Overview of the Lifecycle Emissions Model (LEM)

The process for developing a detailed, comprehensive model of lifecycle emissions of urban air pollutants and greenhouse gases from the use of variety of transportation modes is described. The Lifecycle Emissions Model (LEM) estimates energy use, criteria pollutant emissions, and CO2-equivalent greenhouse-gas emissions from a variety of transportation and energy lifecycles. It includes a wide range of modes of passenger and freight transport, electricity generation, heating and cooking, and more. For transport modes, it represents the lifecycle of fuels, vehicles, materials, and infrastructure. It accounts for energy use and all regulated air pollutants plus so-called greenhouse gases. It includes input data for up to 20 countries, for the years 1970 to 2050, and is fully specified for the U.S

How We Can Have Safe, Clean, Convenient, Affordable, Pleasant Transportation Without Making People Drive Less or Give Up Suburban Living

In this report, the authors propose a dual-transportation network and community that would accommodate the preferences for auto-mobility and single-family homes,yet also offer much safer and cleaner, more pleasant and more socially integrated environment than what is commonly proposed in transportation and land use plans. A city with two universally accessible but completely separate and independent transportation networks is proposed. One network is for low-speed lightweight modes (LLMs) and the other is for fast-moving heavy vehicles (FHSVs). The authors review the economics and advantages of such a design, as well as the impacts on transportation problems. They conclude with a discussion regarding the social,political, and consumer factors determining the success of the proposed design

Appendix F: Emissions of Nitrous Oxide and Methane From Alternative Fuels For Motor Vehicles and Electricity-Generating Plants in the U.S.: An Appendix to the Report “A Lifecycle Emissions Model (LEM): Lifecycle Emissions from Transportation Fuels, Motor Vehicles, Transportation Modes, Electricity Use, Heating and Cooking Fuels, and Materials”

This report is an appendix to the report title "A Lifecycle emissions model (LEM): lifecycle emissions from transportation fuels, motor vehicles, transportation modes, electricity use, heating and cooking fuels, and materials". It provides a database of estimates of emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and power plants. The report also develops emission factors for nitrous oxide and methane emissions from conventional vehicles such as different alternative fuel passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty trucks

Tax Expenditures Related to the Production and Consumption of Motor Fuels and Motor Vehicles: Report #18 in the Series: The Annualized Social Cost of Motor-Vehicle Use in the United States, Based on 1990-1991 Data. Rev. 1

The authors of this report provide estimates of the tax expenditures related to the production and consumption of transportation fuels. They begin by discussing the relationship between tax expenditures and social welfare and tax expenditures versus public-sector costs. They estimate that sales tax and corporate income tax expenditures related to motor vehicles and their fuel may be several billion dollars per year. But they emphasize that these estimates should be considered with respect to questions of fairness, not economic efficiency. The authors point out that they do not add the estimates of environmental externalities, public-sector expenditures, and tax expenditures together because tax expenditures are not necessarily social costs in the same way that environmental externalities and public sector expenditures for roads are

Appendix D: CO2 Equivalency Factors: An Appendix to the Report, “A Lifecycle Emissions Model (LEM): Lifecycle Emissions From Transportation Fuels, Motor Vehicles, Transportation Modes, Electricity Use, Heating and Cooking Fuels, and Materials”

This report is an appendix to the report, 'A Lifecycle emissions model (LEM): lifecycle emissions from transportation fuels, motor vehicles transportation modes, electricity use, heating and cooking fuels, and materials". It begins with a brief overview of greenhouse gases and climate change. Major emission sources of greenhouse gases and aerosols are discussed. Background information of estimating carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalency factors (CEFS) is presented. The report then focuses on CEFS and methods and parameter values for gases with direct radiative forcing effects and for gases with indirect effects on climate

Appendix H: The Lifecycle of Materials: An Appendix to the Report, “A Lifecycle Emissions Model (LEM): Lifecycle Emissions From Transportation Fuels, Motor Vehicles, Transportation Modes, Electricity Use, Heating and Cooking Fuels, and Materials”

This report is an appendix to the report titled "'A Lifecycle emissions model (LEM): lifecycle emissions from transportation fuels motor vehicles, transportation modes, electricity use, heating and cooking fuels, and materials". This report presents an analysis of the energy and emissions associated with the lifecycle of materials and automobiles. The materials composition of motor vehicles is discussed including descriptions of manufacturing processes, tabulations of energy and emissions data, and data sources. Energy use in and emissions from the assembly of motor vehicles is discussed as well as the transportation of raw materials, semi-fabricated products, and motor vehicles. The report also discusses energy used to make agricultural chemicals, with focus on materials used in automobiles

