UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Input-output analysis and the study of economic and environmental interactions Victor, Peter Alan 1971

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1971_A1 V52.pdf [ 20.48MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101779.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101779-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101779-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101779-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101779-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101779-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101779-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101779-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101779.ris

Full Text

INPUT-OUTPUT ANALYSIS AND THE STUDY OF ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL.INTERACTIONS by PETER ALAN VICTOR B.Soc.Sc. (E.P.S.) U n i v e r s i t y of Birmingham, 1967 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n the Department of Economics We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1971 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r re ference and study . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t permiss ion fo r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l ga in s h a l l not be a l lowed wi thout my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8 , Canada Date [Ch" ttr-UII /BSTRACT This t h e s i s i s an attempt to apply the technique of input-output a n a l y s i s to the study of the r e l a t i o n s between an economy and the environment which supports i t . The opening chapter contains a b r i e f j u s t i f i c a t i o n of the use of input-output a n a l y s i s f o r t h i s purpose. I t i s argued that input-output models, which recognise many of the i n t e r a c t i o n s among consumers and producers, can be extended so that they a l s o take account of some of the in t e r a c t i o n s among consumers, producers, and the n a t u r a l environment. Emphasis i s placed upon the flow of materials between the environment and the economy. Waste products flow from the economy to the environment and 'free' goods flow i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n . There follows, i n the second chapter, a review of the work of three writers who have explored the p o s s i b i l i t y of using general e q u i l i b r i u m and input-output models to study man's impact on the environment. The model presented by these economists are each found to possess unsatisfactory features. The t h e o r e t i c a l core of the d i s s e r t a t i o n i s an adaptation of two r e c e n t l y developed input-output models. Waste products and 'free' goods are introduced i n t o both models i n se v e r a l different ways. The data requirements of the various models diffe r considerably and only the simplest of the models can be applied to the data on waste products and 'free' goods that are currently available. Canadian data, much of which were collected especially for this study, and the methods used in i t s estimation, are described in the fourth chapter. Chapter five i s a summary of the results obtained from using the data on waste products and 'free' goods i n conjunction with the Canadian input-output accounts for 1961. These results include estimates of the wastes produced and 'free' goods used in the production and consumption of one dollar's worth of each type of commodity manufactured i n Canada. The results also include estimates of the Provincial distribution of waste products and 'free' goods that were associated with Canadian economic activity i n 1961. Furthermore, an attempt i s made to rank the commodities produced and consumed in Canada, in terms of the relative impact on the environment of their production and consumption. The f i n a l experiment illustrates a method of estimating theecologic implications of changing the pattern of Canadian consumption. To show this an estimate i s made of the effects of transferring 50 per cent of Canadian passenger car travel to public tansportation. The l a s t chapter of the t h e s i s i s a discussion o f the uses to which the models and r e s u l t s might be put i n formulating Government p o l i c y . Various methods are: examined of bringing the production of wastes and use of 'free' goods within the realm of the market economy. I t i s argued that although i t i s generally more e f f i c i e n t to p r i c e the wastes and 'free' goods d i r e c t l y t h i s p o l i c y can only serve as a long term goal.. In the short term i t i s suggested that, f o r administrative reasons, emphasis should be placed on levying taxes on commodities so that t h e i r market p r i c e s r e f l e c t the ecologic cost of t h e i r production and consumption. A schedule of the r e l a t i v e s i z e s of such taxes i s estimated using a model developed f o r the purpose together with the data c o l l e c t e d as part of t h i s study. In conclusion, the overal purpose of the d i s s e r t a t i o n i s t o suggest a method of a n a l y s i s rather than to present comprehensive r e s u l t s . The r e s u l t s which are obtained are intended to be no more than i n d i c a t i v e of what would be possible i f more accurate and comprehensive data were a v a i l a b l e . CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ................ 1 A. A Perspective on Economics 1 B. Standard Economic Theory and the Study of Economic and Environmental Relations .,... 3 C. The Empirical Results 6 CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON THE CONSTRUCTION  OF MODELS THAT INCLUDE THE INTERACTIONS OF  ECONOMIC SOCIETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT .... 14 A. Introduction 14 B. The Ayres-Kneese Model 1'+ C. The Daly Model 30 D. The Isard Model 36 CHAPTER III COMMODITY BY INDUSTRY INPUT-OUTPUT MODELS  AND THE STUDY OF ECONOMIC-SCOLOGIC INTER- RELATIONS 49 A. Introduction :.. 49 B. The Conceptual Framework 49 C. The Accounting Framework 53 D. The Commodity-by-Industry Accounting Scheme 59 E. Analytical Models and Commodity-by-Industry Accounts 67 CHAPTER I I I E. 1. E. 2. E. 3. E. 4. E. 5. E. 6. F. G. G. 1. G. 2. CHAPTER IV A. B. C. 1. PAGE The D.B.S. Model ( E x c l u d i n g E c o l o g i c C o mmodities) 69 The D.B.S. Model W i t h Imports D e t e r m i n e d Endogenously 73 The D.B.S. Model and P r i m a r y I n p u t s ..... 78 The R o s e n b l u t h Model ( E x c l u d i n g E c o l o g i c C o m m o d i t i e s ) 80 The R o s e n b l u t h Model w i t h I m p o r t s D e t e r m i n e d En d o g e n o u s l y 83 The R o s e n b l u t h Model and P r i m a r y I n p u t s 85 A P r e l i m i n a r y Comparison o f t h e D.B.S. and t h e R o s e n b l u t h I n p u t - O u t p u t Models 86 The I n t r o d u c t i o n o f E c o l o g i c Commodities I n t o t h e Models 88 The D.B.S. Model and E c o l o g i c Commodities 89 The R o s e n b l u t h M o d e l , E c o l o g i c Commodities and L i n e a r Programming 113 A STUDY OF THE PRODUCTION M P DISPOSAL OF  WASTES IN CANADA FOR THE YEAR 1361 123 I n t r o d u c t i o n , 123 The E s t i m a t i o n o f t h e P r o d u c t i o n o f Wastes: An O v e r v i e w 125 The Use o f Water and t h e P r o d u c t i o n o f Water • borne Wastes i n Canada, 1961 130 CHAPTER IV PAGE C. l.a) The Use of Water i n Canadian Manufacturing Industry and the Production of Waterborne Wastes (D.B.S. 4-11) 130 C. l.b) A B r i e f Evaluation of the Estimates of B.O.D. and Settleable and Suspended Solids 143 C. l . c ) The Production of Other Categories of Waterborne Wastes by Canadian Manufacturing Industry i n 1961 (D.B.S. 4-11) 145 C. 2. The Use of Water i n Non-Manufacturing Industries i n Canada, 1961 153 C. 2.a) The Use of Water f o r Agriculture i n Canada, 1961 (D.B.S.I) 155 C. 2.b) The Use of Water f o r the Production of Thermal E l e c t r i c i t y by U t i l i t i e s i n Canada, 1961 (D.B.S. 14) 156 C. 3. The Use of Water f o r Domestic Purposes and the Domestic and Commercial Production of Waterborne Wastes i n Canada, 1961 .... 158 C. 3.a) Human Excreta i n Canada, 1961 159 C. 3.b) The Treatment and Disposal of Human Wastes 160 C. 3.c) An Estimation of the Municipal Discharge of Wastes i n t o Canadian Wasters, 1961 (D.B.S. 14) 161 D. The Production of Wastes by Livestock and Poultry i n Canada, 1961 (D.B.S. 1) 174 E. 1. The Emission of Airborne Wastes as a Consequence of Economic A c t i v i t y i n Canada, 1961 180 CHAPTER IV PAGE E. 2, The Emission of Airborne Wastes from the Combustion of Fuels by Canadian Manufacturing Industry, 1961 (D.B.S. 4-11) 181 E. 3. The Emission of Airborne Wastes from the Combustion of Fuels by the Canadian Mineral Industry, 1961 (D.B.S. 2-3) 188 E. 4. The Emission of Airborne Wastes From Electricity Generation in Canada, 1961 (D.B.S. 14) 194 E. 5. The Emission of Airborne Wastes from the Domestic Use of Mineral Fuels in Canada, 1961 203 E. 6. The Emission of Airborne Wastes From the Commercial Use of Mineral Fuels in Canada, 1961 205 E. 7. The Emission of Airborne Wastrs from the Use of Mineral Fuels by Governments, Police and Armed Forces in Canada, 1961 207 S, 8. The Emission of Airborne Wastes from the Use of Mineral Fuels for Transportation in Canada, 1961 (D.B.S. 13) 208 E. 8.a) The Emission of Airborne Wastes from the Combustion of Petroleum Products by Commercial Motor Vehicles in Canada, 1961 210 E. 8,b) The Emission of Airborne Wastes from Passenger Cars and Motor Cycles in Canada, 1961 . . . . 226 E. 8.c) The Emission of Airborne Wastes from the Combustion of Mineral Fuels by Railways in Canada, 1961 229 E. 8.d) The Emission of Airborne Wastes from the Combustion of Mineral Fuels for Marine Purposes in Canada, 1961 235 CHAPTE R IV E. 8.e) E. 9. E. 10. E. 10.a) E. 10.b) E. 10.c) E. 10.d) E. 10.s) E. 10.f) E. 10.g) E. 11. F. The Emission of Airborne Wastes from the Combustion of Mineral Fuels by the Transportation Industry i n Canada, 1961 (D.B.S. 13) 242 The Emission of Airborne Wastes from the Combustion of Mineral Fuels by the Forestry Indsutry i n Canada, 1961 (D.B.S. 1) 246 The Emission of Airborne Wastes by Canadian Industry i n 1961 Attributable to Activities Other than Fuel Consumption 248 The Emission of Airborne Wastes from the Manufacture of Sulphuric Acid in Canada, 1961 (D.B.S. 10) 248 The Emission of Ammonia from the Production of Ammonia i n Canada, 1961 (D.B.S. 10) ... 249 The Emission of Flouride from the Production of Aluminium in Canada, 1961 (D.B.S. 8) .. 249 The Emission of Particulate Wastes from the Production of Steel in Canada, 1961 (D.B.S. 8) 249 The Emission of Airborne Wastes from Petroleum Refining in Canada, 1961 (D.B.S. 10) 255 The Emission of Sulphur Dioxide from the Smelting of Metals in Canada, 1961 (D.B.S. 8) 258 The Emission of Airborne Wastes from Kraft Pulp Mills in Canada and the Provinces, 1961 (D.B.S. 7) 258 The Emission of Airborne Wastes from Municipal Disposal of Refuse in Canada, 1961 (D.B.S. 14) 261 The Production and Disposal of Refuse in Canada, 1961 267 CHAPTER IV PAGE F. 1. Refuse Production 268 F. 2. Refuse C o l l e c t i o n .• 271 F. 3. Refuse Disposal 277 G. A Summary of the Data 282 H. The Geographical D i s t r i b u t i o n of Economic A c t i v i t y i n Canada, 1961 292 H. 1. A g r i c u l t u r e , Forestry, F i s h i n g and Trapping (D.B.S. 1) 292 H. 2. Mines and Quarries Excluding Coal Mines (D.B.S. 2) 293 H. 3. Mineral Fuel Mines and Wells (D.B.S. 3) .. 293 H. 4. Manufacturing Industry (D.B.S. 4-11) 297 H. 5. Other Industries (D.B.S. 12-16) 305 H. 6. F i n a l Demand 310 CHAPTER V SOME EXAMPLES OF THE USE OF ECOLOGIC INPUT- OUTPUT MODELS 335 A. Introduction 335 B. The D. B.S. Model and the Canadian Economy 336 B. 1. Ecologic Impact Tables 337 B. 2. The Ecologic Cost c f Economic Commodities 357 B. 3. The Geographical D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ecologic Commodities 368 C. The Rosenbluth Model and the Canadian . Economy 371 CHAPTER V PAGE C. 1. An Estimation of the Ecologic Cost of A Transfer from Private to Public Transportation 381 C. 2. An Evaluation of the Results 390 CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION: THE INPUT-OUTPUT MODELS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT POLICY 403 A. Introduction 403 B. Patterns of Consumption and Methods of Production 404 C. Taxation and the Regulation of Economic Activity 408 SUMMARY OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TABLES 416 DEFINITION OF MEASURES 416 GLOSSARY 417 LIST OF TABLES PAGE TABLE 1. Daly's Input-Output Table 33 2. Isard's Input-Output Table 38 3. An Economic-Ecologic Input-Output Table 54 4. The Use of Water by United;States Manufacturing Industries i n 1964 and Canadian Manufacturing Industries i n 1961 131 5. A Comparison of the Use of Water by Industries i n C a l i f o r n i a and the United States i n 1963 149 6. Adjusted Waste Load C o e f f i c i e n t s f c r I n d u s t r i a l Waste Water (Ton/$ M i l l i o n ) 152 7. The Output of Some Waterborne Wastes by Canadian Manufacturing Industries, i n 1961 154 8. Estimated Consumption o f Water by Canadian Livestock and Poultry i n 1961 157 9. Tonnage of Wastes Discharged i n t o Canadian Water Druing 1961 v i a Municipal Sewer System 162 10. Canadian Sewerage Works S t a t i s t i c s , 1960 164 11. Approximate Performance o f Conventional Treatments of Municipal Wastes 166 12. The Extent of Sewers and Sewage Treatment Plants i n Canada, 1961 170 13. P r o v i n c i a l Production of Wastes by Livestock on Canadian Farms, 1961 175 14. P r o v i n c i a l Production of Wastes by Poultry on Canadian I arms, 1961 176 15. The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Livestock and Poultry by Province, 1961 178 16. The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Livestock and Poultry Waste by Province, 1961 179 17. Emission Factors used to Estimate the Airborne Wastes from the Combustion of Fuels by Canadian Industries, 1961 182 18. Airborne Wastes from Fuel Consumption by Canadian Manufacturing Industry, 1961 184 19. Emission of Airborne Wastes from Fuel Consumption i n the Canadian Mineral Industry, 1961 ( A l l Mining Except Mineral Fuels) 190 20. Emission of Airborne Wastes from Fuel Consumption i n the Canadian Mineral Fuels Industry, During 1961 192 21. Emission of Airborne Wastes from E l e c t r i c i t y Generation i n Canada, 1961 196 22. P r o v i n c i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Production of Thermal E l e c t r i c Power, 1961 198 23. A Summary of Emission Factors used f o r Estimating the Emission of Airborne Wastes from Various Economic A c t i v i t i e s 199 24. Emission of Airborne Wastes from the Domestic use o f Mineral Fuels i n Canada, 1961 204 25. Emission of Airborne Wastes from the Commercial Use of Mineral Fuels i n Canada, 1961 206 26. Emission of Airborne Wastes from the Combustion of Mineral Fuels by Federal and P r o v i n c i a l Governments, P o l i c e and Armed Forces i n Canada, 1961 209 27. Emission o f Airborne Wastes from Motor Vehicles i n Canada and the Provinces, 1961 211 28. T o t a l Emissions from the Use of Gasoline and Di e s e l O i l From Motor Vehicles i n Canada and the Provinces, 1961 213 29. Emission of Airborne Wastes from Truck T r a f f i c i n Canada and the Provinces, 1961 215 30. T o t a l Emissions from the Use of Gasoline and D i e s e l O i l by Truck T r a f f i c i n Canada and the Provinces, 1961 217 31. Airborne Wastes from the Urban T r a n s i t System i n Canada and the Provinces, 1961 218 32. T o t a l Emissions from the Use of Gasoline and D i e s e l O i l by the Urabn T r a n s i t System i n Canada and the Provinces 221 33. Emission o f Airborne Wastes from the Passenger Bus Service i n Canada and the Provinces, 1961 222 34. P r o v i n c i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Canadian Population, 1961 225 35. Emission o f Airborne Wastes from Passenger Cars i n Canada, 1961 227 36. The P r o v i n c i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of Passenger Cars (Including Taxis) i n Canada, 1961 228 37. Emission o f Airborne Wastes from Canadian Railways, by Province, 1961 230 38. Airborne Wastes from the Transportation Industry i n Canada and the Provinces, 1961: Railways, Trucks, Inter-Urban and Rural Buses, Urban Tr a n s i t ( A i r and Water Transportation are Excluded) 236 39. Airborne Wastes from the Use of Mineral Fuels f o r Marine Purposes (Excluding the Navy) i n Canada, 1961 241 40. P r o v i n c i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of Airborne Wastes from the Transportation Industry (Excluding A i r and Water Transportation) i n Canada, 1961 244 41. Airborne Wastes from the Combustion of Mineral Fuels by the Forestry Industry i n Canada, 1961 247 42. P a r t i c u l a t e Emissions from S t e e l M i l l s i n Canada, 1961 251 43. Deta i l s of the Canadian S t e e l Industry, 1961 252 44. P a r t i c u l a t e Emissions from Secondary S t e e l Furnaces i n Canada, 1961 256 45. Emissions of Airborne Wastes from Petroleum Refining i n Canada, 1961 257 46. Emission of Sulphur Dioxide from the M e t a l l u r g i c a l Industry i n Canada, 1961 259 47. Emission of Airborne Wastes from Kraft Pulp M i l l s i n Canada and Provinces 250 48. Emission Factors f o r Municipal Refuse Disposal: Incineration and Open Burning 262 49. Estimates of Airborne Wastes from Municipal Refuse Incineration i n Canada, 1961 265 50. Estimated Quantities of L i q u i d Waste Discharged i n Metropolitan Toronto, 1966 270 Estimated Quantities of Refuse C o l l e c t e d i n Metropolitan Toronto Area, 1966 274 52. Average Refuse C o l l e c t e d , Pounds Per Person Per Day, United States of America, 1968 275 53. Sample Municipal Refuse Composition: United States East Coast, 1968, Compared with. Toronto, 1967 276 54. Products from A Well Designed Incinerator 281 55. Inventory of "Free"Goods and Waste Products, Canada, 1961 284 56. P r o v i n c i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of the A g r i c u l t u r e , Forestry, F i s h i n g and Trapping Industry Group, 1961 294 57. P r o v i n c i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Mines and Quarries (Excluding Coal Mines) Industry Group, 1961 295 58. P r o v i n c i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Mineral Fuel Mines and Wells Industry Group, 1961 296 59. P r o v i n c i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of Canadian Manufacturing Industry, 1961, by Value of Sales ($) 298 60. P r o v i n c i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of Canadian Manufacturing Sales ($) by Industries C l a s s i f i e d According to the Industries i n the D.B.S. Input-Output Model, 1961 303 61. P r o v i n c i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of Canadian Manufacturing Sales as a Percentage of t o t a l Canadian Manufacturing Sales, 1961 304 62. P r o v i n c i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of Airborne Wastes from the Trade and Transport Industry, 1961 306 63. P r o v i n c i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of Airborne Wastes, by Per Cent, from the Trade and Transport Industry, 1961 307 64. P r o v i n c i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of Waterborne Wastes by Per Cent, from the Municipal Sewer Systems, 1961 309 65: Ecologic Impact Table without Import Leakages (Pounds/Dollar of F i n a l Demand) 339 66. Ecologic Impact Table with Import Leakages (Pounds/Dollar of F i n a l Demand) 349 67. S o c i a l Weights f o r the Ecologic Commodities 363 68. The Relative Ecologic Cost of Producing and Consuming One Doll a r ' s Worth of Each Economic Commodity (Using the Weights of Table 67) 366 69. The Relative Ecologic Cost of Producing and Consuming One Doll a r ' s Worth of Each Economic Commodity ( A l l Airborne Wastes are Weighted by Unity. A l l other Ecologic Commodities are Weighted by Zero) 369 70. The P r o v i n c i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ecologic Inputs and Outputs of Canadian Industry, 1961(Tons) 372 71. The P r o v i n c i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ecologic Inputs and Outputs A t t r i b u t e d D i r e c t l y to F i n a l Deaand i n Canada, 1961 375 72. The Relative Ecologic Cost of Economic A c t i v i t i e s i n Canada, 1961 379 73. An Estimate of the Relative Ecologic Cost of Transferring 50 per cent of Passenger Car Transportation i n Canada, 1961 to the Public Transportation System 396 74. An Estimate of the Change in Industrial Activity Brought About by a Transfer of 50 Per Cent of Private Transportation to the Public Transportation System i n Canada, 1961 391 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to record my thanks to a number of people who gave me invaluable help in the p r e p a r a t i o n of this thesis. In order to reach i t s present form the thesis passed through many typewriters. Most notable were those of Susan Aizenman and Jane Douglas of the University of British Columbia and Cindy Rowe and Sandy Sharpies of the University of Kent at Canterbury. I am very grateful for the help i n computer programming given me by a l l members of the Statistics Laboratory at U.B.C, especially from Dave Malcolm, Steve Hollett and Judy Bird. My thanks are due to Arthur Smolensky who acted as my interpreter of the many s c i e n t i f i c papers that I was obliged to read i n order to write, this thesis. I should also lik e to thank a l l the members of my examining committee for their helpful criticisms at an earlier stage, and particularly Dr. David Donaldson who f i r s t aroused my interest in this area of study. Above a l l I am indebted to Professor Gideon Rosenbluth for the erudite supervision which he so generously gave. Finally I thank my friends John Dickenson and Robin Hanv«Lt with whom I lived during the time I wrote the thesis and whose happy company made the arduous task immeasurably easier for me. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY A PERSPECTIVE ON ECONOMICS The Western intellectual tradition has i t that one gains knowledge of the Universe by focussing attention on some aspects of i t 1 . At a much more immediate level, one gains knowledge of human society by concentrating only on selected aspects of that society. Consequently, some people become p o l i t i c a l scientists, seme become sociologists, some become economists and so on. Although social scientists, whatever their discipline, may be well aware of the interrelations among the whole gamut of social phenomena, i t is often overlooked that, as social scientists, they are already operating at what, in a sense, is a second degree of abstraction. The totality of human society is i t s e l f only a subset of a l l that constitutes the Universe. It follows that social scientists must project their horizons in two directions i f they are to escape the narrow confines of their particular discipline. Social scientists, as students of society, have much to gain from exploring the work of researchers in social sciences other than that to which they may be professionally committed. And in the recognition of luankindfedependence on the physical world of which he i s a member i t may be f r u i t f u l for the social scientist to address himself directly to some of the more important links between society and the material environment in which i t i s embedded. It is the purpose of this dissertation to draw attention to the relations between a society's economic activity, as traditionally defined, and the physical world which provides the stage for the larger drama. Taking the view, then, that economic activity i s a part of human society, and that in turn, society i t s e l f is only a subset of the phenomena that constitute the Universe, the focus of this study w i l l be the connections between human society and the rest of the Universe that are attributable to economic activity. These include the inputs from the environment}^ industry, such as oxygen, used in the combustion of mineral fuels. Also included are the industrial outputs which are fed back into the environment i n the form of waste products. An attempt w i l l be made to establish functional relations between the extent and character of economic activity and the flow of materials in both directions between the economy and the environment. It w i l l be shown that existing economic models can be extended, both theoretically and empirically, so that the quality and quantity of these material flows becomadetermined by the economic activity of society. B. STANDARD ECONOMIC THEORY AND THE STUDY OF ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL RELATIONS  The res i d u a l s of production processes, v a r i o u s l y c a l l e d : p o l l u t a n t s , contaminants and wastes product, have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been treated as extraordinary in the l i t e r a t u r e of economics. This i s also true of 'free goods' taken d i r e c t l y from the environment. The theory of e x t e r n a l i t i e s , which has been developed to deal with these phenomena and other matters, has l a r g e l y been d i r e c t e d to the consideration of events in v o l v i n g only small numbers of p a r t i c i p a n t s . In contrast to t h i s , the theory of public goods does allow and perhaps requireslarge numbers of p a r t i c i p a n t s . However, the e f f e c t s of only some types of waste products, f o r example emissions from automobiles, may u s e f u l l y be thought of a s ' p u b l i c ' . Waste products are n e i t h e r unusual nor are t h e i r e f f e c t s confined to e i t h e r very small groups of people or very large groups of people. Moreover, while these t r a d i t i o n a l approaches are of l i m i t e d use i n analysing the output of wastes received by the environment, they are even l e s s h e l p f u l i n the study of the flow of inputs from the environment to the economy. What i s required i s a methodology that e x p l i c i t l y recognizes that the production of economic commodities requires flows of materials both to and from the environment. Hatter, except insofar as i t can be converted i n t o and from energy, cannot be destroyed or created. Some aspects of t h i s rearrangement in the course of economic a c t i v i t y are desi r a b l e : the production of goods and s e r v i c e s , and some are undesirable: the production of wastes. In a l l production processes, at the micro and macro l e v e l , the quantity of waste products must be s u f f i c i e n t to s a t i s f y the p h y s i c a l law of the conservation of mass. Of course, a s u i t a b l e methodology f o r the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of economic and environmental r e l a t i o n s must do more than comply with t h i s fundamental p h y s i c a l law. It must allow f o r a l l forms of resource use and a l l forms of waste product d i s p o s a l , that i s v i a a i r , water and land. Nearly a l l the e x i s t i n g economic analysis of waste products has been applied independently to a i r , water or land p o l l u t i o n , despite the f a c t that these three environmental sectors are subsitutes f o r each other as receptacles f o r most forms of waste. A methodology which acknowledges a v a r i e t y of flows between the economy and the environment must admit a v a r i e t y of production prcesses. Within economic theory, a Walrasian general equilibrium model and Leontief's input-output a n a l y s i s , are the obvious t o o l s , providing they can be adapted to s a t i s f y the law of conservation of mass which i s fundamental to the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of economic and environmental i n t e r r e l a t i o n s . Ayres and Kneese, i n a 1969 2 a r t i c l e , have shown how the Walrasian framework may be extended to include some of these r e l a t i o n s . Their work i s reviewed i n the following chapter and although some important weaknesses in t h e i r formulation are pointed out, t h e i r attempt to adapt the general equilibrium framework i s to be commended. The present study, with i t s emphasis on empiricism, b u i l d s on some recent work i n input-output analysis and extends two input-output models so that economic-environmental r e l a t i o n s are brought i n t o the framework. Input-output models are based on accounting i d e n t i t i e s . The models become a n a l y t i c a l only when various assumptions are made about the nature of the production functions i n the economic system. Material flows to and from the environment can be conveniently included i n input-output models, without upsetting the accounting i d e n t i t i e s , by adding an environmental sector, which can be subdivided into a i r , water and land. Flows of matter from these subsectors to i n d u s t r i a l p l a n t s , mines and people must be exactly balanced by equivalent flows from i n d u s t r i a l p lants, mines and people back to the environment, plus any material that i s accumulated as c a p i t a l equipment, inventories and consumer durables. In maintaining the accounting i d e n t i t i e s the ph y s i c a l law of the conservation of mass i s s a t i s f i e d . In view of the necessary production of wastes i n a l l production processes, every good or service i s a j o i n t product. This phenomenon can be handled more e a s i l y i n an input-output model c l a s s i f i e d according to industry and commodity rather than j u s t industry. Furthermore, a commodity-by-industry c l a s s i f i c a t i o n does not require that each commodity be measured i n the same un i t s . This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l when some commodities, i n t h i s case waste products, are not traded i n the market and therefore have no e x p l i c i t d o l l a r value. C. THE EMPIRICAL RESULTS A large part of t h i s study i s devoted to estimating the use of water and the output of waste products a t t r i b u t a b l e to Canadian economic a c t i v i t y i n 1961. The data are summarised i n Table 55 (Chapter IV, p.28+) which shows how the a c t i v i t y of each of 17 industry groups and the f i n a l demand f o r three commodities used water and produced waterborne, airborne and landJborne wastes. For example, Column 1, Row 4, shows that 4-5,400 m i l l i o n gallons of water were used by the food and tobacco industry group i n 1961. This same group discharged 41,000 m i l l i o n gallons of water (Column 5, Row 4) of -which 8,300 m i l l i o n gallons were treated p r i o r to discharge (Column 6, Row 4). The discharged water contained ,among other things, 188,500 tons of s e t t l e a b l e and suspended s o l i d s (Column 8, Row 4). As Table 55 shows, the food and tobacco industry group produced a v a r i e t y of airborne wastes i n 1961, including 17,173 tons of nitrogen oxides (Column 15, Row 4). Table 55 includes data f o r 4 types of water use together with 10 measures of waterborne waste, 15 types of airbone waste and two types of landborne waste. Table 55 i s us e f u l f o r two main purposes. The f i r s t i s to e s t a b l i s h the magnitude f o r Canada of what has come to be knoBrn as the 'p o l l u t i o n problem'. Because of the shortage of data i n Canada much of the debate, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the news media and also i n the p o l i t i c a l sphere, has had to r e l y on information f o r the United States. Although i t was necessary to use United States f i g u r e s f o r some of the estimates i n the present study, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r water use, many of the estimates were made d i r e c t l y with Canadian data. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g , therefore, to compare the United States data with the data c o l l e c t e d i n t h i s study f o r Canada. It i s reported that i n the United States, 60 per cent by weight, of a l l airborne wastes from economic a c t i v i t y , are produced by automobiles, whereas, i n Candada, duriag 1961, only 4 36 per cent appear to have come from t h i s source. However, i f carbon monoxide i s excluded from the c a l c u l a t i o n , automobiles i n Canada contributed 27 per cent of a l l airborne wastes, by weight compared with 29 per cent in. the United States. This s i m i l a r i t y i s what one would expect, although i t i s u s e f u l to know that the popular r u l e of thumb comparisons of the performances, with respect to waste products, of the Candian and United States 5 economies are w e l l founded . The second purpose f o r which the data on water use and waste products may be used i s to f i t two of the simplest input-output models developed i n the study which include unpriced inputs from and outputs to the environment. Using the f i r s t of these models, two impact tables are generated which show the material flows between the Canadian economy and the environment associated with the supply of one d o l l a r ' s worth of each of 40 economic commodities to " f i n a l demand". The impact tables d i f f e r i n the treatment given to imports in the models on which the tables are based. In one model imports are determined endogenously so that the impact table derived from the model automatically allows fo r the imports that are necessary to supply one d o l l a r ' s worth of each commodity to f i n a l demand. In the other model imports are treated as exogenous so that the impact t a b l e derived from the model does not allow f o r import leakages. Some examples w i l l show the s i g n i f i c a n c e of these d i f f e r e n c e s . Without allowing f o r imports, 268.5 pounds of water are used d i r e c t l y and i n d i r e c t l y to supply one d o l l a r ' s worth of c l o t h i n g to consumers . However, when import leakages are accounted f o r . only 180.5 pounds of water are used to supply one d o l l a r ' s worth 7 of c l o t h i n g to Canadians. Impact tables of the type developed in t h i s study are useful for i n v e s t i g a t i n g the implications f o r material flows to and from the environment of a l t e r n a t i v e patterns of f i n a l demand. Furthermore, i t i s possible to study the regional d i s t r i b u t i o n of the material flows associated with a given n a t i o n a l pattern of f i n a l demand. As an example of t h i s , the P r o v i n c i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of water use and waste products associated with Canadian economic a c t i v i t y i n 1961 are estimated. The Province of Ontario used more water and produced more of nearly each type of waste than 8 any other Province i n Canada during 1961 . Ontario used 1.9 b i l l i o n tons of water compared with the second l a r g e s t user, Quebec, at 1.2 b i l l i o n tons. At the other end of the scale i s the Yukon and North West T e r r i t o r i e s which used v i r t u a l l y no water. Next comes Prince Edward Island at 7.6 m i l l i o n tons and then the other Provinces moving from east to west. Although the ordering for each type of waste d i f f e r s somewhat from that of water use, the general p i c t u r e i s that Ontario and Quebec produced the most waste i n 1961 followed by the Provinces going from west to east, with the Yukon and North West T e r r i t o r i e s producing the l e a s t . The impact t a b l e s , described e a r l i e r , show the output of each type of waste and the input and use of water a t t r i b u t a b l e to the production of one d o l l a r ' s worth of each commodity supplied to f i n a l users. Similar estimates may be made f o r the use of water and output of waste caused d i r e c t l y by the act of consuming a d o l l a r ' s Worth of each commodity. By p l a c i n g a s o c i a l valuation on each type of waste and each type of water use the impact tables can be used to a r r i v e at the r e l a t i v e ecologic cost of producing and consuming each commodity. Such a r e l a t i v e weighting i s derived using the data c o l l e c t e d i n t h i s study with the r e s u l t that f o r example, the r e l a t i v e ecologic cost; of paper and paper products i s 15 per cent of that of petroleum and c o a l products. The complete ranking i s given i n Table 68 of Chapter V where each of the 40 commodities are given a r e l a t i v e ecologic cost ranging from petroleum and coal products equal to 1.0 down to communications at 0.0095. A l l the r e s u l t s summarized so f a r are derived from the same basic input-output model. A rather d i f f e r e n t model i s also presented which makes use of l i n e a r programming techniques. An index of industry outputs based upon the ecologic cost of these outputs i s minimized, subject t o the requirement that a given amount of each commodity be supplied to f i n a l use. This model i s used to estimate the implications of a t r a n s f e r from passenger car transportation to p u b l i c transportation, f o r both the l e v e l of i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t y and the material inputs and outputs of i n d u s t r i e s and consumers. The o v e r a l l e f f e c t of t h i s t r a n s f e r on the ecologic cost of Canadian economic a c t i v i t y i n 1961 i s a f a l l of 8.6 per cent i n the index . This i s composed of a decline i n the ecologic cost from the consumption of petroleum products and a r i s e i n the ecologic costs of i n d u s t r i a l production. As explained i n the text, (Chapter V sp. 393) t h i s l a t t e r increase i s probably due to the high l e v e l of aggregation i n the data which has the e f f e c t of exaggerating the r i g i d i t y of the economic system. Thus the increase i n the value of industry outputs predicted by the model, such as the 0.11 per cent r i s e i n the output of the wood and f u r n i t u r e industry" 1"^, r e f l e c t s the q u a l i t y of the data rather than that of the model i t s e l f . Unlike many research studies, t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s not an attempt to e s t a b l i s h the v a l i d i t y of a hypothesis. I t i s intended to suggest a way i n which an established economic methodology can be brought to bear on a t o p i c of great s o c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . As the l i t e r a t u r e review i n the next chapter w i l l show, the author i s not the only person to have made t h i s suggestion. However, i t would appear that t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s the f i r s t study i n which comprehensive estimates of material flows are used to extend input-output analyses in order to quantify some of the more obvious l i n k s between the economy and the environment of a country. FOOTNOTES - Chapter I 1. This i s i n contrast to those philosophies, p r i m a r i l y of Eastern o r i g i n , which'teach that sense data i s i l l u s o r y and that there i s an underlying unity to which men should d i r e c t t h e i r thoughts. 2. R. A.-Ayres and A. V. Kneese, "Production, Consumption and E x t e r n a l i t i e s " , American Economic Review, LIX (June, 1969), 282-297. 3. U. S. Department o f Health, Education and Welfare, The Sources  of A i r P o l l u t i o n and Their Control, Public Health Service P u b l i c a t i o n No. 1548 (Washington, D.C., 1966). The data i n t h i s p u b l i c a t i o n are f o r the year 1965. 4. This estimate i s based on data from Tables 35 and 55 of Chapter IV. The t o t a l weight of airborne weights, from passenger cars i n 1961 was 4,032,618 tons compared with the t o t a l from a l l Canadian economic a c t i v i t y f o r that year of 11,239,106 tons. 5. Due to the lack of more d e t a i l e d information i n The Sources of A i r P o l l u t i o n , from which the U.S. data i s taken, i t i s not poss i b l e to check the accuracy of the carbon monoxide emission from automobiles i n the United States. 6. See row 1, column 15 of Table 65, Chapter V, Page 341. 7. See row 1, column 15 of Table 65, Chapter V, Page 351. 8. See Table 70, Chapter V, Pages 372-4. 9. See Table 73, Chapter V, Page 390. 10. See Table 74, Chapter V, Page 391. CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF MODELS THAT  INCLUDE THE INTERACTIONS OF ECONOMIC SOCIETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT INTRODUCTION The p o s s i b i l i t y of i n t e g r a t i n g economic and e c o l o g i c a l models has been recognised by at l e a s t three writers."* - Isard and Daly both suggest that Leontief input-output models can be adapted to incorporate environmental sectors and Isard has begun c o l l e c t i n g data f o r such a model. In contrast to these writers who emphasise the empirical aspects of the problem, a more t h e o r e t i c a l approach has been taken by Ayres and Kneese who have made what they see as the necessary r e v i s i o n s of the Walras-Cassel general equilibrium model. This chapter begins with a discussion of Ayres and Kneese's work, followed by an examination of the more pragmatic approaches taken by Isard and Daly. THE AYRES-KNEESE MODEL The fundamental idea embodied i n the Ayres-Kneese model i s that of materials balance. Paying homage to the law of conservation o f mass Ayres and Kneese argue that, except i n the production of atomic power, matter i s neither created nor destroyed i n the course of economic a c t i v i t y . The term ' f i n a l consumption' i s hence a misnomer i f i t i s taken to mean that "material objects such as f u e l s , materials,and 2 f i n i s h e d goods somehow disappear into the void". Ayres and Kneese argue c o r r e c t l y that "almost a l l of standard economic 3 theory i s i n r e a l i t y concerned with s e r v i c e s . " Material objects are merely the vehicles which carry some of these services. At the heart of a l l t h i s i s the notion that materials are taken from the environment and introduced into the production processes of an economy. (For s i m l i f i c a t i o n Ayres and Kneese ignore any materials flow from the environment d i r e c t l y to f i n a l consumers). Some o f these inputs are purchased, such as raw materials, while others are obtained without charge such as oxygen f o r combustion. Economic production i n v a r i a b l y involves waste products which are e i t h e r returned to the environment or recycled back into the economic production process. Unless a l l such waste products are recycled the environment i s used as a receptacle, a service which i s only very r a r e l y paid f o r by the producer of the waste. Of course, some materials remain longer within the production process than others. C a p i t a l accumulation and the b u i l d up of inventories may be regarded as a s i d i n g i n t o which some matter i s shunted f o r a while u n t i l i t too i s discarded as waste. Only a portion of the materials that enter the production process f i n d s i t s way in t o the hands of consumers. Apart from the waste products already mentioned, in d u s t r i e s themselves consume much of each others' output and sometimes some of t h e i r own input too. But that part which does become f i n a l consumption, has i t found a r e s t i n g place? The answer i s quite c l e a r l y , no. Consumers gain services from the goods they 'consume' but no consumer good gives services i n perpetuity. Eventually materials i n the form of consumer goods are discarded e i t h e r to be recycled through the production process or to be deposited back i n t o the environment. The t r a d i t i o n a l Walrasian model allows f o r a l l these t r a n s f e r s of materials except f o r the unpriced withdrawals from the environment and the di s p o s a l of wastes from i n d u s t r i e s and consumers i n t o the environment. These a c t i v i t i e s are by d e f i n i t i o n unmarketed since i f they were marketed they would be included i n the Walras-Cassel model which i s p r e c i s e l y a model of the i n t e r - a c t i o n among markets. Ayres and Kneese attempt to incorporate these s o - c a l l e d e x t e r n a l i t i e s (that i s , external to the market) i n t o the Walrasian framework. Before reviewing t h e i r model i n d e t a i l i t i s worth noting that although Ayres and Kneese have expanded t h e i r horizons beyond the normal l i m i t s of economic model b u i l d e r s , they stopped short of b u i l d i n g what may be termed a complete economic-environment model. In t h e i r view the economy takes materials from the environment a r*d returns others o f equal mass but of d i f f e r e n t chemical composition. Ayres and Kneese do not consider what happens to these materials once returned to the environment except when they point out that the a s s i m i l a t i v e capacity of the environment i s l i m i t e d and i n instances, such as the atmospheric accumualtion ofcarbon dioxide,these l i m i t s have been reached. In a sense, Ayres and Kneese have gone as f a r as the e c o l o g i c a l door but not further. A complete economic-environment model would have to take account of the e c o l o g i c a l production functions as w e l l as the economic ones. This i s the point that Daly*' has stressed though, as w i l l be seen l a t e r , h i s attempt to provide a framework f o r such a model leaves much to be desired. Ayres and Kneese take a standard Walrasian general equilibrium model as t h e i r point of departure. The v a r i a b l e s i n the model represent : i ) resources and services (labour input i s an example of the services included i n t h i s category) i i ) products or commodities i i i ) resource p r i c e s i v ) product or commodity p r i c e s v) f i n a l demands In order to account f o r a l l the material flows r e l a t e d to the economic system Ayres and Kneese introduce two sectors through which a l l materials that enter and leave the economic system have to pass. The 'environmental sector' supplies a l l the raw materials v i a markets or otherwise, to the various processing i n d u s t r i e s and receives a l l waste products apart from those that are recycled. The ' f i n a l consumption sector' has as inputs a l l m aterial objects supplied to f i n a l demand i n the Walrasian model, and produces an output of wastes which are e i t h e r recycled i n t o the production process or discarded into the environmental sector. These sectors are conceptually s i m i l a r to the i n d u s t r i e s i n the Walrasian model i n that they have inputs and outputs, though, of course, they are not operated by anyone. Their function i s simply to balance the p h y s i c a l ledgers of the economic system. Having defined these sectors, Ayres and Kneese proceed to p a r t i t i o n the set of resources and services i n the WaJrasian model i n t o subsets of tangible raw materials and services so that attention may be d i r e c t e d to the flows of materials through the economy. The following notation, used by Ayres and Kneese but poorly defined by them, i s necessary to e s t a b l i s h the materials balance equations f o r the Walrasian model: 6 "th i s the weight of the commodity output of the k industry (k = 1, , n) X i s the weight of the p h y s i c a l output of the environmental o sector 0. X^ . i s the weight of the p h y s i c a l output of the f i n a l consumption sector, f• th C.. i s the weight of the p h y s i c a l input to the j industry or sector from the i * * 1 industry or sector per u n i t of p h y s i c a l output of the j * * 1 industry. (C^_. i s e s s e n t i a l l y a Leontief production c o e f f i c i e n t i n ph y s i c a l u n i t s ) . C i s the weight of the p h y s i c a l quantity t r a n s f e r r e d from t i l t T l the i industry or sector to the j industry or sector. i s the f i n a l demand f o r the output of the j * * 1 industry. Using these d e f i n i t i o n s Ayres and Kneese present three equations, 14, 15, and 16 which purport to represent the condition o f materials balance f o r the Walrasian model. These equations are repeated here and then discussed i n d e t a i l : 'Flows i n t o and but of the environmental sector must be i n balance' :-n k=l o k * n E C X + C £ X ko o fo o (weight of a l l raw materials from the environmental sector to a l l i n d u s t r i e s weight of a l l return (waste) flows from i n d u s t r i e s and f i n a l demand. 