Hubbry Logo
Embedded emissionsEmbedded emissionsMain
Open search
Embedded emissions
Community hub
Embedded emissions
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Embedded emissions
Embedded emissions
Embedded emissions
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Embedded CO₂ in global trade, 2016

One way of attributing greenhouse gas emissions is to measure the embedded emissions of goods that are being consumed (also referred to as "embodied emissions", "embodied carbon emissions", or "embodied carbon"). This is different from the question of to what extent the policies of one country to reduce emissions affect emissions in other countries (the "spillover effect" and "carbon leakage" of an emissions reduction policy). The UNFCCC measures emissions according to production, rather than consumption.[1] Consequently, embedded emissions on imported goods are attributed to the exporting, rather than the importing, country. The question of whether to measure emissions on production instead of consumption is partly an issue of equity, i.e., who is responsible for emissions.[2]

The 37 parties listed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol have agreed to legally binding emission reduction commitments. Under the UNFCCC accounting of emissions, their emission reduction commitments do not include emissions attributable to their imports.[3] In a briefing note, Wang and Watson (2007) asked the question, "who owns China's carbon emissions?".[4] In their study, they suggested that nearly a quarter of China's CO2 emissions might be a result of its production of goods for export, primarily to the US but also to Europe. Based on this, they suggested that international negotiations based on within country emissions (i.e., emissions measured by production) may be "[missing] the point".

2010 research confirmed that, in 2004, 23% of global emissions were embedded in goods traded internationally, mostly flowing from China and developing countries, such as Russia and South Africa, to the US, Europe and Japan. These states are included in a group of ten, as well as the Middle East, that make up 71% of the total difference in regional emissions. In Western Europe the difference in the import and export of emissions is particularly pronounced, with imported emissions making up 20-50% of consumed emissions. The majority of the emissions transferred between these states is contained in the trade of machinery, electronics, chemicals, rubber and plastics.[5]

Research by the Carbon Trust in 2011 further confirmed that approximately 25% of all CO2 emissions from human activities 'flow' (i.e. are imported or exported) from one country to another. The flow of carbon was found to be roughly 50% emissions associated with trade in commodities such as steel, cement, and chemicals, and 50% in semi-finished/finished products such as motor vehicles, clothing or industrial machinery and equipment.[6]

Embodied carbon in construction

[edit]

The embodied carbon of buildings is estimated to count for 11% of global carbon emissions and 75% of a building's emissions over its entire lifecycle.[7] The World Green Building Council has set a target for all new buildings to have at least 40% less embodied carbon.[8]

A life-cycle assessment for embodied carbon calculates the carbon used throughout each stage of a building's life: construction, use and maintenance, and demolition or disassembly.[9]

Re-use is a key consideration when addressing embodied carbon in construction. The architect Carl Elefante is known for coining the phrase, "The greenest building is the building that is already built."[10] The reason that existing buildings are usually more sustainable than new buildings is that the quantity of carbon emissions which occurs during construction of a new building is large in comparison to the annual operating emissions of the building, especially as operations become more energy efficient and energy supplies transition to renewable generation.[11][8]

Beyond re-use, and excluding material extraction, which often accounts for high levels of embodied carbon, there are two principal areas of focus in the reduction of embodied carbon in construction. The first is to reduce the quantity of construction material ('construction mass') while the second is the substitution of lower carbon alternative materials. Typically—where reduction of embodied carbon is a goal—both of these are addressed.

Often, the most significant scope for reduction of construction mass is found in structural design, where measures such as reduced beam or slab span (and an associated increase in column density) can yield large carbon savings.[12]

To assist material substitution (with low carbon alternatives), manufacturers of materials such as steel, steel re-bar, glulam, and precast concrete typically provide Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) which certify the carbon impact as well as general environmental impacts of their products.[13] Databases that aggregate the embodied carbon values from EPD's and other sources such as academic studies, provide the embodied carbon values of many materials in one location, however the number of variables included in calculating the embodied carbon of building materials makes the values in the databases difficult to compare. [14]

Minimizing the use of carbon-intensive materials may mean selecting lower carbon versions of glass and steel products, and products manufactured using low-emissions energy sources. Embodied carbon may be reduced in concrete construction through the use of Portland cement alternatives such as Ground granulated blast-furnace slag, recycled aggregates and industry by-products. Carbon-neutral, carbon positive, and carbon-storing materials include bio-based materials such as timber, bamboo, hemp fibre and hempcrete, wool, dense-pack cellulose insulation, and cork.[15][16][17]

A 2021 study focused on "carbon-intensive hotspot materials (e.g., concrete foundations and slab floors, insulated roof and wall panels, and structural framing) in light industrial buildings" estimated that a "sizable reduction (~60%) in embodied carbon is possible in two to three years by bringing readily-available low-carbon materials into wider use".[18]

Embodied carbon policy and legislation

[edit]
Different views on a ban for products that emit more greenhouse gases in the EU, China and the US among respondents of the 2020–21 European Investment Bank Climate Survey

A variety of policies, regulations, and standards exist worldwide with respect to embodied carbon, according to the American Institute of Architects.[19]

Eight states introduced procurement policies related to embodied carbon in 2021: Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Minnesota, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey.[20]

In Colorado, HB21-1303: Global Warming Potential for Public Project Materials (better known as "Buy Clean Colorado") was signed into law 6 July 2021. The law uses environmental product declarations (EPDs) to help drive the use of low-embodied-carbon materials.[21]

"In Europe, embodied carbon emissions have been limited in the Netherlands since 2018, and this is scheduled to happen in Denmark, Sweden, France and Finland between 2023 and 2027."[22]

"On May 10, 2023, Toronto became the first community in North America to require lower-carbon construction materials in new construction projects, limiting embodied carbon from new city-owned municipal building construction. New buildings must now limit upfront embodied emission intensity — emissions associated with manufacturing, transporting, and constructing major structural and envelope systems — to below 350 kg CO2e/m2."[23] The new requirements are currently voluntary for non-city-owned buildings.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Embedded emissions

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Embedded emissions, also termed embodied emissions, denote the arising from the production, , and transportation of prior to their consumption, particularly those incorporated into internationally traded commodities. This underpins consumption-based emissions , which reallocates emissions from producers to final consumers via adjustments for imports and exports, contrasting with production-based (territorial) that attributes emissions solely to the location of release. Approximately 22 to 25 percent of global CO₂ emissions are embedded in , enabling net importers like many developed economies to report lower territorial emissions while their consumption drives emissions elsewhere, often in countries with less stringent regulations such as . This disparity highlights , where reduces domestic production emissions but sustains global totals, prompting policy debates over mechanisms like carbon border adjustment taxes to internalize these externalities without distorting . Empirical analyses reveal that major consumers, including the and , bear significant responsibility for trade-embodied emissions when accounted consumption-wise, underscoring the need for comprehensive lifecycle assessments to inform equitable climate strategies.

