SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Liz Wachs

Publications and source records attributed to Liz Wachs.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

A physically extended EEIO framework for material efficiency assessment in United States manufacturing supply chains

A physical assessment of material flows in an economy (e.g., material flow quantification) can support the development of sustainable decarbonization and circularity strategies by providing the tangible physical context of industrial production quantities and supply chain relationships. However, completing a physical assessment is challenging due to the scarcity of high-quality raw data and poor harmonization across industry classification systems used in data reporting. Here we describe a new physical extension for the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) EEIO for Industrial Decarbonization (EEIO-IDA) model, yielding an expanded EEIO model that is both physically and environmentally extended. In the model framework, the U.S. economy is divided into goods-producing and service-producing subsectors, and mass flows are quantified for each goods-producing subsector using a combination of trade data (e.g., UN Comtrade) and physical production data (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey). Given that primary-source production data are not available for all subsectors, price-imputation and mass-balance assumptions are developed and used to complete the physical flows dataset with high-quality estimations. The resulting dataset, when integrated with the EEIO-IDA tool, enables the quantification of environmental impact intensity metrics on a mass basis (e.g., CO$_2$eq/kg)) for each industrial subsector. This work is designed to align with existing DOE frameworks and tools, including the EEIO-IDA tool, the DOE Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap (2022), and Pathways for U.S. Industrial Transformations study (2025).

econ.GN

Controversy and consensus: common ground and best practices for life cycle assessment of emerging technologies

Public and private interest in life cycle assessment (LCA) has grown as environmental disclosure norms tighten, driving demand for decision-relevant assessment early in technological development cycles. Early-stage LCA has the potential to guide design choices, steer innovation, and mitigate lock-in of adverse environmental impacts. However, many aspects of early-stage LCA practice remain unsettled. We convened experts in a series of Faraday Discussion-style workshops to address recurring debates across six key topics for emerging technologies: appropriate use of LCA, uncertainty, comparison with incumbents, standardization, scale-up, and stakeholder engagement. For each issue, we present a declarative resolution, summarize key arguments for and against it, identify points of consensus, and provide recommendations. Across topics, the research network converged on practical priorities including framing studies to the decision context; setting minimum reporting expectations for data and study quality; and explicitly stating limits of transferability for scenario-based uncertainty assessment or analytically scaled-up projections. Disagreements persisted on when to formalize standards and how extensively uncertainty can/should be treated for low-maturity technologies. Supplementing the workshop findings with examples and context from relevant literature, we synthesize outcomes into a set of shared challenges and research priorities to strengthen transparent, evidence-based, and context-informed approaches for early-stage LCA.

cs.CY