'Material flows to and from the f i n a l sector must also balance . 8 . E V X k=l f f (weight of a l l f i n a l goods) = k=l -fk weight of a l l materials re-cycled "fo o waste r e s i d u a l s plus accumulation 15 'by d e f i n i t i o n s Xf i s the sum of f i n a l demands'' n *f weight of output of f i n a l consumption sector E Y-i-i  3 sum of a l l f i n a l demands 16 Equations 14, 15 and 16 are s u f f i c i e n t to allow some c r i t i c a l comments of the Ayres-Kneese formulation even before t h e i r model i s developed f u l l y to include e x t e r n a l i t i e s . To begin with consider the i m p l i c a t i o n of these equations f o r c a p i t a l accumulation by producers and consumers (that i s , consumer durables). Ayres and Kneese assert that flows i n t o and out of the environmental sector and the f i n a l sector must be i n balance. This statement i s only true i f c a p i t a l accumulation i s regarded as a return flow to the environment. For example, equation (14) says that the sum of a l l raw material flows must equal the sum of a l l return (waste) flows. However, i f a l l wastes are recycled through production processes then there i s no return flow to the environment. I f raw materials continue to be extracted from the environmental sector and yet a l l wastes are r e c y c l e d , e i t h e r c a p i t a l accumulation i s occuring or the goods, so produced, are going to the f i n a l sector • The f i n a l sector i n i t s t u r n , can e i t h e r dispose of these goods as waste, channel the waste back into production processes or accumulate consumer durables. I t follows that to t r e a t accumulation i n e i t h e r the production sector or the f i n a l goods sector as a return flow to the environment i s not a convenience, as stated by Ayres and Kneese 1^, but a necessary part of t h e i r formulation of the materials balance p r i n c i p l e . I t i s true, as Ayres and Kneese point out, that "structures a c t u a l l y become part of our environment"' 1 - 1. Nevertheless, i t may be argued that to t r e a t c a p i t a l accumulation i n t h i s way i s not p a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l and i s even contrary to the s p i r i t of t h e i r model. I t i s generally true that the purpose of economic models i s to describe a subset of the a c t i v i t i e s of the e n t i r e world. To accomplish t h i s i t i s necessary to d i s t i n g u i s h between economic and non-economic a c t i v i t y . The process of c a p i t a l accumulation i s normally included i n the set of economic a c t i v i t i e s and, as such, i s defined as being something d i f f e r e n t from waste dis p o s a l . For some unspecified reason Ayres and Kneese do riot choose to make t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n with the r e s u l t that t h e i r model of ah economy does not e x p l i c i t l y recognise what has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been thought of as an economic a c t i v i t y . Equations (14) and (15) can e a s i l y be modified so that c a p i t a l accumulation and waste d i s p o s a l are entered separately on the r i g h t hand side of both equations. The materials balance p r i n c i p l e would s t i l l hold though i t would be immediately obvious that material flows to andfrom the environment need not n e c e s s a r i l y balance f o r any time period, with c a p i t a l a c c u m u l a t i o n a c c o u n t i n g f o r t n e d i f f e r e n c e . The discussion has omitted yet a t h i r d form of accumulation that should be accounted f o r and that i s accumulation i n the form of population growth. A change i n the mass of people can be accomplished by a change i n e i t h e r the number or s i z e of people or a combination of the two. I t would be very misleading indeed to include t h i s form of accumulation as a return flow to the environment because i t would imply that people are to be excluded from the economic model. Such an implication matches" poorly with the phenomena of consumption and production which very d e f i n i t e l y are included i n the Ayres-Kneese model. The treatment of c a p i t a l accumulation i s not the only point of c r i t i c i s m to be made against equations (14) (3.5) and (16). As mentioned e a r l i e r , Ayres and Kneese d i s t i n g u i s h between tangible raw materials and raw materials' services i n order to i s o l a t e the materials flow i n the economy. Tangible raw materials, i n equation (14) represent the flow of materials from the environmental sector to a l l i n d u s t r i e s . The flow of raw materials services to i n d u s t r i e s i s excluded from the materials balance equations even though i t enters the model elsewhere. Consistency alone, requires thatraw material services be allowed to enter the set of f i n a l demands. However, Ayres and Kneese do not allow t h i s even though raw material services going to f i n a l , demand would include the aesthe t i c value of the environment. And yet i f t h i s i s not included i n the model Ayres and Kneese cannot properly claim that the e x t e r n a l i t i e s "associated with the dis p o s a l of re s i d u a l s r e s u l t i n g from the 12 consumption and production process" are accounted f o r i n the modified Walrasian model. The treatment o f services i n the model i s curious i n yet another respect since Ayres and Kneese make no p r o v i s i o n f o r the f i n a l demand f o r services of any kind. The assumption that only products and commodities are produced i s required to v a l i d a t e t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of equation (16). I t would be more s a t i s f a c t o r y to allow services to be supplied to consumers and p a r t i t i o n the set of f i n a l demands in t o those that are products and commodities and those that are services. This f i r s t set could then be used i n the materials balance equation (15) which r e l a t e s to f i n a l goods sector. One further comment i s i n order before examining! i n more details the i n c l u s i o n of e x t e r n a l i t i e s i n the Ayres-Kneese model. As i s true of a l l standard Walrasian general equilibrium models, the Ayres-Kneese model i s s t a t i c . This means that i t i s only applicable to problems of production and exchange i n a given time period with no consideration being made f o r the e f f e c t s of action i n one period on the subsequent periods. For some purposes t h i s l i m i t a t i o n i s not p a r t i c u l a r l y important but i f the model i s to be u s e f u l i n the discussion of problems and p o l i c i e s r e l a t i n g to the environmental a f f e c t s of production and consumption then c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the world must be recognised. Insofar as the capacity of the environment to absorb wastes i s l i m i t e d , the problem of what quantity of wastes should be introduced into the environment i s a dynamic problem. The a s s i m i l a t i v e capacity of the environment f o r wastes i s p o t e n t i a l l y exhaustible even though the environment possesses the a b i l i t y to cleanse i t s e l f . Tomorrow's capacity to assimilate wastes depends, i n part, on the wastes disposed of today. This important r e l a t i o n i s not i d e n t i f i e d i n the s t a t i c formulation of Ayres and Kneese, who, a f t e r d e f i n i n g the a s s i m i l a t i v e capacity of the environment as a common property good, make the statement that "the supplies are simply constants f i x e d by nature or otherwise determined by accident or non-economic 13 f a c t o r s . " As w i l l be seen i n what follows, the f a i l u r e to recognise the inter-temporal aspects of waste dis p o s a l leads Ayres and Kneese in t o some a n a l y t i c a l e r r o r s . Ayres and Kneese point to three classes of material flows that have associated economic transactions: " 1 ) priv a t e use f o r production inputs of 'common property' resources, notably a i r , streams, lakes and the ocean; 2) pr i v a t e use of the a s s i m i l a t i v e capacity of the environment to 'dispose o f or d i l u t e wastes and r e s i d u a l s ; 3) inadvertent or unwanted material inputs to produce processes - diluents and pollutants."' 1" 4 For i n s t i t u t i o n a l reasons, these flows are tra n s f e r r e d between sectors at zero p r i c e , and consequently they are omitted from the standard Walrasian model. The Ayres-Kneese model, however, can accommodate these unpriced flows by introducing two subsets of the set of resources. The f i r s t includes items one and two which are common property resources. The second subset i s that of environmental d i s s e r v i c e s imposed on consumers of material resources who are forced to accept unwanted inputs. Although Ayres and Kneese in d i c a t e how these subsets a f f e c t t h e i r i n i t i a l formulation of the model they attempt a short cut and omit the subset of common property resources. I t w i l l be argued here that t h i s omission i s i l l e g i t i m a t e . Ayres and Kneese c o r r e c t l y point out that i f the a s s i m i l a t i v e capacity of the environment was paid f o r the p r i c e s of goods would r i s e i n d i r e c t r e l a t i o n with the amount of t h i s capacity used i n t h e i r production. Thus, "high residual-producing processes, such as paper-making, are s u b s t a n t i a l l y underpriced v i s - a v i s 15 goods which involve more economical uses of basic resources," given that a s s i m i l a t i o n of wastes i s not paid f o r . Ayres and Kneese then argue that t h i s "causes no m i s a l l o c a t i o n of resources unless, or u n t i l , the large resource inventory and/or the a s s i m i l a t i v e capacity o f the environment are used up".'''5 Only then i s some method of r a t i o n i n g required. This analysis i s wrong on two accounts. In a market economy, not n e c e s s a r i l y a perfect one, any good which has a p o s i t i v e future p r i c e must have a p o s i t i v e present p r i c e i f the discount rate i s f i n i t e . In the present context, i f an action now tends to bring a s c a r c i t y l a t e r then the d e c i s i o n to act now i s an economic one i n that i t i s a decision about the optimal use of a scarce resource, that resource being a s s i m i l a t i v e capacity. I t follows that unless the resource inventory and the a s s i m i l a t i v e capacity are i n f i n i t e and hence could never be exhausted, optimal resourse a l l o c a t i o n through time requires that these resources be priced i n every time period. The second e r r o r i s one of contradiction. On the one hand Ayres and Kneese are saying that a zero p r i c e f o r some resources i s optimal u n t i l the resources are used up and on the other they recognise that "goods produced by high r e s i d u a l -producing processes.... are s u b s t a n t i a l l y underpriced v i s - a - v i s goods 17 which involve more economical uses o f basic resources." Only one of these statements can be correct and i t i s taken that the v a l i d i t y of the second one has been established. On the basis o f t h e i r f a u l t y analysis Ayres and Kneese omit the common property v a r i a b l e s from t h e i r model and r e t a i n only the va r i a b l e s which represent the p h y s i c a l quantities of the unwanted inputs and the associated p r i c e s . They then comment b r i e f l y on the pr i c e s to be charged the producer of the r e s i d u a l s and the compensation to be paid to the r e c i p i e n t s o f the unwanted inputs Ayres and Kneese suggest that there e x i s t s a set of p r i c e s "determined by the appropriate Pareto 18 preference c r i t e r i a " that w i l l , i n e f f e c t , r a t i o n the output of r e s i d u a l s and provide the revenue f o r compensation. I t i s important to recognise that there are two a n a l y t i c a l l y d i s t i n c t propositions here that Ayres and Kneese i n c o r r e c t l y attempt to t r e a t as one. The existence of a zero p r i c e f o r using the same resource of the environment's a s s i m i l a t i v e capacity i s i n e f f i c i e n t . This means that the imposition of a p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i v e p r i c e would lead to a s i t u a t i o n where everyone's r e a l economic welfare could be r a i s e d . Whether or not everyone's economic welfare w i l l be r a i s e d depends upon how the gains from more e f f i c i e n c y are d i s t r i b u t e d amongst the members of society. Furthermore, i t i s not necessary that compensation be paid f o r there to be an increase i n society's economic welfare when waste disposal p r i c e s are imposed. The implied change i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of economic welfare may well be s o c i a l l y desirable. However, one would think that i f i t was deemed that compensation should be paid then i t would be paid by the former r e c i p i e n t s of the unwanted inputs to the people who now have to pay a p r i c e f o r waste d i s p o s a l , assuming of course, that these groups can be separated. In general, the imposition of such a p r i c e i s an incentive f o r waste producers to produce le s s waste and to dispose of what they produce i n a harmless manner. This change in behaviour w i l l tend to lower the welfare of the people who pay the p r i c e and r a i s e the welfare of those who no longer receive unwanted wastes. Thus compensation that would make a l l p a r t i e s better o f f would go from the former waste r e c i p i e n t s to the former waste producers. However, despite Ayres and Kneeses mention of the "appropriate preference c r i t e r i a " they say quite c l e a r l y that compensation would be paid to the inadvertent r e c i p i e n t s . This contradicts the argument given here which suggests that a Pareto improvement requires compensation i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n . The discussion of the Ayres-Kneese model i s now complete. Emphasis has been given to the assumptions on which the model i s b u i l t and t o the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n Ayres and Kneese give to various aspects of t h e i r model. The model i s successful i n h i g h l i g h t i n g some of the int e r a c t i o n s between an economy and the environment but, as Ayres and Kneese are ready to admit, the model i s severely l i m i t e d i n i t s p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n . This i s p r i m a r i l y due t o the enormous quantity of data that would be required to f i t such a model. However, Walrasian general equilibrium models are always open to t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c r i t i c i s m . Nevertheless, they are u s e f u l f o r a n a l y t i c a l purposes, including the assessment of p a r t i a l equilibrium models. Following the 19 work of L e o n t i e f on input-output a n a l y s i s , the Walrasian framework has been s i m p l i f i e d to allow empirical estimation of a model which recognises some of the important interdependences i n an economy. It i s from the standpoint of input-output a n a l y s i s that Isard and Daly have, independently, addressed the problem of economic-environment i n t e r a c t i o n and i t i s time to examine the contributionsVof these authors. C. THE DALY MODEL Daly's model may be contrasted with that of Ayres and Kneese on two main accounts. F i r s t of a l l Daly uses the Leontief input-output framework rather than the Walrasian general equilibrium model. More s i g n i f i c a n t l y , Daly goes furt h e r than just making the addition of Unpriced inputs from the environment to the economy and unpriced outputs from the economy to the environment. He recognises the in t e r a c t i o n s that go on outside the part of the world that i s termed economic. Daly's plan i s to bring purely economic interrelations,,purely environmental i n t e r r e l a t i o n s j and r e l a t i o n s between the economy and the environment into one comprehensive model. The world i s divided i n t o human and non-human sectors. It remains a "world of 'Commodities i n that a l l a c t i v i t i e s are seen as the t r a n s f e r of commodities within and between the human and non-human sectors. Interactions that go on e n t i r e l y i n the human sector are those that are conventionally described as economic. Only economic commodities are produced and exchanged within the human sector. In contrast, the non-human sector i s an e c o l o g i c a l sector. Relations between non-human e n t i t i e s are viewed as a tr a n s f e r of e c o l o g i c a l commodities which Daly rather vaguely defines as free goods (zero p r i c e s ) and bads (negative p r i c e s which are not generally observed). Some examples of these e c o l o g i c a l commodities appear in Table 1. The e c o l o g i c a l sector» then, i s the subject matter of the science of ecology. So f a r only i n t e r a c t i o n s within the human and non-human sectors have been mentioned. Interactions between these sectors must also be included i n a complete model. When commodities flow from the human or economic sector to the non-human or e c o l o g i c a l sector, they are c a l l e d e x t e r n a l i t i e s . Flows i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n are c a l l e d 'free' goods. These flows, i n eit h e r d i r e c t i o n , are the l i n k s between the economic and e c o l o g i c a l sectors. To make the point more c l e a r l y , consider the di s p o s a l of wastes from the economic sector. Such wastes are tr a n s f e r r e d to the e c o l o g i c a l sector where they i n t e r a c t with other e c o l o g i c a l commodities and a f f e c t the supply of free goods from the e c o l o g i c a l sector to the economic sector. This i s what happens when wastes are broken down i n water»and oxygen i s used up i n the process. A lack of oxygen may reduce the quantity of f i s h that can survive i n the water body and so the flow of 'free' f i s h to the economic sector i s reduced. The f a c t that Daly's model e x p l i c i t l y accounts f o r r e l a t i o n s such as these gives i t a c l e a r advantage over the Ayres-Kneese model However, Daly's formulation of an actu a l input-output model which includes human and non-human sectors can only be considered as f a i n t l y suggestive of a legitimate model. His input-output table i s reproduced on page 33. Table 1 i s divided i n t o four quadrants. Quadrant (2) i s a very simple three sector, closed economic input-output t a b l e . The a g r i c u l t u r e sector transforms matter and energy v i a l i f e processes. The i n d u s t r i a l sector transforms matter and energy v i a n o n - l i f e processes. The household sector supplies primary services and i s the source of f i n a l demand; Quadrant (4) i s an extension of the input-output formulation to e c o l o g i c a l or non-human processes. The d i s t i n c t i o n between l i v i n g and no n - l i v i n g transformations of matter and energy i s made. L i f e processes include amimal, plant and b a c t e r i a , and non-l i f e processes include p h y s i c a l and chemical reactions i n the atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere. (The f a c t that a l l l i f e processes may be viewed as p h y s i c a l and chemical reactions does not detract from the usefulness of t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system.) Also included i n the non-human sector i s a source of primary s e r v i c e s , the sun. This i s the d r i v i n g force of the e n t i r e system. Low entropy matter-energy emanates from t h i s source and a l l i n t e r a c t i o n s within the system are transformations o f low ent-ropy to- states of higher entropy. This high entropy matter -energy enters a f i n a l "thermodynamic sink... forever degraded as 22 d e v i l ' s dust" Quadrants (1) and (3) provide the l i n k s between the economic and e c o l o g i c a l quadrants (2) and (<+). In quadrant (1) the e c o l o g i c a l TABLE 1  Daly's Input-Output Table INPUT TO OUTPUT FROM Agri-culture (1) Households (Final Industry Consumption) (2) (3) Ani-mal (4) Plant (5) Bac-teria (6) Atmosphere (8) Hydro-sphere (8) Litho-sphere (9) Sink (Final Con-sumption (10) TOTAL Quadrant (2) Quadrant (1) 1. Agriculture • • • q12 • • • « • • • • a "17 • • • • • • • Q1 2. Industry q21 (q22) Q 2 3 • • • • q27 • • • °2 3. Households (primary services) q32 • •• • * • • • • q37 ** • • • • Q3 Quadrant (3) Quadrant (4) 4. 5. 6. Animal Plant Bacteria • •* • • « * *•• • • • • • • qA7 • « • • • • • • • • • • • • • 000 • •• • • • • • * • * • *•• q37 q67 000 *•* «*•) • 00. • 7. 8. Atmosphere Hydrosphere "71 . . . q72 q73 ••• ••* q74 q75 • •« q76 • •• (q?7) q87 q78 • •• q79 • •• q7,10 • • • 9. Lithosphere . . . • • » • • « • »• q97 • • * 10. Sun (primary services) . . . ... q10,7 • •* Source: H. E. Daly, "On Economics as a Life Science". The Journal of Political Economy. 76, No. 3 (May-June 1968) commodities produced by the economy are tabulated according to their source and destination. These commodities are included in what are normally defined as externalities. Quadrant (3) shows the 'free' goods from the environment which enter the economic sectors. Daly's table is useful in bringing to light the interdependencies between the human world of production and exchange, and its natural counterpart, the biological world. If this were its only purpose one could overlook some rather serious difficulties relating to measurement. In the standard input-output model (Daly's quadrant (2)), a l l the flows are measured in dollar units. To some extent this avoids the problem of multi-output industries since the flows can be interpreted as flows of real resources to which a market value is attributed. More usually i t is assumed that each industry produces only one product which is the dollar aggregate of a l l its outputs. However, no such simplification can be made when the flows are in ecological commodities and not marketed industry outputs. How can the multifarious outputs of the atmosphere, for example, be aggregated . so that i t makes sense to talk of 'the' output of the atmosphere which is used as an input by bacteria? Daly asserts that the assumption of a fixed proportions holds just as well for environmental activities as i t does for economic activities, in which case any single atmospheric output will serve as an index of a l l atmospheric outputs. Although t h i s a s s e rtion of Daly's should be tested against the f a c t s a l i t t l e skepticism i s j u s t i f i e d simply because the recent i n t e r e s t i n the production and di s p o s a l of wastes may be a t t r i b u t e d to the very obvious and w e l l documented q u a l i t a t i v e and quantitative changes that are occuring 24 i n the n a t u r a l environment There i s yet another aggregation problem which even the assumption of f i x e d proportions i n the non-economic sectors cannot help solve. Owing to the lack of a market i n e c o l o g i c a l commodities, no market prices can be d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t e d to them. Lacking these p r i c e s there i s no sense i n which the economic output of an industry can be added to the associated e c o l o g i c a l output of the same industry since no numeraire e x i s t s f o r the purpose. Thus, r o l l e d s t e e l cannot be aggregated with sulphur dioxide though i t can be brought i n t o r e l a t i o n with i t . However, i n Daly's attempt t o i n t e r p r e t his table not merely as a d e s c r i p t i o n of events, but as an a n a l y t i c a l model he i s g u i l t y of summing incommensurables. In order to c a l c u l a t e t e c h n i c a l c o e f f i c i e n t s Daly sums across the rows, thereby adding economic and e c o l o g i c a l commodities. The ' t o t a l s ' , the Q's i n Table 1, are used i n the normal way to c a l c u l a t e the t e c h n i c a l c o e f f i c i e n t s of production f o r the human and non-human sectors. However, the c o e f f i c i e n t s are as meaningless as the totals despite Daly's unsubstantiated claim that "there appear to be no theoretical problems in extending the input-23 output model in this way." As w i l l be seen in the discussion of Isard's work, input-output models can be adapted to incor-porate economic and ecological processes. It requires the sacrifice of the so-called industry - industry classification in favour of a commodity-industry classification. However, since input-output models seem to be following this course for other reasons as well, the introduction of ecological commodities imposes no additional strains on the model once multi-commodity industries are introduced e x p l i c i t l y . D. THE ISARD MODEL25 Walter Isard and his colleagues have provided, to date, the most comprehensive economic-ecological model and have gone some way towards deriving the enormous quantity of data such a complex model requires. The basic framework is very similar to that proposed by Daly, the essential difference between the two being that Isard uses the coefficients of production directly whereas Daly turned i n i t i a l l y to the accounting data from which he inten-ded to derive the coefficients. However, as explained above, Daly's table could not legitimately be used for the necessary calculations. It i s interesting, therefore, to examine the way in which Isard arrives at the economic and ecologic coefficients of production and to see how he circumvents the problems that confront Daly's method. To place the discussion in context, consider Table 2, 26 which is an outline of a table of coefficients taken from Isard. Quadrant(2)is said to be "a traditional coefficient table, with columns representing sectors (industries and activities) and rows representing commodities associated with these sectors -27 as outputs and resources." Traditional coefficient tables are derived from input-output accounts which are constructed using an industry by industry classification. The implication of this is that each industry produces only one output and, moreover, each output is produced by only one industry. However, i t is not clear whether or not Isard intends quadrant(2)to be a square matrix. Some of the examples of economic activities and economic commodities which he gives in the table support the notion that he is thinking in terms of a square matrix. R>r example, wheat seems to be the only economic commodity output of the agriculture activity and cloth is the only output of the textile industry. However, this pattern is not maintained in quadrant (2) since the last listed economic activity is sport fishing which obviously does not correspond to the last listed economic commodity, crude o i l . The main point, however, is that Isard's model is TABLE 2. ISARD'S INPUT-OUTPUT TABLE ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES ECOLOGIC PROCESSES C 'r\ C •rH 4H 0) Pi s 0) H O rH •P <D CU c • H rC CO •rH IM I + J rH O , O . A a o •H +J O "d o PH • i H rH K +• r c Wheat Cloth to M M O CJ M o § o w ECONOMIC SYSTEM: INTERSECTOR COEFFICIENTS ECOLOGIC PROCESSES: THEIR INPUT AND OUTPUT COEFFICIENTS RE: ECONOMIC COMMODITIES Crude O i l Water Intake Alkalinity 0) o i i c> C) o M CD O ECONOMIC SECTORS: THEIR INPUT AND OUTPUT COEFFICIENTS RE: ECOLOGIC COMMODITIES ECOLOGIC SYSTEM: INTERPROCESS COEFFICIENTS • D f i t r J U S Plankton  Herring Cod, Source: W. Isard, 'Some Notes on the Linkage of the Ecologic and Economic Systems', (Unpublished paper delivered to the Regional Science and Landscape Analysis Project, Department of Landscape Architecture, Harvard University and the Regional Science Research Insitute, unaffected, i n substance, i f i n d u s t r i e s are assumed to have one or many economic outputs. Indeed quadrant( 2)is defined i n terms of commodities and in d u s t r i e s so the option e x i s t s f o r introducing several outputs f o r each industry. Some of the advantages o f assuming that i n d u s t r i e s produce many out-28 puts have been pointed out by several w r i t e r s . I f only one output per industry i s assumed then the c o e f f i c i e n t s do not represent commodity inputs to or outputs from production pro-cesses. They are i n t e r - i n d u s t r y c o e f f i c i e n t s and no. more. Now the very nature of the problem f o r which Isard has b u i l t h i s model requires at l e a s t two outputs from some i n d u s t r i e s : an economic commodity and an associated waste product. Isard, i n f a c t , goes much beyond one waste product i n that he attempts to define as many as po s s i b l e . Thus each industry i s assumed to produce several types of wastes or ecologic commodities. Consistency alone, therefore, requires that each industry be assumed to produce several economic commodities, though t h i s i s f a r from being the only argument i n favour of what has shown to 29 be a superior framework f o r input-output a n a l y s i s . These matters w i l l be returned to l a t e r when the author's own model i s presented i n Chapter I I I . For the moment i t s u f f i c e s to restate some of the points about aggregation made with respect to Daly's model. In the standard industry by industry c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i t i s possible to aggregate a l l the outputs of an industry i n terms of t h e i r money value. Market prices serve as a common denominator f o r a l l economic commodities. The same cannot be s a i d of ecologic commodities. There i s no equivalent way of aggregating d i f f e r e n t types of gaseous waste products, or such diverse e n t i t i e s such as lead aerosal and waste paper. The only way i n which t h i s could be done would be d i r e c t l y i n terms 30 of s o c i a l welfare . Insofar as market prices serve as welfare i n d i c a t o r s t h i s i s what l e g i t i m i z e s the aggregation of commodities according to t h e i r market values. But no e x p l i c i t market values e x i s t f o r waste products, though i t may be possible t o impute market values by estimating the 31 various associated damage costs . Nevertheless, i n general, i t i s not possible to aggregate ecologic commodities i n a manner that corresponds to the aggregation involved i n t r a d i t i o n a l input-output models. However,as i s argued below, t h i s does not prevent the construction of commodity by industry input-output model of the ecologic system a Referring once again to Table 2, quadrant (4) represents the ecologic system. The ecologic commodities of the rows enter the ecologic processes of the columns as inputs and/or outputs. Although Isard does not consider the point e x p l i c i t l y there i s no reason why quadrant (4) has to be a square matrix However, i n Table 2, Isard's designation of the c o e f f i c i e n t s as 'interprocess c o e f f i c i e n t s ' implies a one to one r e l a t i o n s h i p between commodity outputs and i n d u s t r i e s . In the general case there w i l l be more ecologic commodities than processes. An example of such a rectangular matrix i s presented i n Isard's paper to describe and analyse the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between plankton and r e l a t e d production a c t i v i t i e s . I t i s c l e a r that the ecologic processes of Table 2 correspond to the economic notion of an industry (or a c t i v i t y , as Isard prefers to c a l l i t ) . However, the lack o f an ecologic counter-part to an industry's aggregate output (except when an ecologic process has only one output or i t s outputs are produced i n f i x e d proportions) means that the ecologic system must be viewed i n a commodity by process context. The industry by industry format which makes sense f o r economic a c t i v i t i e s cannot be used to describe the ecologic system. So f a r the discussion has been d i r e c t e d e n t i r e l y to the requirements of an input-output t a b l e that meaningfully describes the ecologic system. Granted that such a table must include ecologic commodities and a c t i v i t i e s i t s t i l l remains to be seen how the production c o e f f i c i e n t s o f the ecologic system (quadrant 4) can be derived. The procedure used to c a l c u l a t e the c o e f f i c i e n t s that describe the economic system i s . t o divide the .commodities used as inputs and outputs i n an industry by the t o t a l output of that industry. This gives the input and output of each .commodity per u n i t of output of the industry. I t has already been argued that, i n the ecologic system, there i s no way o f aggregating various ecologic commodities that allows one to t a l k of the t o t a l ecologic output of an ecologic process, and yet some such measure o f output i s required i n the ca l c u l a t i o n s of the input-output c o e f f i c i e n t s . The assumption that each process produces i t s d i f f e r e n t commodity outputs i n f i x e d proportions, an assumption which i s used i n some purely economic commodity by industry models, i s necessary f o r the de r i v a t i o n of a surro-gate measure of process output. As Rosenbluth suggests i n h i s 32 paper , "the l e v e l of operation o f an industry (or process) may be measured by value o f output at base period p r i c e s , by the quantity of some major commodity produced, or the quantity of a major input.'.' The l a s t two o f the three options remain open f o r input-output models o f the ecologic system and so in t e g r a t i o n of the economic and ecologic systems may proceed, at the t h e o r e t i c a l l e v e l , within the framework of a commodity by industry model. (Of course, the objectionsraised against the assumption of f i x e d proportions i n the discussion of Daly's model hold equally well f o r Isard's model). Quadrants (3) and 0) i n table (2) require only a moment's atten-t i o n . Quadrant (3) displays the input and output of ecologic commodities to economic a c t i v i t i e s , again i n c o e f f i c i e n t format. In l i k e manner, quadrantf l)shows the inputs and outputs of the economy that enter into the ecologic processes. Te c h n i c a l l y , Isard*s model cannot be f a u l t e d except by the stumbling blocks that are usu a l l y put i n the way of purely economic input-output models. Fixed c o e f f i c i e n t production functions are assumed throughout though, of course, i f other data about production functions does e x i s t , i t can be brought i n t o the model. The point i s that Isard*s model has to face the w e l l known problems of input-output techniques but apart from more extensive data requirements the model r a i s e s no new problems of i t s own. The s p e c i a l data requirements of Isard's model have already been commented upon. Rather than turn to a simpler model f o r the purpose of a c t u a l l y studying the ecologic consequences of economic a c t i v i t y , Isard has attempted to apply h i s model to the Plymouth Bay area i n Ph i l a d e l p h i a , U.S.A. As expected, the greatest data problems were encountered with respect to quadrant (4,) the ecologic system . Unlike the s i g n i f i c a n t body of data that already e x i s t s f o r the economic system, there i s very l i t t l e established data f o r the ecologic system from which one can draw when attempting to put Isard's model to work. But t h i s does not mean that economic e c o l -ogic models based upon input-output p r i n c i p l e s need to be abandoned. or shelved u n t i l the ecologic system has been quantified. Quad-rants land(l)of Table(3)serve to link the economic and ecologic systems. Knowledge of these links can be very useful in decisions about how the economic system should operate even i f i t is not yet clear how inputs to the ecologic system, quadrantd) affect the outputs from the ecologic system, quadrant^)* Moreover, the data problems are less severe for quadrants(l)and(3)than for quadrant 4. Unlike quadrant(4,)quadrants(i)and(3)relate directly to industrial processes about which a considerable amount of data either already exists or can be collected with relative ease, and i t i s these quadrants which becomes the focus of' attention in the next models to be presented. FOOTNOTES— Chapter II 1. R. U. Ayres and A. V. Kneese, "Production, Consumption, and Externalities," The American Economic Review, LIX (June, 1969) 282-297; H. E. Daly, "On Economics as a Life Science", The  Journal of Political Economy, 76 (May/June, 1968) 392-406. W. Isard, "Some Notes on the Linkage of the Ecologic and Econ-omic Systems",(paper delivered to the Regional Science and Landscape Analysis Project, Department of Landscape Architecture, Harvard University and the Regional Science Research Institute, March 27, 1969). 2. Ayres and Kneese, "Production, Consumption and Externalities", 284. 3. Ibid., 284. 4. Ibid. ,290 5. Daly, "On Economics as a Life Science". 6. To be perfectly correct the material balance equations should be written in terms of mass rather than weight. The mass of an object is constant although its weight depends upon the force of g r a v i t y which, i n turn, depends upon the object's proximity to other objects. However, f o r the purposes f o r which the Ayres-Kneese model and other s i m i l a r models are designed i t i s a s u f f i c i e n t l y close approximation to assume that the weight of an object i s a constant regardless of i t s p o s i t i o n on Earth. With t h i s assumption weight serves as a measure of mass and may be l e g i t i m a t e l y used i n the materials balance equations. 7. Ayres and Kneese^ "Production, Consumption and E x t e r n a l i t i e s " , 290. 8. I b i d . 9. I b i d . , 291. 10. I b i d . , 290. 11. I b i d . 12. I b i d . , 287. 13. I b i d . , 292. 14. I b i d . , 291. 15. I b i d . , 293. 15. Ibid; 17. I b i d . 18. Ibi d . 19. See, f o r example, W. Leontief, The Structure of the American Economy, 1919-1939 (New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1951). 20. Daly, "On Economics as a L i f e Science". 21. I b i d . , 402. 22. I b i d . , 403. 23. I b i d . , 404. 24. See, f o r example, the discussion i n R. E r l i c h and A. E r l i c h , Population, Resources and Environment. Issues i n Human Ecology (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1970). 25. Isard, "Systems". 26. I b i d . , 14. 27. I b i d . , 3. 28. See, f o r example G. Rosenbluth, "Input-Output Analysis: A C r i t i q u e " S t a t i s t i c h e Hefte 9 (Number 4, 1968), 255-268; T. Gigantes and P. P r i t t s , "An Integrated Input-Output Frame-work and Some Related A n a l y t i c a l Models" (paper presented at the Canadian P o l i t i c a l Science Association, Conference on S t a t i s t i c s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., June 12-13, 1965); T. Gigantes and T. I. Matuszewski, "Rectangular Input-Output Systems, Taxonomy and A n a l y s i s " , (paper presented at the Fourth International Conference • on Input-Output Techniques, P a l a i s des Nations, Geneva, January 8-12, 1968). 29- Rosenbluth's paper i s a convenient summary of the advantages of commodity-by-industry input-output models. 30. I b i d . , 257.(See Chapter V. pp-357-363, f o r an attempt to do t h i s ) . 31. See, f o r example, R. Ridker, Economic Costs of A i r P o l l u t i o n : Studies. i n Measurement, Praeger S p e c i a l Studies i n United States Economic and S o c i a l Development. (New York, Frederick A. Praeger, 1967). 32. Rosenbluth, "Input-Output A n a l y s i s " , 257 COMMODITY BY INDUSTRY INPUT-OUTPUT MODELS AND THE STUDY QF  ECONOMIC-ECOLOGIC INTER-RELATIONS A. INTRODUCTION The purpose of t h i s chapter i s to examine, i n considerable d e t a i l , the a n a l y t i c a l properties of two input-output models that can be used to describe some important r e l a t i o n s between economic a c t i v i t y and the environment. In order to avoid confusion at a l a t e r stage i t i s us e f u l to begin with a.presentation of the conceptual framework of these models. Following t h i s w i l l be a discussion of the accounting data on which a v a r i e t y of models can be based. The way w i l l then be cl e a r f o r the development of the two a n a l y t i c a l models, which have been selected as the basis f o r the empirical section of t h i s study. B. THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The world as seen by the economist i s a world of people, in d u s t r i e s and commodities, where commodities are taken to include raw materials, goods i n process and f i n i s h e d goods and servi c e s . A l l economic models make some allowance f o r each of these broad categories of things and i n s t i t u t i o n s . This i s ju s t as true of f u l l y - f l e d g e d macroeconomic models as i t i s of the most narrowly focussed microeconomic models. Indeed, economic models may be distinguished by the d i f f e r e n t ways in which people, i n d u s t r i e s and commodities are brought into r e l a t i o n with each other. In the input-output models which are to be described i n t h i s chapter, i n d u s t r i e s and commodities appear e x p l i c i t l y . "The term 'industry' i s used i n i t s broadest sense to include a l l economic a c t i v i t y from primary industries such as a g r i c u l t u r e and f o r e s t r y to those concerned with the rendering of services. An industry i s composed of establishments engaged i n the same or a s i m i l a r kind of economic a c t i v i t y , e.g. logging camps, coal mines, c l o t h i n g f a c t o r i e s , department stores, laundries .... For s t a t i s t i c a l purposes an 'establishment' i s defined as the smallest u n i t which i s a separate operating e n t i t y capable of reporting a l l elements of basic i n d u s t r i a l s t a t i s t i c s . This means that for purposes of i n d u s t r i a l surveys, data are gathered from the most homogeneous uni t s that maintain accounts which permit them to report on t h e i r main elements of input and output." 