Definitions and Fundamentals

Core Definition and Scope

Embedded emissions, interchangeably termed embodied emissions, refer to the —predominantly equivalents (CO₂e)—arising from the upstream processes in a good's or service's . These encompass extraction, material processing, , intra- and inter-firm transportation, and final assembly, terminating prior to the product's delivery for consumption or installation. The scope deliberately excludes emissions from the operational or use phase, such as during product utilization, to isolate production-related impacts. For example, the production of one of crude generates approximately 1.89 tonnes of CO₂ emissions embedded within the material itself. Embedded emissions gain prominence in frameworks, which attribute emissions to the final point of demand rather than territorial production. This contrasts with production-based territorial and underscores that roughly 20-25% of global CO₂ emissions are embedded in internationally traded goods, with supply chains often shifting emission-intensive activities from high-income importing nations to exporting regions with lower regulatory stringency.

Distinction from Operational Emissions

Operational emissions, also known as use-phase emissions, consist of the recurring greenhouse gas releases arising from the energy consumption required to operate buildings, vehicles, products, or services, such as electricity for lighting, heating, or fuel combustion during daily activities. These emissions occur over the lifetime of an asset and can be mitigated through efficiency measures or renewable energy substitution, but they represent ongoing causal inputs tied to end-user behavior and maintenance. In contrast, embedded emissions—often termed embodied emissions—capture the discrete, upfront greenhouse gas outputs embedded in the production chain, including raw material extraction, manufacturing processes like steel smelting or cement calcination, and transportation to the point of use, after which no further emissions accrue from the item's creation phase. For example, the chemical reaction in cement production releases CO₂ inherent to limestone decomposition, contributing roughly 8% of annual global anthropogenic CO₂ emissions as of 2023. In developed economies, operational emissions have trended downward since the due to technological efficiencies, stricter building codes, and shifts to lower-carbon energy sources, decoupling energy use from in sectors like residential and commercial . This decline amplifies the relative weight of embedded emissions within total lifecycle footprints; analyses indicate that as operational emissions approach near-zero in optimized low-carbon scenarios—through and insulation—embedded components can constitute 20-50% or more of remaining totals, rising to 100% for assets with net-zero operations. Such shifts underscore a first-principles reality: total emissions derive from material transformations governed by thermodynamic necessities, not merely usage patterns, with empirical models showing embedded shares increasing under decarbonization pathways prioritizing operational fixes alone. Overlooking embedded emissions fosters , wherein stringent domestic operational regulations prompt of energy-intensive to jurisdictions with weaker controls, displacing rather than diminishing global atmospheric accumulations. This phenomenon, observed in trade data from 2000-2020, reveals no net planetary reduction, as production-driven emissions—rooted in physical processes like alloying or —persist regardless of geographic locus, with studies estimating leakage rates of 10-20% for unilateral policies absent border adjustments. Causal attribution thus demands tracing emissions to consumption origins, preventing illusory progress from territorial accounting that ignores supply-chain realities.

Historical Evolution

Origins in Environmental Economics

The foundations of embedded emissions analysis emerged from the adaptation of input-output (IO) economics to environmental impacts in the 1970s. Wassily Leontief extended his original IO framework, developed in the for inter-industry analysis, to incorporate environmental "repercussions" such as residuals and resource extraction as endogenous outputs of production processes. In his 1970 paper, Leontief demonstrated how IO tables could quantify the full upstream environmental costs propagated through supply chains, using empirical data from U.S. economic structures to model generation per unit of output across sectors. This approach initially prioritized general and conventional pollutants over greenhouse gases, reflecting the era's focus on localized rather than global climate dynamics. Early empirical applications to trade-embedded pollution gained traction in the , building on IO extensions. Wyckoff and Roop's 1994 study applied sector-specific emission coefficients to IO data for six major economies (, , , , the , and the ), estimating that manufactured imports embodied about 13% of their total CO2 emissions in 1988, alongside significant shares of and . These findings underscored "load displacement," where importing nations offloaded pollution-intensive production to exporters with laxer regulations, but the work retained a broad environmental scope, emphasizing energy and material intensities over climate-specific accounting. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol's territorial (production-based) GHG accounting framework catalyzed a pivot to emissions-specific embedded analysis, driven by evidence of —emissions shifting to unregulated economies via trade. This prompted scrutiny of consumption-based alternatives to capture imported GHGs, with leakage estimates for Annex I countries under Kyoto reaching 10-20% of reported reductions. A key institutional milestone came in the early 2000s through reports, including the 2003 assessment of CO2 embodied in goods trade, which used bilateral IO data to show members as net importers of emissions from non- partners, equivalent to 5-10% of their domestic totals depending on technology assumptions. These analyses highlighted trade's role in understating developed nations' climate footprints under production metrics.

Integration into Climate Frameworks (1990s–Present)

In the 1990s, the (IPCC) assessments began addressing emissions associated with within broader guidelines, though national reporting under the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) emphasized production-based (territorial) accounting. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol's targets focused on domestic emissions reductions, but early analyses highlighted potential through offshored production, prompting supplementary discussions on consumption-based metrics in IPCC supplementary reports. This period marked initial empirical recognition that territorial inventories understated responsibilities in import-dependent economies, with global trade in embodied CO2 estimated to transfer about 20% of emissions from producers to consumers by the late 1990s. During the 2000s, the 's Emissions Trading System ( ETS), piloted from 2005, imposed caps on CO2 emissions from domestic energy-intensive installations, indirectly constraining embedded emissions in produced goods like and by limiting production outputs. However, the system's production focus exacerbated concerns, as uncapped imports evaded equivalent scrutiny, leading to free allowance allocations to shield industries. Empirical data showed that while EU territorial emissions declined, consumption-based emissions rose due to imported high-carbon products, underscoring the limitations of territorial caps. The 2015 Paris Agreement reinforced commitments to transparent emissions accounting under Article 13, catalyzing data-driven shifts toward consumption-based metrics in policy discourse to better align responsibilities with end-user demand. This momentum culminated in the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), entering transitional reporting in October 2023 and full implementation by 2026, which mandates importers to declare and price embedded emissions in sectors like iron, steel, and aluminum—covering roughly 50% of EU imports' associated CO2 from these goods. As operational efficiencies in developed economies plateaued, with territorial reductions masking rising consumption footprints (e.g., UK's 19% territorial drop versus 20% consumption rise from 1990–2008), frameworks increasingly prioritized embedded emissions to address trade distortions. A review by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) identified persistent policy gaps in integrating embodied carbon assessments, particularly in industrial and building sectors, where regulatory emphasis on operational emissions overlooks upstream impacts despite available life-cycle data. This reflects a broader empirical trend: global embodied emissions in trade have grown, transferring up to 25% of CO2 from emerging to developed economies since the , necessitating hybrid accounting in future frameworks. ![CO₂ emissions embedded in global trade, OWID][float-right]

Assessment Methodologies

Life Cycle Assessment Techniques

(LCA) serves as the primary standardized methodology for quantifying embedded emissions, focusing on upstream associated with production processes prior to product use. Governed by ISO 14040 principles and framework and ISO 14044 requirements and guidelines, LCA delineates environmental impacts across defined system boundaries, typically cradle-to-gate for embedded emissions analysis, encompassing raw material extraction, , and transportation to the factory gate. This approach excludes downstream phases such as product use and end-of-life disposal, distinguishing it from full cradle-to-grave assessments, to isolate production-related burdens verifiable through empirical process data. Commercial software tools like SimaPro and GaBi facilitate LCA implementation by modeling process flows and aggregating emission factors from comprehensive databases. SimaPro, developed by PRé , supports detailed inventory analysis for assessments, while GaBi, from Sphera, enables scenario modeling for product systems. These tools rely on databases such as ecoinvent, which provides lifecycle inventory data for thousands of processes, including emission factors derived from measured and modeled inputs; for instance, ecoinvent datasets for production yield factors around 1.8-2.0 tCO₂e per tonne depending on production route and region, reflecting variations in energy sources and efficiency. The data-intensive nature of LCA requires high-quality, site-specific inputs where possible, as generic averages can introduce uncertainty, particularly for variability in embedded emissions. Recent methodological advances include hybrid LCA approaches, which combine bottom-up process-level data with top-down economic input-output models to enhance accuracy in capturing indirect emissions across complex supply chains. This integration addresses limitations of pure process-based LCA, such as truncation errors from omitted background processes, and aligns with guidance in the GHG Protocol's 2022 sector supplement on embodied emissions, which references hybrid techniques for Scope 3 under product life cycle standards. Such methods improve for embedded emissions in traded goods, though they demand validation against primary data to mitigate assumptions in economic allocations.

Economic Input-Output Models

Economic input-output (EIO) models provide a macro-level framework for assessing embedded emissions by leveraging inter-industry transaction tables extended with environmental satellite accounts, enabling the tracing of emissions across global supply chains from production to consumption. These models quantify consumption-based emissions footprints by solving systems of linear equations that apportion upstream emissions to final demand categories, contrasting with process-level life cycle assessments by prioritizing economy-wide coverage over detailed process flows. Multi-regional input-output (MRIO) variants, such as EXIOBASE—a global database of environmentally extended supply-use tables covering 163 industries and 49 regions—and the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), facilitate linkages to reveal how emissions are offshored through imports. MRIO models excel in scalability for national and global analyses, aggregating sectoral production coefficients with matrices to estimate embodied emissions in exports and imports; for instance, applications have quantified China's exports as embodying approximately 1.7 billion metric tons of CO₂ annually in the mid-2010s, underscoring its dominant role in global -related emissions displacement. This approach highlights causal linkages in supply chains, such as how consumer demand in importing nations drives emissions in exporting economies with carbon-intensive production. However, sector aggregation—typically at 50-200 industry levels—introduces biases by averaging heterogeneous emission intensities within categories, potentially overstating or understating trade-embodied emissions by up to 20-30% compared to disaggregated data, as aggregation masks firm- and process-level variances. Advancements in the have incorporated dynamic updates, including satellite accounts for improved trade data reconciliation and near real-time MRIO tables to capture disruptions like post-COVID supply chain reconfigurations. For example, 2023 input-output analyses decomposed China's emission drivers post-pandemic, revealing persistent reliance on carbon-intensive inputs amid recovery, with structural shifts amplifying indirect emissions in global value chains. These enhancements mitigate temporal mismatches but retain challenges in data harmonization across regions, emphasizing the need for hybrid models blending IO aggregation with micro-data for refined causal attribution.

Global Scale and Sectoral Distribution

Quantitative Estimates of Embedded Emissions

Approximately 20-25% of global CO₂ emissions are embedded in , corresponding to an estimated 7-9 GtCO₂ annually based on total energy-related CO₂ emissions of around 37 Gt in 2024. The IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report notes that about one-quarter of emissions were embodied in trade as of , with non-OECD economies acting as net exporters. This share reflects the transfer of production burdens, where emissions occur in exporting countries but consumption drives demand in importing ones. Industrial and manufacturing sectors dominate embedded emissions, particularly through commodities and intermediate goods like metals and chemicals. For instance, exports from resource-intensive economies contribute disproportionately, with and among major net exporters of embodied CO₂ due to and . Developed economies, conversely, are net importers, with the balance highlighting disparities in territorial versus consumption-based accounting. Trends show stability in the overall share, though relative increases may occur as operational emissions in services and lighter industries in high-income countries decline through and efficiency gains. Data from indicate gross embedded flows peaked around 2010-2020 but persist at high levels, underscoring the persistent role of in global emission distributions. Non-OECD nations, including , , , and , continue to export emissions embedded in raw materials and semi-finished products consumed elsewhere.

Key Sectors and Trade Implications

Embedded emissions in are heavily skewed toward flows from emerging economies to developed nations, with and transportation sectors accounting for over 75% of gases embodied in global flows. Approximately 20-22% of total global CO₂ emissions are embedded in internationally traded goods and services, peaking around 2008 before stabilizing. Major contributors include exports from , where embodied carbon in shipments to the reached about 1.2 GtCO₂ in 2014, representing a significant portion of dynamics. These North-South trade patterns exacerbate discrepancies in emission accounting, as production-based metrics—used in frameworks like the UNFCCC—understate the footprints of high-income importers by 20-30% compared to consumption-based approaches, which allocate emissions to final locations. For instance, developed countries like the and members effectively "import" substantial embedded emissions through consumer goods and intermediates produced in carbon-intensive hubs, shifting the apparent burden southward. Unilateral climate policies in importing regions heighten risks, where regulated firms relocate production or increase sourcing from unregulated areas, potentially neutralizing 20-50% of domestic emission cuts depending on sector exposure and policy stringency. Recent analyses underscore how rising economic complexity in amplifies embedded emission intensity, particularly in high-value exports like and machinery that rely on upstream energy-intensive inputs such as semiconductors and rare earth processing. A 2021 study across countries found that greater economic sophistication correlates with higher embodied emissions in exports, with heterogeneous effects where complexity drives up per-unit carbon content in knowledge-intensive goods. This dynamic complicates mitigation efforts, as liberalization and fragmentation propagate emissions across borders, necessitating coordinated international adjustments to avert leakage while preserving competitive balances.

Sector-Specific Applications

Construction and Materials

Cement production contributes approximately 8% of global anthropogenic CO₂ emissions, largely from the chemical decomposition of during clinker production and for heating, with total emissions reaching about 2.4 billion metric tons of CO₂ equivalent in 2023. manufacturing accounts for 7-11% of global CO₂ emissions, primarily through carbon-intensive processes like coal-based blast furnaces that reduce , generating around 1.9-2.0 tons of CO₂ per ton of produced. These materials dominate inputs, with (heavily reliant on ) and comprising the bulk of structural mass in buildings and infrastructure, embedding emissions upstream in global supply chains. In building lifecycle assessments, embodied emissions from material production and on-site often range from 20% to 50% of total emissions, a proportion that rises in energy-efficient designs where operational emissions are minimized through insulation, renewables, and efficient systems. For residential projects, life-cycle analyses of low-energy homes reveal that upfront embodied carbon can equal or surpass operational emissions accumulated over 20-50 years, particularly when operational demands approach net-zero through and high performance envelopes. Low-carbon material substitutions offer mitigation potential; mass timber, for example, can reduce structural embodied emissions by 19-45% relative to or equivalents by leveraging biogenic carbon storage in , while avoiding high-energy processing. Empirical assessments, however, highlight scalability constraints: global sustainable timber harvests are limited by regeneration rates and land-use competition, with sourcing impacts varying widely—potentially negating benefits if reliant on non-renewable or transport-intensive supplies—and unable to displace more than a fraction of / demand without expanded .

Manufacturing and Consumer Goods

Manufacturing of consumer durables such as electronics and appliances generates substantial embedded emissions, primarily from raw material extraction, component fabrication, and assembly processes that rely on fossil fuel-intensive energy sources. For instance, the production of a single smartphone typically embeds 50-95 kg CO2e, with the majority arising from mining rare earth metals, semiconductor manufacturing, and global logistics for parts sourcing. Apple's lifecycle assessments for recent iPhone models report manufacturing-phase emissions ranging from 61 to 77 kg CO2e per device, underscoring the dominance of upstream supply chain activities over end-use. In textiles and apparel, embedded emissions stem from fiber production, dyeing, and finishing, with synthetic materials like contributing disproportionately due to petroleum-derived feedstocks emitting nearly three times more CO2 per kilogram than . models exacerbate total footprints through high-volume, low-durability output; a single pair of embeds approximately 2.5 kg CO2e per wear instance when normalized for short lifespans and frequent replacement, far exceeding traditional apparel. The sector's rapid turnover—driven by seasonal trends and —amplifies cumulative emissions, with global consumption linked to over 1.2 billion tons of CO2e annually from production alone. Offshoring of assembly and component manufacturing to Asia obscures these emissions in consumption-based accounting for importing nations, as factories for electronics and garments have migrated from high-wage economies to regions with coal-heavy grids. This shift embeds emissions in imported goods, with studies indicating that up to 23% of global CO2 arises from internationally traded products, including consumer manufactures where Asian supply chains dominate rare earth processing and circuit board fabrication. Empirical supply chain analyses reveal that for electronics, over 70% of value-added emissions occur in upstream Asian stages, often unaccounted in final assembly countries' territorial inventories.

International Trade and Supply Chains

Embedded emissions in international trade refer to greenhouse gases released during the production of goods and services ultimately consumed in importing countries, often obscured by fragmented global supply chains spanning multiple nations and production tiers. These chains integrate raw material extraction, component manufacturing, assembly, and transportation across borders, with emissions accruing primarily in exporting economies, many of which have lower regulatory standards. Multi-regional input-output (MRIO) analyses estimate that approximately 20-25% of global CO₂ emissions are embodied in internationally traded goods, highlighting the scale of displacement from consumption to production locations. Supply chain opacity exacerbates challenges in tracking these emissions, as multi-tier sourcing involves dozens of suppliers per product, embedding upstream emissions that are frequently underreported in direct production metrics. For example, Apple's supply chain draws components from over 50 countries, including carbon-intensive hubs in , where Scope 3 emissions—indirect emissions from suppliers—can exceed direct factory outputs by factors of 5 to 10. Input-output models further indicate that hidden multi-tier emissions in global value chains can account for 10-20% of a final product's total footprint, evading visibility in standard production-based inventories. This complexity arises from the interconnected nature of , where intermediate goods cross borders multiple times before final assembly. Post-2020 disruptions, including the and Red Sea conflicts, have amplified embedded emissions through rerouting and diversification strategies. Lengthened shipping routes, such as detours around , increased maritime CO₂ emissions by extending distances and fuel consumption, with 2024 data showing elevated monthly shipping emissions amid geopolitical tensions. These shifts, while enhancing resilience, have causally contributed to higher transportation-related embedded emissions without corresponding reductions elsewhere in the chain. Globalization-driven has causally enabled , relocating emissions-intensive production to jurisdictions with higher emission intensities and weaker controls, yielding no net global reduction despite apparent domestic declines in developed economies. from consumption-based accounting reveals that import-embedded emissions in high-income countries offset 20-50% of their production-based reductions since the , as offshored activities to regions like sustain or elevate total atmospheric CO₂ accumulation. This dynamic underscores that , absent coordinated , shifts rather than diminishes global emission burdens.

Policy and Regulatory Approaches

Border Adjustment Mechanisms

Border adjustment mechanisms impose charges on imported goods based on their embedded greenhouse gas emissions to counteract , where production shifts to jurisdictions with laxer regulations, thereby maintaining competitiveness for domestic producers subject to carbon pricing. These policies calculate the carbon cost using life-cycle assessments or default values for emissions incurred during production abroad, aligning import tariffs with equivalent domestic carbon taxes or cap-and-trade obligations. The European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), adopted in 2023, exemplifies such an approach, entering a transitional reporting phase in October 2023 and requiring full payments from January 2026. It initially targets imports of , iron and steel, aluminum, fertilizers, , and , with embedded emissions priced against the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) allowance costs, which reached approximately €80 per tonne of CO2 in late 2023. The mechanism phases out free ETS allowances for covered EU sectors by 2034, aiming to cover an expanding scope that captures 99% of relevant emissions while reducing initial sectoral breadth by 90% to focus on high-risk leakage areas. Proponents argue CBAM prevents leakage by equalizing carbon costs, with projections indicating it could levy charges equivalent to 0.2–20% of import values depending on the exporter's carbon intensity and EU ETS prices, potentially rising to €120–200 per tonne by 2030. Empirical modeling for suggests a 3.6% reduction in affected export values to the by 2030 under baseline scenarios, though broader import shifts remain modest due to substitution effects. Importers must report emissions quarterly during transition, verified against default values if producer data is unavailable, with certificates purchased to cover deficits. In the United States, legislative proposals in the 118th , such as those in climate and bills, have advanced carbon border adjustments by applying fees on emissions-intensive imports like and aluminum, often tied to domestic clean incentives. discussions emphasize interoperable CBAM designs to harmonize emissions accounting and avoid trade distortions, with joint statements supporting minimum carbon pricing thresholds. These variants typically rebate domestic carbon payments to exporters, ensuring symmetry. Compatibility with rules hinges on non-discrimination, treating imports equivalently to like domestic products and avoiding origin-based penalties, as affirmed in analyses of and proposed U.S. designs that base charges solely on verifiable emissions intensities. Evasion risks, such as underreporting or rerouting via third countries, persist due to complex supply chains, though mandatory verification and default emission factors mitigate ; limited empirical data from early implementation shows minimal initial avoidance, but ongoing monitoring is required.

Disclosure and Reporting Standards

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol's Corporate (Scope 3) Standard, supplemented by the 2022 Sector Supplement for Measuring and for Embodied Emissions, provides methodological guidance for organizations to quantify and upstream emissions embedded in purchased goods and services as Scope 3 Category 1. This framework emphasizes using (LCA) data and input-output models to attribute emissions from extraction, , and transportation, while recommending verification through third-party audits to ensure consistency in boundary setting and allocation methods. Complementary standards, such as the (GRI) 305: Emissions, mandate disclosure of Scope 3 emissions, including embedded ones, for organizations preparing sustainability reports, promoting transparency across global supply chains. In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission's March 2024 climate disclosure rules require public companies to report Scope 1 and Scope 2 where material to financial performance, but exclude mandatory Scope 3 reporting following debates over data reliability and burden; however, Scope 3 disclosures, including embedded emissions, may be provided voluntarily or in context for net-zero targets. Sector-specific applications, such as in , advocate for embodied carbon inclusion via tools like building passports—digital records tracking material-level emissions data—to facilitate disclosure and decisions, as outlined in industry primers emphasizing Scope 3 integration. Challenges in verification persist due to variability in LCA methodologies, databases, and tools, with a 2024 systematic review identifying inconsistencies in emission factors and system boundaries that undermine comparability across assessments. Adoption is growing, particularly among multinational firms facing investor pressure, though empirical data on reporting accuracy remains limited by reliance on supplier self-reporting and regional data gaps.

Incentives and Mitigation Policies

The of 2022 provides tax credits and grants to promote low-carbon materials, including over $5 billion allocated to incentivize their use in federal projects such as roads and bridges. This includes $2 billion in grants from the for low-carbon transportation materials like and produced with reduced emissions. The also directs $100 million to the Environmental Protection Agency for identifying and labeling low-embodied-carbon construction products, aiming to integrate these incentives into procurement standards. Such measures target domestic production and use, potentially lowering embedded emissions in supply chains by encouraging substitution of high-carbon inputs like traditional with alternatives such as carbon-captured variants. Building standards represent another domestic policy lever, often incorporating embodied carbon limits through regulatory or voluntary frameworks to cap emissions at project outset. In the , the UK Green Building Council's Net Zero Carbon Buildings Framework, updated around 2019, guides developers to set embodied carbon thresholds for materials and processes, though mandatory national building codes have yet to enforce strict caps as of 2023. Adoption of low-carbon materials under such standards typically incurs upfront cost premiums of 5-15% compared to conventional options, driven by higher production expenses for alternatives like recycled steel or low-clinker , though lifecycle savings from reduced operational emissions can offset these over time. China's 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025) prioritizes and emission reductions through production-focused targets, including a 13.5% cut in per unit of GDP from levels and controls on consumption growth. These policies emphasize domestic efficiency, such as subsidies for cleaner industrial processes, but maintain a production-based approach that underweights consumption-based embedded emissions in imported goods, limiting direct incentives for supply chain-wide mitigation. Empirical assessments indicate has struggled to meet interim intensity targets, underscoring challenges in scaling incentives amid heavy reliance on carbon-intensive exports.

Challenges, Criticisms, and Debates

Measurement and Data Limitations

Measuring embedded emissions, also known as embodied carbon, relies on (LCA) methodologies that encounter significant technical challenges, including discrepancies between input-output (IO) models and process-based LCAs. IO models, which use to estimate emissions across s, often yield higher results than detailed process LCAs due to aggregation and averaging of sector-level data, potentially overestimating emissions by capturing broader upstream impacts without site-specific adjustments. A 2024 NIST of embodied carbon assessment methods highlights that IO approaches are useful for scoping supply chain contributions but introduce uncertainties from data aggregation, with process LCAs providing more granular but labor-intensive alternatives that may underrepresent indirect emissions. Allocation methods for multi-functional processes, such as those involving recycled materials, exacerbate uncertainties, with variations in results ranging from 20% to 50% depending on the chosen approach like , recycled content, or system expansion. For instance, the recycled content method credits emissions savings to secondary materials but ignores downstream burdens, leading to inconsistent outcomes across studies, while system expansion accounts for avoided processes but requires assumptions about substitute products. These methodological choices amplify epistemic uncertainty, as evidenced in assessments where different allocation rules produce divergent and GHG figures for the same inputs. Data gaps further compound inaccuracies, particularly in global supply chains spanning developing nations, where primary emissions inventories are often incomplete or absent, forcing reliance on extrapolated or regional proxies. This results in fragmented reporting and potential biases in embedded emissions attribution, as complexity hinders verification of upstream activities in data-scarce regions. Such limitations can distort comparative analyses, for example by unevenly penalizing emissions calculations for imported versus domestically produced goods due to asymmetric .

Economic Impacts and Feasibility Concerns

Policies targeting embedded emissions, such as the European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), impose direct economic costs on exporters by requiring payment for carbon-intensive imports, with estimates indicating that CBAM-related costs could represent up to 0.3% of annual GDP for major exporting countries to the EU. These mechanisms elevate production and trade prices for affected goods like and , potentially reducing competitiveness and contributing to higher consumer costs in importing regions, though empirical analyses of similar emissions pricing schemes, such as Canada's federal fuel charge at $80 per tonne in 2024-2025, show only marginal effects on household affordability—around 0.5% contribution to cumulative since 2019—partly offset by rebates. Nonetheless, such pricing signals increase input costs across supply chains, straining margins for energy-intensive industries without equivalent domestic decarbonization. Feasibility challenges arise from supply-side limitations in scaling low-emission alternatives, particularly for materials like , where green hydrogen-based direct reduction processes demand vast inputs that remain constrained globally. The projects a need for over 100 million tonnes of primary near-zero emission production by 2030 to align with net-zero pathways, yet current investments in plummeted in 2024 due to insufficient policy support and high energy costs, as evidenced by ArcelorMittal's suspension of a major project in citing unsustainable electricity prices. Without universal adoption of stringent policies, these efforts yield only marginal global emissions reductions, as non-participating regions continue high-carbon production, limiting the overall effectiveness of embedded emissions accounting. Overly stringent unilateral regulations risk exacerbating , where production shifts to jurisdictions with lax standards, resulting in of emissions and potentially net-zero or negative global environmental gains despite local reductions. Economic studies highlight that policy asymmetries drive such relocation, with fragmented international efforts failing to curb trade-embodied emissions comprehensively, as seen in persistent leakage rates across borders. Furthermore, rising economic complexity—through sophisticated global value chains—amplifies embedded emissions volumes without guaranteed proportional mitigation, as structural shifts toward knowledge-intensive production still rely on carbon-intensive upstream inputs unless paired with coordinated global decarbonization.

Equity Issues and Carbon Leakage

Embedded emissions exacerbate equity concerns between developed and developing nations, as consumption-based footprints in high-income countries often exceed their production-based emissions due to of carbon-intensive to lower-regulation economies. For instance, developed countries' consumption-based CO₂ emissions have historically outpaced production emissions, with global flows directing approximately 20-30% of total CO₂ emissions from producers in emerging markets—such as , , and —to consumers in advanced economies like those in the and . This disparity underscores a North-South divide, where developing countries bear disproportionate production burdens while lacking equivalent historical responsibility or for climate impacts. Carbon leakage amplifies these inequities, as stringent unilateral policies in importing regions prompt the relocation of emissions-intensive industries to jurisdictions with weaker regulations, effectively shifting rather than reducing global totals. In the , the System (ETS) implemented since 2005 has been associated with increased carbon intensity in imported goods, including , as domestic producers faced costs leading to higher reliance on high-emission foreign suppliers prior to the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Without addressing the roughly 25% of global CO₂ embedded in unpriced imports, such policies risk unmitigated leakage, where relocated activities undermine net emission cuts. The EU's CBAM, phased in from 2023 with full implementation by 2026, has drawn criticism for disproportionately burdening developing exporters, such as , whose carbon-intensive sectors like metals face export slumps and competitiveness losses without adequate support for decarbonization or . Analyses indicate potential GDP reductions of up to 0.91% for African economies and billions in lost trade value for Global South nations, prioritizing emission pricing over developmental needs in countries still industrializing. Debates surrounding these mechanisms highlight tensions between leakage prevention and . Proponents argue CBAM closes competitive loopholes by equalizing carbon costs, potentially incentivizing global standards without mandating foreign policy changes. Critics, including analyses from economic institutes, contend it functions as trade barriers that stifle growth in developing economies, with limited that unilateral measures significantly curb worldwide emissions due to offsetting leakage effects. For example, studies on non-coordinated abatement show partial emission offsets via trade shifts, suggesting broader multilateral approaches are needed to address embedded emissions equitably without exacerbating developmental divides.

Mitigation Strategies and Future Directions

Technological and Material Innovations

Innovations in material production offer empirical pathways to reduce embedded emissions in high-carbon commodities like and , which together account for significant shares of industrial CO2 outputs. Recycled , produced via furnaces using feedstock, achieves verifiable emission reductions of approximately 58% compared to from , primarily by avoiding energy-intensive coke-based reduction processes. Pilot-scale implementations, such as those leveraging secondary routes in the U.S. sector, demonstrate up to 70% reliance on , yielding a cleaner emissions footprint through lower energy demands—saving about 74% of energy relative to methods. For , carbon capture technologies integrated into clinker production can sequester 90-95% of process emissions, with demonstrations showing potential to offset the sector's inherent 0.5-0.6 tons of CO2 per ton of from limestone . Process represents a proven, scalable approach for , as evidenced by hydrogen-based direct reduction-electric arc furnace (H2-DRI-EAF) systems like Sweden's HYBRIT initiative, which completed industrial pilots in the early 2020s and achieves near-zero fossil CO2 emissions—reducing from 1.8 tons per ton of steel to as low as 0.05 tons by substituting fossil reductants with . These demos confirm potential 50% or greater reductions in many cases, though they remain energy-intensive, requiring vast inputs that limit immediate global rollout. In , of and grinding via plasma or technologies has shown in lab and pilot tests to cut fuel-related emissions by enabling renewable heat sources, though full integration demands retrofits that preserve clinker quality. Despite these advances, scaling remains constrained by high capital costs and gaps; for instance, low-carbon pathways face funding risks for projects exceeding gigawatt-scale needs, while capture systems encounter technical hurdles in maintaining product durability at commercial volumes. Empirical data from 2024 assessments highlight that while pilots verify 30%+ cuts in select materials like recycled alloys, upstream supply limits—such as scrap quality variability and availability—impede broader adoption without parallel grid expansions. Speculative alternatives, like novel binders bypassing clinker, lack the verifiable lifecycle data of established methods, underscoring the primacy of refining proven technologies over untested shifts.

Role in Broader Decarbonization Efforts

Embedded emissions play a pivotal role in achieving net-zero targets by addressing the upstream of materials and products, which becomes more prominent as operational emissions diminish through energy efficiency and measures. In the buildings sector, which accounts for approximately 37% of global and emissions, embodied emissions—encompassing embedded upstream impacts—are projected to constitute a growing share of lifecycle totals under decarbonization scenarios, potentially dominating in highly efficient structures where operational emissions approach zero. This integration via (LCA) ensures comprehensive decarbonization, complementing operational reductions by targeting the full emissions chain from extraction to end-of-life. Strategies to mitigate embedded emissions align with broader principles, such as material reuse and , which can reduce embodied carbon by 10-20% compared to conventional linear approaches relying on virgin resources. Enhanced traceability, including blockchain-based pilots initiated around 2023, facilitates verification of low-carbon sourcing and Scope 3 emissions accounting, enabling more accurate decarbonization across global trade networks where embedded emissions represent about 22% of internationally traded product impacts. Recent analyses underscore the dominance of upfront embedded emissions in low-operational designs; for instance, about two-thirds of embodied emissions in new buildings occur during initial construction phases (A1-A5 in LCA standards), highlighting the need for early-stage interventions in net-zero pathways. These insights from 2025 policy reviews emphasize shifting focus to material innovation and modular to align with 1.5°C-aligned trajectories, where global buildings' embodied emissions must align with reduced stock turnover and low-carbon pathways.

