IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i14p6629-d1705925.html

An Analysis of the Compatibility Between Popular Carbon Footprint Calculators and the Canadian National Inventory Report

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth Arif

    (School of Environmental Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
    Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Sudbury, ON P3E 2C6, Canada
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Anupama A. Sharan

    (School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Warren Mabee

    (School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
    Department of Geography and Planning, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada)

Abstract

Personal lifestyle choices contribute up to 75% of national emissions and yet the greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories included in the National Inventory Report (NIR) of Canada provide limited insight on these choices. Better insight can be found using carbon footprint calculators that estimate individual emissions; however, they vary in regard to their input parameters, output data, and calculation methods. This study assessed five calculators, which are popular with the public, or compatibility with the Canadian NIR. A quantitative scoring matrix was developed to assess the output depth, academic proficiency, and effectiveness of the calculators to inform lifestyle changes, alongside NIR alignment. The results showed that the calculator with the overall highest cumulative score across all the comparative criteria was the one offered by Carbon Footprint Ltd. The other calculators that scored highly include CoolClimate Calculator and Carbon Independent. The potential of the calculators in regard to informing low-carbon lifestyles can be improved through the incorporation of more depth in terms of capturing the purchase information of goods and services and providing detailed secondary information to users, including mitigation strategies and carbon offset options. The main driver of incompatibility between the calculator tools and the NIR was the different approaches taken to the emissions inventory, with the NIR using a territorial framework and the calculators being consumption driven. The outcomes of this study demonstrate a global need for the evolution of NIR structuring to increase its relatability with citizens and for the improved standardization of publicly available tools.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth Arif & Anupama A. Sharan & Warren Mabee, 2025. "An Analysis of the Compatibility Between Popular Carbon Footprint Calculators and the Canadian National Inventory Report," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-21, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:14:p:6629-:d:1705925
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/14/6629/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/14/6629/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mario Burgui-Burgui & Emilio Chuvieco, 2020. "Beyond Carbon Footprint Calculators. New Approaches for Linking Consumer Behaviour and Climate Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-14, August.
    2. Peters, Glen P., 2008. "From production-based to consumption-based national emission inventories," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 13-23, March.
    3. Emilio Chuvieco & Mario Burgui-Burgui & Anabel Orellano & Gonzalo Otón & Paloma Ruíz-Benito, 2021. "Links between Climate Change Knowledge, Perception and Action: Impacts on Personal Carbon Footprint," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-19, July.
    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. Florian Fizaine & Guillaume Le Borgne, 2025. "Climate knowledge matters: A causal analysis of knowledge and individual carbon emissions," Post-Print hal-05079084, HAL.
    2. Zhu, Bangzhu & Su, Bin & Li, Yingzhu & Ng, Tsan Sheng, 2020. "Embodied energy and intensity in China’s (normal and processing) exports and their driving forces, 2005-2015," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    3. Yan Li & Yigang Wei & Hanxiao Xu & Huanwen Liu & Julien Chevallier, 2023. "Carbon monoxide and multi‐pollutants flow between China and India: A multiregional input–output model," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(8), pages 2514-2537, August.
    4. 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).
    5. Piñero, Pablo & Heikkinen, Mari & Mäenpää, Ilmo & Pongrácz, Eva, 2015. "Sector aggregation bias in environmentally extended input output modeling of raw material flows in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 217-229.
    6. Pottier, Antonin & Combet, Emmanuel & Cayla, Jean-Michel & de Lauretis, Simona & Nadaud, Franck, "undated". "Who emits CO2 ? Landscape of ecological inequalities in France from a critical perspective," FEEM Working Papers 311053, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    7. Eivind Lekve Bjelle & Johannes Többen & Konstantin Stadler & Thomas Kastner & Michaela C. Theurl & Karl-Heinz Erb & Kjartan-Steen Olsen & Kirsten S. Wiebe & Richard Wood, 2020. "Adding country resolution to EXIOBASE: impacts on land use embodied in trade," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 9(1), pages 1-25, December.
    8. Marques, Alexandra & Rodrigues, João & Domingos, Tiago, 2013. "International trade and the geographical separation between income and enabled carbon emissions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 162-169.
    9. Fernández-Amador, Octavio & Francois, Joseph F. & Oberdabernig, Doris A. & Tomberger, Patrick, 2023. "Energy footprints and the international trade network: A new dataset. Is the European Union doing it better?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    10. Su, Bin & Ang, B.W., 2010. "Input-output analysis of CO2 emissions embodied in trade: The effects of spatial aggregation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 10-18, November.
    11. Rui Xie & Chao Gao & Guomei Zhao & Yu Liu & Shengcheng Xu, 2017. "Empirical Study of China’s Provincial Carbon Responsibility Sharing: Provincial Value Chain Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-16, April.
    12. Nelly Exbrayat & Stéphane Riou & Skerdilajda Zanaj, 2015. "Carbon tax, pollution and the spatial location of heterogeneous firms," Post-Print halshs-01211431, HAL.
    13. Li, Jia Shuo & Zhou, H.W. & Meng, Jing & Yang, Q. & Chen, B. & Zhang, Y.Y., 2018. "Carbon emissions and their drivers for a typical urban economy from multiple perspectives: A case analysis for Beijing city," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C), pages 1076-1086.
    14. Xiao, Hao & Sun, Ke-Juan & Bi, Hui-Min & Xue, Jin-Jun, 2019. "Changes in carbon intensity globally and in countries: Attribution and decomposition analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 235(C), pages 1492-1504.
    15. Will, Christian & Zimmermann, Florian & Ensslen, Axel & Fraunholz, Christoph & Jochem, Patrick & Keles, Dogan, 2024. "Can electric vehicle charging be carbon neutral? Uniting smart charging and renewables," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 371(C).
    16. Yu, Dejian & Xu, Chao, 2017. "Mapping research on carbon emissions trading: a co-citation analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1314-1322.
    17. Sun, Ya-Yen & Cadarso, Maria Angeles & Driml, Sally, 2020. "Tourism carbon footprint inventories: A review of the environmentally extended input-output approach," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    18. Wei Yang & Junnian Song, 2019. "Depicting Flows of Embodied Water Pollutant Discharge within Production System: Case of an Undeveloped Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-15, July.
    19. Su, Bin & Ang, B.W., 2014. "Input–output analysis of CO2 emissions embodied in trade: A multi-region model for China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 377-384.
    20. Wiedmann, Thomas, 2009. "A first empirical comparison of energy Footprints embodied in trade -- MRIO versus PLUM," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 1975-1990, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:14:p:6629-:d:1705925. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.