Search

• The PB-HDI is based on Strong Sustainability and Planetary Boundaries. • The PB-HDI incorporates "relative" ecological impacts into human development. • The PB-HDI has made references to Planetary pressures–adjusted HDI. • In terms of the PB-HDI, Costa Rica is ranked as the top country. During the past 30 years, Human Development Index (HDI) has evolved into a widely accepted proxy of human development. Based on Strong Sustainability and Planetary Boundaries, this paper puts forward Planetary Boundaries–adjusted HDI (PB-HDI). The PB-HDI has made references to Planetary pressures–adjusted HDI proposed by the UNDP. Being simple, transparent and theoretically valid, the PB-HDI incorporates "relative" ecological impacts, i.e. ecological impacts beyond planetary boundaries, into human development evaluation. The PB-HDI is the product of adjusted HDI and Ecological Overshoot Index. The adjusted HDI employs Healthy Life Expectancy at Birth to measure medical and health levels and sets a threshold value of Gross National Income per capita; the Ecological Overshoot Index measures "relative" ecological impacts and is constructed by employing consumption-based CO 2 emissions and Material Footprint. Being compatible with intragenerational and intergenerational equity, the PB-HDI advocates achieving higher levels of economic-social development within planetary boundaries. PB-HDI values and ranks of 142 countries in 2015 are different with those of the HDI by a large extent. For the PB-HDI, Costa Rica, Panama, Hungary, Sri Lanka and Argentina perform best and Singapore, Australia, the United States, India and China do not perform well. The paper provides a more scientific and reasonable perspective and index for human development evaluation in the full world and Anthropocene. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Impact-based water footprint of rolled steel production is first performed. • Fossil energy footprint and carbon footprint are evaluated by using LCA. • Maritime transport, iron power and direct emissions are major contributors. • Adjustment of industrial structure is essential for carbon mitigation of steel industry. The Iron and Steel Industry (ISI) is a difficult-to-mitigate sector that has considerable contributions to energy consumption, water pollution, and CO 2 emissions. Despite broad interest in energy consumption and CO 2 emissions generated by steel production, there are few impact-oriented Water Footprint (WF) assessments of steel production. This study evaluates the water, carbon and fossil energy footprints generated from rolled steel production on the basis of life cycle assessment. Key contributors attributing to those environmental impacts are also identified so as to explore their potential mitigation. Using the Monte Carlo model, an uncertainty analysis is conducted with the aim of providing reliable results for decision-making. Results show that the impact per ton China's rolled steel production has on global warming, human health, ecosystem quality, and resources is 4.40 × 103 kg CO 2 eq (GSD2 = 1.24), 4.15 × 10-3 Disability Adjusted of Life Years (DALY) (GSD2 = 1.31), 7.08 × 10-5 Species·yr (GSD2 = 2.04), and 4.39 × 104 MJ (GSD2 = 1.28), respectively. Global warming and freshwater ecotoxicity is the dominant contributor to the damage impact on human health and ecosystem quality, respectively. Results also show that the transport (freight ship) of raw materials and the production of iron powder are the two main contributors to the overall impact on the environment that rolled steel production has. Several policy recommendations are proposed in this paper, which focus on adjusting the steel industry's industrial structure, promoting the national-level carbon emissions trading in the ISI, promoting international cooperation, and improving public awareness of green and low-carbon development. Such policy recommendations provide decision-makers with valuable insights, which thus allow them to prepare the appropriate mitigation policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Life Cycle Assessment quantifies CO 2 embodied in the cross-border waste transfer. • The footprint of CO 2 in waste import follows an EKC. • It provides empirical evidence to the "Waste Haven Hypothesis". • This research correctly measures the environmental pollution of imported waste. • It describes the evolution of the global waste trade network. Many developing countries, such as China, Malaysia, Vietnam, India, etc., choose to prohibit waste import. Does this mean the inflection point of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) in these countries has arrived? In this paper, we first calculate the carbon dioxide emission and energy consumption in major resource-based wastes of 134 countries using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method. Second, we test whether the relationship between CO 2 (energy consumption) and GDP per capita confirms an EKC's inverted U-shaped curve. Empirical results show that: (1) the relationship between embodied CO 2 emissions (energy consumption) of imported wastes and GDP per capita of a country confirms EKC in various robustness checks, including using an alternative, dependent variable and using sub-sample data. (2) The EKC's inflection point on the average embodied carbon dioxide emissions of imported wastes is 36623.88 USD (37181.3 USD for energy). (3) EKC appears in 68 countries out of 134 countries. Most of these 68 countries have crossed the turning point. This research is novel in describing the EKC of waste trade's carbon footprint using the LCA model. This is the first research that provides empirical evidence to the "Waste Haven Hypothesis". This result empirically explains the evolution of the global waste trade network. That is, waste first transfers from the "North" to the "South" (from US to Europe, and from Europe to Japan and Korea), and then it moves again from the "South" to the "South" (from China to other Asian countries). It reflects the evolution of global pollution haven transfer in the pollution-intensitive sector. Previous research failed to do it because the indicators used for waste transfer limits to trade value (weight) that can not correctly measure waste transfer's environmental pollution. An advantage of using LCA is that it better estimates the pollution generated by the recycling sectors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]