1 Thus i n d u s t r i e s are made up of establishments that undertake s i m i l a r types of economic a c t i v i t y . This a c t i v i t y may be viewed i n terms of the input and output of commodities. In the present study two types of commodities are distinguished: economic and ecologic. Economic commodities'are e i t h e r materials, materials that have been processed or end-products. They are the output of i n d u s t r i e s or the materials and supplies used by i n d u s t r i e s 2 or goods bought by consumers." For the purposes of constructing an input-output model, services such as insurance and enter-tainment are included in the above d e f i n i t i o n of commodities. Furthermore, economic commodities may be traded at p o s i t i v e market p r i c e s . In contrast to t h i s are ecologic commodities, which are not traded and do not have p o s i t i v e market p r i c e s attached to them. Ecologic commodities are the material inputs and outputs of economic u n i t s that are not marketable where economic u n i t s include consumers as well as producers. Ecologic commodities do not include s e r v i c e s , hence oxygen used in the i n t e r n a l combustion engine i s an ecologic commodity whereas the view of a landscape i s not. The c r u c i a l d i s t i n c t i o n between ecologic and economic commodities i s that an ecologic commodity only passes from one economic u n i t to another by going through a part of the environment that i s not held as p r i v a t e property. This statement r e f l e c t s the underlying i n s t i t u t i o n a l determination of what makes a commodity economic or ecologic. Given that a i r i n a c i t y i s a scarce resource i t s use would command a p r i c e i f property r i g h t s could be established over. i t . Since t h i s i s not the case, airborne wastes from automobiles are produced and, i f they are not absorbed by the environment, they are c a r r i e d i n the a i r u n t i l they are e i t h e r breathed i n or used as an unwanted input i n an i n d u s t r i a l process. Economic commodities do not go through t h i s i n t e r -mediate stage of non-ownership between producer and consumer. Indeed, the t r a n s f e r of an economic commodity means the t r a n s f e r of ownership of that commodity and t h i s t r a n s f e r i s effected v i a the market or with the Government acting as an intermediary. In e i t h e r case an economic commodity i s always the property of a person or an i n s t i t u t i o n . The observation that ecologic commodities come from or go to a part of the environment that i s not owned by any economic unit allows a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of ecologic commodities according to the relevant environmental media: land, a i r and water. This c l a s s i f i c a t i o n w i l l be introduced into the accounting framework, a discussion of which follows i n the next section. It should be noted that the d e f i n i t i o n of ecologic commodities given above does not cover a l l that i s commonly included i n the economist's category of e x t e r n a l i t i e s . Although both e x t e r n a l i t i e s and ecologic commodities, as defined here, are external to the market, only the former includes the intangible e f f e c t s of various a c t i v i t i e s . In the present study, attention i s focussed e n t i r e l y on the nonmarketable material inputs and outputs of economic a c t i v i t y . This i s l a r g e l y because i t has proved d i f f i c u l t enough at the empirical l e v e l to take account of the material waste products. Nevertheless, a complete analysis of the operations of an economy would have to include such matters as the aesthetic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of urban design which go beyond the unsightliness of wastes. People do not enter e x p l i c i t l y into input-output models. Instead t h e i r services i n the form of supplies of labour and managerial t a l e n t are registered by the payments f o r these services that do appear i n the model. People, i n t h e i r other r o l e as consumers, provide a l l the sources of f i n a l demand i n the input-output model. This includes the f i n a l demand by Governments which may be thought of, i n t h i s context, as a buying agency that operates on behalf of the people. C. THE ACCOUNTING FRAMEWORK Table 3 depicts the accounting data f o r a s p e c i f i e d time period, which can be used as the basis f o r a v a r i e t y of input-output models. A l l the e n t r i e s , except those f o r ecologic commodities are i n d o l l a r terms at base period p r i c e s . The ecologic commodities are base period quantities measured in the appropriate p h y s i c a l u n i t s . (See page 19 ) For purposes of exposition Table 3 has been divided into 17 matrices and vectors and one s c a l a r . Each of these w i l l be described i n turn. - 54 -TABLE 3 AN ECONOIHIC-ECOLOGIC INPUT-OUTPUT TABLE ECONOMIC COMMODITIES INDUSTRIES FINAL OEMAND ECONOMIC TOTALS ECOLOGIC COMMODITIES E ^ G ! C LAND AIR WATER *° 1, ,f n+1, t+1, v+1, • • j t • • • • $ v • • • • f z 1, 3|j A B c. l C gj1 G n 1, • • • 0 e. J e 'JI F in • P \> H k . j K 1 C1 1 c e °1 •t 0 P q i i q n+1, • m t a U ru *l • V S R • z Notation: C a p i t a l l e t t e r s are used f o r matrices; lower case l e t t e r s are used f o r vectors and s c a l a r s . The notation and d e f i n i t i o n of symbols introduced i n t h i s section are sustained throughout the chapter. Matrix A (order n x m) - an element, a.., i n t h i s matrix shows X 2 t i l t i l the input of the i economic commodity to the j industry: ( i = 1, nj j = 1, m). Matrix B (n x f ) - an element, b.., in t h i s matrix shows the 13 f i n a l demand f o r the i economic commodity by the j category of f i n a l demand; ( i = l , ... ,nj j =1, .. . , f ) . (These categories include consumer expenditure, government expenditure, f i x e d c a p i t a l formation, change i n inventories held by establishments and exports. Imports are entered as a negative demand f o r economic commodities). Vector c(n x 1) - an element, c^, i n t h i s vector, found by summing the elements of the i * * 1 row of matrices A and B, shows the t o t a l domestic supply of the i ^ 1 economic commodity ( i = 1, n) Matrix D (m x n) - an element, d „ , i n t h i s matrix shows the output " t i l t i l of the i economic commodity by the j industry; ( i = 1, ...,n;j=l, ... fa). Vector e (m x 1) - an element, e^, i n t h i s vector, found by summing t i l the elements of the j row of matrix D, shows the t o t a l i n d u s t r i a l t i l output of the j industry ( j = l , ..., m). Matrix F ( m x ( z - n + D ) - an element, f ^ , i n t h i s matrix th "th shows the discharge of the i ecologic commodity by the j industry ( j = 1, m): When i = n + 1, t the discharge i s onto land. When i = f + 1, ....,v the discharge i s into the a i r . When i = v + 1 , z the discharge i s into water. Matrix G (n x ( z - n +1)) - an element, gj^> i n t h i s matrix shows th the output of the i ecologic commodity discharged as a r e s u l t t h of the f i n a l demand f o r the j economic commodity. When i = n + 1, t , the discharge i s onto land. When i = t + 1, v, the discharge i s into the a i r . When i = v + 1, Z j the discharge i s into water, ( i = n + 1, ...,z; j = 1, ....,n). Matrix H (p x m) - an element, I K ^ , i n t h i s matrix shows the expen-"th d i t u r e on the i primary input ( f o r example, wages, s a l a r i e s , th i n d i r e c t taxes and p r o f i t s ) , by the j industry; ( i = l , . . . , p ; j = 1, .. .., m). Matrix K (p x f ) - an element, k^^, shows the expenditure on the i t l 5 primary input by the j * * 1 category of f i n a l demand, ( i = 1, p; j = 1, n ) . Vector L (p x 1) - an element, 1^, i n t h i s vector, found by summing th the elements of the i row of matrices K and K shows the t o t a l expenditure on the i t h primary input; ( i = 1, p ) . Vector c (1 x n) - an element, c , of t h i s vector, found by i summing the elements of the i column of matrix D shows the t o t a l output of the economic commodity, ( i = 1 , n), c' i s the transpose of the vector c. i Vector e (1 x m) - an element, e^, of t h i s vector, found by summing the elements of the i * * 1 column of matrices A and H, shows the t o t a l economic inputs of the i t h industry ( i = 1, m). t e i s the transpose of vector e. Vector o* (1 x f ) - an element, o^, of t h i s vector, found by summing the elements of the x"*1 column of matrices B and K, shows the t o t a l expenditure by the i * * 1 category of f i n a l demand on economic commodities and primary inputs; ( i = 1, f ) . Scalar p - t h i s s c a l a r p i s equal to the sum of the elements of vector o. I t i s al s o equal to the sum of the elements of vector 1. (As explained on page 60 the f a c t that p equals both of these summations r e f l e c t s the i d e n t i t y of Gross Domestic Expenditure and Gross Domestic Product). Vector q ( l x z - n + l ) - an element, q^ ,, in t h i s vector, found by summing the i * * 1 element of the columns of matrices F and G, th shows the t o t a l output of the i ecologic commodity. When i = n + 1, t the discharge i s onto land. When i = t + 1, ... sv, the discharge i s in t o the a i r . When i = v + 1, ..., z, the discharge i s into water. (This also holds f o r the following matrices R, S and Matrix R ((z-n+1 ) x m) - an element, r . . , i n t h i s matrix shows "th "til the input of the i ecologic commodity used by the j industry ( i = n + 1, z; j = 1, ...,n) Matrix S ((z-n + 1) x n) - an element, S^, in t h i s matrix shows "th the input of the i ecologic commodity used i n conjunction with "th the f i n a l demand f o r the j economic commodity, ( i = n + l , . . . z j j = 1, ....n). Vector t ((z-n + 1) x 1) - an element, t ^ , i n t h i s vector found "th by summing the elements of the i row of matrices R and S shows the t o t a l input of the i * * 1 ecologic commodity to industry and f i n a l demand. These 17 matrices, vectors and the one scalar described above do not exhaust a l l of the meaningful matrices and vectors that are included i n Table 3, though they do include a l l the ones which are required f o r the a n a l y t i c a l models which are to follow. Before developing these models, however, i t i s necessary to s p e l l out i n more d e t a i l some of the important accounting i d e n t i t i e s contained i n the data of Table 3. THE COMMODITY-BY-INDUSTRY ACCOUNTING SCHEME Several i d e n t i t i e s may be established:. a 3 i = l 3 1 The value of the output of an industry i s equal to the summation of the value of the output of each economic commodity produced by the industry. m c. = E d .. ( i = l n} o 1 . , i i V J - X , ...,n; 2 i = l t h T o t a l output of the i economic commodity i s the sum of the outputs of the i t * 1 commodity from each of the m i n d u s t r i e s . ro f E a . . + E j = l 1 3 j = l C i = A a i j + * b i j (i=l,...,n) T o t a l use of the i * * 1 economic commodity i s the sum of i t s use by each of the m in d u s t r i e s plus the sum of i t s use by each of the f categories of f i n a l demand. Since, by d e f i n i t i o n , the t o t a l output of the i 1 " * 1 economic commodity i s equal to i t s t o t a l use, i d e n t i t i e s 2 and 1 may be combined to give an expression f o r the f i n a l demand of the i * * 1 economic commodity as the net output of the i economic commodity, by each of the m i n d u s t r i e s : f m Z b.. = Z (d. . - a. .) ( i = i , . n ) j= l 13 j = i 13 X3 The data f o r Table 3 might be taken from the accounts of a region of any s i z e . I f the na t i o n a l accounts are used then i t i s possible to develop the f a m i l i a r n a t i o n a l accounting i d e n t i t i e s from the data i n Table 3. On the expenditure side, gross domestic expenditure at market p r i c e s (GDEm) i s the sum of a l l categories of f i n a l demand. (Imports are entered as negative f i n a l demand). GEEm equals p i n Table 3. f n p GDEm = E ( E b . . + I k . . ) j=l i = l 1 3 i = l ^ The income equivalent of GDEm i s gross domestic product at market p r i c e s , '(GDPm). This i s the sum t o t a l of the various primary inputs, (p in Table 3) p m f GDPm = Z ( E h . - + E k..) i = l j = i ^ j = i 1 3 Since the t o t a l economic output of a l l i n d u s t r i e s equals the sum o f intermediate demands and f i n a l demands; . n Z i = l c. 1 n Z m Z a. . i = l j = l ^ f Z n Z b. j = l i = l x3 The t o t a l economic output of a l l i n d u s t r i e s equals the sum of t o t a l intermediate inputs and t o t a l primary inputs: n n m p m Z c . = Z Z a.. + Z Z h . i = l i = l 3=1 J i = l ]=1 J I f follows that: f n p p m f Z ( Z b. . + Z k. . ) = Z ( Z h.. + Ek... j= l i = l 1 3 i = l 1 3 i = l j = l 1 3 j = l ^ which i s GDEm = GDPm. So f a r a l l of the i d e n t i t i e s that have been presented have r e f e r r e d only to the economic data i n Table 3. Other i d e n t i t i e s may be established which make use of the data r e l a t i n g t o the ecologic commodities. These i d e n t i t i e s may be c a l l e d material balance i d e n t i t i e s . I t i s common p r a c t i c e i n the Chemical Engineering 3 l i t e r a t u r e to view a production process as an inflow of raw mater-i a l s and energy and a consequent outflow of u s e f u l products, waste and energy. The law of conservation of mass implies that i f no change i n inventory takes place within the plant the combined mass of material inflows equals the combined mass of material outflows. This i s what i s meant by a materials balance. ( S i m i l a r l y , an energy balance may be derived from the law of conservation of energy.) Any process or complex of processes which involves material inputs and outputs may be described by a materials balance. The data i n Table 3 can be used to define material balances f o r the e n t i r e economy or f o r production and consumption separately. To do t h i s i t i s necessary to pay close attention to the units of measurement, since materials balance i d e n t i t i e s are p h y s i c a l i d e n t i t i e s , i n the sense that they are statements of the p h y s i c a l law of the conservation of mass. For the i d e n t i t i e s , which are to be derived, to be a correct representation of t h i s law of conservation, inputs and outputs must be measured i n u n i t s of mass. For a l l Earthly purposes weight serves as an accurate measure of mass. Although the e n t r i e s i n Table 3 r e l a t i n g to the use and production of ecologic commodities are in terms of weight, the economic data are in monetary u n i t s . Since there i s no s t r i c t r e l a t i o n between a commodity's market p r i c e and i t s weight, the economic data of Table 3 cannot be used i n material balance i d e n t i t i e s without further q u a l i f i c a t i o n . The point i s that i t i s the weight of the economic commodities which are of interest and this w i l l be indicated in the material balance identities by placing a line above a l l parts of the identity which refer to economic commodities. Hence, i f a^j i s the dollar value of the i * * 1 economic commodity used as an input by the j * * 1 industry, then a. . i s the weight of the i * * 1 economic commodity used as "th an input by the j industry. It is convenient to assume that the economy i s closed to foreign trade and to look f i r s t at the materials balance identity for industrial production alone. A l l material inflows to industry are, in the f i r s t instance ecologic commodities. Thus when iron ore, coal and oxygen are i n i t i a l l y used as inputs by primary industries they are not purchased from other industries, but are extracted directly from the environment. The material outflows from the industrial sector take three forms: capital accumulation, consumer goods and waste products. The mass of these outputs must be equal to the mass of ecologic commodities used as industrial inputs i f the law of conservation of mass is to be satisfied. Identity (10) expresses the materials balance condition for aggregate industrial activity in a closed economy: m z f n m z E E r . . = E E b + E E f . . 10 j=l i=n+l 1 3 j=l i=l i 3 j=l i=n+l ] 1 This i d e n t i t y says that the mass of material inputs of industry m z ( E E r..) must equal the mass of material outputs of j=l i=n+l 1 3 industry. These outputs include a l l the consumer goods, f i x e d investment,change i n inventories of f i n i s h e d and semifinished goods that are purchased as f i n a l demand f n plus ( E E b,. ) j= l i = l J i n d u s t r i a l wastes m z ( E E f..) j= l i=n+l J The f i n a l demand sector has, as inputs, the economic commodities produced by the i n d u s t r i a l sector and also some ecologic commodities such as oxygen used i n the combustion of gasoline i n motor-cars. I f , in the time period to which the i d e n t i t i e s apply, there i s no change i n the accumulated stock of c a p i t a l goods, inventories, and consumer durables, then the f i n a l demand sector may be described by the following materials balance i d e n t i t y : f n n z n z Z E b . . + E E . s . . s E E g . . 11 j=l i = l 1 3 j = l i = n + l 1 ] j = l i = n + l 1 3 This i d e n t i t y shows that, with no change in inve n t o r i e s , the mass of economic commodities purchased by the f i n a l demand sector z n ( E E b. .) plus t h e mass of ecologic commodities used by that j=l i = l 1 3 n z,-' sector ( E E s..) must be equal to the mass of ecologic j = l i = n + l 1 3 commodities produced by the f i n a l demand sector. In contrast to equation (10), which holds i r r e s p e c t i v e of whether there i s a change in c a p i t a l stocks, equation (11) only holds when there i s no such change. By s u b s t i t u t i n g equation (11) into equation (12) a t h i r d materials balance i d e n t i t y i s obtained which applies to both the production and consumption a c t i v i t i e s of the e n t i r e economy: m z n z m . z n z E E r . . + E E s . . = E E f . . + E E g . . 12 j = l i=n+l 1 3 j = l i=n+l 1 3 j = l i = n + l 3 1 j = l i=n+ l 1 3 which may be written as: z z E t . = E q. isn+1 1 i ^ + 1 1 Identity (12) shows that, when there i s no change i n the mass of c a p i t a l equipment, inventories of f i n i s h e d and semi-finished goods, and consumer durables, the mass of ecologic inputs to an economy must equal the mass of ecologic outputs from the economy. If accumulation does occur then equation (11) does not hold since the left-hand side exceeds the right-hand side by the mass of accumulated economic commodities. This in e q u a l i t y i s s i m i l a r l y r e f l e c t e d i n equation (12) i n which the mass of ecologic inputs to the economy i s l e s s than or greater than the mass of ecologic outputs according to whether the mass of accumulated economic commodities f a l l s or r i s e s during the time to which the equations apply. It i s important to note that capital, i n the economic sense, i s measured i n terms of i t s monetary value. In general the monetary value of an asset i s no i n d i c a t i o n of i t s mass and so c a p i t a l accumulation of the type relevant f o r materials balance may occur even i f the value of the c a p i t a l stock i s d e c l i n i n g . Something more d e f i n i t e than t h i s can be sa i d , however, once the d i s t i n c t i o n i s drawn between c a p i t a l deepening and c a p i t a l widening. Other things.being equal, c a p i t a l widening, that i s , the d u p l i c a t i o n of e x i s t i n g equipment, i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to an increase i n the mass of accumulated c a p i t a l equipment. C a p i t a l deepening, which i s a q u a l i t a t i v e change in the type of c a p i t a l equipment bears no f i x e d r e l a t i o n to the mass of accumulation c a p i t a l equipment. The materials balance i d e n t i t i e s (10), (11) and (12) were derived f o r a closed economy. In an open economy account must be taken of the r e l a t i v e masses of imported and exported economic commodities. The mass of economic commodities entering f i n a l f n , demand ( E I b.. ) must include the dif f e r e n c e between the j= l i = l 1 3 mass of exports and the mass of imports i f i d e n t i t i e s (10) and (11) are to apply to an open economy. Furthermore, f o r i d e n t i t y (12) to be a correct formulation of the materials balance f o r an open economy i t i s i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r there to be no change i n the mass of accumulated economic commodities. It must also be true that the mass of imports equals the mass of exports. ANALYTICAL MODELS AND C0MMODITY-BY-INDUSTRY ACCOUNTS The twelve d e f i n i t i o n s and i d e n t i t i e s given above can be used i n the de r i v a t i o n of a n a l y t i c a l models. A l l such a n a l y t i c a l models l i n k , i n one way or another, commodity outputs to commodity inputs. Whereas the l i t e r a t u r e on commodity by industry input-1+ output models has dealt only with economic commodity inputs and outputs, the data contained i n Table 3 f a c i l i t a t e s the construction of a n a l y t i c a l models that include ecologic commodities as w e l l . What i s required i s a model that shows the way i n which economic commodities that reach f i n a l consumers are r e l a t e d to the commodity flows of the e n t i r e economic system. Such a model i s designed to allow estimates of the inputs and outputs of in d u s t r i e s that are required to s a t i s f y a l t e r n a t i v e patterns of f i n a l demand. For purposes of exposition i t helps to concentrate s o l e l y on the economic data i n Table 3 so that models can be b u i l t which can eventually be adapted to include the ecologic commodities. There are two key steps in the construction of any commodity by industry input-output model. The f i r s t i s to e s t a b l i s h the r e l a t i o n s between each industry and i t s commodity inputs. The second step i s to define p r e c i s e l y what i s meant by one unit of an industry's output so that the commodity compo-s i t i o n of a un i t of an industry's output may be determined. 5 Gigantes and P i t t s review nine input-output models that are distinguished from one another by the d i f f e r e n t assumptions that serve to l i n k industry outputs with commodity inputs and commodity outputs. In t h i s chapter only two of these models w i l l be examined and these can be a t t r i b u t e d to the Input-Output Research and Development S t a f f of the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s and 7 Professor G. Rosenbluth r e s p e c t i v e l y . Both of the models make the same assumption about the r e l a t i o n s between each industry and i t s commodity inputs i n that they assume that one u n i t of an industry's output always requires the same quantities of commodity inputs. Where the models d i f f e r , and t h i s i s fundamental, i s i n the assumed commodity composition of one unit of an industry's output. Rosenbluth assumes.that one un i t of an industry's output i s always composed of the same quantities of commodity outputs. Thus, Rosenbluth makes very s i m i l a r assumptions about an industry's commodity inputs and i t s commodity outputs. The same i s not true of the D.B.S. model in which i t i s assumed that the t o t a l output of each commodity i s produced by d i f f e r e n t i n d u s t r i e s i n f i x e d proportion whatever the amount of commodity that i s produced. In contrast to the Rosenbluth model, where the commodity composition of an industry's output i s f i x e d i r r e s p e c t i v e of the pattern of f i n a l demand, the necessary implication of the D.B.S. model i s that the commodity composition of each industry's output must change with every a l t e r a t i o n i n the pattern of f i n a l demand. I t would be premature to evaluate the models u n t i l a f t e r the more det a i l e d presentation which now follows. E.I. THE D.B.S. MODEL (Excluding Ecologic Commodities) The assumption i s made that the t o t a l domestic output of each economic commodity i s produced by i n d u s t r i e s i n f i x e d proportion. These proportions may be c a l c u l a t e d from the base period data of Table 3 by d i v i d i n g each industry's output of an economic commodity by the t o t a l domestic output of that commodity. i = l , . . . , n l g j = l , . . . , m "th u.., a market share c o e f f i c i e n t , i s the j industry's market share u • -3i d. . -JLi. c. 1 of the domestic production of the i " commodity. Note that the market share c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the i * " * 1 commodity sum to unity. Identity (1) above, says that the value of the t o t a l output of each industry i n the base period i s given by the summation of the value of the output of each economic commodity produced by an industry: n e. = £ d .. ( j = l , ..., m) 14 3 i = l 3 i Equations (14) and (1) can be used to derive an expression f o r industry outputs i n terms of market share c o e f f i c i e n t s and t o t a l domestic commodity outputs, as given by equation (15): e. = S u. . c. ( j = l , m) 15 3 i = l 31 1 This may be expressed in matrix form as: e = uc 16 where e i s an mxl vector of industry outputs, e^, measured at base period p r i c e s ; c i s an n x l vector of economic commodity outputs, c^, also measured at base period p r i c e s . The vectors e and c are l i n e a r l y r e l a t e d by the mxn matrix U, which i s a matrix of the market share c o e f f i c i e n t s , u... 31 Having established the commodity composition of industry outputs by equation (16) i t i s necessary to derive an equivalent expression f o r the r e l a t i o n s h i p between industry outputs and economic commodity inputs. In the D.B.S. model i t i s assumed that to produce a d o l l a r 1 s worth of output at base period p r i c e s , an industry requires c e r t a i n f i x e d values of economic commodity inputs. This assumption may be expressed by equation (17): l y . < i = 1> » n ) 17 xl - e. (3=1, m) 3 th v ^ j , the input c o e f f i c i e n t , i s the input requirement of the j industry f o r the i * * 1 commodity per u n i t of output. This equation holds i r r e s p e c t i v e of the commodity composition of the industry output e^ . Equation (17) can be rearranged to get an e x p l i c i t r e l a t i o n between industry output and commodity input, as i n equation (18): a = v e ( i = l , . . . . , n) J J (3=1,...., m) 18 In matrix notation equation (18) becomes: A l = Ve 19 A i s an m:xm matrix of commodity inouts, a.. ,1 i s an mxl column 13 vector whose elements a l l equal 1; V i s an nxm matrix of input coeff i c i e n t s , ' v^j , and e i s an mxl vector of the value of industry outputs, e_. . Equation (19) p a r a l l e l s equation (16) i n that once V, the matrix of input c o e f f i c i e n t s , i s known any vector of industry outputs determines p r e c i s e l y the r e q u i s i t e commodity inputs. The basic model i s complete except f o r a statement of the accounting i d e n t i t y that domestic commodity production must equal intermediate inputs plus f i n a l demand l e s s imports. This i s obtained by re-arranging i d e n t i t y (*+): m m f Z d.. = Z a.. + Z b.. ( i = l , , n) 20 • -i 3 1 • , 13 •_, 13 3=1 J 3=1 J 3=1 Equation (20) may be written i n matrix form as: c = A l + B l 21 c and A l have already been defined. B i s an n x f matrix whose *t h "th elements, b^_., show the j category of f i n a l demand f o r the i commodity. B i s post-multiplied by an f x 1 vector 1, whose elements a l l equal unity. B l i s therefore an n x 1 vector of f i n a l demand, net of imports, f o r each commodity. Substituting equation (19) into equation (21) the following accounting balance i s obtained: c = Ve + B l 22 Substitution of equation (16) into equation (22) y i e l d s the following input-output models: c = / j - VU7 - 1 B 1 23 e = £i - UY7 _ 1UB1 24 Equation (23) r e l a t e s economic commodity outputs to net f i n a l demand and equation (24) r e l a t e s industry outputs to net f i n a l demand. Thus, a .specified pattern of net f i n a l demand determines p r e c i s e l y the economic commodity outputs (equation 23) and the industry outputs (equation 24) that are required to supply the f i n a l demands. E.2. THE D.B.S. MODEL WITH IMPORTS DETERMINED ENDOGENOUSLY Up to t h i s point imports have been treated as exogenous to the input-output models. The next step i n the development of the D.B.S. model i s to allow imports to be determined endogenously. Although there are several ways i n which t h i s may be done t h i s section describes the methodology used by g the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s so that the empirical r e s u l t s obtained with the use of t h e i r model may be used as the foundation f o r one of the economic-ecologic models of t h i s study. In the D.B.S. study a d i s t i n c t i o n i s made between competing and non-competing imports. Competing imports are so named because they are imported commodities which compete d i r e c t l y with the same commodities produced domestically. In terms of the accounts of Table 3 competing imports are entered as a column of negative f i n a l demand. Non-competing imports are imported commodities for which there are no domestic sources of supply. They are entered i n t o ./the accounts of Table 3 as one or more rows of economic commodity inputs to the i n d u s t r i e s that purchase them, or to the category of f i n a l demand which may import them d i r e c t l y . This d i s t i n c t i o n between competing and non-competing imports i s the f i r s t step i n changing the a n a l y t i c a l structure so f a r developed to allow imports to be determined endogenously. Non-competing imports are e a s i l y dealt with. When purchased as inputs by i n d u s t r i e s , non-competing imports may be assumed to have the same r e l a t i o n to industry outputs as any other commodity input. It i s thus assumed that to produce a d o l l a r ' s worth of output, at base period p r i c e s , an industry requires c e r t a i n f i x e d values of imported economic commodity inputs f o r which no domestic source of supply e x i s t s . In the case where non-competing imports are purchased d i r e c t l y as f i n a l demandthe l e v e l of non-competing imports used f o r t h i s purpose must be s p e c i f i e d together with a l l other expenditures by the various categories of f i n a l demand. (In closed input-output models, where f i n a l demand i s determined endogenously, a l l f i n a l demand, including that f o r non-competing imports, must be f u n c t i o n a l l y r e l a t e d to the primary 5.nputs). The modifications to the basic model that are necessary to allow competing imports to be determined endogenously are more complicated than those just described f o r non-competing imports. The simplest assumption f o r determining the l e v e l s of competing imports i s that they are a f i x e d proportion of the t o t a l supply of each commodity. Equation (25) shows that the competitive imports of the i * * 1 economic commodity are equal to some pro-portion V. of the t o t a l supply of the i * * 1 economic commodity: y. = u. (c. + y.) 25 where y\ i s the t o t a l import of the i * * 1 commodity. In matrix notation: y = U (c + y) 26 y i s an n x 1 vector of competing imports, c + y i s an n x 1 vector of the t o t a l supply of each economic commodity. (I i s an m x n diagonal matrix of c o e f f i c i e n t s which show what proportion of the t o t a l supply of each commodity i s imported. (The 'hat' i s used throughout t h i s study to ind i c a t e a diagonal matrix.) Equation (25) may be combined with equations (16) and (22) to obtain the following input-output model: e = /T - U*V7 _ 1U*B1* 27 where: U* = U(I - fl) B l * = B l + y Equation (27) i s an input-output model which r e l a t e s gross f i n a l demand B l + y to domestic industry output e. In the model, U* i s a new matrix of market share c o e f f i c i e n t s , where "t i l the element u'*j£ shows the j industry's market share of the t o t a l supply of the i * " * 1 commodity (as opposed to i t s share of " t i l t o t a l domestic production of the i commodity). The sum of a column of market share c o e f f i c i e n t s , n i n d i c a t e s the E u*.., i = l 3 1 "t i l proportion of the t o t a l supply of the i commodity that i s produced domestically. 9 As pointed out in the D.B.S. study, equation (27) s t i l l f a i l s to allow the best use to be made of the table of accounts f o r which they have c o l l e c t e d data. Since data f o r re-exports i s a v a i l a b l e i t i s u s e f u l f o r the model to take account of the f a c t that the import content of exports may be d i f f e r e n t from the import content of other elements of demand. Base period data f o r exports and re-exports may be used to estimate c o e f f i c i e n t s showing the import contents of exports. Define x as an n x 1 vector of exported commodities, x.,and x i ' m as an n x 1 vector of re-exported commodities, x.. . Then x and x are r e l a t e d by the diagonal matrix fi which i s an n x n matrix m 1 of import content c o e f f i c i e n t s , f o r the export category of f i n a l demand: x = li x 28 m l The import content of any demand other than exports i s ca l c u l a t e d as follows: y - x = Uo (y - x + c) 29 J m J fl i s an m x n matrix of import content c o e f f i c i e n t s , u . , o ox f o r a l l elements of demand excluding exports. It i s now possible to re~write the accounting balance equation (22) as: c = Ve + B°l + x - y 30 where B°l = BI - x + y An input-output model which allows f o r d i f f e r e n t import content of exports and non-exports i s obtained by s u b s t i t u t i n g equations (28), (29) and (30) into equation (16) A few steps are necessary: s u b s t i t u t i n g (30) into (16): e = U/Ve + B°l + x - y7 31 Equation (31) may be written as: e = U/_Ve + B°l + x7 - Uy 32 Substituting (28) into (29) gives: y = 0 1x + tfQ (y - x + c) 33 Substituting (33) into (32) e = U/Ve +B°1 + x7 - U /? ,x + fl (y 1 x + c )7 34 — _ _ 2. o — Subs t i t u t i n g f o r c i n (34) from (30) and s i m p l i f y i n g leads to the desired expression f o r e: e = /I - U(I - C )V7 - 1 U/Tl " 0 )B°1 + (I - y )x7 35 — o — — o 1 — (Equation (35) i s given i n the D.B.S. study without the above d e r i v a t i o n ) . E.3. THE D.B.S. MODEL AND PRIMARY INPUTS In the accounts prepared by the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , primary inputs are c l a s s i f i e d into the following eight c a t e g o r i e s : 1 0 a) non-competing imports; b) balance of payments adjustment (entries under t h i s heading are the r e s u l t of the attempted r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of exports and imports i n the preliminary 1961 Input-Output Accounts with worksheet detai 1. from the D.B.S. Balance of International Payments); c) commodity taxes ( i n d i r e c t taxes l e v i e d on commodities); d) subsidies; e) i n d i r e c t taxes and government services ( i n d i r e c t taxes, such as l i c e n s i n g charges, not l e v i e s on commodites, and payments f o r services supplied s o l e l y by the government s e c t o r ) ; f ) wages and s a l a r i e s ; g) net income of unincorporated businesses; h) surplus (corporation p r o f i t s before taxes, c a p i t a l consumption allowances, valuation adjustments, i n t e r e s t and other investment income). The simplest assumption that allows these inputs to be incorporated into the input-output model i s that the primary inputs of each industry are proportional to the value of the industry's output: h - „ a ( i = 1, ..., p) . n. . - z. .e. ,. _ , * 35 i ] i ] ] (] - 1, ...» m) h. . i s the i primary input used by the j industry i n the base *th period, h. . i s r e l a t e d to e_., the value of the j industry's output in the base Deriod, by the c o e f f i c i e n t z... i j Equation (36) may be written i n matrix notation as: H = Ze 37 H i s a p x m matrix of primary outputs. Z i s a p x m matrix of primary input c o e f f i c i e n t s , e i s an m x m diagonal matrix of the value of industry outputs. Primary inputs can be r e l a t e d to f i n a l demand by s u b s t i t u t i n g any one of the equations (24), (27), and (35) into equation (37) and diagonalizing the vector of f i n a l demand. The desired s u b s t i t u t i o n depends on the assumption that one wishes to make about how imports are to be included i n the model. As an example equation (27) i s substituted into equation (37): H =J/T - U(I - 0)V7 ~1 U(f^O)^rTy) I 38 r _ J H i s a p x n matrix of primary inputs. The D.B.S. model, excluding ecologic commodities, i s now complete. Before introducing the ecologic commodities the Rosenbluth model without ecologic commodities w i l l be developed. E.4.THE ROSENBLUTH MODEL (Excluding Ecologic Commodities) To f a c i l i t a t e comparison with the D.B.S. model the input side of the Rosenbluth model w i l l be presented f i r s t since i t i s i d e n t i c a l to the input side of the D.B.S. model. Rosenbluth makes the assumption that in order to produce a d o l l a r of output, at base period p r i c e s , an industry requires c e r t a i n f i x e d values of commodity inputs. Equation (17) repeated below, expresses t h i s assumption: 5-J " — 1 ( j =1, ... , m) 3 On the output side of the model Rosenbluth assumes that a d o l l a r of an industry's output, at base period p r i c e s , i s made up of ce r t a i n f i x e d values of commodity outputs, as indicated by equation (39): w.. = d j i = N J 39 3 1 —— ( 3 = 1, • • • » m) e. 3 "th t h w.. shows the output of the i economic commodity by the j industry per d o l l a r of t o t a l output by the j * * 1 industry. The output c o e f f i c i e n t s w^ . are p a r a l l e l to the input c o e f f i c i e n t s v^_. of equation (17). I t i s therefore possible to define net output c o e f f i c i e n t s , m^j, f o r each industry by subtracting each input c o e f f i c i e n t from i t s corresponding output c o e f f i c i e n t : m i j = W 3 i " V i 3 ( i = 1 ' n ) 4 0 or m^ = d 3 » a i j ( j = l , m) 41 J e. 3 Rearranging equation (41) an expression f o r the net output o f the i * * 1 commodity by the j * * 1 industry i s obtained i n terms of the net output c o e f f i c i e n t s . _ j _ (x—1, •.., n) . n m.--e^  - d - i - a f j / • •, \ 1 + 2 1 3 3 3 i 1 3 (3=1, ..., m) In i d e n t i t y (4) the net output of a commodity summed over a l l industries i s the same as the f i n a l demand f o r that commodity. F i n a l demand can be brought into r e l a t i o n with industry outputs by making the appropriate s u b s t i t u t i o n from i d e n t i t y (4). m f Z m^e-: - Z b.. ( i = l , n) 43' 3=1 3=1 3 In matrix notation t h i s becomes: Me = B l ' 44 M i s an n x m matrix of net output c o e f f i c i e n t s , m^ ..; e i s an m x 1 vector of the value of industry outputs. B l i s an n x 1 vector of f i n a l demand. It i s important to note that i f a vector of f i n a l demand i s s p e c i f i e d , the Rosenbluth model, as represented by equation (44) , i s a set of n equations i n m unknowns. I f these equations are independent, and n > m (that i s , there are more economic commodities than i n d u s t r i e s ) , then only m items of the s p e c i f i e d f i n a l demands can be produced exactly. These m items are s u f f i c i e n t to determine the operating l e v e l s of the i n d u s t r i e s and so the remaining items of the f i n a l b i l l of goods w i l l be produced i n accordance with these industry outputs. This c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the Rosenbluth model s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i s t i n g u i s h e s i t from the D.B.S. model. The D.B.S. model w i l l produce p r e c i s e l y any s p e c i f i e d f i n a l demand. Although any such f i n a l demand can be produced i n d i f f e r e n t ways with the D.B.S. model i f surplus production of some commodities i s allowed, i t i s always true that the most e f f i c i e n t way of producing a s p e c i f i e d f i n a l demand i s that where there i s no surplus production. In the Rosenbluth model the existence of more commodities than i n d u s t r i e s i n v i t e s some formal optimizing procedure to s e l e c t the pattern of i n d u s t r i a l outputs which minimizes the surplusses i n a s i g n i f i c a n t way. The a p p l i c a t i o n of l i n e a r programming to the Rosenbluth model w i l l be investigated when the model has been expanded to include ecologic commodities. THE ROSENBLUTH MODEL WITH IMPORTS DETERMINED ENDOGENOUSLY To f a c i l i t a t e d i r e c t comparison with the D.B.S. model the d i s t i n c t i o n i s made between competitive and non-competitive imports. As i n the D.B.S. model a d o l l a r ' s worth of output of each industry i s assumed t o require a f i x e d value of non-competing imports as inputs. The value of non-competing imports purchased d i r e c t l y as f i n a l demand must be s p e c i f i e d i n the model together with a l l other expenditures by f i n a l demand. The treatment of competing imports i n the model p a r a l l e l s that i n the D.B.S. model. Identity (4) i s an expression f o r the "t tl f i n a l demand, net of imports, of the i commodity in terms of the net output of the i commodity, by each of the m i n d u s t r i e s : f m lb.. = £ (d..~ a..) ( i = l , n) H j = l 1 3 j = l 3 1 ^ By introducing imports, y., into i d e n t i t y (4) as a source of demand and supply f o r the i * * 1 commodity a new i d e n t i t y i s obtained f m m Z b.. + y. + Z a.. = Z d.. + y. ( i = l , n) 45 3=1 1 3 1 3=1 1 3 j = l 3 1 1 The same assumption may be made as in the D.B.S. model, "t h that the competitive imports of the i economic commodity are equal to some proportion y^ of the t o t a l supply of the i * * 1 commodity: m y. = u. ( Z d.. + y.) ( i = l , n) 46 i 1 j = l 3 1 1 Equation (46) may be combined with i d e n t i t y (45) to obtain "th a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the gross f i n a l demand f o r the i commodity and the output of the domestic industry : m m r Ed.. - (1 -y.) Z a.: = (1 - y.)(Z b,.+y.) ( i = l , n) j = l 3 j = l 3 j = l " 3 Defining m*. . = - ( l - y . ) a . . xj _J± 1 47 48 e. 1 and s u b s t i t u t i n g (48) i n t o equation (47): m f Em*..e. = (1-y.) (Zb.. + y.) ( i = l , n) 49 j=l 1 3 3 1 j = l 1 3 By re-w r i t i n g (49) i n matrix notation an input-output model i s obtained which r e l a t e s gross f i n a l demand to domestic industry output. M*e = ( 1 - y ) (B l + y) 50 M* i s an m x m matrix of net output c o e f f i c i e n t s , m : ,£j> derived from equation (48)* e i s an m x 1 vector of the value of industry outputs, BI i s an n x 1 vector of f i n a l demand net of imports , y i s an n x 1 vector of imports. E.6 THE ROSENBLUTH MODEL AND PRIMARY INPUTS The introduction of primary inputs into the Rosenbluth model exactly p a r a l l e l s the approach used f o r the D.B.S. model. The assumption that the primary inputs of each industry are proportional to the value of the industry's output i s expressed by equation (36) derived e a r l i e r . H = Z§ 37 H i s a p x m matrix of primary inputs, h^j-Z i s a p x m matrix of primary input c o e f f i c i e n t s * z i j * e i s an m x m diagonal matrix of the value of industry outputs, e... Unlike the D.B.S. model i t i s not po s s i b l e , i n the general case, to r e l a t e primary inputs d i r e c t l y to commodity outputs with the Rosenbluth model. As explained above some type of optimizing r u l e i s c a l l e d f o r i n the Rosenbluth model so that industry outputs can be determined subject to a constraint • of some s p e c i f i e d minimum l e v e l s of commodity outputs. However, when the industry outputs have been determined,equation (37) can be used to estimate the required l e v e l s of primary inputs.. In a subsequent section an example i s given to show how the Rosenbluth model works under these circumstances. F. A PRELIMINARY COMPARISON OF THE D.B.S. AND THE ROSENBLUTH  INPUT-OUTPUT MODELS Although ecologic commodities have yet to be introduced in t o e i t h e r model a u s e f u l comparison of these models requires that the purpose f o r which the models are to be used be borne in mind. Concern l i e s p r i n c i p a l l y with the i n t e r a c t i o n s of economic a c t i v i t y and the environment. To make these i n t e r -actions e x p l i c i t the output of wastes from industry to the environment and the input of unpriced resources from the environment to industry must be t i e d , i n some way, to the production a c t i v i t i e s of the various i n d u s t r i e s . It i s f o r t h i s reason that i t i s unsatisfactory to assume, as i n the D.B.S. model, that the input requirements of an industry are aff e c t e d only by the s i z e of i t s output and not by the composition of i t s output. Such an assumption implies that the i n t e r a c t i o n s between an industry and the environment depend only on the amount of the industry's output and not on i t s commodity composition. In Rosenbluth's model, of course, the commodity composition of an industry's output i s assumed to be f i x e d . Given t h i s assumption i t makes sense to consider an industry's output of marketable commodities and waste products as j o i n t products. Consequently, i t i s more meaningful to r e l a t e i n d u s t r i a l wastes to industry outputs within Rosenbluth's model than i n the D.B.S. model. In the l a t t e r case i t might be possible to make some allowance f o r the d i f f e r e n t commodity composition of an industry's output but t h i s would mean that waste products were being r e l a t e d t o commodity outputs rather than industry outputs. Any attempt to do t h i s e m p i r i c a l l y would meet serious data problems since most of the a v a i l a b l e data only allows estimates to be made of i n d u s t r i a l waste production at the industry and not the commodity l e v e l . 1 1 The f i x e d r e l a t i o n s h i p between industry output and commodity output that i s assumed in the Rosenbluth model makes i t unnecessary to a t t r i b u t e wastes to p a r t i c u l a r commodities d i r e c t l y . Once the industry wastes are estimated the commodity wastes follow automatically. Since both models make the same assumption about f i x e d input c o e f f i c i e n t s e i t h e r model may be adapted equally well to include 'free' inputs from the environment. The production functions i n both models assume that inputs are combined i n f i x e d proportions and t h i s assumption i s e a s i l y extended to include unpriced inputs from the environment. 12 I t i s worth noting, as Rosenbluth does, that the assumption of f i x e d input c o e f f i c i e n t s matches very poorly with the assumption of complete f l e x i b i l i t y i n the commodity composition of output. In cases where products require very d i f f e r e n t inputs, by f i x i n g the input combinations the output combinations are fix e d as w e l l , and the assumptions i n the model should recognise t h i s * For some commodities, however, the input requirements are f a i r l y s i m i l a r . Commodities of t h i s type can be aggregated into a composite commodity yet without going to the l e v e l of aggregation that industry-by-industry input-output models use. At the other extreme these are genuine examples of j o i n t products,which include some waste products, and i n these cases the f i x e d output c o e f f i c i e n t s are p a r t i c u l a r l y appropriate. Without exploring the matter f u r t h e r , i t would appear that Rosenbluth's model has some c l e a r advantages over the D.B.S. model e s p e c i a l l y f o r integr a t i n g the economic system with the environment. The comparison of the models w i l l be c a r r i e d f u r t h e r when they are applied to the data on ecologic commodities that has been c o l l e c t e d f o r t h i s study. G. THE INTRODUCTION OF ECOLOGIC COMMODITES INTO THE MODELS Having set up the two models to include a l l the relevant economic data the next step i s t o show how each of them can be adapted to account f o r the r e l a t i o n s between the economic systems and the environment. G.I. THE D.B.S. MODEL AND ECOLOGIC COMMODITIES The simplest way of introducing ecologic commodities i n t o the D.B.S. model i s to use the same procedure as was used f o r the primary inputs. Thus i t i s assumed that the ecologic commodity inputs and outputs of an industry are proportional to the industry's marketed output, valued at base period p r i c e s . This assumption i s expressed by equations (51) arid (52): r . . = 6..e, (j=l» m) 51 f . . = Y--e. (i=n+l, z) 52 - 3 i 3 i 3 r ^ j i s defined as the input of the i * " * 1 ecologic commodity used by the j * * 1 industry. "th 3~h p\_. i s the quantity of the i * ecologic commodity used by the j ' t i l industry per un i t of marketed output of the j industry. f_.^ i s the output of the i * " * 1 ecologic commodity produced by the j ^ * 1 industry. .th Y•^ i s the quantity of the i * ecologic commodity produced per unit "th of marketed output of the j industry. Note that i n Table 3 the ecologic commodities are c l a s s i f i e d according to the source from which they came or the sink to which they go. I t follows that ecologic commodities n+1, ..., t come from and go to the land; ecologic commodities t+1,.,, , v come from and go to the a i r ; and ecologic commodities v+1, ..., z come from and go to the water. Equations (51) and (52) can be written in matrix notation bearing in mind that each matrix and vector i s p a r t i t i o n e d according to the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the sources and sinks of the ecologic commodities. R = S§ 53 t i F = y £ 54 R i s a ( z - n + l ) x m matrix of ecologic commodities used as inputs by i n d u s t r i e s . 3 i s a ( z - n + l ) x m matrix of ecologic commodity input c o e f f i c i e n t s . £ i s an m x m diagonal matrix of industry marketed outputs, t F i s the transpose of the matrix F which i s an m x (z - n + 1) matrix of ecologic commodities produced by industry, t Y* i s the transpose of the matrix Y which i s an m x (z - n + 1) matrix of ecologic commodity output c o e f f i c i e n t s . The ecologic commodity inputs and outputs can be r e l a t e d to f i n a l demand f o r economic commodities by s u b s t i t u t i n g any one of the three input-output models given by equations (24), (27) and (35) into equations (53.) and (54) r e s p e c t i v e l y , and diagonalizing the vector of f i n a l demand. As pointed out i n the discussion of primary inputs, the desired s u b s t i t u t i o n to make depends on the chosen assumption about how economic commodity imports are to be included i n the model. The simplest model, which t r e a t s imports as exogeneously determined, i s used here as an example. Ecologic commodity outputs are r e l a t e d to f i n a l demand by s u b s t i t u t i n g equation ( 3 4 ) into equation (54) i n the following way: economic commodities. An element f^_. of the ( z - n + l ) x n matrix F shows the output of the i * * 1 ecologic commodity "t i l associated with the supply of the j economic commodity to f i n a l demand. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to derive an expression f o r the d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t e f f e c t s on ecologic commodities of a d o l l a r of net f i n a l demand f o r each economic commodity. This i s achieved, f o r ecologic commodity outputs, by s e t t i n g each element i n the f i n a l demand vector BI equal to unity to give the following r e s u l t s : 55 t _ — i ^ Y" has already been defined. /I-UV/ UBl i s an m x n matrix of An equivalent expression r e l a t e s economic commodity inputs to one d o l l a r of net f i n a l demand f o r each economic commodity: R = S {/I - UV/ - 1 U } 57 An element r . . of the ( z - n + l ) x n matrix R shows the input of the i * * 1 ecologic commodity associated with the supply t h of one d o l l a r of the j economic commodity to f i n a l demand. I f equation (35) instead of equation (24) had been used to r e l a t e f i n a l demand to ecologic outputs an i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t i s observed: Equation (58) recognizes that exports have a d i f f e r e n t import content from the other elements of f i n a l demand and intermediate 13 demand. According to the D.B.S. n a t i o n a l accounts the import content of exports i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s than that of other elements of demand. In terms of equation (58) t h i s means that th "th the i element of the vector U q i s greater than the i element of the vector u^. Consequently, when the r e l a t i o n between f i n a l demand and ecologic commodity outputs (or inputs) i s being considered i t i s necessary to distinguish.between exports and other elements of f i n a l demand. Equation (58) shows that the ecologic outputs produced domestically i n the process o f supplying one dollar of exports of each commodity i s greater than the ecologic outputs produced in the process of supplying one dollar of other types of f i n a l demand. This follows from the fact that i f u .