170 likes | 266 Views
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 University of Toronto 27 September 2003. An Overview….
E N D
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 University of Toronto 27 September 2003
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
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”
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
The EIO-LCA as an Equation This model can be expressed in matrix form: ΔE = [E * (I - BD)-1] ΔY where:ΔE = change in environmental factors E = environmental coefficients B = direct requirements matrix D = market share matrix (I - BD)-1 = total requirements matrix ΔY = column vector of demand change
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
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
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
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
Comparing the US and Canada • Test scenario to compare models: • final demand: US$1 million (1997 dollars) • C$1.36 million (1992 dollars, 1998 model) • Ten sectors examined:
Comparison - Economic impact Economic multiplier Sector
Comparison - Energy Energy Required (TJ / $ million) Sector
Comparison - Electricity Electricity Required (GW-h / $ million) Sector
Comparison - GHG emissions GHG emissions increase ( Mt CO2 eq / $ million) Sector
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
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
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