The Contribution of Motor Vehicles and Other Sources to Ambient Air Pollution: Report #16 in the series: The Annualized Social Cost of Motor-Vehicle Use in the United States, based on 1990-1991 Data. Rev. 2

In this Report, we explain how we model the contribution of motor-vehicles and other emissions sources to ambient air pollution.In Reports 11, 12, and 13 of this social-cost series (see the list at the beginning of this report), we develop dose-response functions that estimate changes in human health, crop production, and visibility as a function of changes in ambient air pollution: ΔE = f(ΔP,O) = f  (PI, PP,O),where: ∆E = the change in the effect of interest (human health, crop production, or visibility)∆P = the change in ambient air pollutionO = other variables (such as population or incidence rate)PI = the initial pollution levelPP = the pollution level after the change in pollution -- in this social-cost analysis, the level after removing all anthropogenic emissions, or 10% or 100% of motor-vehicle related emissions.The initial pollution level, PI, is the actual ambient air quality in each county in the U.S. These data, and the data for any of the other variables O, such as population, are discussed in Reports 11, 12, and 13. In this report, we discuss how we estimate PP, the pollution level after removing anthropogenic emissions, or 10% or 100% of motor-vehicle related emissions.Note that, when we estimate the pollution level after removing motor-vehicle related emissions, we estimate the effects of a specific, “marginal” change in pollution: the difference between actual pollution (PI) and, what pollution would have been had motor-vehicle-related emissions been reduced by 10% or 100% (PP). We did consider as an alternative estimating the effect of all anthropogenic air pollution and then assigning a fraction of this total effect to motor vehicles, but for two reasons rejected this alternative. First, some of our dose-response functions (in Reports 11, 12, and 13) are nonlinear, which means that the change in effects (the responses) depends not only on the difference between PI and PP (the “doses”), but on the absolute magnitudes of PI and PP as well. A decrease in pollution from 15 units to 10 units does not necessarily 1 result in the same change in effects as does a decrease from 10 units to 5 units or from 5 units to zero units. If all of the dose-response functions were linear, then effects would be a function only of the difference between PI and PP, and one would have to specify only this difference, and not the absolute values of PI and PP. But as this is not the case, we must specify the absolute magnitudes of PP and PI.Second, because ozone formation is a nonlinear function of two precursor pollutants, NOx and VOCs, the only way to model the real nonlinear effect on ozone of motor-vehicle ozone-precursor emissions is to model actual ozone levels with and without motor vehicle precursor emissions. It simply is not meaningful to model the elimination of all anthropogenic pollution and then use some ad-hoc rules or “apportioning” factors assign a fraction of this eliminated pollution to motor vehicles.In short, we perform a “with/without” analysis: we estimate the health, agriculture, or visibility effects of the difference between total air pollution (with motorvehicle-related emissions) and air pollution with 10% or 100% of motor-vehicle-related emissions eliminated. To estimate the difference in pollution due to motor-vehicle emissions, we use data on ambient air quality, a detailed emissions inventory, emissions correction factors, and a simple air-quality dispersion model

Enhancing Resource Sustainability by Transforming Urban and Suburban Transportation

Urban regions worldwide are dominated by the need to provide for large numbers of high-speed, high-mass vehicles. Current strategies result in congestion, social fragmentation, and environmental degradation. An alternative urban design is presented that incorporates two separate road systems: one for light, low-speed vehicles and another for heavy, high-speed vehicles. This design enhances travel efficiency and sense of community, while minimizing energy use, water pollution, and nonrenewable resource consumption

Summary of the Nonmonetary Exernalities of Motor-Vehicle Use: Report #9 in the series: The Annualized Social Cost of Motor-Vehicle Use in the United States, Based on 1990-1991 Data

In this ninth paper in a series on the social cost of motor-vehicle use in the U.S., the author reports that the literature on externalities is enormous, and there is much debate on the terminology and particular aspects of externalities. He examines various definitions of externalities dating back to 1958. For the sake of this paper, he adopts the definition that externalities are unintended effects. When estimating the external cost of motor-vehicle use, the author examines the following: pain, suffering, death and lost non-market productivity due to motor-vehicle accidents; travel delay imposed by other drivers; the health effects of air pollution from motor vehicles; the cost of reduced visibility due to pollution; the climate change damage; the cost of noise from motor vehicles; the environmental impacts of leaking motor-fuel storage tanks; the impact of large oil spills; related water pollution; habitat destruction; the socially divisive effects of roads as barriers; and the esthetics of roads and the motor-vehicle service infrastructure

References and Bibliography: Report #21 in the Series: The Annualized Social Cost of Motor-Vehicle Use in the United States, Based on 1990-1991 Data. Rev. 2

There are 21 reports in this series. This final report comprises references and bibliographic material for all reports except those in Report #11, “The Cost of the Health Effects of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles.