IE Course EAEE E4001

WEEK 3: ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDICES AND METRICS

When we want to compare the length of two sticks, we can put them against
each other or use an accepted measure of length, such as a one-meter “yardstick”
(literally a piece of wood that is 3 feet long). When we want to know the gas efficiency of
a car, we speak of “miles per gallon”, in the U.S., or “kilometers per liter”, everywhere
else. As environmental awareness has increased, it has become necessary to develop
sets of measures by which we can measure the environmental performance of any
industrial activity, company, nation, and of the entire globe.
The “environment” consists of the physical world (land, water, air), the biological
world (animals, plants, humans), and the social world (humanity). It is obvious that
trying to measure the environmental impact of every possible activity on this highly
complex world is not an easy task and will take a very long time to complete it, if ever.
However, a start has already been made and will be described in this section, with
further examples to be presented throughout this course.

An environmental evaluation matrix

To simplify matters, let us consider an “environmental evaluation matrix”, the
rows of which represent six broad “stages” of industrial activities:
 Extraction of materials(e.g., mining, oil drilling, agriculture, forestry, fishery)
 Processing of primary materials (e.g., cement and metal production, oil refining, food
and wood processing)
 Primary fabricating (e.g., tube and wire, plastics, paper construction)
 Manufacturing (motors, cars, plastic and paper cups)
 Use of materials and products by public
 Recycling or disposal of used materials

The columns the “environmental evaluation matrix” will represent six broad “classes
of environmental concerns” regarding the potential impacts of each class of activities:
 Human health (e.g, carcinogenic, respiratory, eye/ear, esthetic)
 Ecosystems (e.g., biodiversity, animals, fish, plants)
 Materials/energy resources (e.g., ore and fossil fuel reserves, forests)
 Solid residues (municipal or industrial solid wastes)
 Liquid emissions (inorganic and organic contaminants of fresh and ocean waters)
 Gas emissions (inorganic and organic gases and particulate matter emitted to the
atmosphere)

1
 We can now visualize constructing this 6 x 6 matrix for one particular industrial
activity, such as the production and use of a television set, that involves all six stages of
production and use (see adjacent Figure 1). Let us now assume that we have at our
disposal a 0 to 10 “rating” of environmental concerns (with 10 representing “negligible”
impact and 0 “maximum” impact). If we know enough about what it takes to make a
television set, we can fill in the numbers in the matrix; the perfect score, from an
environmental point of view, would be 360 (thirty six slots times 10). In reality, the score
would be somewhere between 0 and 360 and anything that could be done to increase
the overall rating (for example by decreasing the use of energy per viewing hour, or
designing the set in such a way that the cathode ray tube could be recycled) would help
the environment.

You may think that such ratings cannot be easy and you are right because we just
started doing them and we have a long way to go. But as the ancients used to say
“getting started is one half of the whole job”.

Figure 1. “Cradle to Grave” Assessment of Environmental Impacts

2
 Dimensional and dimensionless environmental metrics
As we do when we discuss the fuel efficiency of a car, it is useful to express
environmental performance indices, or “environmental metrics”, as ratios of one
quantity, e.g., kilograms of emissions of NOx or CO2, to another, e.g. per kwh
produced. This particular measure has the dimensions of mass/energy (kg/kWh) and
is called “dimensional”. In contrast the metric “kg copper in copper product A per kg
of copper mined for manufacture of product A” has the dimensions of mass/mass
and, therefore, is “dimensionless”. In your term paper, try to express, as much as
possible, your results in the form of such dimensional or dimensionless ratios; you
will be contributing to the nurturing of IE.