Empirical Evidence on Effectiveness

The (EU ETS), implemented since 2005, has achieved verifiable reductions in CO2 emissions within covered sectors, with statistical analyses estimating a decline of approximately 10% beyond what would be expected from macroeconomic trends alone between 2005 and 2012. More recent assessments confirm ongoing positive impacts on emission reductions in participating countries, though primarily within territorial boundaries. However, empirical evaluations indicate that through offsets about 13% of these domestic gains on average, as production shifts to regions without equivalent carbon pricing, thereby limiting net global effectiveness. Policies explicitly targeting embedded emissions, such as the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) introduced in transitional form in 2023, aim to internalize these leakages by imposing tariffs on high-carbon imports. Model-based projections suggest CBAM could reduce leakage rates by less than half in scenarios without free allowances, but global emission cuts remain modest—equivalent to roughly 1.4% of the EU's baseline CO2 output under certain policy shifts—absent reciprocal measures in trading partners. Other simulations indicate that CBAM might add only 0.8 to 1.3 percentage points to overall emission reductions when combined with domestic pricing, underscoring its limited standalone impact on worldwide totals due to incomplete coverage and enforcement challenges. Critics argue that an overemphasis on embedded emissions and border adjustments diverts resources from direct operational efficiencies and , which have driven the bulk of verifiable sectoral cuts under schemes like the EU ETS. Empirical analyses of emission drivers reveal that global increases are predominantly linked to rather than shifts in trade-based methods, with consumption-based adjustments showing minimal influence on underlying growth-related pressures. As of , no large-scale, ex-post studies demonstrate net global emission reductions attributable to embedded-focused policies, given their recent implementation and the dominance of territorial measures in historical data.

