Integrated Economic Equilibrium and Life Cycle Assessment Modeling for Policy-based Consequential LCA

Journal of Industrial Ecology

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 375-384

  Earles, J Mason ^a   Halog, Anthony ^a   Ince, Peter ^a   Skog, Kenneth ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Biofuel; Consequential life cycle assessment (CLCA); Energy demand; Forest economics; Industrial ecology; Partial equilibrium modeling

Indexed keywords

ENERGY MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; FORESTRY; GAS EMISSIONS; GREENHOUSE GASES; LIFE CYCLE; NATURAL GAS;

CONSEQUENTIAL LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; ENERGY DEMANDS; FOREST ECONOMICS; INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY; PARTIAL EQUILIBRIUM;

BIOFUELS;

BIOFUEL; ENERGY POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; FORESTRY PRODUCTION; GREENHOUSE GAS; INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY; LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS; NATURAL GAS;

ECOLOGY; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; FORESTRY; FUELS; GREENHOUSE GASES; LIFE CYCLE; NATURAL GAS;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84878948703     PISSN: 10881980     EISSN: 15309290     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00540.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Buongiorno, J., S. Zhu, D. Zhang, J. Turner, and D. Tomberlin . 2003. The global forest products model. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press.
2. Dandres, T., C. Gaudreault, P. T. Seco, and R. Samson . 2010. Assessing non-marginal variations with consequential LCA: A new tool for policy makers. North American LCA Conference X, Portland, OR, USA, 2-4 November, 2010. http://www.lcacenter.org/LCAX/presentations-final/185.pdf. Accessed 10 February 2011.
3. Day, R. 1973. Recursive programming models: A brief introduction. In Studies in economic planning over space and time: A contribution to economic analysis, edited by G. C. Judge and T. Takayama, 329-344. New York, NY, USA: Elsevier.
4. 2 equivalent emissions from alternative-fuel lifecycles: Scoping the issues. Working paper, UCD-ITS-RR-05-19, University of California, Davis, September 2005. http://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/publication_detail.php?id=62. Accessed 5 February 2011.
5. Earles, J. M. and A. Halog . 2011. Consequential life cycle assessment: A review. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 16(5): 445-453.
6. EISA (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007). H.R. 6, 110th U.S. Congress. GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation). http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6&tab=summary. Accessed 11 March 2011.
7. Ekvall, T. 2000. A market-based approach to allocation at open-loop recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 29(1-2): 91-109.
8. FAO (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization). 2011. FaoStat. http://www.faostat.fao.org. Accessed February 2011.
9. Frischknecht, R., N. Jungbluth, H.-J. Althaus, G. Doka, R. Dones, R. Hischier, S. Hellweg, T. Nemecek, G. Rebitzer, and M. Spielmann . 2007. Overview and methodology. Final report, Ecoinvent data v2.0, no. 1. http://www.ecoinvent.org/fileadmin/documents/en/01_OverviewAndMethodology.pdf. Accessed 20 January 2011.
10. Goedkoop, M. J., R. Heijungs, M. Huijbregts, A. De Schryver, J. Struijs, and R. Van Zelm . 2009. ReCiPe 2008: A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: Characterisation. https://sites.google.com/site/lciarecipe/publications. Accessed 25 January 2011.
11. Hertel, T., A. Golub, A. Jones, M. O'Hare, R. Plevin, and D. Kammen . 2010. Effects of US maize ethanol on global land use and greenhouse gas emissions: Estimating market-mediated responses. Bioscience 60: 223-231.
12. Ince, P., A. Kramp, D. Yoo, K. Skog, and A. Sample . 2011. Modeling future US forest sector market impacts of expansion in wood energy consumption. Journal of Forest Economics 17: 142-156.
13. Ince, P., X. Li, M. Zhou, J. Buongiorno, and M. Reuter . 2001. United States paper, paperboard, and market pulp capacity trends by process and location, 1970-2000. Research paper FPL-RP-602. Madison, WI, USA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory.
14. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. In Contribution of Working Group 1 to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15. Jungbluth, N., F. Dinkel, G. Doka, M. Chudacoff, A. Dauriat, M. Spielmann, J. Sutter, N. Kljun, and K. Schleiss . 2007. Life cycle inventories of bioenergy, data v2.0. Ecoinvent report no. 17. Dübendorf, CH: Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories.
16. Kloverpris, J., H. Wenzel, and P. Nielsen . 2008. Life cycle inventory modeling of land use induced by crop consumption. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13(1): 13-21.
17. Lapola, D., R. Schaldach, J. Alcamo, A. Bondeau, J. Koch, C. Koeking, and J. Priess . 2010. Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 3388-3393.
18. Marshall, A. 1920. Principles of economics. http://www.econlib.org/library/Marshall/marP33.html. Accessed 28 September 2010.
19. NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2011. Life-cycle inventory database project. Golden, CO, USA: NREL. http://www.nrel.gov/lci. Accessed February 2011.
20. Plevin, R., M. O'Hare, A. Jones, M. Torn, and H. Gibbs . 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels' indirect land use change are uncertain but may be much greater than previously estimated. Environmental Science and Technology 44: 8015-8021.
21. Samuelson, P. 1952. Spatial price equilibrium and linear programming. American Economic Review 42: 283-303.
22. Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, A. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, and T-H. Yu . 2008. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land use change. Science 319: 1238-1240.
23. Smith, W. B., P. D. Miles, C. H. Perry, and S. A. Pugh . 2009. Forest resources of the United States, 2007. General technical report WO-78. Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office.
24. U.S. EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2010a. Annual energy outlook 2010. DOE/EIA-0383. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo10/index.html. Accessed 5 January 2011.
25. U.S. EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2010b. International energy outlook 2010. DOE/EIA-0484. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/. Accessed 5 January 2011.
26. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2010a. Regulation of fuels and fuel additives: Modifications to renewable fuel standard program, final rule. Federal Register 75 (21 December 2010): 79964-79978. http://www.regulations.gov Accessed 19 February 2011.
27. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2010b. Renewable fuel standard program (RFS2) regulatory impact analysis. EPA-420-R-10-006. February 2010. Washington, D.C., USA: EPA.
28. US ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). 2011. Quick-reference list of conversion factors used by the bioenergy feedstock development programs. http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html. Accessed 4 February 2011.
29. Wegener Sleeswijk, A. and R. Heijungs . 2010. GLOBOX: A spatially differentiated global fate, intake and effect model for toxicity assessment in LCA. Science of the Total Environment 408(14): 2817-2832.
30. Weidema, B. 2003. Market information in life cycle assessment. Environmental project no. 863. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. http://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2003/87-7972-991-6/pdf/87-7972-992-4.pdf. Accessed 18 January 2011.
31. Weidema, B., N. Frees, and A. Nielsen . 1999. Marginal production technologies for life cycle inventories. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 4(1): 48-56.