The “master environmental equation”

As discussed in class, because of the high fluidity of atmospheric air and the
incessant wind motion over the surface of the Earth (e.g. of southwesterly winds over
North America), long-lived gas species, such as carbon dioxide (life time in atmosphere
of about 5 years), become evenly distributed over the entire troposphere, no matter
where they were generated. The enormous emission of anthropogenic carbon to the
atmosphere (presently 6.5 billion tons per year or about 6.5% of total pre-industrial
emissions of carbon) has raised the specter of global warming and has brought all
nations to the negotiating table (e.g. Rio and Kyoto conferences). So let us start by
establishing some measure of the contribution of each nation to global warming. This
can be done by means of the “master environmental equation” that consists of three
terms:
 population
 material standard of living (Gross Domestic Product or GDP, in $) per person
 environmental impact per unit of material standard of living (reflects level of
technology used in industrial activities

With respect to global warming, the last term can be expressed as “tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent, CO2,equ per $ of GDP” where “CO2,equ“ sums up all carbon
dioxide and all other “greenhouse gases (GHG)” that have an equivalent effect (e.g. one
ton of methane, CH4, emissions are equivalent to about 21 tons of CO 2). Accordingly,
the master environmental equation is expressed in algebraic form as follows:

National environmental impact =

= (national population)*(GDP/capita)*(environmental impact/GDP).

The above equation shows that the three contributing factors are the size of
population (e.g., China), very high material standard of living (e.g. the U.S.) and
inefficient technology for fuel combustion and gas emission control (e.g. in developing
nations). The “population” term can be reduced by public awareness or government
action (China). The GDP/capita term represents the material standard of living. The third
term is indicative of the technology used to produce materials and energy and to control
emissions. Of course, this is the main subject of this course. It should be noted that the

3
at the present time the Gross Domestic Product includes all products and services paid
for in local currency- it does not include environmental costs of a particular activity.

Proposal: The “incremental master environmental equation”

Inspection of Figure 2 (Growth in Global Population by Geographic Area) shows

a good reason for developing a second form of the master environmental equation: The
population of developing nations in Asia and Africa has exploded since the beginning of
what we may call the “2nd industrial revolution” in the 1950’s. If this trend continues, the
globe will face many severe problems (e.g. food, water and material shortages) besides
global warming. Therefore, it is necessary for the developed nations to curb their use of
material and energy resources and also for the developing ones to curb population
growth; or for both to be prepared to pay the consequences of irresponsible behavior.
To “level the playing field”, it may be useful to establish an “incremental master
environmental equation” that uses the year 1950 as a time reference point and compute
the change in the three contributing terms since 1950 and for projections into the future:
t (National environmental impact) =
= t oo[(national population)* (GDP/capita)* (environmental impact/GDP)].

where the increment  t represents the product of the three terms at time t minus the
same product in 1950. The first home exercise of the IE class will involve the calculation
of the master equation and the incremental Master equation for five representative
nations.

National material flows

One of the most useful metrics is the annual use of various materials per person
and it is readily obtained from published census and production records that all nations,
and states and provinces within a nation, keep. For example, Table 1 shows the U.S
1991 material inputs to all industrial activities. It can be seen that the largest
consumption is of fossil fuels, followed by construction minerals and agricultural
products. The 1991 total material flow amounted to 20.25 tons per capita.

Table 1. 1991 inputs in the U.S. economy (after Wernick and Ausubel 1995)
million tons Tons per capita
Coal 843.2 3.34
Crude oil 667.1 2.64
Natural gas 377.6 1.49
Other petroleum products 62.8 0.25
Total fossil fuels 1950.7 7.72
Crushed stone 1092.8 4.32
Sand and gravel 827.5 3.27
Total construction minerals 1920.3 7.60
Salt 40.6 0.16
Phosphate rock 39.9 0.16
4
Clays 38.8 0.15
Industrial sand and gravel 24.8 0.10
Gypsum 22.9 0.09
Nitrogen minerals 16.6 0.07
Lime 16.0 0.06
Sulfur 13.1 0.05
Cement 11.5 0.05
Soda ash 6.9 0.03
All other 17.7 0.07
(Table 1 cont.)
248.8 0.98
Total industrial minerals
Iron and steel 99.9 0.40
Aluminum 5.3 0.02
Copper 2.2 0.01
All other 4.2 0.02
Total metals 111.6 0.44
Saw timber 122.9 0.49
Pulpwood 72.8 0.29
Fuel wood 51.5 0.20
All other 12.6 0.05
Total forestry products 259.8 1.03
Grains 219.7 0.87
Hay 133.2 0.53
Fruit and vegetables 70.5 0.28
Milk products 63.2 0.25
Sugar crops 50.6 0.20
Oilseeds 44.7 0.18
Meat and poultry 42.3 0.17
All other 4.9 0.02
Total agriculture 629.1 2.49