>yn . then (I-tf ) < (I-fl, ). 0 1 l i o 1 Ecologic commodity inputs and outputs may be used and produced directly by f i n a l demand as well as indirectly via the activities of industry. For example, a f i n a l demand of $X for motor gasoline implies ecologic commodity inputs and outputs when the gasoline is used> over and above the ecologic commodity inputs and outputs required in the manufacture of the gasoline. The category of f i n a l demand is particularly relevant here since, from a domestic point of view, no ecologic commodities are associated with the consumpt of exports. Conversely, imports, which require no domestic ecologic commodity inputs and outputs in their manufacture, do imply ecologic commodity inputs and outputs when they are consumed. (This, of course, applies only to the immediate sources and sinks of the ecologic commodities. Ecologic commodity outputs may well travel across national borders after being discharged). From the definition of B°l given on page 77, total f i n a l demand equals B°l + x where B°l i s an n x 1 vector of the . domestic f i n a l demand for commodities and x is an n x 1 vector of exports. It follows, from a domestic point of view, that the only categories of f i n a l demand that require direct ecologic commodity inputs and produce direct ecologic commodity outputs are B°l. In this section i t is assumed that ecologic commodities used and produced directly by exports are to be ignored since i t i s intended that the model be a national model of the use of 'free' goods and the production of wastes. However, exports could be treated differently i f required. It is also assumed that one dollar's worth of domestic f i n a l demand (that i s , gross f i n a l demand minus exports), for the t h i economic commodity uses and produces the same quantities of ecologic commodities irrespective of which category of domestic f i n a l demand spends the dollar. Referring again to Table 3 i t is seen that G is an n x (z-n+1) matrix of ecologic commodity outputs produced directly by f i n a l th demand and the element g_.^  shows the output of the i ' ecologic commodity discharged as a result of the f i n a l demand for the j economic commodity. S i s a ( z - n + l ) x n matrix of ecologic commodity inputs used directly by f i n a l demand. The element s.. shows the input of the i ecologic commodity used in conjunction t i l with the f i n a l demand for the j economic commodity. Ecologic commodity input and output coefficients may be defined: n.". i s the quantity of the i * * 1 ecologic commodity used together with one unit of domestic f i n a l demand f o r the j economic commodity. th o.^ i s the quantity of the i * ecologic commodity produced by one unit of domestic f i n a l demand f o r the j economic commodity. These c o e f f i c i e n t s may be estimated from base period data. Ecologic commodity inputs and outputs can nov; be r e l a t e d d i r e c t l y to f i n a l demand by the following matrix equations: S = n B 5 ! 59 6 =. rfB°l 60 B 1 i s an n x n diagonalised matrix of f i n a l demand, exclusive of exports, n i s a ( z - n + l ) x n matrix o f ecologic commodity input c o e f f i c i e n t s , a 1 i s the transpose of a,an, nx (z - n + 1) matrix of ecologic commodity output c o e f f i c i e n t s . An element s.. of the ( z - n + l ) x n matrix S shows the d i r e c t input of the i ecologic commodity used i n the consumption of the j economic commodity by a l l categories of f i n a l demand excluding exports. An element g^ .. of the ( z - n + l ) x n matrix G shows the d i r e c t output of the i * * 1 ecologic commodity produced by the consumption of the j * * 1 economic commodity by a l l categories of f i n a l demand excluding exports. The matrices S and G are appropriately p a r t i t i o n e d to allow f o r the d i f f e r e n t sources and sinks of the ecologic commodities. Expressions for the total domestic ecologic inputs and outputs associated with the final demand for each ecologic commodity can be derived by combining the equations relating directly to final demand with those relating to industry outputs. Thus, equation (58) and an equivalent equation for ecologic commodity inputs may be added to equations (59) and (60) to give the desired expression for total ecologic inputs, equation (61) and total ecologic outputs, equation ( 6 2 ) . R + S = &/ I -U( I -H )V/ U/(I- 0 )B°1 +(I-On)x/>+ r,B 1 61 r o - - o i - ( F + G = A-u(i-fl o)vy " 1u/(i-aO)B°i + u-a7w ! + O ~ * B ^ I r o - - o i - j The matrices of equations (61) and (62) may be regarded as partititions of larger matrices: c A = K < /I-U(I-fl )V/ "-Hj/U-O )B°1 +(I-yn)x/[+ LB°1 — o — — o 1 — ! 62 63 where A is defined as K is defined as R + S „ ,_, ,a 2(z - n + 1) x n matrix. — , | , a 2 (z - n + 1 ) x n matrix. ' D_"1 L is defined as ! Ua 2 (z - n + 1) x n matrix. The L °" J D.B.S. model upon which equation (63) is based, relates total final demand B 1 + x to domestic industry outputs e with ful l allowance for imports. Equation (63) can be used therefore to relate any vector of gross final demand to the ecologic commodities used and produced in the production and consump-tion of economic commodities supplied to final demand. If the elements of the final demand vector are set equal to unity, and i f i t is assumed that this is a l l domestic final demand, so that the elements of B ° l equal unity and the elements of x equal zero, then the estimated ecologic commodities of matrix A are those associated with the supply of one dollar of each economic commodity to domestic final demand. Insofar as i t is possible to establish a social weighting of the ecological commodity inputs and outputs then u may be defined as a 1 x /2(z - n + ljj vector of weights which indicate the social evaluation of one unit of each ecologic commodity according to whether i t is used as an input or produced as an output and also according to the source or sink of the ecologic commodity. (Procedures for determining o> are discussed in Chapter V). It follows that uA gives the social evaluation of the ecologic commodity inputs and outputs associated with one dollar of final demand for each commodity. As explained in Chapter V the weights in vector w can be given two different meanings. They can be taken as the relative evaluation of each ecologic commodity so that the absolute value of each weight is meaningless. Alternatively, they can be given as estimates of the dollar values of the ecologic commodities in which case the absolute values are directly comparable with other economic magnitudes. Of course, i f the weights are taken, in the f i r s t instance, to have meaning only in relation to each other, i t is only necessary to attribute a dollar value to one weight in order to give dollar values to a l l weights. Ecologic commodities have now been introduced into the D.B.S. model. It is clear, however, that insofar as the D.B.S. 14 accounts are for the national economy the data about ecologic commodities, as the model stands at present, also applies to the nation as a whole. This situation can be significantly improved upon by a regional disaggregation of the industries and f i n a l demand so that the direct and indirect input and output of ecologic commodities attributable to different patterns of f i n a l demand can be estimated for each region. Neglecting for the moment ecologic commodities used and produced directly by f i n a l demand i t is assumed that industrial technology is uniform throughout each industry. Thus, the textile industry becomes, in effect, ten textile industries sharing a common technology. Similarly, the number of ecologic inputs and outputs of the textile industy are increased tenfold. Technically, industrial disaggregation by region may be accomplished as follows: n . . = the proportion of the j^^1 industry output, measured at 11 t h base period prices, located in the i region. th 3, . = the amount of the k ecologic commodity used as an kj input in the j * * 1 industry per unit of the j * * 1 industry's marketed output. y - the amount of the k**1 ecologic commodity produced as an jk t h ttl output in the j 1 industry per unit of the j industry's marketed output. ttl e_. = the marketed output of the j industry measured at base period prices. It follows that ^ £ j e j i- s t n e quantity of the j * * 1 industry th output located in the i * region. On the assumption that each industry's technology is identical irrespective of location, equations for the input and output of ecologic commodities may be derived. The amount of the k**1 ecologic commodity used as an input t tl th in the j industry, locatad in the i " region is given by: 8. . n . .e. k3 i l 1 b4 th An equivalent expression indicates the amount of the k th ecologic commodity produced as an output by the j industry, th located in the i region: y.,II..e. 65 ] k 13 3 By summing expressions (64) and (65) over a l l i n d u s t r i e s , the t o t a l i n d u s t r i a l input (9. .) and output ($.,.) of the k t n K l l K th ecologic commodity within the i region i s derived: m 0L . = I 3 , .11..e. K i k ] 13 3 66 m <J>.. = E y n . .e. c „ i k '3k 13 3 6 7 In matrix notation equations (66) and (67) become 0 = 8£Jl' 68 $ " =Y ell 69 * i s a (z - n + 1) x r matrix, whose elements 0, ., show the t o t a l k i i n d u s t r i a l input of the k** 1 ecologic commodity i n the i * * 1 region. t (There are r regi.ons). <f> i s the transpose of the r x ( z - n + l ) matrix <j>, whose elements, <J>^  show the t o t a l industry output of the k** 1 ecologic commodity i n the i * * 1 region. Equations (68) and (69) are equal to equations (53) and (54) post-multiplied by the transpose of the matrix IT. IT i s a matrix of c o e f f i c i e n t s showing the proportion of the j industry output, measured at base period p r i c e s , located i n the i region. The order of the matrix i s r x m where r i s the number of regions, m the number of industries. The relations shown in equations (68) and (69) can be combined with any one of the three D.3.S. input-output models given by equations (24), (27) and (35) by making the appropriate substitution for the diagonal matrix e. The disaggregation of domestic f i n a l demand by region is accomplished in the same way as that for industries: 13 th X.. - the proportion of the j category of f i n a l 'kj demand, measured at base period prices, located . .th in the I region; th = the amount of the )c ecologic commodity used together with one unit of domestic f i n a l demand for the j * * 1 economic commodity; t h a_.k = the amount of the k ecologic commodity produced by one unit of domestic f i n a l demand for the j * * 1 economic commodity; 3, . = the total direct input to domestic f i n a l k i t h demand of the k ecologic commodity within *v - t h the I region; T ^ = the total direct output from f i n a l demand of the k**1 ecologic commodity within the i * * 1 region. An exactly parallel argument as that used above for industry gives the following equations: 9 = uB°lX« 70 x r = aJ'B°l\' 71 Equations (70) and (71) r e l a t e the ecologic commodity inputs and outputs a t t r i b u t a b l e d i r e c t l y to domestic f i n a l demand with the regional d i s t r i b u t i o n of f i n a l demand. 9 i s an f x r matrix of d i r e c t ecologic commodity inputs. X' i s the transpose of the matrix X, which i s an r x f matrix of d i r e c t ecologic o N commodity outputs. B 1 i s an n x n diagonalised matrix of f i n a l demand, exclusive of exports. Equations (70) and (71) are equal to equations (59) and (60) post-multiplied by the transpose of the r x n matrix X. X i s a matrix of c o e f f i c i e n t s , X.., showing the proportion of the j category of f i n a l demand, "t i l measured at base period p r i c e s , located i n the i region. The t o t a l regional d i s t r i b u t i o n of ecologic commodity inputs and outputs may be derived by summing equations (68) and (70); and (69) and (71) r e s p e c t i v e l y remembering that the industry and f i n a l demand vectors are not to be diagonalised. At t h i s stage the model i s not f a r from being a complete economic-ecologic model. The basic D.B.S. model has been extended to include ecologic commodities c l a s s i f i e d by the sources and sinks (achieved by s u i t a b l e p a r t i t i o n i n g of the F, G, R and S matrices) and the model also allows for the regional distribution of ecologic commodity inputs and outputs to be examined. Nevertheless, the model remains very distinct from Isard's or Daly's in that no subsystem of the environment is included^ In the discussion of these other models, especially Isard's, i t was argued that the data requirements of the ecologic subsystems were so great that i t is expedient to include only flows between the economic-ecologic systems and not flows within the ecologic system itself. However, i t is important for the model to allow for the relations bet**een the ecologic outputs of industry and the subsequent ecologic inputs from the environment. It is possible to extend the present adaptation of the D.B.S. model so that these relations are recognised without introducing the entire ecologic system. As before, i t is convenient to examine ecologic commodities used and produced by industries separately from those used and produced directly by final demand. Turning first to the ecologic commodity outputs of industry consider the fact that the 3 sectors - land, air and water, in their capacity as sinks, may each be disaggregated according to some measure of treatment efficiency. Any number of treatment classes may be defined for each environmental sector. A treatment class describes the environmental sector's capacity to assimilate a particular type of waste. The effectiveness of each treatment class may be written, i n terms of the concentration of an ecologic commodity some time a f t e r i t has been introduced into a sink of a c e r t a i n treatment c l a s s . (This includes the concentration of substances that r e s u l t from the reaction of the p a r t i c u l a r ecologic commodity with other material in the s i n k ) . I f the quantities of ecologic commodities introduced into each t r e a t -ment c l a s s i s known f o r a given region then the ' e f f e c t i v e ' disposal of the ecologic commodity may be calculated as follows: p . . = concentration of 1 unit of the k**1 ecologic commodity 'ik remaining a f t e r d i s p e r s a l by 1 unit of a sink of the. i * * 1 treatment cl a s s during a un i t of time. (An example may c l a r i f y t h i s rather complicated definition..- Suppose one pound of carbon monoxide (CO) i s released i n t o 10 cubic feet of a i r of a given treatment c l a s s . I f , . an hour l a t e r , 5 pound of carbon monoxide remains i n the 10 cubic feet of a i r than P . = O.OSlbs CO/cubic f t . a i r ) . k3 quantity of the k t h ecologic commodity produced by a unit l e v e l of a c t i v i t y of the i * " * 1 industry per un i t of time. "t i l v.. = proportion of t o t a l output of the i industry where a 13 sink of the j * * 1 treatment c l a s s p r e v a i l s . "th The t o t a l amount of the k " ecologic commodity generated m is given by £ e.y., which has the simple matrix form ofy' e" , 1 Xk 1=1 where e" is an m x m diagonal matrix and y1 is a(z - n + l)x m matrix. The concentration of the k**1 ecologic commodity remaining one unit of time after i t has been discharged is equal to £ e.Y . ,v..p, • • In matrix notation this is the diagonal . . i ' i k X3 K k 3 1 3 J J element of y*evp"'. where v is a matrix whose order is m by the number of treatment classes and p' is the transpose of the *p matrix whose order is z - n + 1 by the number of treatment classes. The total amount of undispersed ecologic commodity from each industry is given by E e.y.,v..p . which has no really simple j x *• I K 13 matrix form. It can however be written as y'e'^v' (72) where * indicates that the i j t n element of the matrix y e is to be multiplied by the i j * * 1 element of the matrix pv' and transcribed into a new matrix. As 5n any input-output model the coefficients of the model are assumed stable over time unless there is reason to believe otherwise. Even then, with limited information, the best assumption may s t i l l be that the coefficients are unchanged until i t can be demonstrated that they have changed in a certain way. In this section a new type of coefficient has been introduced, namely, the treatment coefficients p^ ... It is appropriate, therefore, to give some consideration to the stability of these coefficients over time. Unfortunately, very l i t t l e i s known about the environment's a b i l i t y to assimilate waste so that what is said here is hardly more than speculation. There can be l i t t l e doubt, however, that there i s a relation between the waste introduced into the environment in one time period and the environment's assimilative capacity in subsequent periods. For example, when sewage is discharged into a water course oxygen from the water is used in the decomposition of the sewage. Although the marine l i f e in the water course generates oxygen i t is not uncommon for the biochemical oxygen demand of the sewage to exceed the production of oxygen by the marine l i f e . If this situation i s sustained over time the amount of oxygen in the water course declines and the a b i l i t y of the water to break down the sewage deteriorates. In terms of the model the water course would have to be reclassified in a different treatment class which would have the effect of raising the level of untreated ecologic outputs for a given level of industrial operations. In the above example the treatment class of the water course had to be changed because of the net withdrawal of oxygen from the water. The interactions within the water course are ecological processes which do not enter the model explicitly. The withdrawal of oxygen may be thought of as an indirect result of the economic system5 the direct relations being that between people and sewage, and the sewage and the^biochemical oxygen demand. Such indirect relations are5without doubt important but there are direct relations between the economic system and the use of ecologic commodities which must also be considered. These relations take the form of ecologic inputs to the economic system. Oxygen, for example, is a vital ingredient in a l l combustion processes. It is also necessary for turning poisonous carbon monoxide into the 1 6 relatively harmless carbon dioxide. This means that the treatment class of an air shed depends, in part, on the direct use of the air by the economic system. (The economic processes in the United States are said to use annually 40% more oxygen than the vegetation in the Unites States produces)' , Two principal categories of variables that determine the treatement efficiency of an environmental sector or sink at a point in time have been outlined: waste previously discharged and ecologic commodity inputs to production and consumption taken directly from the environment. It would be quite p o s s i b l e » though rather difficult, to extend the static model that was presented earlier to allow for these dynamic considerations. One way of doing t h i s would be to make the treatment c o e f f i c i e n t s functions of the past ecologic commodity inputs and outputs. Owing to the present lack of information about the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s any such dynamic model would have to be cast i n very general terras. Furthermore, i t i s u n l i k e l y that the simple lineari.ty of the model could be maintained. The recent work of ec o l o g i s t s i n the study of synergisms, which roughly means the i n t e r a c t i o n of d i f f e r e n t ecologic commodities with each other and with the environment, does not encourage confidence i n the assumption of l i n e a r i t y . For example, the speed of a chemical r e a c t i o n increases exponentially with temperature; a f a c t which i s d i r e c t l y relevant to 'thermal p o l l u t i o n ' . I t would seem then, that the s t a t i c model, which already c a l l s f o r more data than i s currently a v a i l a b l e , i s at best, the skeleton of a complete model. Despite the obvious d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the s t a t i c model i t s shortcomings are not n e c e s s a r i l y serious. It may indeed be true that the treatment c o e f f i c i e n t s change too quickly f o r the s t a t i c model to make any r e a l sense. But i t may also be true that these c o e f f i c i e n t s are r e l a t i v e l y as stable as the production c o e f f i c i e n t s of the economic system. For both types of c o e f f i c i e n t s a consideration of t h e i r s t a b i l i t y over time would doubtlessly improve the input-output models which may be put to work with the data a v a i l a b l e today. The foregoing discussion of treatment classes can be t i e d i n quite e a s i l y with the e a r l i e r discussion of the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of ecologic commodity inputs and outputs. I t i s not possible to define regions i n terms of the d i f f e r e n t treatment classes since there i s no reason to believe that a body of a i r that i s uniformly of one treatment class l i e s above a piece of land that i s also of only one treatment c l a s s . What i s necessary i s that the environmental sectors or sinks be c l a s s i f i e d by region and broken down into types of treatment c l a s s . Thus, i f expression (72) were to apply to one region amongst many then the matrix Y xe*pv' would be based on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of i n d u s t r i e s by treatment c l a s s within the p a r t i c u l a r region. These l a s t few pages have dealt p r i m a r i l y with ecologic commodity outputs and the various ways d i f f e r e n t a t t r i b u t e s of these outputs can be brought into the input-output models. It i s now necessary to take a closer look at the ecologic commodity inputs to the economic system and i n so doing at the temporal r e l a t i o n • between ecologic commodity outputs and inputs w i l l be further examined. Equation ( 5 3 ) , repeated here, expresses the ecologic input requirements of the i n d u s t r i a l processes: R = 53 Examples of the ecologic commodities include water as an ingredient in chemical processes or just for cooling, and oxygen for the combustion of mineral fuels. Clearly, the desired quality of an ecologic input depends crucially on the purpose for which i t is used. It is generally true that, for given technical processes, the ecologic inputs must be of some minimum standard of quality as measured by the type and quantity of impurities contained in the input. If an input i s below the specified quality then before i t is used i t must be treated. Such treatment, i f carried out by the firm using the ecologic input, i s best regarded as part of the production process of that firm. In fact many uses of ecologic inputs require some associated capital equipment even i f i t i s only in the form of giant fans designed to suck air into blast furnaces. The important point i s that the type and amount of capital equipment required to channel the ecologic commodity from the environment and to process i t i f i t s 'natural' quality is too low depends in part on the characteristics of the ecologic outputs of industry. Indeed, perhaps the most common problem in environmental quality to be analysed by economists i s that of two factories that use water from the same river. One factory i s s i t u a t e d upstream from the other and, in the course of i t s i n d u s t r i a l operations, i t adds e f f l u e n t to the r i v e r making i t necessary f o r the downstream fa c t o r y to process the water i t takes i n f o r i t s own purposes. The r e l a t i o n between ecologic commodity outputs and inputs so c l e a r l y seen i n t h i s simple example i s even more true f o r i n d u s t r i e s taken i n the large. In f a c t , when the view i s broadened so as to include a l l economic a c t i v i t i e s the temporal r e l a t i o n s are not s o l e l y from ecologic commodity output to ecologic commodity input but go i n the reverse d i r e c t i o n as w e l l . In an e a r l i e r example i t was shown that i n d u s t r i a l u t i l i z a t i o n of oxygen can reduce the environment's capacity to oxidize such noxious gasses as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide. Thus, at a s o c i a l l e v e l , the ecologic commodity inputs and outputs of industry i n one time period a f f e c t the ecologic commodity outputs and inputs i n subsequent time periods. Concentrating once again on ecologic commodity inputs, one question that a r i s e s r e l a t e s to the s t a b i l i t y of the q u a l i t y of 'natural' ecologic commodity inputs over time. I f i t i s true that these change f a i r l y r a p i d l y over time, r e q u i r i n g adjustments to the production processes of a s i g n i f i c a n t number of i n d u s t r i e s , then the assumed r i g i d i t y of the production functions i n the input-output model i s suspect. Of course, i f the manner i n which the production functions change to accomodate d i f f e r e n t q u a l i t i e s of ecologic inputs i s known then t h i s information can be duly incorporated into the input-output model. But this information is not usually available, and furthermore, i t has yet to be established that this aspect of the product5.on functions is any more susceptible to change than any other part of the technology employed. It would certainly be a useful exercise to compare the rate of change in the technology of treating ecologic inputs with that of the rest of the production process. However, u n t i l such a study has been completed there i s no reason for thinking that these rates d i f f e r significantly. The extension of the D.B.S. input-output model to include ecologic commodity inputs and outputs i s now complete. It is possible to extend the Rosenbluth model in a similar way, by merely adding extra commodity inputs and outputs into each production process. The result would be parallel to the earlier case where i t was shown that, generally, only the levels of some commodity outputs, which would now include ecologic commodities, can be specified and produced exactly. In the next section the possibility of applying linear programming to the Rosenbluth model w i l l be discussed in the context of the ecologic commodity inputs and outputs of the economic system. G.2. THE ROSENBLUTH MODEL, ECOLOGIC COMMODITIES AND LINEAR  PROGRAMMING The purpose of this section is to examine how a formal ' optimization technique, in particular linear programming, can be used to determine the desirable level of industry activities in the Rosenbluth model. Rosenbluth suggests the following linear program as an example of the way in which his model may be used. Minimum level of economic commodities to be supplied to f i n a l demand are specified. These form the constraints in the program. A suitable objective function, which is to be minimized subject to these constraints, i s a vector of industry levels of activity multiplied by a vector of cost per unit level of activity, for example, value added. The general form of such a linear programming model i s as follows: Model 1 Minimise Ve Subject to: Me >_ BI (i) e ^ 0 ( i i ) Y is a 1 x m row vector of value added per unit level of activity associated with each industry. The constraints signified by (i) are the simplest form of the Rosenbluth model developed earlier and designated as equation (44). The constraint ( i i ) i s the conventional requirement that a l l industry outputs must be non-negative. There are two ways i n which the ecologic commodities can be introduced into the basic l i n e a r programming model. As the model stands at present the objective function i s a function of economic cost. Perhaps the main theme of t h i s chapter has been that there are also ecologic costs to economic a c t i v i t y . I f these costs are measured i n d o l l a r values then they may be added to the economic costs that are already in the o b j e c t i v e function. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , an objective function can be formulated e n t i r e l y i n terms of the ecologic commodity inputs and outputs of i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t y . In t h i s case i t i s unnecessary t o evaluate the ecologic commodities i n terms of d o l l a r s . A l l that i s required i s a statement of the r e l a t i v e d i s u t i l i t y of each ecologic commodity input and output. These two procedures f o r optimizing economic a c t i v i t y taking account of the ecologic costs of t h i s a c t i v i t y w i l l now be examined i n more d e t a i l . Th° f i r s t step i s to r e l a t e the ecologic commodities to industry marketed outputs. Equations (53) and (54) developed f o r the D.B.S. model serve equally well i n the Rosenbluth model providing the assumption i s retained that a d o l l a r ' s worth of t h output, at base period p r i c e s , from the j industry, produces th and uses f i x e d amounts of the i ecologic commodity. Equations (53) and (54) use a diagonal matrix of industry outputs. It i s not necessary, at t h i s stage, to have a statement of the ecologic commodities used an produced by each industry. The o v e r a l l data i s a l l that i s required and so a vector of industry outputs i s used i n place of the diagonal matrices, as i n equations (73) and (74): r = Be 73 f 1 = Y 5e 74 It i s convenient to regard these matrices as p a r t i t i o n s of a l a r g e r matrix: a = Ae 75 " B where a = j -f' and A = Y 1 a i s a 2 ( z ~ n + l ) x l vector of ecologic commodities. A i s a 2 ( z - n + l ) x m matrix of c o e f f i c i e n t s , e i s an m x 1 vector of industry marketed outputs. It i s now p o s s i b l e to assign values to the elements of the a vector r e f l e c t i n g an evaluation of the ecologic inputs and outputs. (Note that the same ecologic commodity can enter the a vector as both an input and output. Rather than aggregate a l l such commodities to get a net output f i g u r e , t h i s disaggrega-t i o n permits d i f f e r e n t weightings to be given to an ecologic commodity depending on whether i t is used or produced by an industry). If a i s a 1 x /2(z - n + 1)/ vector of values to be applied to the ecologic commodities then the scalar wa gives the social evaluation of the vector a of ecologic commodities. Using equation (75) i t follows that the ecologic cost of the industry output vector e i s given by: A = o>a 76 hence A = «/Ve It i s now possible to establish a linear programming model which minimizes the ecologic costs of industry outputs subject to constraints on the supply of economic commodities to f i n a l demand. Such a program i s given by model II. Model II Minimise uAe Subject to Me >^  Bl ( i ) e 1 0 ( i i ) Note that the ecologic costs associated with the f i n a l demand vector are omitted from the linear programming model. These costs should be taken into account when the f i n a l demand 17 vector i s specified in the constraints signified by ( i ) . If the weights in the &f vector are in dollar values than the 1 x m vector o>A may be added to the vector V which was defined e a r l i e r to be a vector o f weights equal to the economic costs to be applied to the industry output vector e. It follows that ojA + ¥ i s a l x m vector whose elements are a combined economic-ecologic set of weights which can be used i n a t h i r d l i n e a r programming model. Model III Minimize (u>A + V)e Subject to Me >_ BI ( i ) e >_ 0 ( i i ) In each of the three l i n e a r programming models s p e c i f i e d above the constraints s i g n i f i e d by ( i ) have been based upon the simplest version of the Rosenbluth model equation (44). For some purposes the more complicated model of equation (50) which determines imports endogenously, may be required, i n which case equation (50) can be substituted f o r equation (44). Model II using equation (50) in place of equation (44) as constraint ( i ) has the form Minimize i«Ae Subject to H*e >. (I -fl) (BI + y) ( i ) e i 0 ( i i ) Although there are an unlimited number of l i n e a r programming models that can be b u i l t taking account o f the ecologic costs of economic a c t i v i t y only one more w i l l be presented here. The d i s t i n g u i s h i n g feature of the model i s that i t recognises the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i b u -t i o n of the production and use of ecologic commodities and allows a d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l evaluation of these commodities according to where they are used or produced. The matrices of equations (68) and (64), which show the regional d i s t r i b u t i o n of ecologic commodity inputs and outputs f o r any vector of t o t a l economic commodity outputs, may be regarded as p a r t i t i o n s of l a r g e r matrices: T = K e i f 77 where T = e -| -, i and K = V T i s a 2 ( z - n + l ) x r matrix of ecologic commodities. An "t i l element of T shows the use or production of the k ecologic commodity in the i * * 1 region. K i s a 2 ( z - n + l ) x m matrix of ecologic commodity input and output c o e f f i c i e n t s , e i s an m x m diagonal matrix of industry marketed outputs. H* i s the transpose of the matrix II , which i s an r x m matrix of c o e f f i c i e n t s showing the proportion of the j * * 1 industry output measured at base period p r i c e s , located in the region. Each element i n T must be s o c i a l l y evaluated. Define " th as the s o c i a l evaluation of one unit of the i ecologic " t h commodity used or discharged i n the j region. The w^jS may be arranged i n a matrix ii of order 2(z - n + 1) x r . The s o c i a l evaluation of the matrix T i s found by mu l t i p l y i n g each element of T by the corresponding element of ft and summing the t o t a l . The s o c i a l evaluation of T = 1 ( z ~ n + 1 ) ( T * p J ) l r 78 where * indicates that the i j t * 1 element of the matrix T i s to be m u l t i p l i e d by the i j ^ element of the matrix ft and transcribed into a new matrix. The elements of t h i s new matrix are summed (z-n+1) by p r e m u l t i p l i c a t i o n by 1 ' , a (z-n+1) x 1 vector whose (r) elements are equal to unity, and p o s t m u l t i p l i c a t i o n by 1 , an r x 1 vector whose elements a l l equal unity. Substituting equation (77) into (78) an expression f o r the s o c i a l evaluation of the industry marketed outputs e i s obtained, taking account of the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of the ecologic commodities associated with e. This expression may be used as the objective function in a l i n e a r programming model: Model IV ... . . , (z-n+1) , - r 7 ~ n - » A f l l l (r) Minimize 1 (Ken »u)l Subject to H e > B l ( i ) and e > 0 ( i i ) FOOTNOTES - Chapter III 1. Dominion Bureauof S t a t i s t i c s , Standard I n d u s t r i a l Manual, Cat. No. 12-501, p.8. 2. Ibid, p. 7 3. See, f o r example, A l o i s X. Schmidt and Harvey L. L i s t , Material  and Energy Balances (New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc. , Englewood C l i f f s , 1962). 4. The e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e i s conveniently reviewed i n the following two papers: Terry Gigantes and Paul P i t t s , 'An Integrated Input-Ouput Framework and some Related A n a l y t i c a l Models', (paper presented to the Canadian P o l i t i c a l Science Association, Conference on S t a t i s t i c s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. June 12-13, 1965). Terry Gigantes and T. I. Matuszewski, 'Rectangular Input-Output Systems, Taxonomy and Analys i s ' , (paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Input-Output Techniques, Geneva, January 8-12, 1968). 5. Gigantes and Matuszewski, 'Rectangular Input-Output Systems'. 6. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s Input-Output Research and Develop-ment S t a f f , The Input-Output Structure of the Canadian Economy, 1.961, Vo l . I (Ottawa, August, 1969). Throughout t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s w i l l be abbreviated to D.B.S.. 7. Gideon Rosenbluth, 'Input-Output Analysis: A C r i t i q u e ' , S t a t i s t i s c h e  Hefte, Vol. 9, Number 4, 1968. 8. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Input-Output Structure, pp. 141-142. 9. I b i d . , pp. 142-143. 10. I b i d . , p. 99. 11. See Chapter IV. 12. Rosenbluth, 'Input-Output Analysis: A C r i t i q u e ' , pp. 265-66. 13. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Input-Output Structure, pp. 294-303. 14. Ibid. 15. See Chapter I I , pp. 30-44. 16. Whether or not carbon dioxide i s as harmless as was once thought i s now a matter of debate. It i s thought by some write r s , that a g l o b a l accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere w i l l tend to r a i s e the temperature of the Earth. For a discussion of t h i s problem, see Paul R. E h r l i c h and Anne H. E h r l i c h , Population, Resources and Environment, Issues f o r Human Ecology. (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1970), pp. 145-48. 17. A more general version of model II can be b u i l t i n which surplus production i s also constrained. This would take account of the f a c t that when surplusses are allowed the f i n a l demand vector can be produced i n an i n f i n i t e number of ways and so i t i s des i r a b l e to constrain the surplusses because t h e i r consumption produces waste products and uses 'free' goods. CHAPTER IV A STUDY OF THE PRODUCTION AND DISPOSAL OF WASTES IN CANADA FOR  THE YEAR 1961 A. INTRODUCTION On searching through the l i t e r a t u r e on waste production and d i s p o s a l i t i s evident that despite the growing conerri of Canadians f o r the q u a l i t y of t h e i r environment very l i t t l e i s known about the extent of waste production i n Canada and the methods by which i t i s disposed. I t i s not d i f f i c u l t to f i n d items of research that contain quantitative statements about matters ranging from the process chemicals i n wbollen-mi.ll wastes* to the production 2 of s o l i d wastes by turkeys . However, nowhere has an attempt been made to b r i n g together the diverse f a c t s r e l a t i n g to waste production and disposal i n Canada. I t would seem that t h i s i s a p r e r e q u i s i t e to any discussion of environmental q u a l i t y that sought to t r e a t the t o p i c at anything more than a micro l e v e l . What follows i s a compilation of the a v a i l a b l e data together with many estimates, o r i g i n a l to t h i s study, of the sources of wastes and t h e i r d i s p o s a l i n Canada during 1961. In most i n q u i r i e s about the waste products that emanate from economic a c t i v i t y the wastes are c l a s s i f i e d according to the media which receive them: a i r , land and water. Consequently, i f one i s i n t e r e s t e d i n the waste products which come from a p a r t i c u l a r economic unit, and t h i s may be a producer or a consumer as normally defined, i t i s necessary to select the data from separate discussions of a i r , land and water p o l l u t i o n . Since i t i s the purpose of the present study to r e l a t e the production of wastes to the Canadian economy, the wastes must eventually be c l a s s i f i e d according to the economic a c t i v i t y which produces them. The model of the Canadian economy that i s to be used as the basic framework i s a 16 industry, 40 3 commodity input-output model for the year 1961. This model was f u l l y described i n Chapter 111. It s u f f i c e s to say that by r e l a t i n g the waste products to these 16 industries i t i s possible to impute the wastes a t t r i b u t a b l e to each of the 40 commodities. Wastes which are produced by industries w i l l therefore be c l a s s i f i e d according to the industry which produces them. S i m i l a r l y , wastes which r e s u l t from consumption a c t i v i t i e s w i l l be grouped under the heading of f i n a l demand. As for the data themselves, they vary greatly i n t h e i r accuracy i n l e v e l of aggregation. Canadian data, when available have, of course, been used. Sometimes, however, one finds figures for other countries, p a r t i c u l a r l y the United States, which have no Canadian equivalent. Where possible these United States figures have been s u i t a b l y converted to describe Canada. As w i l l become c l e a r when s p e c i f i c instances of these conversions are being considered, some ambitious leaps of f a i t h have been made to derive figures of doubtful v a l i d i t y . Further, i t must be noted that the data that have been c o l l e c t e d i s far from being the complete story of Canadian waste production and disposal. The study i s permeated with omissions of important data which serve to provide topics for further research. Rounding errors, too, occur frequently as do discrepancies, a l b e i t very s l i g h t ones, between columns of figures and t h e i r reported t o t a l s . F i n a l l y , some comments on terminology are c a l l e d f o r . whether or not a waste i s a pollutant, that i s , whether i t s elimination, other things equal, would increase s o c i a l welfare, depends upon s o c i a l preferences. To avoid confusion, the term pollutant w i l l not be used and attention w i l l be focussed on the more pervasive phenomenon of waste. In view of the rather technical nature of the discussion a glossary of terms which may be unfamiliar to the economist, i s provided on page 417 of t h i s study. Furthermore, page 416. contains a summary and d e f i n i t i o n of the abbreviations that are used both i n the text and i n the tables described i n the text. THE ESTIMATION OF THE PRODUCTION OF WASTES: AN OVERVIEW The problems involved i n estimating the waste products from each industry vary according to the type and q u a l i t y of the data that are a v a i l a b l e . Ideally one could draw on data from a waste product monitoring service which, to date, i s no more than an idea i n the minds of those i n t e r e s t e d i n the problem of waste production. Very much a second best approach makes use of 'emission f a c t o r s ' p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the estimation of airborne wastes. I f i t i s knownthat, on the average, the combustion of one g a l l o n o f gasoline i n a motor car leads to the emission of x pounds of carbon monoxide and y pounds of nitrogen dioxide and i f i t i s knownhow many gallons of gasoline were used by automobiles i n Canada during 1961 then the t o t a l emission of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide from automobile t r a v e l f o r 1961 i s e a s i l y estimated. This i s the method by which a l l the estimates of a i r p o l l u t i o n from f u e l combustion have been ca l c u l a t e d i n t h i s study. Certain problems a r i s e i n choosing the appropriate emission factors (that i s , the x pounds and y poundsof the above paragraph) to use i n computation. F i r s t of a l l , t h e s e f a c t o r s must be averages of a l l sorts of things. In the case of automobile t r a v e l , f o r example, each type of gasoline produces wastes i n d i f f e r e n t proportions on combustion. Furthermore, these wastes w i l l vary with the type of automobile, the way i n which i t i s driven with respect to speed and a c c e l e r a t i o n , and a l t i t u d e . The d e r i v a t i o n of average emission factors i s indeed a complicated matter, and as would be expected, d i f f e r e n t people have derived d i f f e r e n t values f o r these emission f a c t o r s . The differences are not only i n the estimated magnitude of the f a c t o r s but also i n the units of measurement used i n t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n . This creates an a d d i t i o n a l problem because the units cannot often be converted to a common base f o r comparison of the fa c t o r s without some other average f i g u r e being used i n the process. For example, H e l l e r and Walters give t h e i r emission factors i n terms of tne c a l o r i f i c 5 value of the f u e l s , whereas Duprey uses a measure of the quantity of f u e l consumed. A comparison of these f a c t o r s requires an estimate of the average c a l o r i f i c value of the various f u e l s . Rather than r e l y on any one set o f emission f a c t o r s t h i s study makes use of the emission factors from H e l l e r and Walters, 6 7 Duprey, Robinson and Robbins and Smith . Taken together, these four references give emission f a c t o r s f o r up to ten airborne wastes though no i n d i v i d u a l reference gives t h i s many fa c t o r s . I f the information were a v a i l a b l e , an account of airborne wastes would include not only the sources and quantities of the wastes but also the duration of t h e i r stay i n the atmosphere. This would require consideration of such important issues as the r e l a t i o n between various meteoriological and topographical conditions and the dispersion of the wastes but l i t t l e can be sa i d about these matters at the aggregative l e v e l of t h i s study. These f a c t o r s , however, can be introduced i n t o l o c a l studies of airborne wastes which, i n turn, f i t i n t o the la r g e r framework provided by the t h e o r e t i c a l models of Chapter I I I . Airborne wastes have t h e i r o r i g i n i n natural b i o l o g i c a l processes as w e l l as i n domestic and i n d u s t r i a l processes. Although i t has not been attempted i n t h i s study i t i s possible to make quantitative estimates of emissions from natural sources. It should be noted that f o r some gases such as sulphur dioxide and various nitrogen compounds, natural production i s considerably g l a r g e r than that of a r t i f i c i a l o r i g i n . Airborne wastes from domestic sources come almost e n t i r e l y from f u e l combustion for heating and transportation. Fuel combustion by industry i s also a very important source of wastes emitted into the a i r . Indeed, i n t h i s study, nearly, a l l .'the data on i n d u s t r i a l and domestic airborne wastes have been derived from an sxaminiation of the combustion of f u e l i n Canada, 1961. Although various production processes give r i s e to s i g n i f i c a n t q u antities of wastes the data on i n d u s t r i a l operations c o l l e c t e d by the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s are seldom published i n a form that can be used f o r estimating the associated airborne waste products. However, the few processes f o r which such estimates can be made are included i n t h i s study. The estimates of airborne wastes are based almost e n t i r e l y on Canadian data. The opposite i s true of the estimates of water borne wastes. No comprehensive study has ever been made of the use of water by Canadian industry. Such a study, however, has been made f o r the manufacturing industries of the United States and i t i s the r e s u l t s of t h i s study that are used as a guide to the use of water by Canadian manufacturing industry. By comparing the r e l a t i v e sizes of Canadian and United States i n d u s t r i e s i t i s p o s s i b l e to transform the data f o r a p a r t i c u l a r United States industry so that i t may be used f o r the corresponding Canadian industry. The data r e l a t i n g to the domestic and commerical discharge of waste water are somewhat better than that f o r industry, p r i m a r i l y because Canadian data are employed, though i t would be f o o l i s h to claim that most of the figures are anything more than suggestive of the magnitudes involved. The production and di s p o s a l of refuse i n Canada i s the le a s t w e l l documented part of the en t i r e study. Most of the data that have been c o l l e c t e d f o r Canada are contained i n two municipal 10 11 reports: one f o r Vancouver, 1958 and the other f o r Toronto, 1967 Together with the more complete data f o r the United States these studies provide the sole sources of information on Canadian s o l i d waste production and disp o s a l . Although i t i s the aim of t h i s study to c l a s s i f y a l l wastes according to t h e i r source rather than t h e i r sink, i t i s convenient to deal with waterbome: wastes, airborne waste and wastes discharged onto land i n separate sections. A f i n a l section w i l l then be devoted to c o l l a t i n g the data i n these three sections so that they correspond to the input-output a c t i v i t i e s of the Dominion Bureau 12 of S t a t i s t i c s accounts . To f a c i l i t a t e t h i s c o l l a t i o n of the data, the headings given to the following sections, i n which p a r t i c u l a r i n d u s t r i e s are discussed, include a number which corresponds 13 to the 16 industry c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the Input-Output model (For example, a heading which included 'D.B.S.'5' would indi c a t e that the data discussed i n the section applies to the t e x t i l e industry which i s the f i f t h industry i n the 16 industry Input.