EIO-LCA Web Forum

A support and discussion resource for users of the website
It is currently Tue May 26, 2020 12:05 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:13 pm
Posts: 3
Location: Berkeley, California
The new site looks great! I hope this is the place to ask this question.

I'm doing some analysis with the EIO-LCA model where I'd like to be able to compare environmental impacts under various scenarios against the current national total of such impacts. (e.g., if the makeup of the economy changes in a certain way, what percentage change will that make in various environmental burdens?)

To do this, it would be very helpful to know the total nationwide environmental burdens you use for the model. One way I could get that (I think) would be to run the model using total US final demand for every commodity from the Commerce Department's benchmark IO tables. (This should give all the environmental inputs and emissions associated with current US consumption.) But even if I do that, it would be nice to know that what I get matches the assumptions about total US environmental impacts that underly the model (and to know what those assumptions are).

So my question is, can you tell me what the total US impacts should be for basically all the impacts you track (criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, energy, TRI and RCRA where possible)? I'm assuming these totals (or sector-by-sector versions of these totals) were the starting point for developing the matrix called Ri in the Hendrickson paper, but maybe I'm mistaken. I'd also appreciate any information you can give about the year which your emission data represents and broadly where the data came from. It would be great to know this for both the 1992 and 1997 versions of the model.

Let me know if this is too massive a question, and I'll see if I can focus it a little better. Basically I'm shooting for being able to say something like, "based on analysis with the EIO-LCA model, scenario A will increase US emissions of SO2 (or whatever) by X% over their original level of Y." I can leave out the Y part, but I just want to double-check what would be the Y value implied by your model, and that it's reasonably close to some external estimate of US environmental accounts.

Thanks in advance for your help!

Matthias Fripp


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: more questions
PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:13 pm
Posts: 3
Location: Berkeley, California
After I posted this, I found answers to some of my questions in the "Methods" section at http://www.eiolca.net/methods.html . Now I have some more specific questions.

1. The Methods section mostly describes the 1992 version of the model. When I use the 1997 version, should I assume the results are based on 1997 dollars, rather than 1992 dollars?

2. Many of the 1992 emissions results are based on surveys and prices from that time. e.g., Manufacturing/mining electricity use was based on a 1992 survey, some fuel use estimates are based on average prices in 1992, and sectoral emissions of TRI, RCRA and conventional air pollutants come from EPA studies in 1995, 1993 and an unknown year, respectively. Have these factors all been updated for the 1997 model? Or does the 1997 model use the same emissions per dollar as the 1992 model?

3. Based on the amount of estimation needed to get emission rates for economic activity in each sector, I'm assuming that the total for all economic activity in the country should come out in the same ballpark as the 1992 or 1997 total for each factor, but maybe not exactly equal. Is that right?

4. If you want to take a stab at my original question, that would be appreciated too. Do you ever work with the full national-level emission numbers, or is that beyond what the model is meant for?

Thanks again.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Coming soon!
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:06 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 1:01 pm
Posts: 90
Matthias

Congratulations on being the first "outside" person to post on the forums.

I'm happy that I checked here in a reasonable amount of time to answer your question.

The long and short answer of your question(s) is that VERY soon we will be posting complete details about the data and model. You have probably noticed the new "look and feel" of the site. This was our first priority.

Unfortunately, we fell a little behind on getting some of the other "mechanical" pages done (like the 1997 sector list, etc). Regardless, I expect all of this to be done in the next week or so. If you'd like to check via email on progress, feel free to email us at eiolca@andrew.cmu.edu

Btw one other quick note - while the data we will post will have sectoral and national level emissions, I dont know how appropriate it is to use the model for national level burdens, because input-output models are intended to be used for "marginal" changes. Its power is in assuming that at relatively small levels of demand changes, not much else would change.

Of course, in some sectors, BILLIONS of demand is considered a small change.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: I'll keep watching
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:13 pm
Posts: 3
Location: Berkeley, California
Thanks for this information. I'll keep an eye out for the new details.

I'm hoping that it's still reasonable to use the model for small percentage changes in many sectors. I think this should be better than large percentage changes in one sector, but I'll be sure to note the concern.

I was also wondering about the 1997 RCRA numbers. You mention in a different section that there are problems with the EPA data, so you're no longer posting these. Are the sectoral emissions mismatched to the national total, or is there some other problem? Will this be covered in the new details you are posting? Are you likely to post 1997 RCRA values in the future?

Matthias


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:01 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 1:01 pm
Posts: 90
Matthias

What's wrong with the RCRA data is quite complicated, and it has been frustrating to get no help from EPA to correct it.

The long and short of it is that the detailed data that EPA provides does not match the "Executive Summary" of the data that comes with it. This led us to look at and double check some of the data, and we found some big discrepancies.

When we pointed this out to EPA, they checked around and found that the person responsible for the report no longer works there, and they seem unsure/unable to fix it in the near future.

I am not optimistic about it being fixed anytime soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group