Frames

1
A Comparison of US and Canadian Industry
Environmental Performance Using EIO-LCA Models
by Andrew Bjorn Interdisciplinary PhD Program in
Urban Planning University of Washington Heather
L. MacLean Department of Civil Engineering Univers
ity of Toronto 27 September 2003
2
An Overview

• Basic concepts of the EIO-LCA model
• EIO-LCA in the US and Canada
• Creating the Canadian EIO-LCA model
• Comparisons between models
• Concluding remarks

3
What are Input-Output (IO) Models?

• Introduced by Wasily Leontief in 1941
• used to identify bottlenecks in wartime
  production
• Based on lists of transactions between industries
  (System of National Accounts)
• Assesses total economic impacts associated with
  an increase in final demand

4
The Environment and IO Models

• Some researchers have correlated environmental
  impacts with commodity outputs
• Water use
• Solid waste production
• Ecological footprints
• Energy use
• Carnegie Mellon Green Design Initiative
  Environmental Input-Output Model

5
The EIO-LCA as an Equation

• This model can be expressed in matrix form
• ?E E (I - BD)-1 ?Y
• where ?E change in environmental
  factors
• E environmental coefficients
• B direct requirements matrix
• D market share matrix
• (I - BD)-1 total requirements matrix
• ?Y column vector of demand change

6
Assessment of EIO-LCA Approach

• Advantages
• economy-wide analysis solves scoping problem
• quick results possible with analysis
• provides an understanding of interrelationships
• Disadvantages
• not geographically sensitive
• use, disposal phases of life-cycle not included
• commodity sectors are very aggregated

7
Economic Components

• Based on data from Statistics Canada
• M-level input-output tables
• 62 industries, 103 commodities
• commodity-by-industry make and use tables
• monetary values given in 1992 dollars
• Data suppression is a significant issue
• some statistics unavailable - privacy concerns
• data estimated from 1992-1997 data

8
Environmental Components

• Greenhouse gas emissions
• data from Environment Canada inventory
• CO2, methane, nitrous oxide
• Nonrenewable resource use
• data from NRCan, Environment Canada
• fuel use, aluminum, iron ore, copper, nickel
• National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI)
• 1998 data - 130 waste compounds
• air emissions, total waste emissions

9
Comparing the US and Canada

• Preliminary test of Canadian EIO-LCA model
• Some important differences to note
• Greater proportion of Canada is in cold climate
• More hydroelectric capacity in Canada
• Exporter of natural resources
• Differences in regulations, reporting strategies
  (i.e. TRI versus NPRI)
• Differences in commodity reporting

10
Comparing the US and Canada

• Test scenario to compare models
• final demand US1 million (1997 dollars)
• C1.36 million (1992 dollars, 1998 model)
• Ten sectors examined

Motor vehicles Fertilizers Lumber and wood products Plastic products Electric power Cigarettes and tobacco products Furnitures and fixtures Newsprint and other paper Leather and leather products Appliances
11
Comparison - Economic impact
Economic multiplier
Sector
12
Comparison - Energy
Energy Required (TJ / million)
Sector
13
Comparison - Electricity
Electricity Required (GW-h / million)
Sector
14
Comparison - GHG emissions
GHG emissions increase ( Mt CO2 eq / million)
Sector
15
Concluding Remarks

• Notable differences in model results
• differences in classifications, economic
  structure
• (note inefficiencies in certain sectors)
• errors in data analysis
• actual differences in impacts between countries
• May be significant regional differences
• Manitoba, Quebec more hydro
• Alberta, Saskatchewan more fossil-fuel
• Further research to confirm conclusions

16
Concluding Remarks

• Final goal creating a bi-regional EIO-LCA model
• Importance of bilateral trade 35 of US exports
  to Canada, 90 of Canadian exports to US
• Increasing integration of economic sectors
• Automotive
• Hydroelectricity
• Forestry
• Oil and gas
• Necessary to provide an international scope

17
Acknowledgements

• Laura Declercq-Lopez and Sabrina Spatari
• University of Toronto
• Prof. William Beyers
• Department of Geography, University of Washington
• Prof. Marina Alberti
• Department of Urban Planning, University of
  Washington