CEI:
A Consumer Environmental
Index for Washington State
Sound Resource Management
Olympia, Washington
360-867-1033
Jeff.Morris@zerowaste.com
Environmental Summit – May 20, 2008
Acknowledgements
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
Presentation Outline








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
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.
Data Sources
1. US BLS 700 category CES
2. US BEA 491 sector EIO
3. US EPA TRI, AIRData & GHG Emissions
4. US DOE Transportation Energy Data Book
5. Carnegie Mellon EIO-LCA model
6. WA Dept of Ecology air emissions data
7. Process LCAs for paint, used oil, &
pesticides
8. US EPA WARM & MSW DST models
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
Energy
Raw Materials
Acquisition
Wastes &
Pollution
Energy
Energy
Materials
Manufacture
Product
Manufacture
Wastes &
Pollution
Wastes &
Pollution
Energy
Product Use or
Consumption
Wastes &
Pollution
Energy
Final Disposition
– Landfill,
Combustion,
Recycle or
Reuse
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.
LCA Environmental Impacts
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
Consumer Climate Change Index (2000 = 100)
Aggregate
Per Person
Per $ Spent
145
140
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Consumer Particulates Emissions Index (2000 = 100)
Aggregate
Per Person
Per $ Spent
145
140
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Consumer Human Toxins Index (2000 = 100)
Aggregate
Per Person
Per $ Spent
145
140
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Consumer Human Carcinogens Index (2000 = 100)
Aggregate
Per Person
Per $ Spent
145
140
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Consumer Ecosystems Toxicity Index (2000 = 100)
Aggregate
Per Person
Per $ Spent
145
140
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Consumer Environmental Index (2000 = 100)
Aggregate
Per Person
Per $ Spent
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2005 Pollution Intensity
WA Consumer Spending
Climate
%Tot$ Kg/$ %Kg
Home Heat/Cool
Transportation
Food
Home Furn/Sup
Shelter
Clothing
Tobacco
Average
Total Mg/Person
5.5%
17.7
11.6
11.1
19.0
4.0
0.3
Particulates
Kg %Kg
Toxins
Carcinogens
Kg %Kg Kg %Kg
EcoToxicity
Kg %Kg
5.13 30.7% 9.2E-03 46.2% 1.62 8.2% 4.2E-03 26.0% 1.7E-02
1.63 31.5 9.2E-04 15.0 1.33 21.8 1.9E-03 37.0 2.2E-02
1.07 13.5 1.3E-03 14.0 1.09 11.8 4.7E-04 6.2 6.9E-03
0.52 6.3 5.9E-04 6.1 1.50 15.4 6.9E-04 8.6 1.2E-02
0.35 7.3 4.2E-04 7.3 1.23 21.6 4.8E-04 10.2 6.2E-03
0.56 2.4 7.9E-04 2.9 1.18 4.3 6.7E-04 3.0 1.5E-02
0.37 0.1 2.3E-03 0.6 1.04 0.3 4.2E-04 0.1 5.0E-03
0.91
1.1E-03
1.08
8.9E-04
1.0E-02
18.57
0.02
21.92
0.02
0.20
9.3%
38.5
8.0
13.9
11.8
6.0
0.1
EIO – LCA Model
 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
Important Issues for Project
Team & Peer Reviewers
 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
Imports as Example of
CEI Robustness
 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.