-Output model). C l . THE USE OF WATER AND THE PRODUCTION OF WATERBORNE WASTES IN CANADA, 1961 Three categories of water users may be defined: manufacturing i n d u s t r i e s , other i n d u s t r i e s , and domestic. These three categories w i l l be examined separately. C.l.a) THE USE OF WATER IN CANADIAN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY AND THE  PRODUCTION OF WATERBORNE WASTES (DBS 4-11) The use of water i n United States manufacturing industries during 1964 i s documented i n the 1963 Census of Manufacturing 14 Industry . Some of t h i s data i s reproduced i n Table 4. The rest of the data i n Table 4 describe- the estimated use of water THE USE OF WATER BY UNITED STATES MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES IN 1964 AND CANADIAN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES IN 1961 2 3 ~5 5 6~ 7 INPUT/ VALUE OF VALUE OF RELATIVE U.S. WATER INTAKE OUTPUT U.S. U.S. SHIPMENTS CAN. SHIPMENTS SIZE 1964 CLASS. CODE 1964 1961 OF U.S. AND ( B i l l i o n U.S. Gals.) NO. NO. ( M i l l i o n $ U.S.) ( M i l l i o n $ Can.) CANADIAN INDUSTRIES TOTAL FRESH BRACKISH MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY GROUP Food, Feed, Beverage and Tobacco Industries 20, 21 76,488 5,474.3 14:1 769 684 79 T e x t i l e Industries 22, 31 20,908 2,217.4 9.4:1 148 146 Wood and Furniture Industries 24, 25 15,766 1,426.0 11:1 154 129 24 26 17,142 2,228.7 7.7:1 2,071 1,918 152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 INPUT/ VALUE OF VALUE OF RELATIVE U.S. WATER INTAKE OUTPUT U.S. U.S. SHIPMENTS CAN. SHIPMENTS SIZE 1964 MBUEACT.URING CLASS. CODE 1964 1961 OF U.S. AND ( B i l l i o n U.S. Gals.) H33BSTRY GROUP NO. NO. ( M i l l i o n $ U.S.) ( M i l l i o n $ Can.) CANADIAN INDUSTRIES TOTAL FRESH BRACKISH Primary Metal • 4,729 4,355 457 ansf Metal 8 33, •93,324 4,930.8 18.9:1 Fabricating r 34, Industries 35 Transportation and E l e c t r i c 9 36, 89,361.3 3,372.4 26.5:1 352 297 55 Equipment 37 Manufacturers Cfaemi'cal.,. Rubber and. Petroleum 10 28, 61,710 3,079.5 20:1 5,449 3,420 2,029 Products 29, Industries 30 ©ther Manufacturing Industries 11 32, 38, 39 26,099.8 2,220.2 11.8:1 291 251 39 MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY GROUP 8 GROSS WATER USED U.S. ( B i l l i o n U.S. Gals.) TOTAL WATER DISCHARGED ( B i l l i o n U.S. Gals.) 10 TREATED PRIOR TO DISCHARGE ( B i l l i o n U.S. Gals.) 1! STANDARD B.O.D. ( M i l l i o n Pounds) BEFORE 12 SETTLEABLE & SUSPENDED SOLIDS ( M i l l i o n Pounds) TREATMENT •Food, Feed, Beverage and Tobacco Industries 1,290 690 158 4,300 6,600 i—• T e x t i l e .Industries 311 135 35 810 n.a. Wood and Furniture Industries 221 126 34 Included i n #11 6,026 1,947 707 5,900 3,000 MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY GROUP 8 GROSS WATER USED U.S. (Bil l i o n U.S. Gals.) TOTAL WATER DISCHARGED (Billion U.S. Gals.) 10 TREATED PRIOR TO DISCHARGE (Billion U.S. Gals.) 11 12 SETTLEABLE & STANDARD B.O.D. SUSPENDED SOLIDS (Million Pounds) (Million Pounds) BEFORE TREATMENT Erimary Metal and Metal Fabricating Industries 7 ,188 4,514 1,199 480 4,700 Transportation and Electric Equipment Manufacturers 929 328 39 190 n.a. Chemical, Rubber and Petroleum Products Industries 14,074 5,134 1,022 10,240 2,410 Other Manufacturing Industries 487 256 50 450 980 1 13 14 15 16 17 MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY GROUP CAN. WATER INTAKE 1961 ( B i l l i o n Imp. Gals.) To t a l Fresh Brackish GROSS WATER CANADA ( B i l l i o n lop. USED Gals.) TOTAL WATER DISCHARGED ( B i l l i o n Imp. Gals.) TREATED PRIOR TO DISCHARGE ( B i l l i o n Imp. Gals.) PERCENTAGE TREATED Food, Feed, Beverage and Tobacco Industries 45.4 40.7 4.7 77.6 / 41 8.3 20 T e x t i l e Industries 15.7 15.5 0.1 33 14.4 3.7 25 Wood and Furni ture Industries 14.0 11.7 2.2 20.1 11.5 3.1 27 Paper and A l l i e d Industries 218.2 207.5 16.4 651.9 210.6 76.5 36 13 14 15 16 17 MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY GROUP CAN. WATER INTAKE 1961 ( B i l l i o n Imp. Gals.) GROSS WATER USED CANADA TOTAL WATER DISCHARGED TREATED PRIOR TO DISCHARGE Total Fresh Brackish ( B i l l i o n Imp. Gals.) ( B i l l i o n Imp. Gals.) ( B i l l i o n Imp. Gals.) PERCENTAGE TREATED Primary Metal and Metal Fa b r i c a t i n g Industries 211.2 190 20.1 316.8 199 52.8 27 Transportation and E l e c t r i c Equipment Manufacturers 11 9.3 1.7 30 10.3 1.2 12 Chemical, Rubber and Petroleum Products Industries 226.9 142.4 84.5 586.2 213.8 42.6 20 Other Manufacturing Industries 24.7 21.3 3.3 41.3 21.7 4.2 21 MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY GROUP 18 19 POLLUTANTS REMAINING STANDARD B.O.D. ( M i l l i o n Pounds) SETTLEABLE & SUSPENDED SOLIDS ( M i l l i o n Pounds) INPUT/ OUTPUT CLASS. NO. Food, Feed, Beverage and Tobacco Industries 246 377 VJ4 T e x t i l e Industries 94.7 n.a. Wood and Furniture Industries Included i n #11 559 285 1 18 19 2 '. POLLUTANTS REMAINING I N P U T / SETTLEABLE & OUTPUT MANUFACTURING STANDARD B.O.D. SUSPENDED SOLIDS CLASS. -INDUSTRY GROUP ( M i l l i o n Pounds) ( M i l l i o n Pounds) NO. Primary Metal ., and Metal . " .• • ->".?' Fabricating " : Industries 18 182 Transportation and E l e c t r i c Equipment Manufacturers 62 n.a. Chemical, Rubber and Petroleum Products Industries 410 97 10 Other Manufacturing Industries 38.1 83 11 Sources: see text, pp. 130-143. i n Canadian manufacturing industries during 1961. For example, column 13 of Table 4 shows the estimated t o t a l water intake of 8 manufacturing industry groups in Canada, during 1961. The food industry group took i n 45.4 b i l l i o n gallons of water, of which 40.7 b i l l i o n gallons werefresh water and 4.7 b i l l i o n gallons were brackish water. Columns 13-17 describe how t h i s water was used. Gross water use, recorded i n column 14, allows f o r the r e c y c l i n g o f water within the plant. Thus, the food industry group used 77.6 b i l l i o n gallons of water through r e c y c l i n g . The same industry group discharged 41 b i l l i o n gallons of water of which 8 . 3 . b i l l i o n gallons were treated p r i o r t o discharge. •Estimates such as these, which were made f o r each of the 8 industry groups, were based upon the following assumptions: (1) The production functions of Canadian manufacturing industries i n 1961 were the same as those of United States manufacturing i n d u s t r i e s i n 1964. (2) These production functions have f i x e d c o e f f i c i e n t s . (3) Taking account of the exchange rate and the changing l e v e l of United States p r i c e s between 1961 and 1964, the p r i c e s of Canadian manufactured' goods i n 1961 wer^the same as those f o r United States manufactured goods i n 1964. (4) A l l United States industries grew between 1963 and 1964 at the average growth r a t e f o r the e n t i r e United States economy as measured by the rate of growth i n G.N.P. The reasons f o r these assumptionswill become apparent in what follows. It should not be thought, that because the assumption? are f a l s e that the data derived f o r Canada based upon these assumptions cannot be used f o r the intended purpose. I t w i l l be argued l a t e r that the f i g u r e s to be presented f o r Canadian manufacturing i n d u s t r i e s use of water are more than j u s t an approximation of unknown accuracy. There are good reasons f o r b e l i e v i n g that the f i g u r e s are underestimates of what they purport to measure. That t h i s i s so i s p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant to p o l i c y discussions about i n d u s t r i a l waste water. Referring to Table 4 the procedure f o r converting the data f o r Canadian use was as follows: (a) Columns 1-3: The United States i n d u s t r i e s were grouped as necessary to correspond t o the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Canadian i n d u s t r i e s that i s ued i n the 15 industry input-output model of Canada f o r 15 1961 . (b) Column 4: The data f o r United States i n d u s t r i a l water use 16 are f o r 1964 , However, no equivalent breakdown of United States i n d u s t r i e s according t o t h e i r s i z e (as measured by value of shipments) i s a v a i l a b l e f o r that year. Consequently, the s i z e s of these i n d u s t r i e s had to be estimated. This was accomplished by assuming that a l l United States manufacturing i n d u s t r i e s grew between 1963 and 1964 at the average growth r a t e of G.N.P. equal 17 to 4.8 per cent . This growth rate was then applied to the 1963 18 data which appears in the 1963 Census of manufacaturing industry Column 5: The value of Canadian maufacturing output by 19 industry was taken from Table 1 of the Canadian input-output tables Column 6: The r e l a t i v e s i z e s of the United States and Canadian manufacturing industries were c a l c u l a t e d , according to t h e i r respective values of shipments in the appropriate years. To do t h i s two f a c t o r s needed to be accounted f o r . ( i ) The foreign exchange rate between United States and Canadian d o l l a r s , ( i i ) The change i n the United States p r i c e l e v e l between 1961 and 1964. It turns out that these f a c t o r s are o f f s e t t i n g with the outcome that the value of $1 Canadian i n 1961 very c l o s e l y approximates j he value of $1 U.S. i n 1964. This may be seen as follows: At the close of 1961 $l.04~£ Canadian bought $1 U.S. 2 0. The value of $1 U.S. in 1964 i n terms of $ U.S. i n 1961 i s such that $1.0378 U.S. in 1964 = $1 U.S. i n 1961. This i s based on the United States consumer p r i c e index as reported i n the 21 S t a t i s t i c a l Abstract of the United States i n 1966 which includes the following data:-Purchasing Power Of The United States  Dollar as Measured By Consumer Prices Year Dollars 1957 1.021 1.00 1958 1961 1963 1964 .994 .960 .937 .925 Since the value of $1 Canadian i n 1961 in terms of 1961 U.S. d o l l a r s i s almost equal to the value of $1 U.S. i n 1964 in 11 term of 1961 U.S. d o l l a r s (that is,$ 1.04-*-= 1.0378) i t follows that $1 Canadian i n 1961 i s approximately equal i n value to $1 U.S. in 1964. Columns 7-10: The data r e l a t i n g to the use of water i n the United States were taken from the 1963 Census of United 22 States Manufacturing Industries Columns 11-12: The volume of B.O.D. (biochemical oxygen demand) and setteable and suspended s o l i d s before treatment are 23 reported i n Cleaning Our Environment . Although the table from which the data i s taken i s c i t e d as r e f e r r i n g to 1963, the values for the • waste water that are also reported i n t h i s table correspond very c l o s e l y to the values taken from the United States Census and reproduced i n Column 9, which are f o r 1964. It i s thought that an error has been made in Cleaning Our Environment and that, indeed, the data given there i s f o r 1964 and not 1963. (g) Columns 13-16: Using the r e l a t i v e s i z e s of the United States and Canadian in d u s t r i e s as given i n Column 6, the United States data f o r water use were reduced proportionately. The appropriate adjustment was made to convert the Canadian data 24 to Imperial gallons (h) Column 17: The percentage of waste water treated was calc u l a t e d from the data i n columns15 and 16. ( i ) Columnsi8,19: The fi g u r e s f o r B.O.D. and setteable and suspended s o l i d s remaining r e f e r to the untreated water. C.l.b) A BRIEF EVALUATION OF THE ESTIMATES OF B.O.D. AND SETTLEABLE  AND SUSPENDED SOLIDS The estimates of the use of water by Canadian manufacturing in d u s t r i e s are very approximate. It i s worthwhile to consider the underlying assumptions to see what, i f anything, can be learned about the accuracy of the f i g u r e s . Two assumptions were made about the production functions of United States and Canadian manufacturing i n d u s t r i e s . The assumed f i x e d c o e f f i c i e n t s of the functions i s fundamental to a l l input-output analyses and needs no furth e r defense here. The assumed s i m i l a r i t y of the functions i s a d i f f e r e n t matter. I f anything i s known about the technologies of Canadian and United States i n d u s t r i e s i t i s that the technology used i n the United States tends to be several years ahead of that used i n Canada. However, the reverse i s implied by the assumption that the same production functions may be used to describe Canadian manufacturing industies i n 1961 and United States manufacturing i n d u s t r i e s i n 1964. But since i n t e r e s t i s i n the i n d u s t r i a l use of water in the two countries, attention must be focussed on t h i s aspectjsf the respective production functions. Water i s r e l a t i v e l y cheaper in Canada than i t i s i n the United States. Consequently productuon techniques are l i k e l y to be more water intensive i n Canada than t h e i r counterparts in the United States. This means that , on t h i s basis alone, the estimates i n Table 4 of the Canadian intake and gross use of water are l i k e l y to be too low. The t o t a l water intake (column i 3 ) and gross water used (•column 14), which takes into account the r e c y c l i n g of water within i n d u s t r i a l p l a n t s , are probably both greater than the f i g u r e s given. One supposes also that the r e l a t i v e abundance of clean water i n Canada as compared with the United States would lead to proportionately l e s s treatment of i n d u s t r i a l water before discharge i n Canada. Thus, the estimates of the percentage of discharged water that i s t r e a t e d , as given i n column 17, may be taken to be too high. It follows that the estimates f o r wastes remaining a f t e r treatment i n columns 18 and 19 are too low. But they are also too low f o r another reason. They were calculated on the assumption that the water treatment removed a l l wastes completely from the treated water. The. technology used i n the treatment of i n d u s t r i a l waste water i n Canada during 1961 could not have made t h i s p o s s i b l e . These considerations suggest that the estimates f o r both the use of water by Canadian manufacturing i n d u s t r i e s i n 1961 and the consequent output of B.O.D. and s e t t l e a b l e and suspended s o l i d s are too low. From t h i s i t i s true to say that insofar as the i n d u s t r i a l usage of water i s a cause f o r p u b l i c concern the magnitude of the problem i s at l e a s t that indicated by the fi g u r e s i n Table 4. C.l.c) THE PRODUCTION OF OTHER CATEGORIES OF WATERBORNE WASTES BY  CANADIAN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY IN 1961 (DBS 4-11) In section l.a) estimates w e r e made of the B.O.D. of waterborne wastes and the s e t t l e a b l e and suspended s o l i d s from Canadian manufacturing i n d u s t r i e s . These two aggregate measures of waste are the only ones f o r which data i s given i n the United States Census of Industries. Estimates of other categories of wastes are p o s s i b l e , however, with the use of data from a study of water q u a l i t y standards i n the San Francisco Bay-Delta area In t h i s study waste load c o e f f i c i e n t s are given for seven i n d u s t r i a l groups and seven types of waterborne wastes. These c o e f f i c i e n t s are in units of tons of waste per $1,000,000 of industry output. They were c a l c u l a t e d from data given o r i g i n a l l y i n units of 26 tons of waste per ton of industry output with the use of d o l l a r valuations of industry output taken from accounts f o r the year 1963. The seven types of waterborne wastes for which c o e f f i c i e n t s are given i n the study of the San Francisco Bay-Delta area include B.O.D. and se t t l e a b l e and suspended s o l i d s . It was possible, therefore, to compare the c o e f f i c i e n t s given for these wastes with the equivalent c o e f f i c i e n t s c a l c u l a t e d from Table 4 which i s based upon data from the United States 1963 Census of Manufactures. Such a comparison showed that there are s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the c o e f f i c i e n t s for B.O.D. and s e t t l e a b l e and suspended s o l i d s derived from the two sources. For example, i n the San Francisco study a c o e f f i c i e n t of 6.36 tons B.O.D. per $ m i l l i o n i s given for the food and kindred products industry group. This compares with a c o e f f i c i e n t of 22.5 tons B.O.D. per 27 $ m i l l i o n , c a l c u l a t e d from Table 4 . A s i m i l a r comparison of the B.O.D. c o e f f i c i e n t s for a l l the industry groups showed that the San Francisco c o e f f i c i e n t s were up to 9 times smaller than the corresponding c o e f f i c i e n t s for the e n t i r e United States economy as estimated from the data i n Table 4. On r e f e r r i n g 2 8 to the o r i g i n a l source of the San Francisco c o e f f i c i e n t s i t was discovered that the o r i g i n a l data i n terms of tons of waste per ton of saleable output were given as a range of c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r many of the wastes and industry outputs. It appears that i n the economic study of the San Francisco 29 Bay-Delta area the selected values of the c o e f f i c i e n t s come, without explanation, from around the middle of the range that i s c i t e d i n the o r i g i n a l study. One possible way of r e c o n c i l i n g the divergent c o e f f i c i e n t s , then, would be to select the upper l i m i t of the values of the c o e f f i c i e n t s for which ranges are given, though i t turns out that a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the San Francisco and the United States c o e f f i c i e n t s s t i l l remains. Rather than base the Canadian estimates of i n d u s t r i a l waterborne wastes on such an a r b i t r a r y adjustment i n the San Francisco c o e f f i c i e n t s , i t was considered more legitimate to compare the i n d u s t r i a l use of water in C a l i f o r n i a with that of the entire United States to see i f support could be found for the hypothesis that taken as a whole, United States industries use more water per unit of 30 output than C a l i f o r n i a n industries . I f t h i s proved to be the case then the c o e f f i c i e n t s for the San Francisco area could be appropriately adjusted to take account of the l i k e l i h o o d that the use of water by an industry i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the proportion of i t s waste products disposed of by water. Note that water use can be varied i n two d i f f e r e n t ways: by a l t e r i n g the water intake or by changing the extent of re-use of water within a plant. As columns 4 and 5 of Table 5 show, f o r each d o l l a r of value added of the various industry groups, except stone and g l a s s , the water intakejof the e n t i r e United States exceeds the C a l i f o r n i a n water intake, thus, column 4 shows that f o r the food and kindred products industry group, value added in the United States was $11,195 m i l l i o n j 10.5 times as large as that f o r the C a l i f o r n i a n industry at $1,065 m i l l i o n , i n 1963. Column 5 shows t h a t , f o r the same industry group, water intake i n the United States was 12.5 times as large as that of C a l i f o r n i a i n 1963 (763 m i l l i o n gallons compared with 61 m i l l i o n g a l l o n s ) . Although water intake was r e l a t i v e l y higher i n the United States than i n C a l i f o r n i a , columns 5 and 6 of table 5 show that, f o r each d o l l a r of value added by a l l manufacturing industry groups, except transportation and e l e c t r i c a l equipment, more establishments r e c i r c u l a t e d water in C a l i f o r n i a than i n the United States. For example, column 6 shows that , f o r the food and kindred products industry group, the number, of : A COMPARISON OF THE USE OF WATER BY INDUSTRIES IN CALIFORNIA AND THE U.S.A. IN 1963 NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS GROSS WATER TOTAL WATER VALUE ADDED WATER INTAKE RECIRCULATING USED DISCHARGED RATIO OF WATER D.B.S. U.S. ($1 M) .(IM US GALS) WATER (IM US GALS) (IM US GALS) DISCHARGED MANUFACTURING CLASS CODE U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. INDUSTRY NO. NO. CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA RATIO,TO VALUE ADDED RATIO Food and Kindred Products 20+ 21 11,195.0 1,065.0 763.0 61.0 1,577.0 183.0 1,299.0 102.0 690.0 54.0 12.8 10.5 RATIO -U.S.:CALIF. 10.5 12.5 8.6 12.7 12.8 1.22 Paper and A l l i e d Industries 26 13,856.0 98.0 2,071.0 28.0 568.0 27.0 6,026.0 126.0 1,942.0 24.0 80.9 39.3 RATIO -U.S.:CALIF. 39.3 74.0 21.0 47.8 80.9 2.06 Primary Metal and Metal Fabri c a t i n g 33+ 34+ 35 21,267.0 539.0 4,792.0 16.0 1,103.0 41.0 7,188.0 164.0 4,513.0 12.0 376.0 39.5 RATIO -U.S.:CALIF. 39.5 299.5 26.9 43.8 376.0 9.52 NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS GROSS WATER TOTAL WATER VALUE ADDED WATER INTAKE ''RECIRCULATING USED DISCHARGED RATIO OF WATER D.B.S . U.S. ($1 M) (IM US GALS) WATER (IM US GALS) (IM US GALS) DISCHARGED MANUFACTURING CLASS CODE U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. RATIO TO VALUE . INDUSTRY NO NO CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA ADDED RATIO Transportation 36+ 28,416.0 352.0 653.0 929.0 328.0 41.0 and E l e c t r i c a l 37 2,649.0 9.0 48.0 83.0 8.0 10.7 Equipment 9 . RATIO -U.S.:CALIF. 10.7 39.1 13.6 11.2 41.0 3.83 Chemical, Rubber 28+ 18,323.0 • 5,450.0 1,227.0 14,074.0 5,134.0 30.2 and Petroleum 10 29+ 831.0 177.0 70.0 712.0 170.0 22.0 30 RATIO -U.S.:CALIF. 22.0 30.8 17.5 19.8 30.2 1.37 Stone and Glass 32 3,180.0 249.0 337.0 389,0 218.0 12.8 11 266,0 21.0 36.0 32.0 17.0 \ 1 2 - ° RATIO -U.S.:CALIF. 12.0 11.9 9.4 12.2 12.8 1.07 Sources: see te x t , pp. 145-151 establishments that r e c i r c u l a t e d water i n the United States was only 8 . 5 times as large as in C a l i f o r n i a . This compares with the r e s u l t that, as coluran 4 shows, value added in the United States by the food and kindred products industry group exceeded t h a t , f o r the same industry group, i n C a l i f o r n i a by 1 0 . 5 times. The most important data, in the present context, are that which show that f o r every d o l l a r of value added by each industry group, the i n d u s t r i e s on a n a t i o n a l scale discharged more water. than the C a l i f o r n i a n i n d u s t r i e s . The extent to which t h i s i s true of each industry i s ind i c a t e d by the l a s t column of f i g u r e s i n Table 5. These f i g u r e s show that, f o r example, i n the food and kindred products industry group, f o r every d o l l a r of United States output 1.22 times as much water was discharged as f o r every d o l l a r o f C a l i f o r n i a n output. This i s calculated from the r a t i o s i n columns 8 and 4. Making the assumption that the q u a l i t y o f the water i s the same i n both cases, the waste load c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the food and kindred products industry group c i t e d i n the San 31 Francisco study must be m u l t i p l i e d by 1.22 i n order to be used f o r i n d u s t r i e s at the n a t i o n a l l e v e l . Using the other f i g u r e s of column 9 a corresponding adjustment needed to be made to a l l the c o e f f i c i e n t s so that the adjusted c o e f f i c i e n t s of Table 6 were a r r i v e d at. These adjusted c o e f f i c i e n t s could then be used on both United States and Canadian data to estimate the output of ADJUSTED WASTE LOAD COEFFICIENTS FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTE WATER (TONS/$ MILLION) INDUSTRY D.B.S. CLASS NO. BOD NITROGEN PHOSPHATES SETTLEABLE AND OIL & SUSPENDED GREASE SOLIDS PHENOLS FACTOR FOR ADJUSTING CO-GROSS EFFICIENTS FOR CALIFORNIA HEAVY SO THAT THEY MAY BE METALS APPLIED NATIONALLY ro Food 4 7.69 1.02 0.05 1.36 - 17.13 — — 1.22 Paper 7 . 58.55 1.50 1.48 — 9.21 — — 2.06 Fabricated Metals 8 1.62 2.00 — — — — -- 9.52 Petro-Chemical 10 10.06 5.74 0.16 3.15 160.66 0.58 1.69 1.37 Stone and Glass 11 3.00 0.03 — 0.001 16.12 0.001 1.07 Source: see text, p. 151. the various waterborne wastes. Such estimates f o r Canada appear i n Table 7 based upon the value of i n d u s t r i a l output as recorded i n column 5 of Table 4. ( I t should be noted that the adjusted c o e f f i c i e n t s were used without any further adjustment being made to account f o r the f a c t that they r e l a t e to 1963 U.S. d o l l a r s which, i n r e a l terms were 0.18 per cent more valuable than 1961 Canadian d o l l a r s . I t was f e l t that an adjustment of t h i s scale would not add anything to the accuracy of the f i n a l estimates.) Having argued at the end of sectionC.l.b. that the estimates-of B.O.D. and s e t t l e a b l e and suspended s o l i d s contained i n that section were underestimates i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t that the adjusted c o e f f i c i e n t s of the present section are s t i l l w e l l below the implied c o e f f i c i e n t s of Table 4. This lends support to the notion that a l l the estimates that have been made i n t h i s study of the output o f waterborne wastes from Canadian manufacturing industry i n 1961 are probably underestimates of the true magnitudes. C.2. THE USE OF WATER IN NON-MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES IN CANADA, 1961 These industry groups include a g r i c u l t u r e and f o r e s t r y , mineral i n d u s t r i e s , construction, transportation and trade, communications and otherservices. Because of the lack of data f o r several of these industry groups, attention w i l l be focussed on ag r i c u l t u r e and thermal e l e c t r i c i t y generation. TABLE 7 ; THE OUTPUT OF SOME WATERBORNE WASTES BY CANADIAN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES, IN 1961 MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY GROUP D.B.S. CLASS , NO. ' NITROGEN WASTES •-- TONS PHOSPHATES OIL & GREASE PHENOLS GROSS HEAVY METALS Food, Feed, Beverage and Tobacco Industries 5,583.8 273.8 7,445.0 Paper and Al l i e d Industries 3,343.0 3,298.5 20,526.3 Primary Metal and Metal Fabricating Industries 9,861.6 Chemical, Rubber and Petroleum Industries 10 17,673.3 492.7 9,700.4 1,786.1 5,204.4 Other Manufacturing Industries (Princi-pally Stone and Glass) 1 1 66.6 2.2 2.2 C 2.a) THE USE OF WATER FOR AGRICULTURE IN CANADA, 1961 (DBS 1) " Approximately 90.7 m i l l i o n acres of land were devoted to 33 crops and summer fallow i n Canada during 1961 , and l e s s than 34 2 per cent of t h i s land was i r r i g a t e d . Nearly a l l o f the i r r i g a t i o n took place i n Alberta and B r i t i s h Columbia: Province C u l t i v a t e d Land I r r i g a t e d Land Per Cent (acres) (acres) I r r i g a t e d Alberta 23 m i l l i o n 592,104 3.8 B r i t i s h Columbia 870,000 220,000 27.5 No estimate of the amount of water used f o r i r r i g a t i o n i s possible although some idea of the quantity of water required f o r crop production may be gained from Morris's statement that, " f o r every pound o f plant produced, several hundred pounds of water must be made a v a i l a b l e i n the s o i l to be absorbed by the root * n 35 system". It i s possible to estimate the consumption of water by 36 farm animals from data given by Morris . The per capita requirements are shown i n Table 8 together with the numbers of 37 farm animals and t h e i r consumption of water i n 1961. The figu r e s given f o r water requirements are averages of the ranges given by Morris, except f o r c a t t l e where the upper l i m i t of the range i s used to take account of the extremely high consumption of water by milk producing cows. Table 8 shows that c a t t l e consumed nearly 80 per cent of a l l water consumed by l i v e s t o c k and poultry on Canadian farms. Hogs accounted f o r most of the remainder. C.2.b) THE USE OF WATER FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THERMAL ELECTRICITY  BY UTILITIES IN CANADA, 1961 (DBS 14) 38 According to Kuiper i t required 50 gallons of water to produce 1 k i l l o w a t t hour (kwh) of thermal e l e c t r i c i t y i n the 3 United States during 1959. Another estimate, by Clark and Viessman puts the requirements at 80 gallons/kwh without s p e c i f y i n g any p a r t i c u l a r year. Since neither source c i t e s a reference f o r the data the choice of which f i g u r e to use i s somewhat a r b i t r a r y A simple average of the two, converted to Imperial gallons gives a f i g u r e of 54 Imp. gallons/kwh. I t might be thought, however, that since Kuiper i s a Canadian academic, his data i s already i n u n i t s of Imperial gallons. I f t h i s i s assumed then a simple average of the figures i s 60 Imp"-., gallons/kwh. In keeping with the other estimates of i n d u s t r i a l water use the f i g u r e of 54 Imp.-gallons/kwh i s used i n the present study so that one may be f a i r l y confident that the r e s u l t i n g estimates e r r , i f at a l l , on the conservative s i d e . TABLE 8 ESTIMATED CONSUMPTION OF WATER BY CANADIAN LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY IN 1961 TOTAL PER CAPITA TOTAL 1 WATER WATER POPULATION CONSUMPTION. ' CONSUMED LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY (1000's) (GALLONS) (GALLONS) C a t t l e .11,439.9 1,552 17,754,723 Hogs 5,234.9 . 639 . 3,345,101 Sheep 1,272.4 310 394,444 J. Chickens ; : 59,254 16 948,064 TOTAL 22.442.332 Average of June 1st and December 1st populations. Sources: see te x t , pp. 155-156. The Canada Year Book, 1963-64 records that e l e c t r i c a l u t i l i t i e s produced 89,387,000,000 kwh of thermal e l e c t r i c i t y . At a rate of 54 Imp, gallons/kwh t h i s means that i n 1961, 9 e l e c t r i c a l u t i l i t i e s used 4,827x10 Imp. gallons of water. This water was used almost e x c l u s i v e l y f o r condensing the steam and so the discharged water, though chemically very s i m i l a r to the water intake, had a higher temperature. This 'hot' discharge can cause what i s known as 'thermal p o l l u t i o n ' . C.3. THE USE OF WATER FOR DOMESTIC PURPOSES AND THE DOMESTIC AND COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION OF WATERBORNE WASTES IN CANADA, 1961 The domestic uses of water are very d i f f e r e n t from the i n d u s t r i a l uses discussed i n the previous sections. Consequently the wastes c a r r i e d by domestic e f f l u e n t d i f f e r q u a l i t a t i v e l y as w e l l as quantitavely from the waterborne wastes of industry. For example, i n d u s t r i a l e f f l u e n t i s much more l i k e l y than domestic e f f l u e n t to contain r e f r a c t o r y organic chemicals that r e s i s t 41 b i o l o g i c a l degredation. In t h i s section primary concern w i l l be with the extent and e f f i c i e n c y of the Municipal sewage system i n Canada during 1961. I t i s f i t t i n g , therefore, to begin the discussion with a b r i e f account of the type of waste which everybody leaves behind. C.3.a) HUMAN EXCRETA IN CANADA, 1961 42 Ehlers and S t e e l estimate the d a i l y volume of human excreta to be 83 grams of feces and 970 grams o f urine. Since they o f f e r these as average figures without s p e c i f y i n g what they are averages of i t w i l l be assumed that account has been taken of the age d i s t r i b u t i o n of the North American population. In 43 1961, then, Canada's population of 18,238,247 people excreted 125,292 tons of s o l i d waste and 1,462,991 tons of urine. 44 According to Ehlers and Steel the composition of human excreta i n both forms includes large amounts of water; some organic matter — about 20 per cent o f the feces and 2.5 per cent of the urine; and small qu a n t i t i e s of nitrogen, phosphoric a c i d , sulphur and other inorganic components. On d i l u t i o n with waste water to form sewage the s o l i d contents become a small proportion of the t o t a l . For example, the average household use of water i n Canada i n 1961 was 50 gallons per person per 45 day , o f which more than 90 per cent was passed into the sewage disp o s a l system. I n d u s t r i a l use of municipal sewage f a c i l i t i e s may be assumed to have added approximately another 60-80 gallons 46 per person per day and i n those cases where storm water was also channelled i n t o the municipal sewer system the d i l u t i o n of the s o l i d s i n human excreta was even more thorough. Ehlers and 47 S t e e l estimate that an average sewage has about 800 mg/litre of solids of which 300 mg/litre is in suspension and 500 mg/litre is in solution. Of the total sewage solids some 50 per cent will be organic and therefore petruscible. It is hopeful that these few facts serve to show the dimension of the problem of treating and disposing of Canadian human wastes, specifically for 1961. THE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF HUMAN WASTES Basically there are two classes of sewage disposal systems: individual and municipal sewage disposal systems. The former include a l l systems except those that involve a collection system serving an entire community. Although qualitatively much is know about the performance 48 of the variety of sewage disposal systems , the only quantitative information that is available is for municipal sewage disposal systems. Estimates of the discharge of water borne wastes from the Canadian municipal sewage system in 1961 are given in the next section of this study. Al l that can be said about the waste produced by the unsewered Canadian population in 1961 is that these were largely disposed of via cesspools and septic tanks. It should be noted that neither of these individual systems purify sewage. They rely on biological decomposition of the wastes which operates e f f e c t i v e l y only i f the systems are not overloaded. The d i s t a s t e f u l task of looking a f t e r cesspools and s e p t i c tanks makes overloading a r e a l p o s s i b i l i t y and the problems that a r i s e from such overloading are w e l l documented i n the sanitary science l i t e r a t u r e C.3.c) AN ESTIMATION OF THE MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE OF WASTES INTO  CANADIAN WATERS, 1961 (DBS 14) Weinberger, Stephan and Middleton^ 0 estimated the municipal discharges of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), nitrogen, phosphorous and r e f r a c t o r y organics i n t o United States streams. The estimating procedure used f o r the Canadian estimates and much o f the relevant data are taken from Weinberger et a l . The r e s u l t s are recorded i n Table 9 which shows the outflow of these four classes of wastes plus s e t t l e a b l e and suspended s o l i d s and o i l and grease i n t o Canadian waters during 1961, c l a s s i f i e d according to Province. The general p i c t u r e provided by the data i n Table 9 i s that Quebec and Ontario combined produced more than h a l f of the output of each type of waste. For the remainder, the Western Provinces produced more waste than the Eastern Provinces. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g that even though the population and i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t y of Ontario exceeds those of Quebec (see Tables 34 and 59) the output o f a l l waterborne wastes, except nitrogen and TONNAGE OF WASTES DISCHARGED INTO CANADIAN WATERS DURING 1961 VIA MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEMS PROVINCE BIOCHEMICAL . OXYGEN . DEMAND (BOD) NITROGEN PHOSPHOROUS '•  . REFRACTORY . ORGANICS (RO) CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD + RO) SETTLEABLE AND SUSPENDED SOLIDS OIL AND GREASE NEWF. 5,805.3 924.1 .151.0 1,969.6 7,774.9 4,667.3 579.0 P.E.I. 1,362.0 213.0 34.5 456.0 1,818.0 1,095.0 136.5 N.S. 13,438.4 2,101.6 340.4 4,499.2 17,937.6 10,804.0 1,346.8 N.B. 8,636.4 1,353.0 219.4 2,896.5 11,532.9 6,927.3 859.0 QUE. 105,772.7 16,696.1 2,719.6 35,717.3 141,490.0 84,136.9 10,300.8 ONT. 62,119.5 17,776.4 3,434.6 33,414.0 95,553.5 34,618.8 2,692.0 MAN. 20,168.2 3,918.2 716.1 8,867.6 29,035.8 9,960.7 — SASK. 9,889.1 2,035.0 377.0 4,882.4 14,771.5 5,469.0 7,345.4 155.0 ALTA. 13,434.2 3,307.5 644.3 6,650.9 20,085.1 97.8 B.C. 29,797.4 .4,858.2 804.9 10,143.7 39,941.1 32,160.6 2,767.5 CANADA 270,423.2 52,683.0 9,441.9 108,997.3 379,420.5 197,185.0 18,934.6 Sources: see text, pp. 161-174. phosphorous, was greater i n Quebec than i n Ontario. This r e f l e c t s the more comprehensive sewage treatment that was undertaken i n Ontario. The information required f o r the estimates of Table 9 include the number of people served by sewers, the number of people served by the various methods of treatment, the performance of the d i f f e r e n t sewage treatment methods and the per capita production of each type of waste. This data f o r Canada i n 1961, c l a s s i f i e d according to Province, was gathered from four sources. The February 1961 e d i t i o n of Municipal U t i l i t i e s "gives a summary of Canadian sewage works s t a t i s t i c s f o r 1960, as reproduced i n Table 10. In t h i s study i t i s assumed that the population served by sewers i n 1961 was v i r t u a l l y the same as i n 1960. ( I t could not be assumed that the populations were i d e n t i c a l since i n contrast to a l l the other Provinces the t o t a l sewered population i n Manitoba i n 1960 was l e s s than the estimated population served by sewage treatment plants i n Manitoba i n 1961. The difference i n these figures was added to the 1960 population f i g u r e of 9,059,000 to a r r i v e at an estimate of the t o t a l sewered population i n Canada during 1961 of 9,278,900). Data f o r the number of people served by the various methods of treatment were d i s t i l l e d from information about the m i n i c i p a l sewage treatment plants i n Canada that served at l e a s t 1,000 people i n 1961, given CANADIAN SEWERAGE WORKS STATISTICS, 1960 % OF TOTAL TOTAL -POPULATION POPULATION NO. OF PROVINCE SYSTEMS SERVED SERVED PLANTS A l b e r t a 187 683,000 54.0 208 80 . 114 6 8 B r i t i s h Columbia 53 720,000 45.1 19 12 0 2 5 Manitoba 64 475,000 53.1 42 14 22 2 4 New Brunswick 30 191,000 32.1 2 1 1 0 0 Newfoundland 23 133,000 29.3 1 1 o 0 0 Nova Scotia 39 296,000 41.2 2 . 1 0 1 0 Ontario . 246 3,775,000 62.5 263 153 ' -' 5 . ' 82 23 Prince Edward Island 6 30,000 29.1 3 0 3 0 o Quebec 292 2,380,000 46.9 77 74 0 1 2 Saskatchewan 70 376,000 r 41.4 \ 66 10 47 4 5 CANADA 1010 9,059,000 51.2 683 346 192 98 47_ SEWAGE-TREATMENT INSTALLATIONS SEWAGE PARTIAL PONDS ACTIVATED TRICKLING TREATMENT OR SLUDGE FILTER PLANTS LAGOONS PLANTS PLANTS in Municipal Utilit ies . Since the peformance of the various 53 sewage treatment methods, taken from Weinberger et a l . and 54 Lesperance are given only for the broad categories of primary and secondary treatment methods (see Table 11), i t was necessary to apply this classification to each individual sewage plant that was in operation in Canada during 1961. In many cases the treatment plants were described in Municipal  Util it ies as either primary, or secondary treatment plants. In other cases the nature of the plant was clear from the description. For example, a l l plants using only sewage ponds or lagoons are primary plants whereas those that employ either the activated sludge or trickling f i l ter methods are secondary plants. However, some plants were described in terms that are unfamiliar to a l l but the sewage specialist, making the classification into primary or secondary rather difficult. Each borderline case is reported below to indicate the precise system of classification used in this study. It is noteworthy that the 15 or so cases are sc insignificant in terms of the total sewage treated in 1961 that a reclassification of these plants would- have only a very small effect on the final estimates, (in 1961 there were 337 sewage plants that served more than 1,000 people). TABLE 11 APPROXIMATE PERFORMANCE OF CONVENTIONAL TREATMENTS OF MUNICIPAL WASTES W A S T E PROPORTION OF REMAINING AFTER WASTE TREATMENT Primary Secondary .Biochemical Oxygen Demand . , , ,.,.; : .65 .1 Chemical Oxygen Demand . . ' ' •. fr/' .7 ' ' .2 Refractory Organics .4 Suspended Solids .'; .4 ': '•• .1 To t a l Nitrogen V .8 .'• .5 To t a l Phosphorous* ".'V:'. .' .9 .7 Dissolved Minerals 1.0 ; .95 O i l and Grease 0.0 0.0 Source: see text, p. 165. THE CLASSIFICATION OF SEWAGE TREATMENT METHODS AS USED TO ESTIMATE  THE OUTFLOW OF POLLUTANTS FROM MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PLANTS IN  CANADA, 1961 Primary Treatment Methods (1) Imhoff tanks (2) Septic tanks (3) Ponding with overflow to r i v e r (4) Lagoons (5) Lagoons with primary and secondary c e l l s (6) Anearobic p i t s (7) Submerged contact aeration plants (fi) Sedimentation and separate sludge di g e s t i o n systems (9) Cutting metering plant with barmunitor (10) ' Contact beds and sedimentation with separate sludge digestion systems (11) Coarse bar screen, d e t r i t o r s , barmunitors, c l a r i f i e r s , sludge thickeners, digestors, holding tanks, drying beds (12) Communitors f o r normal flow and bar screen f o r storm water flow, followed by a i r - d e g r i t t e r two stage f i l t r a t i o n followed by treatment i n oxidation ponds Secondary Treatment Methods (1) Single stage b i o f i l t r a t i o n plant (2) Imhoff tank and b i o f i l t e r (3) Mechanical aeration plant (4) Sedimentation and s p r i n k l i n g f i l t e r s (5) Screening, g r i t removal, pre-aeration, primary s e t t l i n g aeration and f i n a l s e t t l i n g . A fu r t h e r problem which arose was whether or not to include plants that were e i t h e r planned or under construction i n 1961. I t was decided to include only those plants that were i n operation by the end of 1961. Bearing i n mind that these data are to be used i n conjunction with an input-output model i t i s c l e a r that the c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r sewage production must undergo appropriate r e v i s i o n i f the model i s to be applied e f f e c t i v e l y to years other than 1961. The plants that were problematic include the following: (a) A primary treatment plant planned f o r Collingwood, Ontario that w i l l serve 8,300 people (b) A primary treatment plant serving 69,950 people at Kitchener, Ontario ;that was to be converted to secondary treatment i n 1962. (c) A secondary treatment plant planned f o r Preston, Ontario that w i l l serve 10,600 people. (d) A primary treatment plant under construction i n Sault Saint Marie, Ontario that w i l l serve 40,600 people. (e) Three primary treatment plants under construction i n Vancouver, B.C. serving 670,000 people. In two m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , where the summer population d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the winter population, the smaller winter populations were used f o r the estimates. The e f f e c t of t h i s on the f i n a l estimates i s n e g l i g i b l e since the numbers concerned are so small. One f i n a l complication arose i n those cases where a treatment plant was serving a population f a r i n excess of that f o r which i t was designed. This obviously lowers the e f f i c i e n c y of the plants but f o r the purposes of the estimates t h i s was not allowed f o r , p a r t l y because the cases were so few, and p a r t l y because no data e x i s t f o r the e f f i c i e n c y of overloaded sewage plants. On the basis of the foregoing c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of sewage treatment methods i t was possible to estimate the populations i n each Province that were served by primary and secondary treatment plants i n 1961. These estimates, together with estimates of the population served only by sewers are reported i n Table 12. Table 12 shows, f o r example, that 683,000 people were served by sewers i n Al b e r t a , during 1961; that i s , 7.4per cent o f the Alb e r t a population. Of these, the sewage from 21,500 people, or 3.1 per cent of the population served by sewers, was not treated i n any way. The sewage produced by 378,650 Albertans received primary treatment and that of a further 282,850 people i n the Province also underwent secondary treatment. Ontario provided a greater proportion of i t s population with sewers than any other Province. Also secondary treatment was used f a r more extensively i n Ontario than i n any other Province. With the exception o f grease removal, data f o r the performance of primary and secondary treatment of municipal wastes were taken THE EXTENT OF SEWERS AND SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS IN CANADA, 1961 POPN. SERVED % AGE POPULATION % AGE POPN. SERVED % AGE POPN. SERVED % AGE BY SEWERS PROV. SERVED BY NO PROV. BY PRIMARY PROV. T3Y SECONDARY PROV. PROVINCE (SP +SP +SP ) TOTAL TREATMENT (SP ) TOTAL TREATMENT (SP ) TOTAL TREATMENT (SP ) TOTAL TOTAL n p s n p p ALTA. 683,000 7.4 21,500 .. 3.1 378,650 55.4 282,850 41.4 100 B.C. 720,000 7.8 608,250 84.4 67,100 9.3 44,650 6.2 100 MAN. 694,000 7.5 — 0 681,350 98.2 13,550 2.0 100 N . B . 191,000 2.1 188,800 98.9 2,200 1.1 — 0 100 NEWF. 133,999 1.4 127,300 95.7 — 0 5,700 4.3 100 N.S. 296,000 3.2 296,000 100.0 — 0 — 0 100 ONT. 3,775,000 40.6 591,650 15.7 833,250 22.1 2,350,100 62.3 100 P . E . I . 