CEI:

Sound Resource ManagementOlympia, Washington360-867-1033Jeff.Morris@zerowaste.com

Environmental Summit – May 20, 2008

A Consumer Environmental Index for Washington State

Sound Resource Management Economist Team: Dr. Jeffrey Morris, SRMG - Team Manager Dr. H. Scott Matthews, Carnegie Mellon University Dr. Frank Ackerman, Tufts University Washington State Department of Ecology, CEI Project Steering Committee: Dennis Bowhay Chris Chapman Cristiana Figueroa-Kaminsky Ivor Melmore - Project Manager Gretchen Newman Cheryl Smith Ken Zarker

Acknowledgements

The Problem Life Cycle Analysis The CEI Solution CEI graphs Consumer Pollution Intensity in 2005 A Few CEI Details CEI limitations and Data Gaps CEI Robustness

Presentation Outline

Economics – The Good, The Bad & The Ugly

1) Efficiency & Equilibrium – the magic of competitive markets (Adam Smith’s invisible hand creates optimality).

2) Externalities – pollution from free disposal (If it doesn’t have a price or cost the market ignores it).

3) Equity – dollar votes drive markets (Those without dollars don’t get to vote; those with more dollars get more votes).

The CEI Solution

An index like the CPI - except covers all consumer purchases, not just unchanging basket, and measures changes over time in environmental impacts, rather than prices.

Tracks the environmental impact of consumer choices on (1) climate change, (2) public health, and (3) ecosystems health.

Should decline when there are decreases in toxic substances, wastes and/or pollution associated with production, use, and disposal of the goods and services consumers demand.

1. US BLS 700 category CES2. US BEA 491 sector EIO3. US EPA TRI, AIRData & GHG Emissions 4. US DOE Transportation Energy Data Book 5. Carnegie Mellon EIO-LCA model6. WA Dept of Ecology air emissions data7. Process LCAs for paint, used oil, &

pesticides8. US EPA WARM & MSW DST models

Data Sources

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)

Raw Materials Acquisition

Materials Manufacture

Product Manufacture

Product Use or Consumption

Final Disposition – Landfill,

Combustion, Recycle or

Reuse

Energy Energy EnergyEnergyEnergy

Wastes & Pollution

Wastes & Pollution

Wastes & Pollution

Wastes & Pollution

Reuse

Product Recycling

One or limited number of return cycles into product that is then disposed – open-loop recycling. Repeated recycling into same or similar product, keeping material from disposal – closed-loop recycling.

Raw Materials Acquisition

Materials Manufacture

Product Manufacture

Product Use or Consumption

Final Disposition – Landfill,

Combustion, Recycle or

Reuse

Energy Energy EnergyEnergyEnergy

Wastes & Pollution

Wastes & Pollution

Wastes & Pollution

Wastes & Pollution

Reuse

Product Recycling

One or limited number of return cycles into product that is then disposed – open-loop recycling. Repeated recycling into same or similar product, keeping material from disposal – closed-loop recycling.

Wastes & Pollution

1. Global warming (eCO2)2. Human health – particulates, SOx and NOx

(ePM2.5)3. Human health – toxins (eToluene) 4. Human health – carcinogens (eBenzene) 5. Ecosystem toxicity (e2,4-D)6. Others – acidification, eutrophication,

ozone depletion, smog formation, resource/fossil fuel depletion, land use, water use, biodiversity, habitat alteration, indoor air quality

LCA Environmental Impacts

Consumer Climate Change Index (2000 = 100)

859095

100105110115120125130135140145

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Aggregate

Per Person

Per $ Spent

Consumer Particulates Emissions Index (2000 = 100)

859095

100105110115120125130135140145

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Aggregate

Per Person

Per $ Spent

Consumer Human Toxins Index (2000 = 100)

859095

100105110115120125130135140145

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Aggregate

Per Person

Per $ Spent

Consumer Human Carcinogens Index (2000 = 100)

859095

100105110115120125130135140145

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Aggregate

Per Person

Per $ Spent

Consumer Ecosystems Toxicity Index (2000 = 100)

859095

100105110115120125130135140145

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Aggregate

Per Person

Per $ Spent

Consumer Environmental Index (2000 = 100)

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Aggregate

Per Person

Per $ Spent

%Tot$ Kg/$ %Kg Kg %Kg Kg %Kg Kg %Kg Kg %Kg

Home Heat/Cool 5.5% 5.13 30.7% 9.2E-03 46.2% 1.62 8.2% 4.2E-03 26.0% 1.7E-02 9.3%Transportation 17.7 1.63 31.5 9.2E-04 15.0 1.33 21.8 1.9E-03 37.0 2.2E-02 38.5Food 11.6 1.07 13.5 1.3E-03 14.0 1.09 11.8 4.7E-04 6.2 6.9E-03 8.0Home Furn/Sup 11.1 0.52 6.3 5.9E-04 6.1 1.50 15.4 6.9E-04 8.6 1.2E-02 13.9Shelter 19.0 0.35 7.3 4.2E-04 7.3 1.23 21.6 4.8E-04 10.2 6.2E-03 11.8Clothing 4.0 0.56 2.4 7.9E-04 2.9 1.18 4.3 6.7E-04 3.0 1.5E-02 6.0Tobacco 0.3 0.37 0.1 2.3E-03 0.6 1.04 0.3 4.2E-04 0.1 5.0E-03 0.1 Average 0.91 1.1E-03 1.08 8.9E-04 1.0E-02

Total Mg/Person 18.57 0.02 21.92 0.02 0.20

Carcinogens EcoToxicityClimate Particulates Toxins

2005 Pollution Intensity WA Consumer Spending

Implementation of US Department of Commerce published IO tables• Current benchmark: 1997 (2002 soon)

Long-term project: 10 years in making• Free, online at www.eiolca.net

Widely used for LCA research in the US• More than 100 peer-reviewed papers on

development and application• More than 1 million uses of the model

EIO – LCA Model

TRI limitations - e.g., agriculture Impacts not covered – e.g., habitat and

ecosystem services degradations Use phase coverage not complete – e.g.,

household cleaning/laundering products and pharmaceuticals

New home construction not included Differential impacts of domestic vs. foreign

production

Important Issues for Project Team & Peer Reviewers

Weber and Matthews study – US produced 22% of eCO2 in 2005, but US consumption accounted for 25-26%, about 15% more than production.

This could mean that CEI model climate change upstream impacts should be 15% higher.

If 15% higher in all years 2000-2005, then CEI climate change component only up from 118.1 to 118.4, and overall CEI up from 126.2 to 126.4.

Imports as Example of CEI Robustness