Total U.S. material inputs 5120.3 20.25

It is interesting to compare the U.S. material flows with some other developed
countries (Table 2), also for the year 1991:

Table 2. 1991 domestic consumption of materials in industrial countries (Fischer-Kowalski and Hutter,
1998)
Nation Germany Japan Netherlands U.S.A.
Population, millions 80.0 124.0 22.5 252.8
Consumption, tons/capita:
Oil, coal, gas 6.2 3.3 6.4 7.7
Minerals and metals 10.7 11.8 5.9 8.0

5
 Biomass 2.6 1.5 10.2 3.0
Total domestic consumption 19.5 16.6 22.5 18.7

It can be seen that these numbers reflect not only different lifestyles of
consumers (e.g., the per capita use of fossil fuels used in Japan is one half or less than
of the other countries because of their development of superior mass transport system)
but also production and manufacturing strengths of each nation (e.g. compare the high
per capita “consumption” of minerals and metals in Japan and Germany with
Netherlands; and the high biomass consumption in Netherlands with that in Japan).
Just as Table 2 showed the input flows of materials to the U.S. economy, Table 3
shows how these materials are converted into domestic stocks, emissions and waste
streams.

Table 3. 1991 material outputs of the U.S. economy (after Wernick and Ausubel 1995)
million tons Tons per capita
Domestic stocks:
Construction 1677.1 6.63
All other 203.2 0.80
Total domestic stocks 1880.3 7.44
Atmospheric emissions:
Carbon as CO2 1367.0 5.41
Hydrogen 254.6 1.01
Methane 29.1 0.12
Carbon as CO 29.0 0.11
NOx 19.4 0.08
Volatile Organic Carbon (VOC) 17.6 0.07
Sulfur as SO2 10.4 0.04
Particulate matter 5.5 0.02
Total atmospheric emissions 1734.7 6.85
Residues and wastes:
Processing wastes 136.2 0.54
Coal ash 85.0 0.34
Municipal/commercial waste 276.4 1.09
Yard waste 35.0 0.14
Food waste 13.2 0.05
Water and wastewater sludge 9.4 0.04
Total residues and wastes 555.2 2.20
Total recycled materials 243.8 0.96

Total U.S. materials output 4411.9 17.45

Generation of wastes per unit of production

Wernick and Ausubel (1995) estimated the amount of wastes generated annually
in the U.S. as the result of fossil fuel and mineral production. Table 4 shows these
6
estimates as tons per year and also as the ratio of tons of waste per ton of material
produced. It can be seen that from up to 12 tons of material must be moved aside to
produce one ton of fuel, mineral or metal production.

Table 4. Mining and mineral concentration wastes generated per unit of production
Million tons of Million tons of tons of waste
wastes production per ton produced
Coal, surface mining 10042
843 12.0
Coal, cleaning 84
Oil & gas produced wastes 3318
1044.7 3.2
Oil & gas drilling fluids 57.2
Ore wastes in metal mining 755
111.6 10.4
“Tailings” from ore concentration 409
Ore wastes in phosphate mining 262
39.9 9.3
“Tailings” from ore concentration 108

Fraction of global production used by a nation

A metric that can be of importance in trans-national discussions of emission rights,
etc., is the fraction of global production of a specific material that is used by a
particular nation. It should be understood that this use encompasses both internal
consumption and also export trade. Therefore, large industrial nations are using a
fraction of that is disproportionately high to their fraction of the world’s population.
For example, Table 5 shows the 1990 global production of various materials and
the respective amounts produced/imported and used/exported by the U.S.
economy. It can be seen that the U.S., with about 4.5% of the world’s population,
used from 6.5% to 31.9% of the global production of various materials.