30,000 0.3 30,000 0 — 0 — 0 100 QUE. 2,380,000 25.7 2,263,900 95.1 98,700 4.1 17,400 0.7 100 SASK. 376,000 4.1 34,060 9.1 271,940 72.3 70,000 18.6 100 ALL CANADA 9^278,000 100.0 4,161^460 44.9 2,333,190 25.2 2,784,250 3.0 100 from Weinberger et a l . and i s reproduced i n Table 11. No pre c i s e estimate f o r the e f f i c i e n c y of o i l and grease removal 56 could be found though Lesperance suggests that primary treatment removes a l l o i l s and greases. Weinberger et a l . provided the source f o r the estimated production of the various constituents of sewage, except f o r s e t t l e a b l e and 57 suspended s o l i d s which came from "The Cost of Clean Water", and o i l and grease which came from the Report on the Economic 58 Evaluation of Water Quality . I t was assumed that a l l these rates would be the same f o r Canada and the United States i n 1961. These estimates are as follows: (1) The annual domestic BOD contribution} BOD,is assumed to be61 lbs/capita/year. To account f o r the i n d u s t r i a l wastes handled i n municipal sewage a r a t i o per c a p i t a of i n d u s t r i a l plus'domestic BOD' to 'domestic BOD i s used, the value of which i s estimated f o r 1961 as 1.49-(2) ghe amount of nitrogen per c a p i t a i n raw municipal sewage, TN, f o r 1961 i s estimated.to be 14.21bs/capita/year. (3) The amount of phosphorous per c a p i t a i n raw municipal sewage, P, f o r 1961 i s estimated to be 2.31bs/capita/ year. (4) Refractory organics are taken to be the d i f f e r e n c e between chemical oxygen demand and biochemical oxygen demand. That i s , 350mg/litre COD l e s s 250mg/litre BOD equals lOOmg/litre RO. Assuming a d a i l y per c a p i t a m i n i c i p a l waste flow of 117 Imperial ga l l o n s , the annual r e f r a c t o r y organics c o n t r i b u t i o n , PRO = 30. libs/capita/year. (This f i g u r e of 117 Imperial gallons i s equal to the 140 U.S. gallons used i n Weinberger 59 et a l . They do not c i t e a reference f o r t h i s f i g u r e and are content to assume i t unchanged over time. Since no independent estimate f o r Canada i s a v a i l a b l e the same fi g u r e i s used i n the present study. To put i t i n perspective, however, i t may be noted that i t i s somewhat l e s s than the weighted average, by population, of water used i n the f i v e l a r g e s t Canadian c i t i e s during 1965^). The assumed e f f i c i e n c i e s of sewage treatment i n removing r e f r a c t o r y organics from waste water were based on the following estimates o f BOD and COD i n raw sewage, primary and secondary e f f l u e n t . Concentration (mg/litre) Pollutant Raw Primary Secondary COD 350 240 65 BOD 250 160 25 RO 100 80 40 (5) The amount of s e t t l e a b l e and suspended s o l i d s per capita i n raw municipal sewage, *SS, f o r 1961 i s estimated to be 731bs/capita/year. (6) T,he amount of o i l and grease i n raw municipal sewage, OG, i s assumed to be 9«1 lbs/capita/year f o r 1961. Following Weinberger ejt a l . some symbols are of use: 2 SP^ = sewered population r e c e i v i n g treatment i i n Province Z. When i = n, treatment i s 'no treatment'. When i = p, treatment i s 'primary'. When i = s, treatment i s 'secondary'. f ^ = proportion of waste j remaining a f t e r treatment i Where j = BOD, TN ( t o t a l nitrogen), P (phosphorous), RO (r e f r a c t o r y organics), SS ( s e t t l e a b l e and suspended s o l i d s ) , OG ( o i l and grease) Pj = pounds of wate j , per capita/year i n raw sewage. The discharge of wastes by m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n t o Canadian waters i n 1961 i s estimated f o r each Province according to the formula: Pounds of waste j introduced into Canadian waters i n Province Z, W. i s given by:-3 Z W. = P. (SP Z f . + SP Z f . + SP Z f .) (1) 3z 3 n n] p p] s s] z W. — P. E SP, f . . / . * / \ 32 3 j i 13 d = n,p,s.) (2) I f t h i s i s summed over a l l Provinces the pounds of waste j , W. introduced into a l l Canadian waters i s calculated: 3 W. a z P. Z SP Z f . . ( i = n,p,s,) 3 z 3 . i i 3 ( 3 ) (z = each Province) These formulas were used f o r the estimates recorded i n Table 9, a f t e r conversion to tons. D. THE PRODUCTION OF WASTES BY LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY IN CANADA, 1961 (DBS 1) It i s commonly thought that animal wastes can be absorbed by land that i s used to support the animals and that, i f anything, the land improves as a r e s u l t . However, there i s growing concern about the runoff from areas that are heavily populated by l i v e s t o c k and p o u l t r y , p a r t i c u l a r l y f e e dlots. Tables 13 show 14 estimates of the production of wastes by Canadian l i v e s t o c k and poultry i n 1961 c l a s s i f i e d by Province. The population figures are averages of the June 1st and December 1st populations as given by the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s A l l waste f a c t o r s i n tons/capita/year except f o r geese are derived from the data given i n Cleaning Our 61 Environment f o r United States l i v e s t o c k and poultry. Geese are assumed to produce the same quantity of waste per capita as : PROVINCIAL PRODUCTION OF WASTES BY LIVESTOCK ON CANADIAN FARMS, 1961 ANNUAL WASTE ANNUAL WASTE ANNUAL WASTE ANNUAL WASTE CATTLE PRODUCTION HOGS PRODUCTION SHEEP PRODUCTION HORSES PRODUCTION (1,000) (1,000 TONS) (1,000) (1,000 TONS) (1,000) (1,000 TONS) (1,000) (1,000 TONS) c SWJ v x vi \J i-i SOLID LIQUID SOLID LIQUID SOLID LIQUID SOLID LIQUID NEWF. 7.0 7 3 1.5 . 2 1 15.3 7 4 1.1 6 2 P.E.I. 117.8 1,107 436 53.5 59 34 18 8 5 7.8 45 12 N.S. 160.1 1,505 592 49.2 54 31 • 49.8 22 13 8.8 51 13 N . B . 152.1 1,430 563 47.1 52 30 .28.4 13 8 9.1 53 14 QUE. 1,820.1 17,109 6,734 902.1 992 577 150.4 68 41 95.7 555 144 ONT. 3,156.8 29,674 11,680 1,657.2 1,823 1,061 283.6 128 77 88 510 132 MAN. 938.3 8,820 3,472 418.3 460 268 62;7 28 17 48.9 284 73 SASK. 1,953.1 18,359 7,226 605.4 666 387 152.5 69 41 107.2 .622 161 ALTA. 2,689.7 25,283 9,952 1,460.0 1,606 934 418.5 188 113 112.1 650 168 B.C. 444.4 4,177 1,644 40.8 45 26 81.9 37 22 24 139 36 YUKON & — — — — . • — — — — — — • — — N.W.T. -CANADA 11,439.9 107,471 42,302 5,234.9 5,759 3,349 1,272.4 568 341 503 2,915 755 WASTE: TONS, p e r CAPITA, p e r YEAR CATTLE 9.4 3,7 HOGS 1.1 0.64 SHEEP 0.45 0.27 HORSES 5.8 1.5 PROVINCIAL PRODUCTION OF WASTES BY POULTRY ON CANADIAN FARMS, 1961 CHICKENS ANNUAL WASTE TURKEYS ANNUAL WASTE GEESE ANNUAL WASTE DUCKS ANNUAL WASTE (1,000) PRODUCTION (1,000) PRODUCTION (1,000) PRODUCTION (1,000) PRODUCTION PROVINCE (1,000 TONS) (1,000 TONS) (1,000 TONS) (1,000 TONS) SOLID LIQUID SOLID LIQUID SOLID LIQUID SOLID LIQUID NEWF. n.a. n.a. n. a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. P.E.I. 419 29 — 10.8 2 — 5.4 1 — 3.3 — — N.S. 1,970 138 — 37.2 7 — 1.8 — — 1.1 — — N.B. 910 64 — 36.9 7 — 1.8 — — 1.0 — — Q U E . 11,927.5 834 — 668.5 120 — 9.2 2 — 56.8 9 — ONT. 22,026.5 1,542 — 2,322.5 418 — 70.5 13 — 136.1 20 — MAN. 4,983.5 349 — 747.4 134 — 72.1 13 — 27.1 4 — SASK. 4,932.5 345 — 767.4 138 — 34.8 6 — 40.4 6 — ALTA. 6,942.5 486 — 777 140 — 77.4 14 — 71.7 11 — B.C. 5,142.5 360 — 386.3 70 — 8.8 2 — 22.5 3 — YUKON & N.W.T. CANADA 59.254 4.147 — 5.753.9 1.036 — 281.7 J I — 359.7 — WASTE: TONS per CAPITA per YEAR CHICKENS 0.07 TURKEYS 0.18 GEESE 0.18 DUCKS 0.15 n.a. = not available Sources: see text. pp. 174-177 and p. 316. footnote 37. turkeys. As Tables 13 and 14 show, the annual waste production from c a t t l e i s by f a r the most s i g n i f i c a n t . This i s explained by the r e l i t a v e l y large c a t t l e population as w e l l as the high per c a p i t a output of waste. Ontario, having the most c a t t l e , produced, i n 1961, more animal and poultry waste than any other Province: more than 34,000 tons of s o l i d waste and nearly 13,000 tons of l i q u i d waste. These f i g u r e s , together with equivalent data f o r each Province, appear i n Table 16. Table 15 shows the P r o v i n c i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of l i v e s t o c k and poultry i n 1961. The concentration of c a t t l e i n four Provinces: Ontario. A l b e r t a , Saskatchewan and Quebec explain the concentration of animal and poultry wastes i n these Provinces. , Cleaning Our Environment also reports t h a t , on the basis of the five-day BOD t e s t , a feedlot with 1 ,000 c a t t l e i s equivalent to a c i t y of 45,000 people, and presents a severe d i s p o s a l problem. Although b i o l o g i c a l treatments have been introduced into some United States farms (separate Canadian data i s unavailable), d i s p o s a l on land remains more economical f o r animal wastes. The problemsinvolved come from the high BOD content of these wastes. THE DISTRIBUTION OF LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY BY PROVINCE, 1961 PROVINCE CATTLE PER CENT HOGS OF LIVESTOCK AND SHEEP HORSES POULTRY IN CHICKENS EACH PROVINCE TURKEYS GEESE DUCKS Newfoundland — — • — — — — — Prince Edward Island l i b ; • 1 0 1.4 i.ty 0.7 0 .2 " 1 .9 0 .9 Nova Scotia 1-A 0.9 ; 3.9 1.7 3.3 0 .6 0 .6 0 .3 New Brunswick .1.3 0.9 2.2 1.8 1.5 0 .6 0 .6 0 .3 Quebec 15.9 17.2 11.8 19.0 20.1 11 .6 3 .3 15 .8 Ontario 27.6 31.6 22.3 17.5 37.2 40 .4 25 .0 37 .8 Manitoba 8.2 8.0 4.9 9.7 8.4 13 .0 25 .6 7 .5 Saskatchewan 17.1 11.6 12.0 21.3 8.3 13 .3 12 .3 11 .2 A l b e r t a 23.5 27.9 32.9 . 22.3 11.7 13 .5 27 .4 19 .9 B r i t i s h Columbia \ 3.9 0.8 6.4 4.8 8.7 6 .7 3 .1 6 .2 CANADA 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 THE DISTRIBUTION OF LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY WASTE BY PROVINCE, 1961 SOLID WASTE LIQUID WASTE PROVINCE (1,000 TONS) PER CENT (1,000 TONS) PER CENT Newfoundland 22 — 10 — Prince Edward Island . \- .1,251 1.0. 487 1.0 Nova Scotia 1,777 1.5 649 1.4 New Brunswick 1,619 . •1.3 615 1.3 Quebec , 19,689 16.1 7,496 16.0 Ontario 34,128 : 28.0 12,950 27.7 Manitoba 10,092 8.3 3,830 8.2 Saskatchewan 20,21.1 . 16.6 7,815 16.7 A l b e r t a 28,378 23.3 11,167 23.9 B r i t i s h Columbia 4,833 4.0 1,728 3.7 CANADA 122,000 100.0 46^747 100.0 E . l . THE EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN CANADA, 1961 I t i s w e l l known that the atmosphere serves two p r i n c i p a l functions with respect to i n d u s t r i a l production. Apart from d i r e c t l y supplying a l l animals with the breath of l i f e the atmosphere provides a v a r i e t y of gasses which are e s s e n t i a l f o r industrial/processes; the most obvious of these being the oxygen required f o r the combustion of f o s s i l f u e l s . In a second, though not e n t i r e l y separate r o l e , the atmosphere receives the various airborne wastes of industry and helps disperse and break down these wastes. The type and quantity of airborne wastes received by the atmosphere a f f e c t s the a b i l i t y of the atmosphere to supply animals and industry with the inputs that they require. Although i t would be of great i n t e r e s t to develop quantitative estimates of the d i f f e r e n t atmospheric inputs i n t o economic a c t i v i t y i t has proven impossible to do t h i s . V i r t u a l l y the only f a c t which came to l i g h t i n a long search was that currently the United States consumes 40 per cent more oxygen 62 each year than i t s own vegetation produces . In contrast to t h i s paucity of f a c t about inputs from the atmosphere some f a i r l y d e t a i l e d estimates of the airborne wastes received by the atmosphere i n Canada, during 1961, have been poss i b l e . Most of t h i s data comes from the a n a l y s i s o f the type and quantity of f u e l s used f o r i n d u s t r i a l and domestic purposes. Where possible t h i s data had been supplemented by a d d i t i o n a l information about process wastes, that i s wastes caused by i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t y exclusive of f u e l consumption. This s e c t i o n , then,-begins with separate discussions of airborne wastes from f u e l consumption i n the manufacturing i n d u s t r i e s , mineral i n d u s t r i e s , u t i l i t i e s , p r i v a t e residences, commercial operations, Government and transportation. A f t e r t h i s the emission of process wastes w i l l be examined. The section w i l l be concluded with a discussion of airborne wastes from Municipal d i s p o s a l of s o l i d wastes. THE EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE COMBUSTION OF FUELS  BY CANADIAN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY, 1961 (DBS 4-11) The General Review of Manufacturing Industries of Canada 63 f o r 1963 includes an account of the f u e l s used by such i n d u s t r i e s c l a s s i f i e d according to industry and Province. The emission factors which were applied to t h i s data and also to data r e l a t i n g to f u e l consumption by some of the non-manufacturing i n d u s t r i e s are shown i n Table 17. Seven types of mineral f u e l and ten types of airborne waste are defined. No s i n g l e f u e l produces each type of waste though r e s i d u a l f u e l o i l produces EMISSION FACTORS USED TO ESTIMATE THE AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE COMBUSTION OF FUELS BY CANADIAN INDUSTRIES; 1961. F U E L UNITS N0 2 so2 so3 CO PART. ALDE. AMMONIA HYDROCARBONS TOTAL REACTIVE OTHER ORGANICS GAS lbs/1,000,000 214 0.4 18 2 20 5 --• cu. f t. > ft GASOLINE lbs/1,000 Gals. 135.6 10.8 2760 14.4 4.8 — 240 105.6 4.8 H 0 N FUEL OIL lbs/l,000 Gals. 86.4 280.6 4 2.4 2.76 2.4 9.5 2.4 .01 1 (Residual) FUEL OIL • ( D i s t i l l a t e ) lbs/1,000 Gals. 86.4 56.5 0.8 2.4 1.8 2.4 —— 2.4 .01 C O A L lbs/Ton 20 76 — 3 140 .005 2 1 . 15 ANTHRACITE lbs/Ton 20 22.8 — 3 140 .005 2 1 •15 W O O D lbs/Cord 1.8 — — 83 — — 2.8 3.6 0.53 nine. The factors are not really comparable among the different fuels since a variety of units are employed. (One method of comparison that is feasible, though not undertaken here, is to use the calorific value of the fuels in the emission factors in place of cubic feet, in the case of natural gas, gallons, in the case of gasoline and so on). Owing to a lack of emission factors for some of the fuels 61 i t was necessary to use the factors for coal, given by Duprey for a l l coals and coke, except anthracite, and the factors for natural gas from Duprey for a l l gases. The alternative was to assume that combustion of these fuels gives no wastes which seemed more unsatisfactory than the chosen generalization, especially since the consumption- of these fuels was relatively low. The estimates for airborne wastes from fuel combustion by manufacturing industry are recorded in Table 18. Owing to the high degree of aggregation used in compiling the data of Table 18, each industry group is large enough to be a significant producer of airborne wastes. Particularly important is the paper and allied industries group which accounted for approximately 25 per cent of the total output of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 30 per cent of the output of both sulphur dioxide (S0_) and AIRBORNE WASTES FROM FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CANADIAN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY, 1961 INDUSTRY GROUP INPUT/ 1963 CENSUS OUTPUT CLASS NO. NO. AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) NO SO, SO, CO PART. HYDROCARBONS OTHER ALDE. AMMONIA TOTAL REACTIVE ORGNS FOOD, FEED, BEVER- 27+28 .AGE AND TOBACCO TEXTILES WOOD AND FURNITURE PAPER AND ALLIED INDUS. 30+31+32+33 34+35 36 PRIMARY METAL METAL FABRICATING 38+39+40 TRANSPORTATION AND ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT 41+42 CHEMICAL,. RUBBER AND PETROLEUM O T H E R .4 5 29+44+45 37+43+46 10 11 17,173 34,545 6,231 16,435 223 64,515 40,082 98 3,186 20,273 295 1,471 5,977 81 635 462 2,673 3,285 26 14,932 3,084 52 222 1,302 39,562 104,000 486 7,524 145,494 4 0 7 4,052 1,831 30,419 73,521 384 15,414 104,021 342 3,071 2,201 9,835 25,686 81 9,443 41,950 83 961 1,120 19,850 44,749 98 6,501 79.004 127 1,960 1,093 18,195 41,108 180 22,547 59,469 200 1,771 . 2,399 2,462 124 549 312 602 370 268 852 152 10 43 83 92 29 113 104 TOTAL 143,938 343,329 1,576 144,062 493,377 1,587 14,143 16,385 5,539 626 p a r t i c u l a t e s ( P a r t ) . More than 30 per cent of the t o t a l output of hydrocarbons came from the food industry group which also produced some 44 per cent of the carbon monoxide (CO) and 25 per cent of the other organise. This r e f l e c t s the r e l i t a v e l y greater use of gasoline i n the food industry group than i n any other industry. Notes to Accompany Table 17  Gas The emission f a c t o r s f o r a l l wastes but ammonia are from 65 Duprey . The fa c t o r f o r ammonia i s from Robinson and Robbins Gasoline These f a c t o r s have been converted from those given by 67 Duprey i n terms of United States gallons to t h e i r equivalent i n Imperial g a l l o n s , by multip l y i n g by 1.2. The fa c t o r f o r r e a c t i v e hydrocarbons was derived with the use of Robinson and Robbins estimate that 44 per cent of the t o t a l 68 hydrocarbon emission from t h i s source are highly r e a c t i v e Fuel O i l s There are b a s i c a l l y two types of f u e l o i l : r e s i d u a l and d i s t i l l a t e ^ . Duprey gives emission f a c t o r s f o r both types but the data on i n d u s t r i a l f u e l consumption does not di s t i n g u i s h between the two. It was decided to estimate the wastes using both sets of emission factors and then weight the r e s u l t s with independent data on the use of both 70 types of f u e l . According to the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , industry and commerce (excluding fo r e s t r y mining and smelting and commercial heating), used 3.0 times as much heavy fuel o i l as l i g h t f u e l o i l (including kerozene, stove o i l and t r a c t o r fuel) i n 1963. On the assumption that t h i s r a t i o of use was the same i n 1961 i t was possible to weight the estimates derived with the use of the residual f u e l o i l emission factors to account for the use of d i s t i l l a t e f u e l o i l . This was achieved by multip l y i n g the estimates for SO^ and SO^ by a factor of 0.83, and the estimate for p a r t i c u l a t e s by a factor of 0.93. In order to use the emission factors of Table 17 to estimate emissions from mining and smelting a s i m i l a r weighting procedure was used as that f o r the manufacturing industries except that i n the case of sulphur oxides a factor of 0.91 was used to adjust the estimate derived with the use of the res i d u a l f u e l o i l emission factor. This r e f l e c t e d the fact that mining and smelting used 7.7 times as much heavy 73 fuel o i l as l i g h t f u e l o i l i n 1963 . For the same reason a f a c t o r of 0.96 was used to adjust the estimate of p a r t i c u l a t e emission from heavy f u e l o i l . Duprey's emission f a c t o r s f o r sulphur dioxide and sulphur t r i o x i d e from both types of f u e l o i l depend on the sulphur 72 content of the f u e l o i l s . H e l l e r and Walters assumed i n t h e i r work that the sulphur content of f u e l used by industry i n the United States during 1960 was 1.5 per cent by weight. Since no estimate of the sulphur content of f u e l o i l used i n Canada was a v a i l a b l e i t was necessary to use t h i s f i g u r e i n conjunction with the Duprey emission factors to derive those given i n Table 17. The r e a c t i v e hydrocarbon factors were estimated from the 73 information given by Robinson and Robbins that 18 per cent of t o t a l hydrocarbonsemitted from t h i s source are highly r e a c t i v e . A l l the factors were converted to Imperial gallons. Coal and Anthracite 74 Robinson and Robbins f i g u r e of 15 per cent f o r the proportion of hydrocarbons that are highly r e a c t i v e was used. The 75 r e s t of the emission f a c t o r s are from Duprey . To use his f a c t o r f o r sulphur dioxide estimates of the average sulphur content were required. In the absence of estimates of the sulphur content 76 of coal used i n Canada, Smith and Gruber's estimates of the average sulphur content of coal mined i n the United States were used: 2 per cent by weight f o r bituminous and 0.6 per cent by weight f o r anthracite. S i m i l a r l y , Duprey's f a c t o r s f o r p a r t i c u l a t e matter requires knowledge of the ash content of the c o a l as w e l l as information about the type of u n i t used f o r combustion. The f a c t o r s i n Table 17 are based on an 77 assumed ash content of 10 per cent and l a c k i n g d e t a i l s about the combustion u n i t s a simple average o f the e f f i c i e n c e s of the combustion units mentioned by Duprey was used. Wood Robinson and Robbins give emission factors f o r wood i n terms o f tons of wood burnt as f u e l . The data on f u e l consumption i n 78 the Review of Manufacturing Industries measures wood by cords. Cords were converted to tons using the following information 79 from World Forest Product S t a t i s t i c s . 1 cord = 74.9 cubic f e e t of s o l i d wood without bark. Average weight at shipment of fuelwood = 451bs/cubic foot. 1 cord = 337011bs. = 1.185 tons. THE EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE COMBUSTION OF FUELS  BY THE CANADIAN MINERAL INDUSTRY, 1961 (DBS 2-3) 80 The General Review of the Mineral Industries f o r 1961 includes an account of the f u e l s used by the mineral in d u s t r i e s i n 1961. The emission f a c t o r s which were applied to t h i s data are recorded i n Table 17. The estimates o f the airborne wastes appear i n Tables 19 and 20: Table 19 includes f u e l consumption and waste production i n the mineral industry f o r a l l mining except mineral f u e l s . Equivalent data f o r the mining of mineral f u e l s are recorded i n Table 20. As i n the estimation of airborne wastes emitted from the combustion of f u e l s by the manufacturing i n t e r e s t s i t was necessary to use the emission o f f a c t o r s f o r c o a l given by Duprey f o r a l l coals and coke, except anthracite, and the factors f o r na t u r a l gas from Duprey f o r a l l gases. Tables 19 and 20 show that these s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s are u n l i k e l y to be a s u b s t a n t i a l source of err o r since bituminous coal and natural gas were used f a r more extensively than the other types o f coal and gas. A l l f u e l s were used i n greater quantities i n the non-fuel producing sector of the industry (Table 19) than i n the f u e l producing sector (Table 20). However, as a comparison of the two tables shows, r e l i t a v e l y more coal and f u e l o i l was used i n the non-fuel producing sector and r e l i t a v e l y more gasoline was used i n the f u e l producing sector. This acounts f o r the d i f f e r e n t composition of airborne wastes produced i n these two sectors of the minerals industry. The output of nitrogen oxides (NO ) reported i n Table 19 i s three times .TABLE 19 EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM FUEL CONSUMPTION IN THE CANADIAN MINERAL INDUSTRY, 1961 (All Mining Except Mineral Fuels) FUEL QUANTITY NO, SO, AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) s o 3 CO PART. ALDE. HYDROCARBONS OTHER AMMONIA 'TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS COAL (Tons) Bituminous 204,887 Sub-Bituminous 14,217 Anthracite 16,025 Lignite 1,027 Coke 6,563 o TOTAL COAL 242,769 2,428 9,225 364 16,994 243 121 18 GASOLINE (Imp. Gals.) 10,601,029 719 57 — 14,629 76 25 1,272 560 25 KEROSENE (Imp. Gals.) 165,380 AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) FUEL QUANTITY NOr s o 2 s o 3 ; • •* HYDROCARBONS OTHER CO PART. ALDE.. AMMONIA TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS FUEL OIL (Imp. Gals.) 92,026,397 3,974 12,908 184 110 127 110 437' 110 WOOD (Cords) 15,562 14 '646 21 28 4 vo GAS (1000 Cu. Ft.) Liquified Pet. Natural 453,784 3,959,259 TOTAL GAS 4,413,040 472 40 44 11 TOTAL WASTES (Tons) 7,607 22,196 184 15,750 17,237 140 745 1,531 582 36 EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM FUEL CONSUMPTION IN THE CANADIAN MINERAL FUELS INDUSTRY, 1961 FUEL QUANTITY NO, AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) S0 2 S0 3 CO PART. ALDE. AMMONIA HYDROCARBONS TOTAL REACTIVE OTHER ORGANICS COAL (Tons) Bituminous 36,102 Sub-Bituminous 1,485 Anthracite 7 L i g n i t e 12,124 Coke 118 TOTAL COAL 49,836 498 1,894 75 3,489 50 25 GASOLINE (Gallons) 6,851,448 ,464 37 — 9,454 49 16 — 822 362 16 KEROSENE (Gallons) 19,547 1 1 ^AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) HYDROCARBONS OTHER FUEL - QUANTITY N0 2 S0 2 S0 3 CO PART. ALDE. AMMONIA TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS FUEL OIL ' rr'r-\-': • / : ' (Gallons) 3,019,299 130 356 5 4 4 4 14 4 WOOD (Cords) 2,599 2 — . . — 108 — — 4 5 1 GAS (1000 Cu. Ft.) L i q u i f i e d Pet. Natural 1,571,914 11,844,402 TOTAL GAS 13,416,316 1,436 121 13 134 34 TOTAL AIRBORNE WASTES 2,531 2,291 5 9,644 3,663 33 202 856 367 50 greater than that reported i n Table 20 (7,607 tons compared with 2,531 tons), whereas the output of sulphur dioxide reported i n Table 19 i s ten times that of Table 20 (22,196 tons compared with 2,291 tons). As noted on page136 mining and smelting i n d u s t r i e s used 7.7 times as much heavy f u e l o i l as ligh-nfuel o i l . This f a c t i s allowed f o r i n the estimates of Table 19 that r e l a t e to the use of f u e l o i l . Moreover, f o r the purposes of estimation kerosene i s assumed to be l i g h t f u e l o i l , and a l l gas i s assumed to be natural gas. THE EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM ELECTRICITY GENERATION  IN CANADA, 1961 (DBS 14) The t o t a l generation of e l e c t r i c i t y i n Canada during 1961 81 was 113,713,318,000 k.w.h. This power was produced by e l e c t r i c u t i l i t i e s , p u b l i c l y and p r i v a t e l y owned, and by the priv a t e generators of i n d u s t r i a l establishments. The following 82 Table shows the quantity of power produced by each of these three types of u n i t s . ELECTRIC UTILITIES INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS TOTAL PUBLICLY OPERATED 1,000 K.W.H. PRIVATELY OPERATED 1,000 K.W.H. 1,000 K.W.H. 1,000 K.W.H. TOTAL 59,739,877 29,648,758 24,324,683 113,713,318 HYDRO 55,170.410 27,155,454 21,593,377 103,919,241 THERMAL 4,569,470 2,493,304 2,731,306 9,794,077 Of the t o t a l e l e c t r i c i t y generated 91.4 per cent was produced by hydro e l e c t r i c stations and 8.6 per cent by thermal e l e c t r i c s t a t i o n s . (In 1961 there were no Canadian atomic power s t a t i o n s ) . A l l the airborne wastes from e l e c t r i c i t y generation came from the thermal power s t a t i o n s . Three types of mineral f u e l were used i n 1961 f o r the generation 83 of thermal e l e c t r i c i t y : n a t u r a l gas, coal and f u e l o i l . The quant i t i e s used and estimates of the consequent airborne wastes are shown i n Table 21. Three airborne wastes, i n p a r t i c u l a r , were produced i n s i g n i f i c a n t q u a n t i t i e s : 271,000 tons of sulphur dioxide, 158,000 tons of p a r t i c u l a t e s and 85,000 tons o f nitrogen oxides; The generation o f thermal EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM ELECTRICITY GENERATION IN CANADA, 1961 ..." • " • - ' . ' .••'. AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) FUEL QUANTITY NO X S0 3 CO PART. AMMONIA HYDROCARBONS TOTAL REACTIVE ALDE. OTHER ORGANICS NATURAL . GAS 41,253,192 (1000 cu.ft.) 8,044 8 — — 3 0 9 . 413 — 21 62 COAL 2,251,000 TONS 22,510 106,922 563 157,520 2,251 225 34 6, — FUEL OIL 87,236,853 GALLONS 54,450 .164,000 252 21 53 389 172 31 314 TOTAL 85,004 270,930 252 584 157,882 3,053 397 65 341 62 e l e c t r i c power by each Province i s given i n Table 22 . More than a quarter of the t o t a l output of thermal e l e c t r i c i t y was produced i n Alberta. Saskatchewan was the next most important producers accounting f o r nearly 20 per cent of the t o t a l output. Nova Scotia and Ontario were the only other Provinces responsible f o r production i n excess of 10 per cent of the t o t a l output of thermal e l e c t r i c i t y . A l l the emission f a c t o r s used i n the estimation procedure are recorded i n Table 23. Notes to Accompany Table 23  Natural Gas The emission factors f o r a l l wastes but ammonia are 85 from Duprey . The f a c t o r s f o r ammonia are from Robinson and Robbins Fuel O i l Except f o r ammonia and r e a c t i v e hydrocarbons, a l l of the 87 emission factors came from Duprey . In order to make use of Duprey's f a c t o r s f o r sulphur dioxide and sulphur t r i p x i d e emissions, which are given i n terms of the sulphur content 88 of the f u e l , i t was necessary to use H e l l e r and Walter's estimates of the sulphur content of f u e l o i l used i n the United States during 1960: PROVINCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE PRODUCTION OF THERMAL ELECTRIC POWER, 1961 PROVINCE KILOWATT HOURS •(1,000) PER CENT OF TOTAL Newfoundland 137,008 1.4 Prince Edward Island : / 88,150 0.9 Nova Scotia • \ ... 1,317,123 13.5 New Brunswick r'-y 891,400 9.1 Quebec 307,790 3.1 Ontario . 1,216,464 • 12.5 Manitoba v ' 257,367 2.6 Saskatchewan 1,885,133 19.2 Alber t a . -y. 2,752,745 28.1 B r i t i s h Columbia 904,823 . 9.2 Yukon and N.W. T e r r i t o r i e s ' 36,074 0.4 CANADA 9,794,077 100.0 Sources: see text, pp. 195-197. . 'TABLE 23 A SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS USED FOR ESTIMATING ••••'THE EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM VARIOUS ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES FUEL AND CATEGORY OF USE (Where Relevant) NO X s o 2 AIRBORNE s o 3 CO WASTES PART. ALDE. AMMONIA HYDROCARBONS TOTAL REACTIVE OTHER ORGANICS UNITS : TABLES FOR WHICH EMISSION FACTORS WERE USED TO COMPUTE VALUES NATURAL GAS: • -O I M Thermal Elec t r i c Power Plant 3 9 0 0 . 4 — ' — 1 5 1 2 0 •' - — ' ' 3 O Vi 2 1 VO 1 " Industrial Boilers 2 1 4 0 . 4 -- 0 . 4 1 8 2 2 0 — . 5 r- i O ON Domestic and • Commercial 1 1 6 0 . 4 — 0 . 4 1 9 - . 2 0 ' • -r h . rt to 2 4 , 2 5 , 2 6 . FUEL OIL: .'/. • ' • O Residual Industry & 8 6 . 4 2 8 3 3 . 6 2 . 4 2 7 . 6 2 . 4 2 . 4 0 . 4 - 2 4 , 2 5 , 2 6 , 3 7 , 3 8 , Commercial D i s t i l l a t e 8 6 . 4 2 8 3 3 . 6 2 . 4 1 8 2 . 4 8 . 8 2 - 0 0 . 4 _ r—1 o M i 3 8 , 4 1 . Thermal Electric Power Plant 1 2 4 . 8 3 7 7 5 . 8 0 . 0 5 1 2 0 . 7 9 . 5 3 . 8 0 . 7 . • i | ; o 2 1 , Domestic and Commercial Heating 1 4 , 4 5 6 . 5 0 . 7 2 . 4 9 . 6 2 , 4 - 3 . 6 0 . 6 -MLONS 2 4 , 2 5 , 2 6 . GASOLINE: 1 3 5 . 6 1 0 . 8 2 7 6 0 - 1 4 . 4 4 . 8 2 4 0 1 0 5 . 6 4 . 8 Pounds/ 1 0 3 Imp. Gallons i • 2 7 , 2 9 , 3 1 , 3 3 , 3 7 . FUEL AND CATEGORY . OF USE (Where Relevant) • TABLE 23 continued ... AIRBORNE WASTES NO x S0 2 S0 3 CO PART. • ' - - TABLES FOR WHICH .•.- • " '.-HYDROCARBONS OTHER EMTSSTON PAPTnuc TTODI? „nrr. ALDE. AMMONIA TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS UNITS ^ ^ 0 0 ^ ? ^ [DIE SEL OIL: COAL: Thermal E l e c t r i c Power Plant Industry and \ Transportation Domestic and "x Commercial 266 48 72 132 20 95 20 76 8 57 Sources: see text, pp. 197-203. 12 0.5 140 .0.005 2 140 0.005 2 50 140 0.005 2 163 0.2 10 72 0.003 0.15 1.5 37 Pounds/ 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 10 3 Imp.33, 37, 38, 41. Gallons -o co . O 21. co W o 5o 38. ,24, 25, 26.; ro O O Use of Fuel O i l Sulphur Content (Per Cent) Thermal E l e c t r i c Power Plant I n d u s t r i a l and Commercial 2.0 1.5 Domestic and Commercial Heating .0.3 89 The f a c t o r s f o r ammonia come from Robinson and Robbins and those f o r r e a c t i v e hydrocarbons were estimated from the 90 information given by Robinson and Robbins that 18 per cent of t o t a l hydrocarbons emitted from the combustion of f u e l o i l are r e a c t i v e . A l l the fa c t o r s were converted from U.S. to Imperial gallons by m u l t i p l y i n g by 1.2. Gasoline 91 These f a c t o r s were converted from those given by Duprey i n terms of U.S. gallons to t h e i r equivalent i n Imperial gallons. The f a c t o r f o r r e a c t i v e hydrocarbons was derived with the use of Robinson and Robbins estimate that 44 per cent of the t o t a l hydrocarbons emission from t h i s source are highly 92 re a c t i v e D i e s e l O i l 93 These f a c t o r s were converted from those given by Duprey i n terms of U.S. gallons to t h e i r equivalent i n Imperial gallons. The f a c t o r f o r r e a c t i v e hydrocarbons was derived by using the estimate f o r gasoline that 44 per cent of the t o a l hydrocarbons emitted from gasoline combustion are highly 94 r e a c t i v e . This approximation was made necessary by the absence of any separate estimate f o r d i e s e l o i l combustion. Coal 95 Robinson and Robbins f i g u r e of 15 per cent f o r the proportion of hydrocarbons that are r e a c t i v e was used. The r e s t 96 of the emission f a c t o r s are from Duprey . In order to use h i s 97 f a c t o r s f o r sulphur dioxide H e l l e r and Walters' estimates of the averate sulphur content of coal used i n the United States during 1960 were used: Use of Coal Sulphur Content (Per Cent) Thermal E l e c t r i c Power Plant 2.5 Industry and Transportation 2.0 Domestic and Commercial 1.5 S i m i l a r l y , Duprey's f a c t o r s f o r p a r t i c u l a t e matter requires knowledge o f the ash content of the coal as w e l l as information about the type of u n i t used f o r combustion. The factors i n Table 23 are based on an assumed ash contest of 10 per cent and lacking d e t a i l s about the combustion units a simple average of the e f f i c i e n c i e s of the combustion units mentioned by Duprey was used. E.5. THE EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE DOMESTIC USE OF MINERAL FUELS IN, CANADA, 1961 Table 24- shows estimates of the domestic use of mineral f u e l s and the airborne wastes produced by combustion of these f u e l s . In the case of natural gas the fig u r e f o r the domestic use of the f u e l i s reported d i r e c t l y by the Dominion 99 Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . The figures f o r f i n i s h e d petroleum products are somewhat more ambigious i n that they r e f e r to what i s probably a l a r g e r category of use: " r e s i d e n t i a l , apartment, farms'1'*'^. The quantity of c o a l used f o r domestic purposes given i n Table 24 i s an estimate based on the assumption that the category "domestic, commercial and Government"^"*-i s broken down as follows: Government use accounts f o r 20 per cent of the category's t o t a l (that i s , the same percentage as f o r heavy f u e l o i l i n 102 1963) . The remaining 80per cent i s divided between domestic and commercial i n the same proportion as the use of n a t u r a l 103 gas i n 1961, that i s , 2.1:1 . The emission f a c t o r used f o r the estimates are recorded i n Table 23. I t i s apparent from EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE DOMESTIC USE OF MINERAL FUELS IN CANADA, 1961 AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) HYDROCARBONS OTHER F U E L QUANTITY NO^ S0 2 S0 3 CO PART. ALDE. AMMONIA TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS NATURAL GAS 11.9,667,024 6,940 24 -- 24 1,137 -- 1,197 (1000 cu. f t . ) LIGHT FUEL OIL (Including Kerosene, 2,304,486 16,592 65,099 807 2,765 11,061 2,765 — 4,148 691 Stove o i l and Trac- (1000 Gals.) ' tor Fuel) HEAVY FUEL OIL 144,384 6,238 20,259 289 173 199 173 686 173 29 (1000 Gals.) DIESEL FUEL OIL 96,562 12,848 2,318 — 3,478 6,376 580 — 7,873 3,478 1,787 (1000 Gals.) C O A L 2,798 11,193 79,751 — 69,957 195,880 7 2,798 13,991 2,099 (Tons) TOTAL — 53,811 167,451 1,096 76,397 214,653 3,525 4,681 26,185 6^325 1,787 Sources: see text, p. 203. Table 24 that the combustion of co a l accounts f o r almost a l l of the output of p a r t i c u l a t e s and carbon monoxide from domestic sources. Coal i s also important i n the production of sulphur dioxide and hydrocarbons since nearly 50 per cent of the t o t a l output of these wastes i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to coal combustion. Nitrogen oxides are the only other wastes produced i n s i g n i f i c a n t q uantities and the combustion of l i g h t f u e l o i l produced almost 30 per cent of the t o t a l coming from domestic sources. E.6. THE EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE COMMERCIAL USE OF MINERAL FUELS IN CANADA, 1961 Table 25 shows estimates o f the commercial use of mineral f u e l s and the airborne wastes produced by combustion of these f u e l s . As with the domestic use of these f u e l s the natural gas f i g u r e i s taken d i r e c t l y from Energy Supply And 104 Demand Balances . The fig u r e s f o r f i n i s h e d petroleum products are f o r commercial heating only. Commercial transport i s dealt with i n a separate section and other commercial uses are included i n a l a r g e r category of ' I n d u s t r i a l and Commercial'' 105 by the Dominion Bureau o f S t a t i s t i c s . I t was not possible to separate other commercial uses from t h i s l a r g e r category. Commercial use of c o a l was estimated with the same assumptions EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE COMMERCIAL USE OF MINERAL FUELS IN CANADA, 1961 AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) HYDROCARBONS OTHER F U E L QUANTITY M) SO SO CO PART. ALDE. AMMONIA TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS LIGHT FUEL OIL (Including Kerosene, Stove O i l and Trac- 235,946 1,699 6,667 83 283 1,133 283 — 425 71 tor Fuel) (1000 Gals.) NATURAL GAS 56,269,778 3,263 11 — — 540 — 562 (1000 cu. f t . ) HEAVY FUEL OIL 394,418 17,038 55,334 789 473 544 473 1,873 473 77 (1000 Gals.) DIESEL FUEL OIL 12,719 1,702 307 — 461 845 77 — 1,403 461 (1000 Gals.) C O A L 1,347 5,389 38,399 — 33,683 94,312 3 1,347 6,737 1,011 (1000 Tons.) TOTAL — 29,091 100,718 872 34,900 97,374 836 3,782 9,038 1,622 that were made to estimate the domestic use of coal i n section E.5., that i s , commercial use accounts f o r 26 per cent of the t o t a l category "domestic commercial and Government". The emission f a c t o r s used f o r the estimates are recorded i n Table 23. Coal i s almost as prominentjas a source o f airborne wastes i n the commercial use of f u e l s as i t i s i n the domestic use of f u e l s . This i s not true of l i g h t f u e l o i l , the domestic use of which exceeds the commercial use by 10 times. In contrast to t h i s , the commercial use of heavy f u e l o i l i s l e s s than 3 times that of the domestic use. This commercial use of heavy f u e l o i l amounts f o r some 50 per cent of the t o t a l output o f sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. E.7. THE EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE USE OF MINERAL FUELS BY GOVERNMENTS, POLICE AND ARMED FORCES IN CANADA, 1961 The estimates of the government sector's use of mineral f u e l s p a r a l l e l s those of the domestic and commercial use of these f u e l s i n the previous se c t i o n . Data f o r the consumption of petroleum products come d i r e c t l y from Dominion Bureau of 106 S t a t i s t i c s sources . The consumption of coal was estimated on the assumption that the Government consumed the same percentage of c o a l and heavy f u e l o i l a t t r i b u t e d to the category "domestic , commercial and Government" i n 1963 . Table 26 records the r e s u l t s . The emission factors used f o r the estimates are recorded i n Table 23. Coal again f i g u r e s very prominently as a source of airborne waste products. The use of d i e s e l f u e l o i l i s also f a i r l y s i g n i f i c a n t , e s p e c i a l l y with respect to the production of nitrogen oxides, (more than 30 per cent of the t o a l ) , hydrocarbons, (nearly 30 per cent of the t o t a l ) and other organics (about 90 per cent of the t o t a l ) . E.8. THE EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE USE OF MINERAL FUELS FOR TRANSPORTATION IN CANADA, 1961 (DBS 13) The Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s defines 7 categories of transportation se r v i c e s : passenger cars and motor c y c l e s , a i r transport,marine transport, railways, trucks, bus t r a f f i c (interurban and r u r a l ) , urban t r a n s i t , and taxicabs. Passenger cars and motor cycles w i l l be treated i n a separate section from the other 6 categories. A i r transport has been omitted from the discussion since there i s i n s u f f i c i e n t data f o r estimating the emission of airborne wastes from a i r transport. Furthermore, taxicabs are included with p r i v a t e motor cars i n the data f o r the 108 number o f vehicles although the data f o r motor gasoline consumption includes taxicabs i n the category of commercial 109 transport . Taxicabs w i l l not, therefore, appear as a separate EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE COMBUSTION OF MINERAL FUELS BY FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS, POLICE AND ARMED FORCES IN CANADA, 1961 F U E L QUANTITY AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) NO SO, SO, CO PART. HYDROCARBONS OTHER ALDE. AMMONIA TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANI LIGHT FUEL OIL (Including Kerosene, Stove O i l and Trac-tor Fuel) NATURAL GAS HEAVY FUEL OIL DIESEL FUEL OIL C O A L GASOLINE 47,042 (1000 Gals.) 70,052 (1000 Gals.) 51,065 (1000 Gals.) 1,036 (1000 Tons) 48,843 (1000 Gals.) 338 1,328 16 3,024 9,821 140 6,783 1,224 4,146 29,537 3,040 242 56 84 226 97 56 84 332 1,836 3,366 306 25,910 72,548 3 1,036 61,883 323 108 85 84 4,157 5,182 5,381 14 14 1,836 777 2,368 TOTAL — 17,331 42,152 156 89,769 76,560 557 1,368 14,889 5,009 1 , 0 5 2 category although the airborne wastes from t h i s form of transport are included i n the t o t a l estimates. The marine transport category presents problems of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n that i t includes f i s h i n g boats as w e l l as- passenger and f r e i g h t v e ssels. Since i t i s impossible to disaggregate the category any fu r t h e r the estimates o f airborne wastes a t t r i b u t a b l e to the f i s h i n g industry w i l l be duly underestimated. The emission f a c t o r s f o r a l l the estimates are from Table 23. E.8.a) THE EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE COMBUSTION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS BY COMMERCIAL.'MOTOR VEHICLES IN CANADA, 1961 The Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s have estimated the use of gasoline and d i e s e l o i l on p u b l i c highways f o r trasnportation 110 purposes. This data i s recorded m Table 27 together with estimates of the emission of airborne wastes. Table 28 shows the t o t a l emissions o f airborne wastes from highway transportation that i s , the sum of wastes produced by gasoline and d i e s e l o i l combustion. A comparison of the data i n Table 27 r e l a t i n g to wastes from gasoline and d i e s e l o i l combustion shows that the former are f a r more s i g n i f i c a n t than the l a t t e r . The only Province i n which more wastes are emitted from d i e s e l o i l combustion i s the Yukon and North West T e r r i t o r i e s . As f o r the EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM MOTOR VEHICLES IN CANADA AND THE PROVINCES, 1961 AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) GASOLINE HYDROCARBONS OTHER PROVINCE (1000 GALLONS) NO SO CO PART. AIDE. TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS Newfoundland 31,189,814 2,115 168 43,056 225 75 3,744 1,647 75 Prince Edward Island . 14,271,571 963 77 19,596 102 34 1,704 749 34 Nova Scotia 98,165,395 6,644 529 135,240 706 235 11,760 5,174 235 New Brunswick 81,069,260 5,492 437 111,780 583 194 9,720 4,277 194 Quebec 751,144,879 50,931 4,056 1,036,656 5,409 1,803 90,144 39,663 1,803 Ontario 1,260,544,153 85,469 6,807 1,739,628 9,076 3,025 151,272 66,560 3,025 Manitoba 162,773,662 11,038 879 224,664 1,172 390 19,536 8,596 390 Saskatchewan 180,369,141 12,367 985 251,712 1,313 437 21,888 9,631 437 Alb e r t a 269,593,444 18,279 1,456 372,048 1,941 647 32,352 14,235 647 B r i t i s h Columbia 2>!3,863,563 19,242 1,532 391,644 2,043 681 34,056 14,985 681 Yukon and N.W.T. 6,963,136 475 38 9,660 50 17 840 370 17 CANADA 3,139,948,018 212,892 16,956 4,333,200 22,608 7,536 376,800 165,792 7,536 AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) DIESEL OIL HYDROCARBONS OTHER PROVINCE (1000 GALLONS) NO X SO x CO PART. ALDE. TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANIC Newfoundland 1,158,432 160 29 43 79 7 97 43 22 Prince Edward Island 828,757 109 20 30 54 5 67 30 15 Nova Scotia — — — — — — — — — New Brunswick 2,475,715 319 58 86 158 14 196 86 44 Quebec 61,015,206 8,113 1,464 2,196 4,026 366 4,972 2,196 1,129 Ontario 40,456,463 5,373 970 1,454 2,666 242 3,293 1,454 747 Manitoba 4,882,123 649 117 176 322 29 398 176 90 Saskatchewan 5,041,989 665 120 180 330 30 408 180 93 Alb e r t a 11,408,197 1,516 274 410 752 68 929 410 211 B r i t i s h Columbia 9,865,966 1,303 235 353 647 59 799 353 181 Yukon and N.W.T. 5,499,579 732 132 198 363 33 448 198 102 CANADA 143,042,427 19,019 3,432 5,148 9,438 858 11,655 5,148 2,646 TOTAL EMISSIONS FROM THE USE OF GASOLINE AND DIESEL OIL FROM:MOTOR VEHICLES IN CANADA AND THE PROVINCES, 1961 AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) HYDROCARBONS OTHER PROVINCE NO X SO x CO PART. ALDE. TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANI ( Newfoundland 2,275 197 43,099 304 82 3,841 1,690 97 Prince Edward Island 1,072 97 19,626 156 39 1,771 779 49 Nova Scotia 6,644 529 135,240 706 235 11,760 5,174 235 New Brunswick 6,130 495 111,366 741 208 9,916 4,363 238 Quebec 59,044 5,520 1,038,852 9,435 2,169 95,116 4.1,859 2,932 Ontario 90,842 7,777 1,741,082 11,742 3,267 154,565 68,014 3,772 Manitoba 11,687 996 224,840 1,494 419 19,934 8,772 480 Saskatchewan 13,032 1,105 251,892 1.643 467 22,296 9,311 530 Alber t a 19,795 1,730 372,458 2,693 . 715 33,281 14,645 858 B r i t i s h Columbia 20,545 1,767 391,997 2,690 740 34,355 15,338 862 Yukon and N.W.T. 1,207 170 9.858 413 50 1,238 568 119 CANADA 23^,911 20.388 *,338.348 32,046 8,394 338,455 170,940 10,232 other Provinces Table 28 shows that more wastes are produced overal i n Ontario then Quebec, followed by the Western Provinces the other c e n t r a l Provinces and f i n a l l y the Eastern Provinces. 1) Trucks - Table 29 shows the P r o v i n c i a l use of gasoline and d i e s e l o i l by trucks i n 1 9 6 1 , a n d the estimates of airborne wastes emitted. Table 30 shows the estimated t o t a l airborne wastes from truck t r a f f i c i n each Province. Although nearly 7 times as much gasoline as d i e s e l o i l was used, t h i s l a t t e r f u e l produced more p a r t i c u l a t e s and other organics than gasoline, nearly 66 per cent of the sulphur dioxide as produced by gasoline and more than 25 per cent as much nitrogen oxides. The Provinces, ranked i n order of wastes produced, have Ontario with the most, followed by Quebec, the Western Provinces, the other c e n t r a l Provinces and then the Eastern Provinces. 2) Urban Tr a n s i t - Table 31 shows the P r o v i n c i a l use of 112 gasoline and d i e s e l o i l f o r urban t r a n s i t i n 1961 . (Urban t r a n s i t i s defined by the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s as passenger services provided by motor buses, t r o l l e y coaches, s t r e e t cars, subway cars i n major urban and metropolitan areas, i n townswith p o p u l a t i o n s ^ excess of 5,000 and i n towns and adjoining regions within a 3 mile range EMISSION OF'AIRBORNE WASTES FROM TRUCK TRAFFIC IN CANADA AND THE PROVINCES, 1961 HYDROCARBONS OTHER TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS Newfoundland 5,727 388 31 7,894 41 14 686 302 14 Prince Edward Island 2,371 164 13 3,312 17 6 288 128 6 Nova Sc o t i a 21,456 1,451 116 29,532 154 51 2,568 1,129 51 New Brunswick 17,822 1,207 96 24,564 128 43 2,136 940 43 Quebec 155,003 10,509 837 213,900 1,116 372 18,600 8,184 372 Ontario 254,843 17,275 1,375 351,624 1,835 612 30,576 13,453 612 Manitoba 35,148 2,387 190 48,576 253 84 4,224 1,858 84 Saskatchewan 42,618 2,888 230 58,788 307 102 5,112 2,249 102 A l b e r t a 77,390 5,248 418 106,812 557 186 9,289 4,087 186 B r i t i s h Columbia 57,234 3,878 309 78,936 412 137 6,864 3,020 137 CANADA 669,402 45,385 3,615 923,772 4,820 1,607 80,328 35,344 1,607 AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) GASOLINE (1000 GALLONS) NO SO CO FART. ALDE. x x AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) PROVINCE DIESEL OIL (1000 GALLONS) NO CO PART. . ALDE. HYDROCARBONS OTHER TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS Newfoundland — — — — — — —'• Pr i n c e Edward Island — — — — — — Nova S c o t i a 336 45 8 12 22 2 23 New Brunswick 851 106 . 