References

  1. https://www.csis.org/analysis/collecting-data-carbon-emissions-embedded-imports-through-tariff-schedules
  2. https://wtsonline.com/embedded-emissions/
  3. https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
  4. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2020/11/co2-emissions-embodied-in-international-trade-and-domestic-final-demand_6985df25/8f2963b8-en.pdf
  5. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-trade
  6. https://www.globalefficiencyintel.com/2022-embodied-carbon-in-trade-carbon-loophole
  7. https://www.niskanencenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Emissions-embedded-in-global-trade-Shuting-Pomerleau-FINAL.pdf
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8164612/
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924000594
  10. https://carbonleadershipforum.org/embodied-carbon-101-v2/
  11. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/09/how-product-embedded-emissions-accounting-frameworks-offer-opportunities-for-circularity/
  12. https://worldsteel.org/climate-action/climate-change-and-the-production-of-iron-and-steel/
  13. https://ukgbc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/operational-and-embodied-carbon-1.pdf
  14. https://globalabc.org/buildingmaterialsandclimate/chapte-2-life-cycle-thinking/2-1-embodied-versus-operational-carbon-emissions-in-buildings.html
  15. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/09/cement-production-sustainable-concrete-co2-emissions/
  16. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/chapter/chapter-2/
  17. https://kpmg.com/kpmg-us/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2023/esg-embodied-carbon.pdf
  18. https://rmi.org/embodied-carbon-101/
  19. https://journal-buildingscities.org/articles/10.5334/bc.257
  20. https://icapcarbonaction.com/system/files/document/icap_carbonleakagedeepdecarbonization_fullreport.pdf
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069624000470
  22. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2123486119
  23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1926294
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140988314003181
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0301421594901589
  26. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317888359_Embodied_Pollution_in_Trade_Estimating_the_%27Environmental_Load_Displacement%27_of_Industrialised_Countries
  27. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-007-9280-1
  28. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es072023k
  29. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2003/11/carbon-dioxide-emissions-embodied-in-international-trade-of-goods_g17a155d/421482436815.pdf
  30. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_full_report.pdf
  31. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/parisagreement_publication.pdf
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2851800/
  33. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/carbon-markets/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets/development-eu-ets-2005-2020_en
  34. https://www.cepii.fr/IE/rev116/alberola.pdf
  35. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenergy/1646/1646.pdf
  36. https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en
  37. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1324.pdf
  38. https://www.climateworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Carbon-Loophole-in-Climate-Policy-Final.pdf
  39. https://normecows.com/sustainability-assessment/iso-14040-14044-lca/
  40. https://pre-sustainability.com/articles/life-cycle-assessment-lca-basics/
  41. https://ecochain.com/blog/cradle-to-gate-in-lca/
  42. https://simapro.com/
  43. https://growlity.com/blog/gabi-vs-simapro-lca-software-comparison-for-epds
  44. https://ecoinvent.org/database/
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652614008269
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013232500112X
  47. https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/wri-embodied-emissions-sector-supplement-2022_1.pdf
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132325009758
  49. https://www.exiobase.eu/
  50. https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/res_display.asp?RecordID=6945
  51. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018EF000913
  52. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jiec.12734
  53. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c03802
  54. https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/16/2669/2024/
  55. https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news21_e/clim_03nov21-4_e.pdf
  56. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/03/emissions-in-trade-how-we-measure-them/
  57. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2025/co2-emissions
  58. https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-to-tackle-climate-change/
  59. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Chapter02.pdf
  60. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-embedded-in-global-trade
  61. https://www.carbontrust.com/sites/default/files/documents/resource/public/International%2520Carbon%2520Flows%2520-%2520Global%2520Flows%2520-%2520REPORT.pdf
  62. https://www.globalefficiencyintel.com/s/Embodied-Carbon-in-Trade-Carbon-loophole11102022.pdf
  63. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343598786_Embodied_carbon_emissions_in_China-US_trade
  64. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-metrics
  65. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-023-03544-x
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8476361/
  67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162524000805
  68. https://www.statista.com/topics/11056/cement-industry-emissions-worldwide/
  69. https://www.iea.org/reports/breakthrough-agenda-report-2023/steel
  70. https://steelwatch.org/steelwatch-explainers/climate/
  71. https://www.academia.edu/106126923/Operational_vs_embodied_emissions_in_buildings_A_review_of_current_trends
  72. https://greenhomeinstitute.org/understanding-the-carbon-footprint-of-net-zero-homes-the-challenge-of-embodied-vs-operational-carbon/
  73. https://www.fpl.fs.usda.gov/documnts/pdf2024/fpl_2024_hemmati002.pdf
  74. https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/87665.pdf
  75. https://community.carbonleadershipforum.org/t/co2-impact-of-mass-timber/3827
  76. https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/technology/technology-media-and-telecom-predictions/2022/environmental-impact-smartphones.html
  77. https://www.apple.com/nz/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPhone_16_and_iPhone_16_Plus_PER_Sept2024.pdf
  78. https://instituteofsustainabilitystudies.com/insights/guides/reducing-supply-chain-emissions-in-the-fashion-industry/
  79. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969724016498
  80. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276193965_Carbon_Footprint_of_Textile_and_Clothing_Products
  81. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/18/15331040/emissions-outsourcing-carbon-leakage
  82. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1107409108
  83. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/co2-emissions-embodied-in-international-trade-and-domestic-final-demand_8f2963b8-en.html
  84. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-opinion-apple-supply-chain-climate-change/
  85. https://kpmg.com/us/en/articles/2024/supply-chain-trends-2024.html
  86. https://www.supplychain247.com/article/apple-iphone-global-supply-chain-where-parts-are-manufactured
  87. https://unctad.org/news/global-supply-chains-under-strain-ministers-call-just-and-resilient-transitions
  88. https://theeconreview.com/2022/05/31/offshoring-climate-change-to-carbon-havens-carbon-leakages-pt-i/
  89. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WP/2021/English/wpiea2021207-print-pdf.ashx
  90. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39449-7
  91. https://kpmg.com/xx/en/our-insights/esg/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism-cbam.html
  92. https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-11/CBAM%2520Frequently%2520Asked%2520Questions_November%25202023.pdf
  93. https://www.imfconnect.org/content/dam/imf/News%2520and%2520Generic%2520Content/GMM/Special%2520Features/Special%2520Feature%2520-%2520CBAM%2520Monitor.pdf
  94. https://www.energytransitionpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20240318_Final-CBAM-Assessment-Report-final.pdf
  95. https://greensteelworld.com/effective-cbam-cost-management-strategic-and-financial-implications
  96. https://www.c2es.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/carbon-border-adjustment-provisions-in-the-118th-congress.pdf
  97. https://www.c2es.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/TF3_4_Burton_et_al.pdf
  98. https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/u-s-carbon-border-adjustment-proposals-and-world-trade-organization-compliance/
  99. https://www.csis.org/analysis/crafting-robust-us-carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism
  100. https://www.niskanencenter.org/carbon-border-adjustments/
  101. https://ghgprotocol.org/standards
  102. https://rebuilt.eco/resources/International-mandatory-and-voluntary-reporting-requirements
  103. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-31
  104. https://dart.deloitte.com/USDART/home/publications/deloitte/heads-up/2024/sec-climate-disclosure-rule-ghg-emissions-esg-financial-reporting
  105. https://rmi.org/a-primer-on-embodied-carbon-in-climate-disclosure/
  106. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Emissions_Measurement_in_Supply_Chains_2023.pdf
  107. https://www.constructiondive.com/news/inflation-reduction-act-low-carbon-green-building-materials-civil-projects/629551/
  108. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2022/10/the-inflation-reduction-act-provisions-and-incentives-for-local
  109. https://www.erm.com/globalassets/documents/insights/2022/issue-brief-ira-climate-2022-climate-energy-provisions.pdf
  110. https://ukgbc.org/resources/net-zero-carbon-buildings-framework/
  111. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259009239_Informing_the_decision_makers_on_the_cost_and_value_of_green_building
  112. https://www.iea.org/policies/14799-the-14th-five-year-comprehensive-work-plan-on-energy-conservation-and-emission-reduction
  113. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/
  114. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316072684_Input-output_and_process_LCAs_in_the_building_sector_are_the_results_compatible_with_each_other
  115. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378778821006241
  116. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/15/6373
  117. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321219007_Analysing_methodological_choices_in_calculations_of_embodied_energy_and_GHG_emissions_from_buildings
  118. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629617303110
  119. https://www.gresb.com/nl-en/confronting-embodied-carbons-data-problem-how-do-we-know-where-we-stand/
  120. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2025/125/article-A001-en.xml
  121. https://irpp.org/research-studies/does-emissions-pricing-hurt-affordability/
  122. https://irpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Does-Emissions-Pricing-Hurt-Affordability-IRPP-Study-Tombe-and-Winter.pdf
  123. https://www.iea.org/reports/breakthrough-agenda-report-2024/steel
  124. https://cleantechnica.com/2025/02/18/investments-in-green-steel-ammonia-plummeted-in-2024/
  125. https://globaltradealert.org/reports/Headwinds-Facing-Green-Steel
  126. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/how-does-trade-contribute-to-climate-change-and-how-can-it-advance-climate-action/
  127. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332223000349
  128. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988324002640
  129. https://saiia.org.za/research/the-impact-of-the-cbam-on-african-economies-and-the-role-of-the-afcfta/
  130. https://www.tips.org.za/images/Policy_Brief_The_EUs_Carbon_Border_Adjustment_Mechanism_and_implications_for_South_African_Exports_February_2023.pdf
  131. https://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publication-cwpe-pdfs/cwpe2459.pdf
  132. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6108037/
  133. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-03111-2
  134. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1093/reep/rew025
  135. https://www.stenarecycling.com/news-insights/insights-inspiration/guides-articles/the-value-of-recycling-metals/
  136. https://rmi.org/forging-a-clean-steel-economy-in-the-united-states/
  137. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=16211
  138. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/Industry%2520Guide%2520to%2520CCS%2520at%2520Cement%2520Plants_Nov%252029%25202023_0.pdf
  139. https://www.gea.com/en/stories/kick-start-to-carbon-capture/
  140. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212982022004115
  141. https://www.hybritdevelopment.se/en/
  142. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/green-steel-global-market-report-155100940.html
  143. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319924031653
  144. https://news.sustainability-directory.com/industry/electrification-transforms-steel-cement-production-for-deep-decarbonization/
  145. https://www.enlit.world/library/electrification-sparks-revolution-in-cement-and-steel-industries
  146. https://www.theclimategroup.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/The%2520Steel%2520and%2520Concrete%2520Transformation%2520-%25202024%2520market%2520outlook%2520on%2520lower%2520emission%2520steel%2520and%2520concrete.pdf
  147. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_High_Emitting_Sectors_Challenges_and_Opportunities_for_Low_Carbon_Suppliers_2024.pdf
  148. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44416-025-00002-y
  149. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44296-025-00068-6
  150. https://www.iea-ebc.org/Data/publications/EBC_WG_BECs_Mandatory_Whole_Life_Embodied_Carbon_Report_June_2025.pdf
  151. https://circularecology.com/embodied-carbon-footprint-database.html
  152. https://en.eeworld.com.cn/news/gykz/eic647972.html
  153. https://cdn.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025-01_ERCC_MCE-Construction.pdf
  154. https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Buildings-Embodied-Emissions-Pathway-Development-Description.pdf
  155. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1918128117
  156. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-70260-6
  157. https://oecdecoscope.blog/2024/09/03/does-carbon-leakage-through-international-trade-reduce-the-effectiveness-of-carbon-pricing-policies/
  158. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014098832400848X
  159. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2025.2557236
  160. https://feps-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Impact-of-CBAM.pdf
  161. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2764~3ff8cb597b.en.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.