: An OECD experience," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    19. Tao, Hu & Zhuang, Shan & Xue, Rui & Cao, Wei & Tian, Jinfang & Shan, Yuli, 2022. "Environmental Finance: An Interdisciplinary Review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    20. Karsten Kieckhäfer & Thomas Volling & Thomas Stefan Spengler, 2014. "A Hybrid Simulation Approach for Estimating the Market Share Evolution of Electric Vehicles," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(4), pages 651-670, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:183:y:2023:i:c:s0301421523004366. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.