1 9 29 53 5 65 Quebec 17.594 2,341 422 634 1,162 106 1,434 Ontario 27,367 3,644 658 986 1,808 164 2,233 Manitoba 8,157 1,064 192 288 528 48 652 Saskatchewan 6,050 798 144 216 396 36 489 A l b e r t a 20,547 2,740' 494 742 1,360 124 1,679 B r i t i s h Columbia 13,224 1,756 317 475 871 79 1,076 12 29 634 986 288 216 742 475 6 15 326 507 148 111 381 244 CANADA Maj26 12,502 2^256 3,384 6,204 564 7,661. 3,384 1,739 TOTAL EMISSIONS FROM THE USE OF GASOLINE AND DIESEL OIL BY TRUCK TRAFFIC IN CANADA AND THE PROVINCES, 1961 AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) HYDROCARBONS OTHER PROVINCE NO SO CO PART. ALDE. TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS x x Newfoundland 388; 31 7,894 41 14 686 302 14 Prince Edward Island 164 13 3,312 17 6 288 128 6 Nova Scotia 1,496 124 29,544 176 53 2,596 1,141 57 New Brunswick 1,313 115 24,593 181 48 2,201 969 58 Quebec 12,850 1,259 214,534 2,278 478 20,034 8,818 • 698 Ontario 20,919 2,033 352,610 3,643 776 32,809 14,439 1,119 Manitoba 3,451 382 48,864 781 132 4,876 2,146 232 Saskatchewan 3,686 374 59,004 703 138 5,601 2,465 213 Alberta 7,988 912 107,554 1,917 310 10,968 4,829 ' 567 B r i t i s h Columbia 5,633 626 79,411 1,283 216 7,940 3,495 381 CANADA 47,887 5,871 927,156 11,024 2,171 87,989 38,728 V 3,346 AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE URBAN TRANSIT SYSTEM IN CANADA AND THE PROVINCES, 1961 PROVINCE GASOLINE (1000 GALLONS) AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) NO x SO CO PART. ALDE. HYDROCARBONS TOTAL REACTIVE OTHER ORGANICS Newfoundland Prince Edward Island Nbva Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Al b e r t a B r i t i s h Columbia CANADA 170 2,200 3,729 175 165 518 2,151 9,108 12 149 258 12 11 35 146 617 12 21 1 1 3 12 49 235 3,036 5,244 242 227 718 2,981 12,558 16 27 1 1 4 16 65 1 5 22 20 264 456 21 20 62 259 1,092 116 200 9 9 27 114 480 5 9 1 5 22 CO AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) PROVINCE DIESEL OIL (1000 GALLONS) NO x SO x CO PART. ALDE. HYDROCARBONS OTHER TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS Newfoundland Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia CANADA 713 9,086 5,047. 1,357 231 536 296 17,266 96 1,208 670 181 31 71 39 2,296 17 218 121 33 6 13 7 414 26 327 181 49 8 19 11 622 48 , 599 333 90 15 35 20 1,140 54 30 8 1 3 2 104 59 740 411 111 19 44 24 1,407 26 327 181 49 8 19 11 622 13 168 93 25 4 10 5 319 ro that have populationsin excess of 5,000). Table 32 shows the estimates of the airborne emissionsc'oming from urban transit. The pattern of fuel use and wastes produced by urban transit, (and passenger buses) differs from other forms of transportation in that more diesel fuel is used than gasoline. Nearly twice as much diesel fuel was used for urban transit as gasoline. Carbon monoxide was the only waste produced in greater quantity by gasoline combustion than diesel o i l combustion.. The geographic location of the wastes was such that Quebec produced the most, followed by Ontario at roughly of 70 per cent of the Quebec total. Manitoba ranked third followed by the Western Provinces, the Eastern Provinces combined and finally by Saskatchewan. 3) Passenger Bus Service - Interurban and Rural The Dominion Bureau of Statistics defines passenger bus services as those services provided by the same 'vehicles as for urban transit in areas outside of those designated for urban 114 transit Table 33 shows the Provincial use of gasoline and diesel 115 o i l by passenger bus services in 1961 . Table 33 also shows estimates for the airborne wastes produced .by passenger buses in 1961. The grouping of the Atlantic Provinces in Table 33 is subsequently disaggregated according to the populations of the Atlantic Provinces in 1961 (see Table 34). TOTAL EMISSIONS FROM THE USE OF GASOLINE AND DIESEL OIL BY THE URBAN TRANSIT SYSTEM IN CANADA AND THE PROVINCES, 1961 AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) PROVINCE NO SO x x HYDROCARBONS OTHER CO PART. ALDE. TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS Newfoundland Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan A l b e r t a B r i t i s h Columbia CANADA 108 1,357 928 193 42 106 185 2,913 18 230 142 34 7 16 19 463 261 3,363 5,425 291 235 737 2,992 13,180 49 615 360 91 16 39 36 1,205 59 39 8 1 4 7 126 79 1,004 867 132 39 106 283 2,499 35 443 381 58 17 46 125 1,102 13 173 102 25 4 11 10 341 Sources: see text, pp. 214-220. EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE PASSENGER BUS SERVICE IN CANADA AND THE PROVINCES, 1961 AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) PROVINCE QUANTITY HYDROCARBONS OTHER AND FUEL • . OF FUEL NO X SO X CO PART. ALDE. TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS ATLANTIC PROVINCES: Gasoline D i e s e l Fuel 643,713 380,281 43.5 50.9 3.4 9.2 885.0 13.8 4.7 25.3 1.5 2.3 77.0 31.2 33.9 13.8 1.5 7.1 To t a l — 94.4 12.6 898.8 30.0 3.8 108.2 47.7 8.6 QUEBEC: Gasoline D i e s e l Fuel 1,835,841 2,900,871 124.0 386.1 9.7 69.6 2,535.6 104.3 13.3 191.4 4.3 17.5 220.6 236.3 97.1 104.3 4.3 , 53.7 To t a l — 510.1 79.3 2,639.9 204.7 21.8 450.9 201.4 58.0 ONTARIO: Gasoline D i e s e l Fuel 1,082,430 2,635,054 73.1 350.4 5.7 63.3 1,498.1 94.8 7.8 173.0 12.5 15.9 130.1 214.8 57.4 94.8 2.5 48.8 Tot a l — 423.5 69.0 1,590.9 180.8 18.4 344.9 521.1 51.3 ro ro ro AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) PROVINCE AND FUEL QUANTITY OF FUEL NO SO x CO PART. ALDE. HYDROCARBONS TOTAL REACTIVE OTHER ORGANICS MANITOBA: • Gasoline D i e s e l F u e l 351,734 . 302,217 23.8 40.0 1.9 7.2 484.7 10.8 2.6 19.9 0.8 1.8 42.2 24.5 18.6 10.8 0.8 5.6 T o t a l — 63.8 9.1 495.5 22.5 2.6 66.7 29.4 6.4 SASKATCHEWAN: • Gasoline D i e s e l Fuel 22,181 378,743 1.4 50.9 0.1 9.2 28.1 13.8 0.1 25.3 2.3 2.4 31.2 1.1 13.8 7.1 T o t a l — 52.3 9.3 - 41.9 25.4 2.3 33.6 14.9 7.1 ALBERTA: Gasoline D i e s e l Fuel 380,072 2,190,196 25.5 291.1 2.0 52.6 519.8 78.7 2.7 144.5 0.9 13.2 45.2 178.3 19.9 78.7 0.9 40.1 T o t a l 316.6 54.6 598.5 147.2 4.1 223.5 98.6 41.0 ro AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) PROVINCE AND FUEL QUANTITY OF FUEL NO SO CO PART. ALDE. HYDROCARBONS OTHER TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS BRITISH COLUMBIA: Gasoline 774,206 Di e s e l Fuel 330,790 Tot a l 52.4 44.1 96.5 4.1 7.9 12.0 1,074.6 11.8 5.6 21.7 1,086.4 27.3 1.8 2.0 3.8 93.4 26.7 120.1 41.2 11.8 53.0 1.8 6.1 7.9 ro ro CANADA: Gasoline D i e s e l Fuel 5,090,177 343.7 26.9 9,118,152 1,213.5 219.0 7,025.9 36.8 11.8 665.9 269.1 11<8 328.0 601.1 55.0 743.0 328.0 168.5 Total 1,557.2 245.9 7,353.9 637.9 66.8 1,408.9 597.1 180.3 Source: see text, p. 220. TABLE 54 PROVINCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE CANADIAN POPULATION IN 1961 PER CENT PROVINCE POPULATION OF TOTAL Newfoundland 475,853 2.5 Prince Edward Island 104,629 0.6 Nova Scotia 737,007 4.0 New Brunswick 597,936 3.3 Quebec 5,259,211 28.8 Ontario 6,236,092 34.2 Manitoba 921,686 5.1 Saskatchewan 925,181 5.1 Alb e r t a 1,331,944 7.3 B r i t i s h Columbia 1,629,082 8.9 Yukon and N.W. T e r r i t o r i e s • 37,626 0.2 C A N A D A 18,238,247 100.0 Source: Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Canada Yearbook. 1965-64 (Ottawa: 1964) p. 158. E.8.b) THE EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM PASSENGER CARS AND MOTOR  CYCLES IN CANADA, 1961 As noted above Table 27 shows the emission of airborne wastes from the t o a l use of gasoline and d i e s e l o i l on pu b l i c highways i n Canada, 1961. I f the emission f o r f u e l consumption from trucks, urban t r a n s i t and passenger bus services are subtracted from t h e i r grand t o t a l s then estimates of the f u e l consumption by passenger cars and motor cycles are obtained. This operation i s performed i n Table 35 together with estimates of the airborne wastes a t t r i b u t a b l e to pr i v a t e motor v e h i c l e s , derived with the use of emission f a c t o r s from Table 23. I t may be seen from Table 35 that passenger cars used over 80 per cent o f a l l the t o t a l gasoline consumed on Canadian highways i n 1961, and over 15 per cent of a l l d i e s e l o i l . The data presented i n t h i s and the foregoing tables t e s t i f i e s to the commonly held view that passenger cars, by themselves, contribute g r e a t l y to the production o f airborne wastes i n Canada: over 3.3 m i l l i o n tons of carbon monoxide, nearly 300,000 tons of hydrocarbons, 170,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, were a l l a t t r i b u t a b l e to t h i s one source i n 1961. The P r o v i n c i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of passenger cars and motor cycles maybe estimated by an analysis of the number of re g i s t e r e d cars i n each Province, as shown i n Table 3 5 . TABLE 35 EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM PASSENGER CARS IN CANADA, 1961 DATA FROM GASOLINE TABLE (1000 GALLONS) AIRBORNE WASTES NO SO x CO (TONS) PART. ALDE. . HYDROCARBONS OTHER TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS ALL MOTOR VEHICLES Trucks Urban T r a n s i t Bus Service PASSENGER CARS 27 3,139,948 29 31 33 .669,402 9,108 5,090 2,456,348 166,544 13,265 3,389,832 17,686 5,895 294,768 129,698 5,895 ALL MOTOR VEHICLES. Trucks Urban T r a n s i t Bus Service PASSENGER CARS TOTAL DIESEL FUEL (1000 GALLONS) 27 143,042 29 94,126 17 17,266 33 9,118 22,532 2,997 541 811 1,487 135 1,836 811 417 169,541 13,806 3,390,643 19,173 6,030 296,604 130,509 6,312 Excluding tax exempt sales to the Federal Government and other consumers which, i n 1961, were equal to 897,788,029 g a l l o n s . TABLE 36 THE PROVINCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF PASSENGER CARS (INCLUDING TAXIS) IN CANADA, 1961 NO. REGISTERED PASSENGER CARS PER CENT (INCLUDING TAXIS) OF TOTAL Newfoundland 48,200 1.1 Prince Edward Island 20,440 0.5 Nova Scotia 156,663 3.6 New Brunswick 1 112,764 2.6 Quebec 909,322 21.0 Ontario . ' 1,794,444 41.6 Manitoba 226,376 5.2 Saskatchewan 228,289 5.3 Alberta 356,721 8.3 British Columbia . 467,370 10.8 Yukon and N.W. Territories 5,113 0.1 C A N A D A 4,325,682 100.0 PROVINCE Source: Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Canada Yearbook. 1965-64 (Ottawa: 1964) p.. 775. E.8.c) THE EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE COMBUSTION OF MINERAL  FUELS BY RAILWAYS IN CANADA, 1961 In the Dominion Bureau o f S t a t i s t i c s publications devoted 116 to f u e l consumption by railways only data f o r f u e l consumed f o r motive power are presented. In order to get a complete estimate o f the f u e l consumed by the Canadian Railways i n 1961 i t was necessary to supplement t h i s data with a d d i t i o n a l information from the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s p u b l i c a t i o n which deals 117 with the d i s t r i b u t i o n of f i n i s h e d petroleum products . The data from t h i s source may be regarded as a gross estimate o f the f u e l consumed by the railways. Usingthese data i t was possible to net out the estimates of f u e l f o r motive power and prorate the remaining quantities to the Provinces according to t h e i r 118 consumption of d i e s e l f u e l . (Since t h i s would have s i g n i f i c a n t l y underestimated the extent o f the railway system i n Nova Scotia, which, i n 1961, was the only Province to use a s i g n i f i c a n t quantity of coal - 10,275,000 tons - Nova Scotia was given ' c r e d i t ' f o r 3,389,000 gallons of d i e s e l f u e l . This i s j u s t s u f f i c i e n t to make the r e l a t i v e q uantities of d i e s e l o i l consumed by railways i n Nova Scotia and New Brunswick equal to the r e l a t i v e q u a n i t i t i e s of f i r s t main track 119. mileage i n these two Provinces). Table 37 shows the emission EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM CANADIAN RAILWAYS, BY PROVINCE, 1961 PROVINCE FUEL (1,000 GALLONS) NO AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) S0 2 CO PART. ALDE. AMMONIA PER CENT HYDROCARBONS OTHER OF TOTAL TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS DIESEL FUEL Newfoundland Diesel Fuel: 7,736.8 1,029 186 279 510 46 Total 1,029 186 279 510 46 631 631 279 279 143 143 2.2 Prince Edward Island Diesel Fuel: 578.0 Total 77 77 14 14 21 21 38 38 3 3 4 7> 47 21 21 11 11 0.2 Nova Scotia Diesel Fuel: 8,453.2 Tons Coal: 10,275.0 Total 1,125 203 103 390 305 15 558 719 1,228 593 320 1,277 51 10 51 10 689 5 694 305 609 914 157 313 470 3.4 AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) PROVINCE FUEL (1,000 GALLONS) NO SO, CO PART. ALDE. PER CENT HYDROCARBONS OTHER OF TOTAL AMMONIA TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS DIESEL. FUEL New Brunswick Diesel Fuel: 16,917.4 2,248 406 608 1,115 101 Total 2,248 406 608 1,115 101 1,377 608 1,377 608 313 313 4.9 ro h~1 Quebec Diesel Fuel: 53,393.0 Crude O i l : 42.1 Total 7,102 1,282 1,922 3,524 320 2 6 — 1 — 7.104 1.288 1.922 3.524 320 4,352 1,922 4.352 1,922 988 988 15.4 Ontario Diesel Fuel: 128,068.0 17,024 3,072 4,608 8,448 768 Total 17,024 3,072 4,608 8,448 768 10,432 4,608 2,368 10,432 4,608 2,368 37.0 AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) PROVINCE FUEL (1,000 GALLONS) NO SO CO PART. ALDE. AMMONIA HYDROCARBONS TOTAL REACTIVE OTHER ORGANICS PER CENT OF TOTAL DIESEL FUEL Manitoba Diesel Fuel: 27,261.8 3,626 Total 3,626 654 981 1,799 164 654 981 1,799 164 2,222 2,222 981 981 504 504 7.9 ro ro Saskatchewan Diesel Fuel: 22,596.2 3,005 Total 3,005 542 814 1,492 136 542 814 1,492 136 1,842 1,842 814 814 418 418 6.5 A l b e r t a Diesel Fuel: 32,055.4 4,256 768 1,152 2,112 192 -- 2,608 1,152 592 9.3 Crude O i l : 506.6 22 72 1 5 1 2 1 — ~ Total 4,278 840 1,153 2,117 193 2_ 2,609 -1,152 592 AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) PROVINCE FUEL (1,000 GALLONS) NO SO, CO PART. ALDE. AMMONIA PER CENT HYDROCRABONS OTHER OF TOTAL TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS DIESEL FUEL B r i t i s h Columbia Diesel O i l : 39,378.1 5,240 946 1,418 2,600 236 3,211 1,418 729 11.4 Fuel O i l : 62.4 Crude O i l : 436.4 19 62 1 Total 5,262 1,017.1,419 2,604 237 2 3,212 1,418 729 Yukon and N.W.T. Diesel O i l : 53.9 7 1 2 4 — — 4 2 1 Fuel O i l : 7.8 ~ 1 — — — — — Total 7 2 2 4 - - — 4 2 1 AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) PROVINCE FUEL (1,000 GALLONS) NO SO, CO PART. ALDE. AMMONIA HYDROCARBONS TOTAL REACTIVE OTHER ORGANICS PER CENT OF TOTAL DIESEL FUEI Canada Diesel O i l : 342,257.2 Fuel O i l : 70.2 Crude O i l : 985.1 Tons Coal: 10,275.0 Total 45,213 8,219 12,213 22,197 2,018 10 42 139 1 4 27,889 12,319 6,331 103 390 . 1 5 719 — 10 : 5 45,361 8,578 12,139 22,925 2,019 14 27,895 12,320 6,331 98.2C l The fuels delivered i n the provinces do not account f o r the t o t a l f u e l used i n Canada since 5,764.9 gallons of d i e s e l f u e l were deli v e r e d to .fueling stations i n the United States. of airborne wasts from f u e l s consumed s o l e l y f o r motive power i n 1961. Table 38, however, which i s a summary of the various forms o f transport includes the airborne wastes from a l l uses of f u e l s by the railways. The emission f a c t o r s used i n the estimates are recorded i n Table 23. The P r o v i n c i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of airborne wastes produced by railways i n 1961 follows that of the other forms of transport. Ontario leads Quebec 3 followed by the Western Provinces then the other c e n t r a l Provinces and f i n a l l y the Eastern Provinces with the Yukon and the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s l a s t . E.8.d) THE EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE COMBUSTION OF MINERAL FUELS FOR MARINE PURPOSES IN CANADA, 1961 The data i n Table 39 r e f e r to f u e l sold i n Canada i n 1961 f o r a l l marine purposes excluding the Navy. I t was necessary to estimate the data on f u e l consumption since the r e q u i s i t e information was not a v a i l a b l e f o r 1961. The Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s gives data f o r the net sales of a l l petroleum 120 products i n 1961 and 1963 , • Data are also given f o r the 121 d i s p o s i t i o n o f these products but', only f o r the year 1963 On the assumption that f u e l used f o r marine purposes constituted the same proportion of the use of each f u e l i n 1961 and 1963 i t was possible to use the proportions c a l c u l a t e d from 1963 AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY IN CANADA AND THE PROVINCES, 1961: RAILWAYS, TRUCKS, INTER-URBAN AND RURAL BUSSES, URBAN TRANSIT (AIR AND WATER TRANSPORTATION ARE EXCLUDED) AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) PROVINCE & MODE HYDROCARBONS OTHER OF TRANSPORT NO X so 2 so 3 CO PART. ALDE. AMMONIA TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS NEWFOUNDLAND: Railways 1,044 234 — 279 514 46 2 631 279 143 Trucks 388 31 — 7,894 41 14 — 686 302 14 Non-Urban Busses 23 3 217 7 1 — 26 • 11 2 Urban Transit 26 4 — 63 12 _1 19 8 3 T o t a l 1,481 272 — 8,453 574 62 2 1,362 600 162 PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND: Railways 79 19 Trucks 164 13 Non-Urban Busses 5 1 Urban Transit 6 Total 254 34 21 3,312 49 14 3,396 38 17 2 _3 66 3 6 47 288 6 4 354 21 128 3 2 154 11 6 _1 18 AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) PROVINCE & MODE HYDROCARBONS OTHER OF TRANSPORT NO SO„ SO^ CO PART. ALDE. AMMONIA TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS x 2 3 NOVA SCOTIA: Railways 1,147 277 — 320 1,283 51 2 • 689 305 157 Trucks lj496 124 — 29,544 176 53 2,596 1,141 57 Non-Urban Busses 36 5 — 344 11 1 — 41 18 3 Urban Tr a n s i t 41 7 — 100 19 _2 — 30 13 5 Total 2,720 413 — 30,293 1,489 107 2 3,356 1,477 222 NEW BRUNSWICK: Railways 2,383 902 2 624 1,124 102 14 1,383 609 313 Trucks 1,313 115 — 24,593 181 48 — 2,201 969 58 Non-Urban Busses 30 4 — 203 9 1 — 34 15 3 Urban T r a n s i t 34 6 82 15 1 — 25 11 4 Total 3,657 1,027 2 25,582 1,329 152 14 3,643 1,604 378 QUEBEC: Railways 7,204 1,615 4 1,923 3,553 323 11 4,353 1,922 988 Trucks 12,850 1,259 — 214,534 2,278 478 — 20,034 8,818 698 Non-Urban Busses 501 79 — 2,640 205 22 — 457 201 58 Urban T r a n s i t 1,357 230 — 3,363 615 59 —— 1,004 443 173 T o t a l 21,921 3,183 4 222,462 6,641 882 11 25,850 11,384 1,917 AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) PROVINCE & MODE HYDROCARBONS OTHER OF TRANSPORT NOx , S02 SOg CO PART. ALDE. AMMONIA TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS ONTARIO: Railways 17,768 3, 873 10 4,615 8,515 775 26 10,439 4,609 2,368 Trucks 20,919 2, 033 — 352,610 3,643 776 32,809 14,439 1,119 Non-Urban Busses 424 69 — 1,591 181 18 — 345 152 51 Urban Transit 928 142 5,425 360 39 — 867 381 102 T o t a l 39,539 6, 117 10 364,241 12,699 1,608 26 44,460 19,581 3,640 MANITOBA: Railways 3,678 825 2 983 1,814 166 5 2,224 981 504 Trucks 3,451 382 — 48,864 781 132 — 4,876 2,146 232 Non-Urban Busses 64 9 — 496 23 3 — 67 29 6 Urban Transit 193 34 — 291 91 8 — 132 58 25 T o t a l 7,387 1,250 2 .50,634 2,709 309 5 7,299 3,294 767 ^SKATCHEWAN: Railways 3,048 682 2 815 1,504 137 5 1,843 814 418 Trucks 3,686 374 — 59,004 703 138 — 5,601 2,465 213 Non-Urban Busses 52 9 — 42 25 2 — 34 15 7 Urban T r a n s i t 42 7 — 235 16 1 — 39 17 4 T o t a l 6,828 1,072 2 60,095 2,248 278 5 7,517 3,311 642 AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) PROVINCE & MODE OF TRANSPORT NO x SO, SO, CO PART, AIDE. AMMONIA . HYDROCARBONS TOTAL REACTIVE OTHER ORGANICS ALBERTA: Railways 4,339 1,041 2 1,155 2,133 . 195 9 2,611 1,152 592 Trucks 7,988 912 — 107,554 1,917 310 — 10,968 4,829 567 Non-Urban Busses 317 55 — 599 147 .14 — 224 99 41 Urban Transit 106 16 ~— 737 39 • 4 — 106 46 11 Total 12,750 2,024 2 110,045 4,236 523 9 13,909 6,126 1,211 ro BRITISH COLUMBIA: Railways 5,337 1,263 3 1,421 2,625 239 10 3,214 1,418 729 Trucks 5,633 626 . — '• 79,411 1,283 216 —- 7,940 3,495 381 Non-Urban Busses 97 12 — 1,086 27 4 — 120 53 8 Urban Transit 185 19 — 2,992 36 7 283 125 10 Tota l 11,252 1,920 3 84,910 3,971 466 10 11,557 5,091 1,128 AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) PROVINCE & MODE HYDROCARBONS OTHER OF TRANSPORT NO X so 2 so 3 CO PART. ALDE. AMMONIA TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANIC YUKON AND N.W.T. Railways 7 2 2 4 __ 4 2 1 Trucks — — — — — — — Non-Urban Busses — — — — — — Urban T r a n s i t — — — — — — — — — T o t a l 7 2 — 2 4 — — 4 2 1 CANADA Railways 46,034 10,733 25 12,158 23,107 2,037 84 27,909 12,322 6,331 Trucks 57,887 5,871 — 927,156 11,024 2,171 — 87,989 38,728 3,346 Non-Urban Busses 1,558 246 — 7,352 638 67 — 1,354 597 180 Urban T r a n s i t 2,913 463 — 13,180 1,205 126 2,499 1,102 341 T o t a l 108,392 17,313 25 959,846 35,974 4,401 84 119,751 52,799 10,198 Sourcea; see text, n 23^. AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE USE OF MINERAL FUELS FOR MARINE PURPOSES (EXCLUDING THE NAVY) IN CANADA, 1961 F U E L QUANTITY (1000 GALLONS) AIRBORNE WASTES N0 x S0 2 S0 3 (TONS) CO PART. ALDE. AMMONIA HYDROCARBONS TOTAL REACTIVE OTHER ORGANICS LIGHT FUEL OIL (Including Kerosene, Stove O i l and Trac-tor F u e l ) 0 6,153 259 849 11 ' 1 54 7 26 7 1 — HEAVY FUEL OIL 304,302 13,150 42,707 608 365 420 365 1,446 365 61 — DIESEL FUEL OIL 116,773 15,534 2,803 — 4,205 7,709 701 — 9,519 4,205 2,161 TOTAL — 28,943 46,359 619 4,577 8,183 1,073 1,472 9,891 4,267 2,161 Sources: see text, pp. 235-242. data to estimate the use of each f u e l f o r marine purposes i n 1961. I t was not possible to disaggregate the data according to the functions of the consuming v e s s e l or the Province i n which i t was used. Because of these d i f f i c u l t i e s marine transport i s excluded from the general category of the transportation industry. The emission f a c t o r s used i n the estimates are recorded i n Table 23. As Table 39 shows heavy f u e l o i l and d i e s e l f u e l o i l were the two main f u e l s used f o r marine purposes. Although nearly twice as much heavy f u e l o i l as d i e s e l f u e l o i l was used ,more o f each type of waste, except the sulphur oxides, came from d i e s e l f u e l o i l combustion than from heavy f u e l o i l combustion. E.8.e) THE EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE COMBUSTION OF MINERAL  FUELS BY THE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY IN CANADA, 1961 (DBS 13) Table 38 summarizes the estimates of airborne wastes from railways, trucks, passenger buses and urban t r a n s i t . I t should be noted that i n Tables 32 and 33, which r e l a t e , to urban t r a n s i t and passenger bus services r e s p e c t i v e l y , the A t l a n t i c Provinces appear as one category. The estimation of the P r o v i n c i a l data that appears i n Table 38 was made by prorating the estimates f o r the A t l a n t i c Provinces according to their populations in 1961. Since dollar figures do not exist for the value of each type of transportation service i t was necessary to calculate the Provincial distribution of each type of airborne waste directly. This required computation of each type of airborne waste emitted by the transportation services of each Province. The results are shown in Table 40. Also shown in Table 40 is an 'average distribution factor' for each Province. These averages were calculated from the percentage of each waste attributable to each Province excluding SO and ammonia. These two gasses were omitted because in comparison with the other wastes their quantities were very small. Consequently, although these gasses were produced in a l l Provinces in many cases estimates were rounded to zero. This has the effect of biasing the percentages-that show Provincial distribution of the wastes in a way that exagerates the predominance of SO and ammonia in the more industrialized Provinces. It is interesting, from a more general point of view, that the average distribution factors of Table 40 correspond so closely to the distribution factors for each type of airborne waste. If the technology of the transport industry were uniform throughout the Provinces then the distribution factors for each gas would be identical. Table 40 shows that with PROVINCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY (EXCLUDING AIR AND WATER TRANSPORTATION) IN CANADA, 1961 AIRBORNE WASTES (PER CENT) HYDROCARBONS OTHER AVERAGE PROVINCE NO X so2 so 3 CO PART. ALDE. AMMONIA TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS DISTRIBl NEWF. 1.4 - 1.5 0.9 1.6 1.4 „ 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.3 P.E.I. 0.2 0.2 — . 0.4 0.2 0.2 — 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 N.S. 2.5 2.2 — 3.2 2.1 2.4 71.4 2.8 2.8 2.2 2.5 N.B. 3.4 6.1 8.0 • 2.7 5.7 3-A — 3.0 3.0 3.7 3.9 QUE. 20.3 18.8 16.0 23.2 18.5 20.1 21.6 21.6 19.0 20.1 ONT. 36.6 35.0 40.0 38.0 35.3 36.6 — 37.2 37.2 " 36.1 36.5 MAN. 6.8 7.1 8.0 5.3 7.5 7.0 — 6.1 6.1 7.6 6.7 SASK. 6.3 6.1 8.0 6.3 6.2 6.3 — 6.3 6.3 6.4 6.3 ALTA. 11.8 12.0 8.0 11.5 11.8 11.9 14.3 11.6 11.6 12.0 11.8 B.C. 10.4 11.0 12.0 8.8 11.0 10.6 14.3 9.8 9.8 11.2 10.3 YUKON & N.W.T — — — — — • — — — — CANADA 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 f u l l allowance being made f o r d i f f e r e n t P r o v i n c i a l mixes of railways5 trucks, urban t r a n s i t and passenger bus s e r v i c e s , the d i s t r i b u t i o n of airborne wastes i s very s i m i l a r to what i t would be i f each Province had the same mix of transportation s e r v i c e s . This r e s u l t lends support to the assumption o f uniform technology i n a l l types of industry throughout the Provinces at l e a s t with respect to the waste products emitted as a r e s u l t of one d o l l a r ' s worth o f output from each industry. The amount of each type of waste product i n each Province by the e n t i r e transportation industry recorded i n Table 38 r e f l e c t s the pattern apparent i n the data r e l a t i n g separately to the various modes of transportation. Ontario and Quebec combined account f o r more than 50 per cent of the n a t i o n a l output of each airborne waste produced by the transportation industry. Alberta and B r i t i s h Columbia are also f a i r l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n that they each produced i n excess of 10 per cent o f the n a t i o n a l output. The r e l a t i v e importance of the other Provinces declines sharply l e d by Mantoba and Saskatchewan at approximately 6 per cent of each waste followed by New Brunswick at l e s s than 4 per cent, r i g h t through to Prince Edward Island at l e s s than 0.5 per cent and the Yukon- and Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s which accounted f o r approximately zero per cent. This information i s brought out more c l e a r l y i n Table 40. What Table 38 also reveals i s that railways and trucks produced more than 90 per cent of each type of waste at the National and P r o v i n c i a l l e v e l . The r e l a t i v e i n s i g n i f i c a n c e of urban t r a n s i t and non-urban buses as source of wastes i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important when i t i s remembered that passenger cars have been shown to be a major source of these wastes (see page 226). The implications f o r t o t a l wastes produced i n Canada as a r e s u l t of t r a n s f e r r i n g people from p r i v a t e to p u b l i c transport are considered i n Chapter V. E.9. THE EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE COMBUSTION OF MINERAL FUELS BY THE FORESTRY INDUSTRY IN CANADA, 1951 (DBS 1) Table 41 summarises the data on f u e l consumption by the f o r e s t r y industry i n 1951 and the associated estimates of airborne wastes. Just as with the use of f u e l f o r marine purposes, i t was necessary to estimate the f i g u r e given i n Table 41 f o r f u e l consumption by making use of data f o r 1963. On the assumption that the f u e l used by the f o r e s t r y industry constituted the same proportion of the use o f each f u e l i n 1961 and 1963 i t was possible to use the proportions calculated from 1963 122 data and apply them to the t o t a l d i s p o s t i o n o f each f u e l 123 i n 1961 f o r the required estimates. The emission f a c t o r s AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE COMBUSTION OF MINERAL FUELS BY THE FORESTRY INDUSTRY IN CANADA, 1961 AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) QUANTITY - HYDROCARBONS OTHER F U E L (1000 GALLONS) NO SO SO CO PART. ALDE. AMMONIA TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS X /. j LIGHT FUEL OIL (I n c l u d i n g Kerosene, . Stove O i l and Trac-t o r Fuel) 15,050 648 2,123 27 18 135 18 66 18 3 — HEAVY FUEL OIL 242,543 10,480 34,037 485 291 335 291 1,152 291 49 DIESEL FUEL OIL 42,054 5,586 1,008 — 1,512 2,772 252 --. 3,423 1.512 777 TOTAL • — 16,714 37,168 512 1,821 3,242 561 1,218 3,732 1,564 777 Source: see t e x t , p. 246. used f o r the estimates are included i n Table 23. E.10. THE EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES BY CANADIAN INDUSTRY IN 1961 ATTRIBUTABLE TO ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN FUEL CONSUMPTION Although Duprey " gives emission f a c t o r s f o r many d i f f e r e n t types of i n d u s t r i a l processes they require rather s p e c i f i c knowledge of the operation of i n d i v i d u a l p l ants. Since such information i s not a v a i l a b l e f o r most Canadian in d u s t r i e s i t has not been possible to u t i l i z e most of the emission f a c t o r s c i t e d by Duprey. There are a few important exceptions howeverj and they form the subject matter of t h i s section of the study. E.lO.a) THE EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE MANUFACTURE OF SULPHURIC ACID IN CANADA, 1961 (DBS 10) 1,614,000 tons of sulphuric a c i d were manufactured 125 126 i n Canada during 1961 . Duprey gives emission factors f o r sulphur dioxide and a c i d mist: Sulphur dioxide: 20-70 pounds/ton of ac i d produced Acid mist without c o n t r o l : 0.3-7.5 pounds/ton of ac i d produced Acid mist with c o n t r o l : 0.02-0.2 pounds/ton of acid produced In order to estimate the output of sulphur dioxide and ac i d mist the following emission f a c t o r s were used: Sulphur dioxide: 45 pounds/ton of ac i d produced Acid mist: 0.3 pounds/ton of a c i d produced T o t a l sulphur dioxide: 36,315 tons T o t a l acid mist: 242 tons E.lO.b) THE EMISSION OF AMMONIA EMITTED FROM THE PRODUCTION OF AMMONIA  IN CANADA, 1961 (DBS 10) 190,110 tons of anhydrous ammonia were produced i n Canada 127 128 during 1961 . Duprey gives an emission f a c t o r of 0.21bs ammonia per ton o f ammonia produced. The t o t a l emission o f ammonia i s estimated therefore, at 19 tons. E.lO.c) THE EMISSION OF FLOURIDE FROM THE PRODUCTION OF ALUMINIUM  IN CANADA, 1961 (DBS 8) 663,173 tons of new aluminium were produced i n Canada 129 130 during 1961 . Duprey gives an emission f a c t o r of 80 pounds o f flouride (as f l o u r i n e ) per ton of aluminium produced. The estimated emission of f l o u r i d e i s 2,653 tons. E.lO.d) THE EMISSION OF PARTICULATE WASTES FROM THE PRODUCTION OF STEEL IN CANADA, 1961 (DBS 8) 131 Wittur reports that i n 1961 6,488,000 tons of crude s t e e l and 4,204,000 tons of p i g i r o n were produced i n Canada. Three processes were used almost e x c l u s i v e l y to produce t h i s s t e e l , the precise tonnages be5.ng shown i n Table 4-2. According 132 to the emission factors c i t e d by Duprey the airborne wastes from b l a s t furnaces and each of the three processes mentioned i n Table 42 depend very much on the type of c o n t r o l equipment i n use. For t h i s reason^ t was necessary to gather f a i r l y precise data from the Canadian s t e e l industry about the co n t r o l equipment i n . use i n 1961. In 1961 four companies accounted f o r 96 per cent o f 133 the t o t a l b l a s t furnace capacity i n Canada . These companies were approached d i r e c t l y f o r the r e q u i s i t e information. A copy o f the questionnaire that was c i r c u l a t e d to them appears on page 253 . Some d e t a i l s of the companies, as reported by them,are shown i n Table 43. The choice of which emission factors to use f o r b l a s t furnaces and the various s t e e l furnaces was reached i n the following way:-(1) Blast Furnace: from the r e p l i e s to the questionnaire i t i s known that 51 per cent of the capacity i n Canada had secondary cleaners which, according to Duprey, implies a f a c t o r f o r p a r t i c u l a t e s of 0.1-1.4 pounds per ton of p i g i r o n produced. Since the f a c t o r f o r no c o n t r o l at a l l i s 200 pounds per ton, and f o r primary cleaners alone i t i s 5.4 pounds per ton complete ignorance about the remaining 49 per cent of b l a s t TABLE 42 PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM STEEL MILLS CANADA, 1961 OPERATION QUANTITY (1,000 TONS) EMISSION FACTORS (POUNDS PER TON PRODUCT) EMISSIONS (TONS) Blast Furnace 4,204 1.4 2,943 Open Hearth 3,887 3.9 7,580 E l e c t r i c Furnace 663 4.5 1,492 Basic Oxygen Process 1,826 0.4 365 . TOTAL 12^380 Sources: see text, pp. 249-250. DETAILS OF THE CANADIAN STEEL INDUSTRY, 1961 NAME OF COMPANY NATURE OF REPLY BASIC OPEN HEARTH BLAST FURNACE PER CENT CAPACITY NO. CAPACITY .(TONS) STEEL FURNACES OXYGEN VESSELS NO-CAPACITY (TONS) ELECTRIC CONVERTER NO. CAPACITY (TONS) NO. CAPACITY (TONS) STEEL COMPANY OF CANADA Detailed 32 14 3,125,000 '. 0 ALGOMA STEEL CORPORATION No Reply 32 900,000 2 700,000 SYDNEY STEEL CORPORATION No Deta i l s 13 970,000 0 33,000 0 DOMINION FOUNDRIES AND STEEL Detailed 19 3 1,170,000 4 115,000 TOTALS FOR WHICH ADEQUATE REPLIES RECEIVED 51 14 3,125,000 3 1,170,000 5 115,000 C A N A D A 100 31 5,090,900 _5 1,870,000 92^  1,469,000 300 Sources: see te x t , p. 250. P o l l u t i o n Control Devices Used by Company X. In 1 9 6 l a or Type of furnace Number Type of c o n t r o l P i s . i n d i c a t e the number of furnaces which had each type of c o n t r o l . Blast furnace Preliminary cleaner ( s e t t l i n g chamber or dry cyclone) Secondary cleaner^ (E.S.P. or V.S.) Other ( p i s . s t a t e ) c Open Hearth E.S.P. _____ Baghouse Other ( p i s . state) E l e c t r i c Arc Furnace High e f f i c i e n c y scrubber E.S.P. Baghouse Other ( p i s . state) Basic Oxygen Furnace V.S E.S.P. Other ( p i s . state) Other pertinent information a. I f you do not have data f o r 1961 but f o r some other year please complete the questionnaire f o r the year f o r which you do have data. b. V.S. means venturi scrubber. E.S.P. means e l e c t r o s t a t i c precipator. c. Assumed used i n s e r i e s unless you state otherwise. furnace capacity seemed to c a l l f o r an o v e r a l l factor of 1.4 pounds per ton, that i s the upper l i m i t of the range f o r secondary cleaners. (2) Basic Open Hearth: of the 61 per cent of t o t a l capacity about which r e p l i e s were received, 30 per cent had c o n t r o l devices which gave emissions of 0.2 pounds per ton of product. The remaining 31 per cent had no c o n t r o l and the appropriate emission f a c t o r f e l l s within the range 1.5-7.5-20.0 pounds per ton. Taking 7.5 pounds per ton and averaging t h i s wi.th the 0.2 pounds per ton gives an overal emission f a c t o r of 3.9 pounds per ton which i s assumed to be the average f o r a l l furnaces of t h i s type. (3) Oxygen Vessels: the 63 per cent of capacity about which r e p l i e s were received had controls which r e s u l t i n emissions o f 0.4 pounds per ton of product. This f a c t o r i s used fo r a l l oxygen vessels. (4) E l e c t r i c : no d e t a i l s are known about the e l e c t r i c furnaces. Duprey gives the following ranges of f a c t o r s : no c o n t r o l : 4.5-10.6-37.8 pounds per ton co n t r o l : 0.1-0.8 pounds per ton The lower l i m i t of the range f o r uncontrolled furnaces was selected f o r estimating the emissions from e l e c t r i c furnaces. Table 42 records the chosen emission f a c t o r s and the estimates o f p a r t i c u l a t e s produced by Canadian s t e e l m i l l s i n 1961. No data i s a v a i l a b l e about the extent of controls i n operation on secondary s t e e l furnaces i n Canada during 1961. Table 44 shows the estimated p a r t i c u l a t e emissions from secondary s t e e l furnaces on the assumption that the open hearth process was used f o r a l l secondary s t e e l production and that the extent of c o n t r o l was the same as f o r primary s t e e l productions g i v i n g an emission f a c t o r of 3.9 pounds per ton of secondary s t e e l produced. The estimate of i r o n and s t e e l scrap used i n s t e e l 134 furnaces during 1961 i s taken from Wittur E.lO.e) THE EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM PETROLEUM REFINING IN  CANADA, 1961 (DBS 10) 135 Robinson and Robbins give emission factors f o r various gaseous wastes emitted during the r e f i n i n g of crude petroleum. These emission f a c t o r s are recorded i n Table 45, which a l s o 136 includes data f o r the quantity of petroleum regined i n 1961 137 and the quantity of petroleum that underwent c a t a l y t i c cracking (This process i s a source of ammonia emission). The estimates o f airborne wastes from petroleum r e f i n e r i e s are also recorded i n Table 45. TABLE 44 PARTICULATE EMISSION FROM SECONDARY STEEL FURNACES IN CANADA, 1961 CONSUMPTION OF IRON AND STEEL SCRAP IN STEEL FURNACES (TONS) EMISSION FACTOR POUNDS PER TON . EMISSION (TONS) 3,183,557 3.9 6,208 Source: see text, p. 255. EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM PETROLEUM REFINING IN CANADA, 1961 • EMISSION FACTORS (TONS/105BBL) AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) REFINERY OPERATIONS QUANTITY (BBLS.) s o 2 HYDROCARBONS N02 TOTAL REACTIVE AMMONIA s o 2 NO"2 HYDROCARBONS TOTAL REACTIVE AMMONIA REFINED PETROLEUM 293,924,856 50.0 6.0 5.6 0.7 146,950 17,634 16,464 2,264 CATALYTIC CRACKING 97,974,952 — 0.7 — — 659 T O T A L — 146,950 17,634 • 16,464 2^ 264 659 Source: see text, p. 225. E.lO.f) THE EMISSION OF SULPHUR DIOXIDE FROM THE SMELTING CF METALS  IN CANADA, 1961 (DBS 8) Table 46 shows the estimates f o r sulphur dioxide emissions from copper, lead and zinc smelting. The quantities of smelted 138 metal are given by the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s and 139 the emission f a c t o r s are those given i n Robinson and Robbins E.lO.g) THE EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM KRAFT PULP MILLS IN  CANADA AND THE PROVINCES, 1961 (DBS 7) 140 The Dominion Bureau o f S t a t i s t i c s gives data for the t o t a l production of pulpwood by the Kraft process. The f i g u r e s given in.Table 47 f o r the P r o v i n c i a l production of pulp by the Kraft process were estimated by the number o f 'sulphate digesters* i n each Province as a proportion of the t o t a l 141 number of digesters i n Canada In order to make the estimates of airborne wastes that are recorded i n Table 47 some assumptions had to be made about the extent of emission c o n t r o l that were i n operation i n 1961. Duprey gives ranges of emission factors f o r the s i x main stages i n the Kraft process. The emission factors that are given i n Table 47 are the summation f o r each waste over a l l s i x processes. I t was f e l t that the range of each f a c t o r f o r the various processes was small enough to allow the median TABLE 46 EMISSION OF; SULPHUR DIOXIDE FROM THE METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY IN CANADA, 1961 M E T A L QUANTITY PRODUCED (TONS) EMISSION FACTOR TONS PER TON SULFUR DIOXIDE PRODUCED (TONS) Copper 434,008 2.0 868,016 Lead 230,435 0.5 115,218 Zinc 416,004 0.3 124,801 TOTAL 1,080,447 1,108,035 Source: see text, p.. 258. EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM KRAFT PULP MILLS IN CANADA AND PROVINCES,1961 EMISSION FACTORS (POUNDS PER TON) AIRBORNE WASTES (POUNDS) PROVINCE PULP PRODUCTION BY KRAFT PROCESS HYDROGEN SULFIDE METHYL MERCAPTAN DIMETHYL SULFIDE PART. HYDROGEN SULFIDE METHYL MERCAPTAN DIMETHYL SULFIDE PART. % IN PROV-INCE Quebec 809,100 6.2 8.14 5.5 188.7 5,016,420 6,586,074 4,450,050 152,677,170 30.0 Ontario 674,250 6.2 8.14 5.5 188.7 4,180,350 5,488,395 3,708,375 127,230,975 25.0 B r i t i s h Columbia 943,950 6.2 8.14 .5.5 188.7 5,852,490. 7,683,753 5,191,725 178,123,365 35.0 Others 269,700 6.2 8.14 5.5 188.7 1,672,140 2,195,358 1,483,335 50,892,390 10.0 CANADA 2,697,000 6.2 8.14 5.5 188.7 16,721,400 21,953,580 14,833,485 508,923,900 100.0 Source: see text, p. 258. value to be used i n the summation without i n v a l i d a t i n g the r e s u l t s so derived. E . l l . THE EMISSION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM MUNICIPAL DISPOSAL OF  REFUSE WASTES IN CANADA, 1961 (DBS IH) 143 144 Duprey and Robinson and Robbins both c i t e emission fa c t o r s f o r refuse i n c i n e r a t i o n . These f a c t o r s are recorded i n Table 48 which also includes emission factors f o r open burning from Duprey. I t w i l l be noted that the fa c t o r s f o r i n c i n e r a t i o n from the given references d i f f e r only f o r hydrocarbons, where the Robinson and Robbins fig u r e i s 330 times as large as the Duprey f i g u r e . Such a discrepancy can only be an erro r and i t w i l l be assumed i n t h i s study, that the erro r l i e s with Robinson and Robbins, p a r t i c u l a r l y since they took t h e i r f i g u r e from the document which 145 Duprey's work supercedes . The estimate of the proportion o f r e a c t i v e hydrocarbons to the t o t a l hydrocarbons given by Robinson and Robbins has been applied to Duprey !s emission f a c t o r f o r t o t a l hydrocarbons. a) Incineration: from the data given i n the section on s o l i d wastes i n Canada, 1961 (see page 267 ), i t i s possi b l e to estimate the quantity of refuse disposed of by municipal 145 i n c i n e r a t i o n and open burning. Muhich e t . a l . report tbe EMISSION FACTORS FOR MUNICIPAL REFUSE DISPOSAL: INCINCERATION AND OPEN BURNING METHOD OF DISPOSAL AND REFERENCE AMMONIA EMISSION FACTORS ALDEHYDES CO (POUNDS NO X PER TON) . (ACETIC) ORGANIC ACIDS SO X PARTICULATES HYDROCARBONS TOTAL REACTIVE INCINERATION: -Ref. Duprey 0.3 0.3 1.0 2.0 0.6 2.0 17.0 0.3 0.1 Ref. Robinson and Robbins 0.3 \ 2.0 100.0 30.0 OPEN BURNING: Ref. Duprey ==• 0.1 85.0 11.0 15.0 — 16.0 5.0 1.5 Source: see text, p. 261. average capacity of United States municipal i n c i n e r a t o r s i n 1966 to be 188 tons per day. This f i g u r e serves as an outside estimate of the capacity of Canadian i n c i n e r a t o r s since i t i s generally true that more modern in c i n e r a t o r s are l a r g e r than t h e i r predecessors. In 1960 there were 86 I 147 municipamncinerators i n operation i n Canada . This number probably holds f o r 1961 too since the a v a i l a b l e information suggests that no new i n c i n e r a t o r s were i n s t a l l e d u n t i l the l a t e ' s i x t i e s ' 1 4 8 . On the assumption that the Canadian E u n i c i p a l i n c i n e r a t o r s were operating to capacity throughout 1961 the maximum possible d i s p o s a l of refuse by t h i s method can be calcu l a t e d : 365 x 188 tons x 86 = 5,901,320 tons As reported i n the section on refuse, (pages 267-282) i t has been estimated that 10-15 per cent of the refuse disposed of i n 1961 was incinerated. Using a f i g u r e of 41bs/capita/day (see page 271) the t o t a l refuse c o l l e c t e d from the 1961 Canadian population of 18,238,000 was 13,313,740 tons. Even i f 15 per cent of the t o t a l refuse c o l l e c t e d was incinerated i t would amount to 1,997,055 tons which i s only one t h i r d of the quantity estimated above. These estimates can be r e c o n c i l e d i n various ways: (1) by r a i s i n g the estimate of per capita refuse c o l l e c t i o n (2) by r a i s i n g the estimate of the proportion of c o l l e c t e d refuse disposed of by i n c i n e r a t i o n (3) by assuming that the i n c i n e r a t o r s operated at l e s s than f u l l capacity (4) by assuming that Canadian municipal i n c i n e r a t o r s i n 1961 were smaller than United States municipal i n c i n e r a t o r s i n 1966. As the discussion i n the section on s o l i d wastes makes cl e a r no s u b s t a n t i a l grounds can be found f o r the f i r s t two p o s s i b i l i t i e s . The most l i k e l y r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of the estimates requires some combination of the assumptions mentioned i n (3) and (4). For the purposes of t h i s study i t w i l l be assumed that 1,997,055 tons of refuse were incinerated during 1961 i n municipal i n c i n e r a t o r s , the average capacity of which was 126 tons. This implies that the average operating r a t e of these i n c i n e r a t o r s was 50 per cent of t o t a l capacity, that is, 63 tons per day. I t i s these f i g u r e s which were used to estimate the airborne wastes from municipal i n c i n e r a t i o n of refuse, as recorded i n Table 49. b) Open Burning: having assumed above that 15 per cent o f the c o l l e c t e d refuse was incinerated i n Canada during 1961, i t ESTIMATES OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM MUNICIPAL REFUSE INCINERATION IN CANADA, 1961 METHOD OF DISPOSAL AMMONIA ALDEHYDES CO AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) NO ORGANIC ACID SO x x PARTICULATES ' HYDROCARBONS TOTAL REACTIVE •INCINERATION 300 300 999 1,998 600 999 16,983 500 166 OPEN BURNING 40% '. — ' 266 226,833 29,290 39,941 — 42,604 13,314 3,994 60% — 399 339,500 49.935 59,912 63,906 19,970 5,991 Sources: see text, pp. 261-264. follows that the remaining 85 per cent was disposed of v i a land f i l l i n g and/or open burning. ( I t i s assumed that the emission from burning refuse an c o n i c a l chambers are the same as those from open burning. The only d i f f e r e n c e between the methods i s i n the d i s p e r s a l of the wastes. In what follows the term open burning i s used to include both methods). Drawing on the data given i n the section on refuse, i t i s estimated that 75 per cent of the United States dump s i t e s i n 1968 and approximately 50 per cent of the dump s i t e s i n Toronto i n 1967 used some form of openburning. Taking Toronto as representative of the whole of Canada i n 1961 i t may be assumed that 4-0 per cent of the refuse c o l l e c t e d i n Canada, during 1961 was disposed of by open burning. This assumption leads to the estimates of airborne wastes from open burning that are recorded i n Table 49. (Table 49 also includes estimates f o r airborne wastes from open burning on the assumption that 60 per cent of the refuse c o l l e c t e d i n Canada during 1961 was disposed of by open burning), i t may be seen from Table 49 that although the data are based on the assumption that 15 per cent of a l l refuse was disposed of v i a i n c i n e r a t i o n and 40 per cent by open burning, t h i s l a t t e r method of di s p o s a l produced w e l l over 3 times as much o f several important airborme wastes as that produced by i n c i n e r a t i o n . This follows d i r e c t l y from the emission factors given i n Table 48 where i t i s evident that i n c i n e r a t i o n d r a s t i c a l l y reduces the output of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, organic acids and hydrocarbons. Pa r t i c u l a t e s are increased s l i g h t l y as compared with open burning, aldehydes are increased threefold, but remain i n s i g n i f i c a n t . No emission factors are recorded for sulphur oxides and ammonia i n the case of open burning but i n c i n e r a t i o n produces only very small amounts of these wastes so t h i s lack of information cannot be used to the c r e d i t of open burning as a method of refuse di s p o s a l . THE PRODUCTION AND DISPOSAL OF REFUSE IN CANADA, 1961 Refuse production and disposal i n Canada i s shrouded i n mystery. Most of the data that have been c o l l e c t e d f o r Canada i s contained i n two unpublished municipal reports: 149 150 one for Vancouver, 1958 , and the other for Toronto, 1967 Together with the more complete data for the United States these studies provide the sole sources of information on Canadian refuse production and di s p o s a l . F . l . REFUSE PRODUCTION Refuse production i s i n v a r i a b l y discussed in the context of refuse c o l l e c t i o n . Most of these discussions assume that refuse production i s about 4 pounds/capita/day. In Refuse C o l l e c t i o n Practice a figure of 4.5 pounds/capita/day i s given for refuse production i n the United States during 1965. This quantity i s reported to have grown since 1955 by 0.07 pounds/ capita/day, which gives for 1961 an annual figure for refuse production of 1,550 pounds/capita/year, based on a d a i l y output of 4.22 pounds/capita/day. 4.5 pounds/capita/day i s the 152 figure assumed by Kaiser in h i s work on refuse reduction processes. 