Table 5. Fraction of global production of materials used by the U.S. economy (1990,
ref.)
Material Global production, Use by U.S. U.S. fraction,
million tons economy, million
tons
Plastics 78.3 25 31.9%
Synthetic ffiber 13.2 3.9 29.5%
Aluminum 17.8 5.3 29.8%
Phosphate 15.7 4.4 28.0%
Copper (new metal) 8.8 2.2 25.0%
Salt 202.3 40.6 20.1%
Potash 28.3 5.5 19.4%
Sand, gravel 133.1 24.8 18.6%
Iron and steel 593.7 99.9 16.8%
Nitrogen 107.9 18 16.7%
Cement 1251.1 81.3 6.5%

Other useful metrics

7
 Many other environmental metrics have been defined and some are shown in
Table 6. They include the hydrogen/carbon ratio in fuel used (e.g. natural gas, CH 4,
generates more energy per kilogram of carbon emitted to the atmosphere than fuel oil),
intensity of use of material (e.g. a ton of steel in an automobile is less efficient in people
transport that one ton of steel in a train), and others.

Table 6. Some useful indices of environmental performance (after Wernick and Ausubel,
1995)
Name Dimensions Higher values indicate
Hydrogen to carbon ratio Mass H / mass C lower carbon emissions per
unit of energy generated
Intensity of material use $ of GDP/kg of material economic usefulness of
material
Intensity of carbon use $of GDP/kg of carbon emitted decarbonization of
process/product
Fertilizer productivity Tons produce/ton of fertilizers lower emissions of fertilizers to
used envir’t
Recycled material use Mass of recycled material/ Conservation of primary
(recycled plus virgin material) materials
Restoration of forest resources Mass of forest growth/forest Global carbon balance, less
products harvested ecosystem disruption
Dissipation index 1- mass of materials dissipated Efficiency of use of materials;
into environment during also avoidance of
production / mass materials contamination
produced

Environmental indicators at the firm level

Figure 3 (Tyteca, 1998) illustrates the relationships of an industrial subsystem
(e.g. , a plant, company or industry) with three systems that envelop it: The Earth (or
environment) system, social and economic systems. The subsystem A draws raw
materials and energy from the environment and discharges industrial residues in it; it
draws labor from the social system and provides employment and a desirable (hence
marketable) product; and derives capital from the economic system and provides value
added in the form of the transformed raw materials. In order to assure sustainability of
the subsystem , environmental, social and economic inefficiencies must be reduced.
Let us assume that the relative effects of the parameters shown in Figure 3 can
be accounted by means of weighting coefficients k R for raw materials R, kVA for value
added VA, etc. Then, Tyteca (1998) proposed that the economic indicator of
productivity efficiency (i.e., the indicator that concentrates on economic efficiency) can
be represented by:
kVA V A
Eeconomic 
k R R  k En E n  k L L  k C C  k M M  k Em E m  k wW

8
Similarly, the social indicator is defined by

k m M  k Em E m
Esocial 
kRR  k En E n  k L L  k C C  k V AV A  k w W

and the ecological indicator

 kWW
Eecological 
k R R  k E n E n  k L L  k C C  k V AV A  k M M  k E m E m
The sign convention in the above definitions is that quantities that need to be
maximized from an efficiency perspective have a positive sign in the numerator
and a negative sign in the denominator; the opposite is true for quantities that
should be minimized (e.g., wastes, energy consumption). Also, it is evident that all
quantities must be expressed in the same units (at this time in dollars or other
currency) and the ratio is dimensionless. Also, notice that the use of labor as an
economic input should be minimized; while generating employment is a socially
desirable output and should be maximized. Of course, the respective weighting
coefficients would depend on various factors such as rate of unemployment in a
particular area, cost of labor, etc.
You can see that although it will be difficult to determine units of measurement
and coefficient values for the different parameters in the above definitions, if they are
sound they can be used for comparative assessment of plants/firms engaged in the
same activity, or for weighing potential alternatives to an existing industrial activity. For
such an assessment of 48 U.S. electric utilities, look up the interesting article by Tyteca
(1998).

9
Figure 3. Relation of an industrial subsystem to the economic, social, and Earth
systems

Example of environmental metrics used by a forward looking company

The material presented in this section was obtained from an IE term paper by
Lane (1998) in which he discussed some of the environmental metrics developed by
United Techmologies Corp. (UTC) under their Environmental Health and Safety policy
(1997). A tabulation of these metrics is shown in Lane-Table 1. They include annual
releases to air and water, releases of ozone depleting substances, fines paid to
regulatory agencies, wastewater discharges, and reduction in electric energy costs.
Lane-Table 2 compares hazardous waste generation in a five-year period by UTC and
two other companies, General Electric and Boeing Corp.

Environmental Load Units

Suppose you want to design a new product. In deciding amongst different materials
and possibly forms, wouldn’t it be great to have a system of measurement that allows
you to quantify the environmental impacts of competitive materials? Well, the Swedish
Environmental Institute in collaboration with Volvo have developed an analytic tool
called the Environmental Priority Strategies for Product Design (EPS). I t was created
principally for use in automobile design but, with additional data, it can be used for any
10
process or product. It works like this: A group of knowledgeable persons examine each
material and assign to it an environmental index, per kilogram of material used, or for
surface coating applications, per square meter of surface coated by this material. A
number of factors are considered in this evaluation. The first is the value of this material
in terms of non-renewable Earth resources. E.g., precious metals, that are very scarce
in the Earth’s crust, are assigned very high values, as shown in the Raw Materials
tabulation (Table 7). Second , the effect of emissions of certain materials in the
atmosphere are considered (Table 8). Third, organic and inorganic emissions in water
are also assigned their environmental index (Table 9). The basic idea is that if you know
the amount of material used or emitted, which as we will find out soon is the first step
in the Life Cycle Assessment or products and processes, you by the Environmental
Load Unit of this material and you sum up the results. Amongst a number of competitive
materials, or processing routes, the lowest score will represent the best choice, from an
environmental perspective. During this course, we will discuss several applications of
this methodology.

11
PUT HERE THREE TABLES ON ENVIRONMENTAL LOAD UNITS FROM PP

References: Class
E n v iri r o n m e n t a l L o a d U n i t s f o r e m iiss s i o n s ini n a iirr notes; Graedel
and Allenby, IE,
(E L U /k g ) 163-72; Wernick
and Ausubel,
S w e d is h E n v ir o n m n e t a l I n s t it u t e
National Material
CO2 0 .0 4 V o la til O r g a n ic C a r b o n (V O C ) 1 0 Flows and the
Environment,
CO 0 .0 4 P o ly a r o m a tic H y d r o c a r b o n s 6 0 0 Wernick and
(P A H ) Ausubel, Annu.
Rev. Energy
NOx 250 A ld e h y d e s 20 Environ. 1995. 20:
7
N 2O 0 .6 F lu o r in e 1x10 463-92; Society’s
SOx 6 .0 M e rc u ry 10 Metabolism, Part
II, Fischer-
Kowalski and
Huttler , J. Ind.
Ecol. 1998, Vol.2,
3
N0.4:107-136; J.
Lane
aEnvironmental Policy and Mterics at United Ttechnologies Corp., 1998, IE term paper,
Columbia University; D. Tyteca, Sustainability Indicators at the Firm Level, J. Indust.
Ecology 1998, Vol. 2, No. 4: 61-76; Steen and Ryding, The EPS Enviro-accounting
Method 1992, Swedish Environmental Institute (IVL).

12