153 Waste Management Control gives the same figure of 4.5 pounds capita/day for United States refuse production in 1965 though a figure of approximately 8 pounds/capita/day i s quoted from some studies in the San Francisco Bay area which catalogued a l l s o l i d wastes except a g r i c u l t u r a l wastes and materials d i r e c t l y salvaged. It i s further stated that the rate of increase i n per c a p i t a refuse production i s 2 per cent per year. When t h i s i s combined with the rate of growth of the United States population of about 2 per cent of an annual rate of growth for t o t a l refuse production of 4 per cent i s derived. The highest estimate of s o l i d waste production i n the United States i s the f i g u r e of 10 pounds/capita/day given i n 154 Cleaning Our Environment . This includes household, commercial and i n d u s t r i a l wastes but excludes junked v e h i c l e s . It i s somewhat higher than the 7 pounds/capita/day f o r 1968 155 c i t e d i n a study by Munich et. a l . . This study also gives f i g u r e s of 1.5 b i l l i o n tons of animal wastes per year and 1.1+ b i l l i o n tons of mineral wastes per year i n the United States. The Canadian data f o r refus^production i s sparse indeed. J . K a l l e r , a specialist i n s o l i d waste d i s p o s a l c u r r e n t l y employed by the Burnaby Municipal Council s a i d , i n conversation, that the rate of s o l i d waste production i n Canada during the s i x t i e s was approximately 4 pounds/capita/day. The MacLaren 156 report on refuse d i s p o s a l i n the M u n i c i p a l i t y of Toronto expected a l l types of refuse generation, except l i q u i d i n d u s t r i a l waste, to grow at a rate of l j per cent per year. Since nothing i s known about the growth o f l i q u i d i n d u s t r i a l wastes the MacLaren report assumed that these would remain unchanged i n the future* and i m p l i c i t l y , that they have not changed i n the recent past from the 1966 l e v e l s , as shown i n Table 50. Although the MacLaren report does not include an estimate of per c a p i t a refuse production, an a r t i c l e i n the Toronto 157 Globe and Mail commenting on the report says that Canadians TABLE 50 ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF LIQUID WASTE DISCHARGED IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO, 1966 QUANTITY TYPE OF WASTE (GALLONS) Inflammable Liquids 4,000,000 A c i d i c Wastes:-P i c k l e Liquor 3,041,000 ' Other A c i d i c Wastes 3,000,000 A l k a l i n e Wastes:-Carbide Lime 6,500,000 Other A l k a l i n e Wastes 1,156,000 Inert Solutions ; 600,000 Source: see text, p. 269. generate 4.5 pounds/capita/day of municipal and i n d u s t r i a l s o l i d waste. In addition to t h i s some 90,000 tons per year are s a i d to be produced and disposed of by apartment houses, schools and h o s p i t a l s . This r a i s e s the d a i l y per c a p i t a f i g u r e to 4.75 pounds. I t would seem then, that 4 pounds/capita/day i s a f a i r l y good, i f conservative estimate of s o l i d waste production i n Canada f o r 1961. More w i l l be learned about the accuracy of t h i s estimate i n the next section where the somewhat better data f o r refuse c o l l e c t i o n i s examined. F.2. REFUSE COLLECTION A survey of refuse c o l l e c t i o n i n the United States f o r 1965, some r e s u l t s of which are published i n Refuse C o l l e c t i o n 158 P r a c t i c e , included Vancouver i n i t s sample of North American c i t i e s . O v e r a l l , Vancouver c o l l e c t e d 3.8 pounds/capita/day of refuse compared with the median value f o r a l l the c i t i e s o f 3.9 pounds/capita/day. A breakdown of these f i g u r e s showed that whereas the median value f o r commercial and i n d u s t r i a l refuse was 2 pounds/capita/day, Vancouver c o l l e c t e d 2.6 pounds/ capita/day of commercial and i n d u s t r i a l refuse. In the case of r e s i d e n t i a l refuse, however, Vancouver c o l l e c t e d 1.2 pounds/ capita/day, some way below the median value of 2.0 pounds/ capita/day. On the basis of these figures i t i s tempting to i n f e r that, q u a n t i t a t i v e l y , there i s l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between Canadian and the United States refuse production and c o l l e c t i o n . One suspects, however, that the more productive economy of the United States i s more productive o f waste as well as 'wealth' and that Vancouver's r e l a t i v e l y high f i g u r e f o r commercial and i n d u s t r i a l refuse c o l l e c t i o n r e f l e c t s a more complete c o l l e c t i o n service rather than a higher output of t h i s type of refuse. Some support f o r t h i s speculation comes from the f a c t that i n 1958 Vancouver c o l l e c t e d only 2.2 pounds/capita/ 159 day of a l l refuse . In the United States however, the median value had already reached i t s 1965 l e v e l of 3.9 pounds/ capita/day, though only three years e a r l i e r the median value 160 was 2.3 pounds/capita/day By 1968 however, the next year f o r which data i s a v a i l a b l e , the average s o l i d waste c o l l e c t e d was 5.32 pounds/capita/day i n 161 the United States . I t would seem that the abrupt changes i n quantity c o l l e c t e d i s better explained by changes i n c o l l e c t i o n p r a c t i c e s , i n c l u d i n g the introduction of household garburators during the ' f i f t i e s 1,than by e r r a t i c growth i n refuse production. The MacLaren report presents data f o r s o l i d waste c o l l e c t i o n i n Metropolitan Toronto during 1966. Table 51 shows the rough composition of 4.5 pounds/capita/ year refuse from 1,883,250 residents of Toronto. The Municipal A u t h o r i t i e s c o l l e c t e d almost twice as much refuse as that c o l l e c t e d p r i v a t e l y . In addition to these c o l l e c t i o n services a considerable amount of 'other refuse' was c o l l e c t e d , more than h a l f of which was ash from power s t a t i o n s . The extent of c o l l e c t i o n services i n Canada i s not documented. IS 3 Once again the United States data must serve as a guide. In 1968 41 per cent of United States communities operated t h e i r own c o l l e c t i o n system. When weighted by population t h i s f i g u r e r i s e s to 66 per cent. The urban r u r a l breakdown i s such that 64 per cent of urban communities operated c o l l e c t i o n systems i n 1968 but t h i s was true only f o r 24 per cent of r u r a l communities. Population weights transform these f i g u r e s to 77.7 per cent and 22 per cent r e s p e c t i v e l y . O v e r a l l , then, 54 per cent of the United States population l i v e d i n communities that operated some type of c o l l e c t i o n s e r v i c e . Refuse can be c l a s s i f i e d by source and type. These c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are used i n Tables 52 and 53 r e s p e c t i v e l y . Table 164 52 i s taken d i r e c t l y from Muhich _ _ t . a l . but Table 53 has 165 been adapted from Kaiser to include comparable data f o r TABLE 51 ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF REFUSE COLLECTED IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO AREA, 1966 TYPE OF REFUSE QUANTITY COLLECTED (Tons). Municipally Collected Refuse 732,100 P r i v a t e l y Collected Refuse 386,900 Sub-Total 1,119,000 OTHER REFUSE Building Rubble, Waste Lumber . ' 48,000 Inert M a t e r i a l 100,000 Trees 38,000 Ash From Power Stations 288,000 Street Sweepings and Catch Basin Cleanings 50,000 Manure 2,000 Sub-Total 526,000 TOTAL QUANTITY OF REFUSE 1,645,000 Sources: see text, p. 273. TABLE 52 AVERAGE REFUSE COLLECTED POUNDS PER PERSON PER DAY U.S.A. 1968 SOURCE OF WASTE URBAN RURAL NATIONAL 0.72 1.14 0.11 0.38 2.60 2.63 0.37 0.59 0.02 0.18 0.03 , 0.09 -0.08 0.31 3.93 5.32 ' Household .1.26 Commercial 0 .46 Combined 2.63 I n d u s t r i a l 0.65 Demolition, Construction 0.23 Street and A l l e y 0.11 Miscellaneous 0.38 TOTALS 5.72 Source: see text, p. 273. TABLE 53 SAMPLE MUNICIPAL REFUSE COMPOSITION: U.S. EAST COAST, 1968,COMPARED WITH TORONTO, 1967 TYPE OF REFUSE . WEIGHT PER CENT U.S. TORONTO Combustibles Cardboard Newspaper Miscellaneous Paper Paper and Cardboard: P l a s t i c Film Leather, Molded P l a s t i c s , Rubber P l a s t i c : Garbage Food Wastes: Grass and D i r t Vegetation: T e x t i l e s : Wood: Miscellaneous Combustibles TOTAL COMBUSTIBLES Non-Combustibles Cans Metals - Ferrous Non-Ferrous M e t a l l i c s : Glass Miscellaneous Non-Combustibles Glass, Ceramics, Stones: TOTAL 7 14 25 46 2 2 4 12 12 10 10 3 1_ 0 82 10 100 39.5 2.6 32.4 6.5 1.5 1.1 1.1 84.7 5.5 0.3 0.1 5.9 8.0 1.4 9.4 100.0 Sources: see text, pp. 273-277. Toronto . Table 52 shows that although the proportion, by weight, of combustible and non-combustible refuse are very s i m i l a r f o r the United States East coast and Toronto, (82 per cent of t o t a l refuse i n the United States as compared with 84.7 per cent i n Toronto), the composition of these classes f o r the two regions has s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s , the most notable of which r e l a t e s to food wastes. The proportion of food wastes i n the t o t a l refuse c o l l e c t e d f o r Toronto approaches three times that f o r the United States East coast. This i s probably due to the more extensive use of garburators i n the United States though no evidence can be presented to v e r i f y t h i s notion. F.3. REFUSE DISPOSAL In common with a l l forms of waste d i s p o s a l , refuse d i s p o s a l i s not dis p o s a l at a l l . It i s bet t e r thought of as transformation from one p h y s i c a l form to another. The t r i c k i s to transform waste, i n t h i s case refuse, from something p o t e n t i a l l y harmful and/or unpleasant to something else that i s neither of these. The technology f o r doing t h i s i s well known but f a r from 167 w e l l practiced. Kaiser +ist3 the various forms of refuse reduction process: a) open burning at dump sites b) burning in conical metal chambers c) l a n d f i l l i n g , sanitary or otherwise d) composting, with sale of compost e) incinerator without heat recovery f) incinerator with heat recovery In 1960 there were 86 municipal incinerators in operation in 168 Canada . Only recently have additions been made to this number. J. Kaller, on request in conversation, estimated that incinerators accounted for 10 per cent of the refuse disposed of during the early 'sixties'. Few, i f any, of these incinerators were equipped with a i r pollution control equipment. The remaining 85-90 per cent of refuse was disposed of in 1961 by l a n d f i l l i n g and open burning at dump sites. It is not known what proportion of l a n d f i l l sites were sanitary though data for the United States may give some idea. 169 Muhich et.al. surveyed land disposal sites in the United States during 1968. Of 6,000 sites sampled: 14 per cent - daily cover used (though only 6 per cent of the sites werajclassif ied by the author as sanitary) 41 per cent - no cover at a l l 25 per cent - acceptable appearance 75 per cent - some form of open burning Furthermore, the Munich study found that approximately 8 per cent of s o l i d waste c o l l e c t e d i n the United States i s incinerated and 4 per cent i s consumed by hogs. The average c a p a c i t i e s of the various f a c i l i t i e s were reported as: in c i n e r a t o r - 188 tons per day tr a n s f e r s t a t i o n - 375 tons per day c o n i c a l burners - 41 tons per day hog feeding l o t - 4 tons per day 170 The Toronto Globe and Mail reports that i n 1967 Ontario's refuse d i s p o s a l s i t e s were: 27.8 per cent - sanitory l a n d f i l l 16.8 per cent - modified dumps 55.4 per cent - open dumps Most of the open dumps used open burning and only 3-5 per cent of the P r o v i n c i a l s i t e s had closed i n c i n e r a t o r s . A word of caution i s appropriate when considering sanitary l a n d f i l l . Forgetting f o r the moment the problem of d e f i n i n g the term so that i t i s unambiguous i t i s important to r e a l i s e that sanitary l a n d f i l l , however defined, i s no panacea f o r the refuse d i s p o s a l problem. No one r e a l l y knows how long i t takes f o r buried matter of a l l types to decompose. Likewise, i t i s not known how long i t takes f o r various wastes to t r a v e l through d i f f e r e n t types of s o i l . Also unknown are the e f f e c t s of the gases generated by buried garbage, f o r example, carbon monoxide and methane on ground waters. With t h i s l e v e l of ignorance i t would be foolhardy to regard sanitary l a n d f i l l as a completely safe means of refuse d i s p o s a l though i t s t i l l compares favourably with the other methods. More i s known about the chemistry of refuse i n c i n e r a t i o n 171 than that of l a n d f i l l i n g . Kaiser discusses a well designed and operated United States i n c i n e r a t o r . The products of i n c i n e r a t i o n that he presents which are reproduced i n Table 172 54- are c i t e d i n Cleaning Our Environment as t y p i c a l products of i n c i n e r a t i o n of municipal refuse. I t i s c e r t a i n l y not evident from reading Kaiser's paper that he regarded these r e s u l t s as representative of a l l United States municipal i n c i n e r a t o r s . Nevertheless, they are i n t e r e s t i n g i n that they include a l l the products of i n c i n e r a t i o n and not ju s t p a r t i c u l a t e s and the more noxious gases. In p a r t i c u l a r , as Kaiser points out, 2,000 pounds of refuse i s reduced to 488 pounds o f which 21 pounds or 4.3 per cent i s carbonaceous char and TABLE 54 PRODUCTS FROM A WELL DESIGNED INCINERATOR POUNDS PER TON P R O D U C T OF REFUSE Stack Gases Carbon Dioxide 1,738 S u l f u r Dioxide . • 1 Carbon Monoxide ' 1 0 O x y g e n 2,980 Nitrogen Oxides • ' 3 N i t r o g e n 14,557 TOTAL: Dry Gas 19,289 Water Vapor ' . • 1,400 TOTAL: 20,689 S o l i d s , Dry Basis Grate Residue 471 F l y Ash: C o l l e c t e d 17 Emitted 3 TOTAL: Pounds Per Ton of Refuse 21,180 Source: see text, p. 240. other combustibles. He estimates that putrescible matter is under 1 per cent of the residue. Note that unless the residue is reprocessed for further use, and this is technologically possible, i t must itself be disposed of via landfilling. 14-3 Duprey gives emission factors for domestic and industrial incinerators as well as municipal incinerators. Owing to the lack of data for domestic and industrial use of incinerators in Canada and the United States only the emission factors for municipal incineration can be used in the present study. Thse factors, together with those for open burning, are displayed in Table 48. Quantitative estimates of the airborne wastes from Canadian municipal refuse incinerators, which are possible using the data given in this section, are dealt with in a section devoted to that problem (see pages 261-267). Although there are 3 main types of incinerators; municipal, domestic and industrial, suitable data for estimating the emission from incineration exist only for municipal incinerators. Such estimates are recorded in section E . l l . above. 6 . A SUMMARY OF THE DATA The purpose of this section is to bring together a l l the data in the previous sections so that i t corresponds to the 16 industry classsifications of the recently published Canadian 173 input-output tables . Additionally, in preparation for subsequent sections of this work each of the industries and, where relevant, each of the 40 commodities w i l l be cla s s i f i e d Provincially. Table 55 records a l l of the estimates of waste products emanating from the 16 industries and from f i n a l demand. The data for each of the 16 industries are the aggregates of the data in the preceeding sections which were numbered so as to indicate to which of the 16 industries the particular section referred. Two complications must be noted. The wastes from marine services are entered separately i n Table 55 because i t was not possible to prorate the data between water transportation 174 and the fishing industry . Prorationing problems arose with respect to the 'commercial' act i v i t i e s (exclusive of commercial transport) for which data has been collected in this study (Table 25). In the 16 industry classification of the input-output model commercial services are performed by two industries, transport, storage and trade (industry 13) and communications and other services (industry 15). The problem was to find a way of estimating the relative consumption TOTAL WATER (MIL.GALS, FRESH WATER (MIL.GALS.) BRACKISH WATER (MIL.GALS.) GROSS WATER (MIL.SALS. WATER DISCHARGED )(MIL.GALS.) INDUSTRY GROUP AGR.tFORESTRY,FISHING 1 MINING(EXCLUDING COAL) 2 MIN.FUEL MINES £ WELLS 3 FOOD £ TOBACCO INDUST. 4 TEXTILE INDUSTRIES 5 WOOD £ FURNITURE IND. 6 PAPER £ ALLIED INDUST. 7 METAL INDUSTRIES 8 TRANSPORT £ ELEC.EQUIP 9 CHEM.RUBBER PETR.PROD. 10 OTHER MANUFACT., IND. 11 CONSTRUCTION IND. 12 TRANS.t STORAGEt TRADE 13 UTILITIES 14 COMM.£SERVICE INDUST. 15 DUMMY INDUSTRIES 16 MARINE SERVICES 17 45400 15700 14000 218200 211200 11000 226900 24700 40700 15500 11700 207500 190000 9300 142400 21300 4700 100 2200 16400 20100 1700 84500 3300 77600 33000 20100 651900 316800 30000 586200 41300 41000 14400 11500 210600 199000 10300 213800 21700 to C O -p FINAL DEMAND COAL 18 NATURAL GAS 19 PETROLEUM PRODUCTS 20 WATER TREATED ( M I L . G A L S . ) INDUSTRY GROUP AGR. ,FORESTRY,F ISHING MINING(EXCLUDING COAL) MIN.FUEL MINES £ WELLS FOOD £ TOBACCO INDUST. TEXTILE INDUSTRIES WOOD £ FURNITURE IND. PAPER £ ALLIED INDUST. METAL INDUSTRIES TRANSPORT & ELEC.EQUIP CHEM.RUBBER PETR.PROD. OTHER MANUFACT. IND. CONSTRUCTION IND. TRANS.,STORAGE,TRADE UT IL IT IES C0MM.6SERVICE INDUST. DUMMY INDUSTRIES MARINE SERVICES FINAL DEMAND COAL NATURAL GAS PETROLEUM PRODUCTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 8300 3700 3100 76500 52800 1200 42600 4200 B . O . D . (TONS) 7 123000 47350 279500 9000 31000 205000 19050 270423 SETT. AND NITROGEN PHOSPHOROUS SUSP. SOLIDS (TONS) (TONS) (TONS) 8 9 10 188500 5584 274 142500 3343 3299 91000 9862 17673 493 45500 41500 67 197185 52683 9447 FINAL DEMAND COAL 18 NATURAL GAS 19 PETROLEUM PRODUCTS 20 OIL AND GREASE (TONS) PHENOLS {TONS) INDUSTRY GROUP 11 12 AGR.,FORESTRY,FISHING 1 MINlNG<EXCLUDING COAL) 2 MIN.FUEL MINES £ WELLS 3 FOOD £ TOBACCO INDUST. 4 TEXTILE INDUSTRIES 5 WOOD & FURNITURE IND. 6 PAPER £ ALLIED INDUST. 7 METAL INDUSTRIES 8 TRANSPORT £ ELEC.EQUIP 9 CHEM.RUBBER PETR.PROD. 10 OTHER MANUFACT. IND. 11 CONSTRUCTION IND. 12 TRANS.,STORAGE,TRADE 13 UTILITIES 14 C O M M . £ S E R V I C E INDUST. 15 DUMMY INDUSTRIES 16 MARINE SERVICES 17 7445 9700 2 18934 20526 1786 2 GROSS REFRACTORY NITROGEN METALS ORGAN ICS 3XI0ES (TONS) (TONS) (TONS) 13 14 15 46163 7607 2531 17173 6231 2673 39562 30419 9835 5204 37484 18195 127402 108997 116292 9 4 7 5 28943 15339 6940 218404 INDUSTRY GROUP AGR. ,FORESTRY,F ISHING 1 MINING(EXCLUDING COAL) 2 MIN.FUEL MINES £ WELLS 3 FOOD £ TOBACCO INDUST. 4 TEXTILE INDUSTRIES 5 WOOD £ FURNITURE IND. 6 PAPER £ ALLIED INDUST. 7 METAL INDUSTRIES 8 TRANSPORT £ ELEC.EQUIP 9 CHEM.RUBBER PETR.PROD. 10 OTHER MANUFACT. IND. 11 CONSTRUCTION IND. 12 TRANS..STORAGE,TRADE 13 UT IL IT IES 14 COMM.£SERVICE INDUST. 15 DUMMY INDUSTRIES 16 MARINE SERVICES 17 FINAL DEMAND COAL 18 NATURAL GAS 19 PETROLEUM PRODUCTS 20 SULPHUR DIOXIDE (TONS) 16 39514 22196 2291 34545 16435 3285 104000 1181556 25686 228014 41108 85218 271929 32844 46359 109288 24 114097 SULPHUR TR I OXIDE (TONS) 17 512 184 5 223 98 26 486 384 81 98 180 613 252 284 619 1252 CARBON MONOXIDE (TONS) 18 601230 15750 9644 64515 3186 14932 7524 15414 9443 6501 22547 983625 228416 11367 4577 95867 24 3460918 PARTICULATES (TONS) 19 6369 17237 3663 40082 20273 3084 399956 110299 41950 79004 59469 101637 217469 31715 8183 ALDEHYDES (TONS) 20 1603 140 33 295 81 52 407 342 83 127 200 4960 907 273 1073 268428 1137 40821 10 10102 INDUSTRY GROUP AGR. ,FORESTRY,F ISHING MINING(EXCLUDING COAL) MIN.FUEL MINES £ WELLS FOOD £ TOBACCO INDUST. TEXTILE INDUSTRIES WOOD £ FURNITURE IND. PAPER £ ALLIED INDUST. METAL INDUSTRIES TRANSPORT £ ELEC.EQUIP CHEM.RUBBER PETR.PROD. OTHER MANUFACT. IND. CONSTRUCTION IND. TRANS.,STORAGE,TRADE UT IL IT IES COMM.£SERVICE INDUST. DUMMY INDUSTRIES MARINE SERVICES FINAL DEMAND COAL NATURAL GAS PETROLEUM PRODUCTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 AMMONIA (TONS) 21 1218 745 202 1471 635 222 4052 3071 961 2628 1771 2564 3353 1232 1472 3834 1197 1018 TOTAL HYDROCARBONS (TONS) 22 55854 1531 856 5977 462 1302 1831 2201 1120 17557 2 399 125395 14211 2944 9891 19173 318505 REACTIVE HYDROCARBONS (TONS) 23 24498 582 367 2462 124 549 312 602 370 2532 852 53638 4255 528 4267 OTHER ORGANICS (TONS) 24 1819 36 50 152 10 43 83 92 29 113 104 10086 40603 2161 HYDROGEN SULPHIDE (TONS) 25 8361 2876 138957 9151 INDUSTRY GROUP AGR. .FORESTRY,F ISHING MINING(EXCLUDING COAL) MIN.FUEL MINES £ WELLS FOOD £ TOBACCO INDUST. TEXTILE INDUSTRIES WOOD £ FURNITURE IND. PAPER £ ALLIED INDUST. METAL INDUSTRIES TRANSPORT £ ELEC.EQUIP CHEM.RUBBER PETR.PROD. OTHER MANUFACT. IND. CONSTRUCTION IND. TRANS.,STORAGE,TRADE UT IL IT IES COMM.£SERVICE INDUST. DUMMY INDUSTRIES MARINE SERVICES FINAL DEMAND COAL NATURAL GAS PETROLEUM PRODUCTS METHYL DIMETHYL FLUORIDE SULPHURIC SOLID LIQUID MERCAPTAN SULPHIDE ACID MIST AN.WASTE AN.WASTE (TONS) (TONS) (TDNS) (TONS) (TONS) (TONS) 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 122000000 46747000 2 3 4 5 6 7 10977 7417 8 2653 9 10 242 11 t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Sources: see t e x t , pp. 283-292. of commercial services by the storage and trade section of industry 13 and the communication and other services industry 15. With the use of data from the medium s i z e d version of 175 the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s input-output model i t was possible to estimate the consumption of services from u t i l i t i e s by the wholesale and r e t a i l trade. This f i g u r e of ' $94.6M f o r 1961 i s 2.07 times as large as the equivalent f i g u r e of $45.8M f o r the communication and services i n d u s t r i e s . On the assumption that these two in d u s t r i e s consume commercial servi c e s i n the same proportions as they do u t i l i t y s ervices the 2.07:1 r a t i o serves to -prov.a&e the data about waste products from commercial a c t i v i t i e s that appears i n Table 25. Table 55 then, includes wastes from commercial services prorationed between i n d u s t r i e s number 13 and 15 at a r a t i o of 2.07:1. (Wastes from commercial transport are, of course, included e n t i r e l y i n the wastes from the transportation i n d u s t r y ) . The 3 categories of f i n a l demand that are recorded i n Table 55 are domestic and Government f i n a l demand f o r c o a l , n atural gas and pertroleum products. The data f o r domestic f i n a l demand i s taken from Tables 24 and 35 and that f o r Government, incl u d i n g the P o l i c e and Armed Forces comes from Table 26. The estimates of waste products from these combined sources are summed to arrive at the figures that appear in Table 55. A casual inspection of Table 55 reveals that, even for the relatively few 'free* goods and waste products that appear in the Table, there are many omissions. This is partly due to the fact that not a l l industries and f i n a l demands included in the Table use each of the'free' goods and produce each of the waste products. For example, the f i n a l demand for coal and natural gas does not require the use of water, and the amount of water used to cool engines which run on gasoline is extremely small. Of course, some of the blank entries in Table 55 are due entirely to a lack of data, and the construction industry is a conspicuous example of this. However, rather than go through the omissions relating to each industry and f i n a l demands, which merely reflect the contents of the preceeding pages, i t i s more instructive to locate the most significant sources of wastes and users of 'free* goods for which data has been collected. By far the greatest users of water are the Chemical Rubber and Petroleum Products industry group, Paper and A l l i e d industries and the Metal Industries.Utilities, including as i t does sewage disposal, also produces a large amount of the various waterborne wastes, and is the sole recorded source of refractory organics. The sources of airborne wastes are not so easily assessed though i t i s correct to say that most of the airborne wastes are produced as a r e s u l t o f the combustion of petroleum products, p r i m a r i l y gasoline. Exceptions to t h i s include the very large production of sulphur oxides by the Metal industries-; the outputs of hydrogen sulphide, methyl mercaptan and dimethyl suphide produced s o l e l y by the Paper and A l l i e d i n d u s t r i e s ; f l o u r i d e produced by the Metal i n d u s t r i e s , and sulphuric a c i d mcst by the Chemical, Rubber and Petroleum Products industry. Since the data i n Table 55w&r.e used i n conjunction with some of the input - output models presented i n Chapter I I I , the .results o f which are described i n Chapter.V, furt h e r analysis of t h i s data can be postponed u n t i l i t i s discussed i n Chapter V, within the context of various economic ecologic models o f Canada. H. THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN CANADA, 1961 I f i t i s assumed that each industry's technology i s uniform throughout Canada then knowledge of the P r o v i n c i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n o f i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t y permits estimates to be made of the P r o v i n c i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of i n d u s t r i a l waste products. This s e c t i o n , then, i s concerned with estimating the P r o v i n c i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of each of the waste producing a c t i v i t i e s f o r which data have been c o l l e c t e d i n t h i s study. H. 1. A g r i c u l t u r e , Forestry, F i s h i n g and Trapping (DBS 1) 176 The Canada Yearbook gives f i g u r e s f o r the values o f outputs of each of the 4 i n d u s t r i e s that go to make up the f i r s t industry group, as c l a s s i f i e d i n the 16 industry input-output model. Table 56 shows the aggregated value o f the e n t i r e industry group, f o r each Province and a l s o the d i s t r i b u t i o n by per cent o f the industry group amongst the Provinces. ( I t should be noted that although the figures given i n Table 56 f o r the t o t a l values of output o f a g r i c u l t u r e and f o r e s t products correspond quite c l o s e l y to the equivalent f i g u r e s i n the input-output Table, the same i s not 177 true of the f i s h e r i e s and f u r industry. I t i s thought that these deviations w i l l be such as not to a f f e c t the estimation of the •regional d i s t r i b u t i o n of the i n d u s t r y ) . H. 2. Mines and Quarries Excluding Coal Mines (DBS 2) The Canada Yearbool^cfefines 3 types o f mineral products produced by t h i s industry group: m e t a l l i c s , non-metallics, and s t r u c t u r a l materials. Table 57 shows the a'ggregated value of out-put of a l l of these products c l a s s i f i e d by Province, together with the d i s t r i b u t i o n by per cent of t h i s industry group. (Once again, the correspondence between the value o f output of the industry given i n Table 57 corresponds rather poorly to the f i g u r e given i n 179 the input-output t a b l e s ) . H. 3. Mineral Fuel Mines,and Wells (DBS 3) Table 58 contains data showing the value of f u e l s produced 180 inCanada i n 1961. The table also shows the estimated d i s t r i b u t i o n of the industry amongst the Provinces. (The value o f output f o r PROVINCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING AND TRAPPING INDUSTRY GROUP, 1961 PROVINCE AGRICULTURE $ FOREST PRODUCTS $ ' FISHERIES $ TRAPPING $ TOTAL INDUSTRY GROUP (DBS 1) . (1,000 $) PER CENT OF TOTAL Newfoundland 25,961,000 33,119,000 472,510 59,552 1.5 Prince Edward Island 23,857,000 1,637,000 6,093,000 62,807 31,649 0.8 Nova Scotia 45,095,000 19,777,000 55,593,000 706,820 121,171 3.0 New Brunswick 42,227,000 44,097,000 26,386,000 213,343 112,923 2.8 Quebec 437,608,000 239,529,000 8,131,000 2,791,889 688,060 16.9 Ontario 890,065,000 148,434,000 6,464,000 7,508,789 1,052,471 25.9 Manitoba 243,599,000 6,264,000 6,214,000 4,679,199 260,756 16.4 Saskatchewan 600,212,000 6,580,000 3,166,000 2,674,861 612,633 15.1 Alberta 534,084,000 22,362,000 1,701,000 3,781,761 561,929 13.8 British Columbia 137,204,000 331,174,000 78,758,000 4,419,893 551,556 13.6 Yukon and N.W.T. 220,000 1,179,000 1,424,779 2,824 0.1 CANADA 2,953,951,000 846,035,000 222,879,000 28,737,087 4,055,524 100.0 ro -re-PROVINCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE MINES AND QUARRIES (EXCLUDING COAL MINES) INDUSTRY.GROUP, 1961 METAL MINES NON-METALLIC MINES STRUCTURAL TOTAL INDUSTRY PER CENT (Excluding Coal) MATERIALS . GROUP (D.B.S. 2) . OF TOTAL PROVINCE $ $ $ $ Newfoundland 88,883,928 2,457,555 5,277,226 91,618,709 4.7 Prince Edward Island — ' -•- 606,644 606,644 — Nova Scotia 10,233,59.4 9,753,455 19,977,049 1.0 New Brunswick — 1,379,335 9,738,355 11,117,690 0.6 Quebec 214,235,929 142,273,110 99,013,894 455,522,933 23.6 Ontario 780,784,843 23,630,405 130,093,420 934,508,668 48.4 Manitoba 73,217,673 2,067,454 16,048,660 91,333,787 4.7 Saskatchewan 75,143,941 5,481,120 10,336,272 90,961,333 4.7 Alberta 6,080 7,488,335 28,040,070 35,534,485 1.8 British Columbia 129,852,883 15,466,878 22,437,767 167,757,528 8.7 Yukon and N.W.T. 30,033,759 — ' — 30,033,759 1.6 CANADA 1,387,159,036 210,467,786 331,345,763 1,928,972,585 100.0 Sources.: see text, p. 293. TABLE 58 PROVINCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE MINERAL FUEL MINES , AND WELLS INDUSTRY GROUP, 1961 MINERAL FUEL MINES PER CENT . , AND WELLS OF TOTAL (D.B.S. 3) Newfoundland • ' — — Prince Edward Island — — Nova Scotia 41,716,107 6.4 New Brunswick 7,686,695 1.2 Quebec , — — Ontario 9,160,788 1.4 Manitoba 10,156,000 1.6 Saskatchewan 125,015,900 19.1 A l b e r t a 437,946,055 67.0 B r i t i s h Columbia '20,784,550 3.2 Yukon and N.W.T. T e r r i t o r i e s 861,707 0.1 CANADA 653,327,802 100.0 Source: see text, p. 293. mineral f u e l mines and wells that appear i n the input-output tables 181 i s l e s s than the fi g u r e taken from the Canada Yearbook. This suggests that the i n d u s t r i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n used i n the input-output model d i f f e r s somewhat from that used i n the Canada Year-book). H. 4. Manufacutring Industry (DBS 4-11) The Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s gives f a i r l y extensive data on the P r o v i n c i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of manufacturing i n d u s t r i e s . The data i n Table 59, which shows the sales vaule of various i n d u s t r i e s c l a s s i f i e d by Province i s taken mostly from the same s o u r c e ^ For some i n d u s t r i e s , however, such data are c o n f i d e n t i a l owing to the existence of (usually) 3 or l e s s firms from one industry i n a Province. Estimation o f some o f these confident .v?.l figures was p o s s i b l e when, f o r any industry, data f o r a l l but one Province were a v a i l a b l e . This was the case f o r : - tobaccr products; f u r n i t u r e and f i x t u r e f i t t i n g s ; paper and a l l i e d i n d u s t r i e s , and metal f a b r i c a t i n g except machinery,.all i n Prince Edward Island; c l o t h i n g and transportation equipment i n Newfoundland; and p r i n t i n g , publishing and a l l i e d i n d u s t r i e s i n the Yukon and Northvnst T e r r i t o r i e s . Some data which were c l a s s i f i e d as c o n f i d e n t i a l i n the primary source were f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e i n the Canada Yearbook of 184 1963-64. This includes data f o r the petroleum and c o a l i n d u s t r i e s of B r i t i s h Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and the e l e c t r i c a l PROVINCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF CANADIAN MANUFACTURING.INDUSTRIES, 1961 BY VALUE OF SALES ($) PROVINCE (a) FOOD & BEVERAGE INDUSTRIES (b) TOBACCO PRODUCTS (c) RUBBER INDUSTRIES (d) LEATHER INDUSTRIES (e) TEXTILE INDUSTRIES Newfoundland Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alber t a B r i t i s h Columbia Yukon and N.W.T. Total for which p r o v i n c i a l data i s a v a i l a b l e CANADA 40,440,349 23,254,660 123,821,865 132,668,630 1,302,242,856 2,034,875,886 291,080,140 173,687,054 •383,367,444 399,776,809 218,545 4,905,434,328 4,905,434,328 52,934. 193,459,191 141,471,111 334,983,236 334,983,236 n.a. 69,726,799 252,479,238 n. a. n.a. 690,152 322,896,189 331,134.713 n.a. n.a. n.a." 2,158,418 137,487,844 141,457,860 5,564,424 n.a. 1,144,579 2,135,212 n.a. n.a. 5,482,309 3,673,597 504,148,479 331,650,489 10,259,574 1,347,405 7,776,842 8,646,301 ro CO 289,948,337 291.068.523 872,984,996 875.287.700 (f) (g) (h) ( i ) (j) •PROVINCE ;.:KNITTING MILLS CLOTHING INDUSTRIES WOOD INDUSTRIES FURNITURE & PAPER & ALLIED FITTINGS INDUSTRIES Newfoundland n.a. 481,740 4,044,652 185,535 73,725,374 Prince Edward Island — " : —: • 787,998 134,054 68,414 Nova Sc o t i a 9,139,732 2,210,767 21,941,233 2,247,303 25,963,405 New Brunswick n .a. 703,709 30,493,702 735,542 113,578,682 Quebec 114,802,182 522,615,211 185,818,095 129,780,777 797,803,472 Ontario 90,125,132 197,107,808 177,379,694 174,258,352 787,841,748 Manitoba 1,348,484 50,069,574 9,865,131 21,210,485 39,039,648 Saskatchewan — 2,858,409 9,649,065 634,782 3,267,454 Al b e r t a 197,987 12,775,165 38,785,137 10,615,187 41,302,919 B r i t i s h Columbia 2,865,751 12,712,908 556,103,060 22,260,088 323,142,939 Yukon and N.W.T. — — — 475,851 — T o t a l f o r which p r o v i n c i a l data is a v a i l a b l e 218,479,274 801,535,491 1,035,343,618 362,062,105 2,205,734,055 CANADA 219,295,978 801,535,491 1,035.343,618 362,062,105 2.205.734.055 (k) (1) (m) (n) (o) PRINTING, PUBLISHG. PRIMARY METAL METAL FABRICATING MACHINERY.EXCEPT TRANSPORTATION PROVINCE & ALLIED INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES (except machinery) ' ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT Newfoundland 3,231,348 n.a. 2,414,196 ; n.a. 1,931,123 Prince Edward Island 1,230,441 n.a. 231,910 — 216,220 Nova Scotia 12,204,037 n.a. 18,938,799 2,120,916 26,829,054 i New Brunswick 8,025,110 n.a. 12,075,359 n.a. 19,890,385 O o Quebec 252,775,773 780,811,470 400,307,641 106,214,493 362,126,224 1 Ontario 455,058,523 1,624,729,132 864,992,249 485,330,297 1,414,269,695 Manitoba 39,176,722 71,192,218 43,585,895 15,400,590 - 54,133,253 Saskatchewan 13,164,937 37,066,622 11,769,238 2,194,783 204,350 Alberta 31,445,619 67,596,720 54,540,242 6,705,136 27,708,446 British Columbia 55,819,360 177,725,907 83,835,316 20,926,759 53,468,404 Yukon and N.W.T, 160,467 — — — — Total for which provincial data is available 872,292,337 2,759,122,069. 1,492,690,845 638,892,974 1,960,777,154 CANADA 872,292,337 2,806,483,778 1,492,690,845 639,739,426 1,960,777,154 (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) ELECTRICAL NON-METALLIC PETROLEUM & CHEMICALS & MISCELLANEOUS PROVINCE PRODUCTS PRODUCTS COAL PRODUCTS CHEMICAL PRODUCTS MANUFACTURERS Newfoundland n.a. 5,767,384 r . n.a. 507,173 Prince Edward Island — 298,299 fn.a. — Nova Sc o t i a n.a. 5,456,364 n.a. 5,856,655 1,141,673 New Brunswick 7,144,346 7,873,508 n.a. 5,334,107 3,765,258 Quebec 323,181,160 198,467,376 381,058,528 406,437,635 157,992,456 Ontario 830,790,452 324,616,852 386,442,003 861,064,367 381,388,665 Manitoba 13,295,917 27,253,444 49,662,267 17,614,307 10,115,146 Saskatchewan n.a. 12,467,537 70,116,290 2,287,400 1,116,500 Alber t a n.a. 60,587,743 108,631,340 59,458,981 5,946,468 B r i t i s h Columbia 17,419,196 32,224,249 112,638,455 71,861,311 12,839,255 Yukon and N.W.T. — — n.a. — — T o t a l f o r which p r o v i n c i a l data is a v a i l a b l e 1,184,686,725 675,012,816 1,108,548,883 1,429,914,763 574,812,594 CANADA 1.205,534,321 675,012,816 1,220,193,764 1,433,878,158 574,812,594 n.a. = not available products industry of New Brunswick. The data in Table 60 were derived by aggregating the data in Table 59 so that they correspond to the 16 industry c l a s s i f i -cations of the input-output model. Table 61 shows the Provincial distribution of the 8 manufacturing industries. Percentages for those Provinces for which data were confidential were estimated by allocating equally the unknown portion for each industry to the respective Provinces. (It was not thought necessary to employ a more sophisticated estimating procedure since the magnitude of the unknown part of any industry was no greater than the 2.3 per cent for transportation and electrical equipment. Furthermore, i t is most unlikely that the chosen estimation procedure f a i l s to detect a substantial concentration of an industry in a Province since the data is confidential precisely because the number of firms in an industry in any Province is 3 or less) . Table 61 shows that Ontario and Quebec dominate the other Provinces as centres of Canadian manufacturing industry. These two Provinces accounted, at the lower end of the scale, for nearly 50 per cent of the Wood and Furniture industry group right up to 93.1 per cent of the Textiles industry group. British Columbia is the only other Province that can claim such a large share of an industry, producing as i t did, in 1961, 41.4 per cent of the output of the Wood and Furniture industry. PROVINCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF CANADIAN MANUFACTURING SALES($) BY INDUSTRIES CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE INDUSTRIES IN THE D.B.S. INPUT-OUTPUT MODEL, 1961 a + b = d+e+f+g = h + i = j = 1+m+n = o + p = c+r+s •= h+g+t = D.B.S. 4 D.B.S. 5 D.B.S. 6 D.B.S. 7 D.B.S. 8 D.B.S. 9 D.B.S. 10 D.B.S. 11 FOOD. BEVERAGE WOOD & TRANS. & . CHEMICAL PROVINCE AND TOBACCO TEXTILES FURNITURE PAPER METAL ELECT. EQUIP. RUBBER & PET. OTHER NEWF. 40,440,439 n.a. 4,230,187 73,725,374 n.a. n.a. n.a. 9,505,905 P.. E.I. 23,307,594 n.a. 922,052 68,414 n.a. 216,220 n.a. 1,528,740 N.S. 123,821,865 n.a. 24,188,536 25,963,405 n.a. n.a. n.a. 18,802,074 N.B. 132,668,630 n.a. 31,229,244 113,578,682 n.a. 27,034,731 n.a. 19,663,876 QUE. 1,495,702,047 1,279,053,716 315,598,872 797,803,472 1,287,333,604 685,307,384 854,222,962 609,235,605 ONT. 2,176,346,997 760,341,289 351,638,046 787,841,748 2,975,051,678 2,245,060,147 1,499,985,608 1,161,064,040 MAN. 291,080,140 67,242,056 31,075,616 39,039,648 130,178,703 67,429,170 n.a. 76,545,312 SASK. 173,687,054 n.a. 10,283,847 3,267,454 51,030,643 n.a. 72,403,690 26,748,974 ALTA. 383,367,444 21,894,573 49,400,324 41,302,919 128,842,098 n.a. n.a. 97,979,830 B.C. 399,776,809 26,360,178 578,363,148 323,142,939 282,487,982 70,887,600 185,189,918 100,882,864 YUKON & N.W.T. 218,545 — 475,851 — — — . 160,467 Total for Which Prov. Data is Available 5,240,417,564 2,154,891,812 1,397,405,723 2,205,734,055 4,854,924,708 3,095,935,252 2,611,802,178. 2,122,117,687 CANADA 5,240,417.564 2,187,187,692 1,397,405,723 2,205.734,055 4.938,914,058 3.166.311.475 2.637 .181,347 2.122.117.687 n.a.: not available PROVINCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF CANADIAN MANUFACTURING SALES . AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CANADIAN MANUFACTURING SALES, 1961 D.B.S. 4 D.B.S. 5 D.B.S. 6 D.B.S. 7 D.B.S. 8 D.B.S. 9 D.B.S. 10 D.B.S. 11 FOOD & WOOD & PROVINCE TOBACCO TEXTILES FURNITURE PAPER METAL EQUIPMENT CHEM. & PET. OTHER NEWF. 0.8 0.3 0.3 3.3 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 P.E.I. 0.4 0.3 — — 0.4 — 0.2 • N.S. 2.4 0.3 1.7 1.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.9 o N.B. 2.5 0.3 2.2 5.2 0.4 0.9 0.2 0.9 i QUE. 28.5 • 58.5 22.6 36.2 26.1 21.6 32.4 28.7 ONT. . 41.5 34.8 25.2 35.7 60.2 70.9 56.9 54.7 MAN. 5.6 3.1 2.2 1.8 2.6 2.1 0.2 3.6 SASK. 3.3 0.3 0.7 0.1 1.0 0.6 2.7 1.3 ALT A. 7.3 1.0 3.5 1-9 2.6 0.6 0.2 4.6 B.C. 7.6 1.2 41.4 14.7 5.7 2.2 7.0 4.8 YUKON & ' — N.W.T. CANADA 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: see text, p. 302. H. 5. Other Industries (DBS 12-16) Unfortunately i t has not been possible to make any estimates of waste products from the construction industry. The P r o v i n c i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h i s industry has therefore been ignored. The trade and transport industry could not e a s i l y be disaggregated p r i m a r i l y because, as explained i n Section E.8, d i s t r i b u t i o n of wastes from the transportation industry had to be c a l c u l a t e d d i r e c t l y since no adequate d o l l a r measures of output e x i s t . In order to extend t h i s procedure to include the trade industry as w e l l i t was necessary f i r s t to estimate the P r o v i n c i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of the trade industry, then to c a l c u l a t e the associated waste products f o r each Province, add these r e s u l t s to the estimates f o r transportation i n Table 38, and then r e c a l c u l a t e the P r o v i n c i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of waste products by per cent from trade and transport combined. In order to estimate the P r o v i n c i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of the trade industry, the value of sales by r e t a i l stores i n each ' J.85 Province was used. This information was used to prorate that part of the wastes from commercial a c t i v i t i e s , recorded i n Table 25, 186 that were a t t r i b u t e d to the trade industry. Table 62 shows the summation o f the P r o v i n c i a l data f o r waste products from trade and from transportation and Table 63 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n by per cent of these waste products. Once again, Ontario and Quebec show themselves to be the centres of waste production, accounting PROVINCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF AIRBORNE WASTES FROM THE TRADE AND TRANSPORT INDUSTRY, 1961 AIRBORNE WASTES (TONS) HYDROCARBONS OTHER PROVINCE NOv SO„ SO. CO PART. ALDE. AMMONIA TOTAL' REACTIVE ORGANICS NEWF. 1,834 1,494 11 8,877 1,756 72 48 1,472 620 162 P.E.I. 352 374 3 3,514 394 12 13 375 159 18 N.S. 3,426 2,858 21 31,140 3,136 127 94 3,575 1,516 222 N.B. 4,187 2,860 18 26,216 3,840 167 83 3,808 1,634 378 QUE. 26,941 20,566 155 228,486 23,447 1,026 664 27,410 11,665 1,917 ONT. 47,110 32,328 237 373,324 38,040 1,826 1,010 46,812 20,004 3,640 MAN. 8,328 4,509 30 51,763 5,860 336 127 7,591 3,267 767 SASK. 7,730 4,196 29 61,177 5,268 304 122 7,797 3,361 642 ALTA. 14,299 7,388 48 111,904 9,422 568 210 14,390 6,213 1,211 B.C. 13,174 8,575 61 87,216 10,405 521 260 12,154 5,198 1,128 YUKON & N.W.T. 46 138 1 49 135 1 5 16 3 1 CANADA 127,427 85,286 614 983,666 101,703 4,960 2^636 125^400 53^640 10,086 Sources: see text, p. 305. PROVINCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF AIRBORNE WASTES, BY PER CENT, FROM THE TRADE AND TRANSPORT INDUSTRY, 1961 AIRBORNE WASTES (PER :CENT) HYDROCARBONS OTHER AVERAGE PROVINCE NO X so 2 so 3 CO PART. ALDE. AMMONIA TOTAL REACTIVE ORGANICS DISTRIBI NEWF. !-4 1.8 1.8 0.9 1.7 1.5 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.5 P.E.I. 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 N.S. 2.7 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.1 2.6 3.6 2.8 2.8 2.2 3.0 N.B. 3.3 3.4 2.9 2.7 3.8 3.4 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.7 3.2 QUE. :. .21.1 24.1 25.2 23.2 23.1 20.7 25.2 21.7 21.7 19.0 22.5 ONT. 37.0 37.9 38.6 37.9 37.4 36.8 38.3 37.3 37.3 36.1 37.5 MAN. 6.5 5.3 4.9 5-3 5.8 6.8 4.8 6.1 6.1 7.6 5.9 SASK. 6.1 4.9 4.7 6.2 5.2 6.1 4.6 6.3 6.3 6.4 5.7 ALTA. 11.2 8.7 7.8 11.4 9.3 11.5 8.0 11.6 11.6 12.0 10.3 B.C. 10.3 10.1 9.9 8.9 10.2 10.5 9.8 9.7 9.7 11.2 10.0 YUKON & N.W.T. — 0.2 0.2 — ... 0.2 •— 0.2 —— ——. —. 0.1 CANADA 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 f o r , on average, 37.5 per cent and 22.5 per cent of the t o t a l output o f wastes r e s p e c t i v e l y . The other Provinces follow i n the order of Western Provinces, remaining c e n t r a l Provinces, Eastern Provinces and l a s t l y the Yukon and Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of thermal e l e c t r i c i t y generation i s presented i n Table 22. The quantities o f wastes discharges v i a municipal sewer systems i s shown i n Table 9 and the: percentage d i s t r i -bution based on the data of Table 9 is shown i n Table 64. I t was not possible to estimate the d i s t r i b u t i o n of wastes from refuse d i s p o s a l , the only other u t i l i t y f o r which data about wastes were c o l l e c t e d . By comparing the d i s t r i b u t i o n of thermal e l e c t r i c i t y production and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of sewer wastes i t i s apparent that the technology of the u t i l i t y industry, which includes both o f these a c t i v i t i e s , cannot u s e f u l l y be assumed to be uniform throughout Canada. Al b e r t a , f o r example, produced 28.1 per cent of the t o t a l thermal e l e c t r i c i t y i n 1961, but only 4.8 per cent of the sewage wastes. (4.8. per cent i s the arithmetic average of Alberta's production of each type of waste as a percentage of the Canadian production of each type o f waste). In Chapter IV, use i s made of the P r o v i n c i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of industry as estimated i n t h i s section to estimate the P r o v i n c i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of waste production i n Canada. For that purpose alone i t i s assumed that the u t i l i t y industry i s d i s t r i b u t e d according to TABLE 64. PROVINCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF WATERBORNE WASTES, BY PER CENT, FROM THE MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEMS, 1961 WATERBORNE WASTES (PER CENT) BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND PROVINCE (BOD) NEWF. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. QUEBEC ONTARIO MANITOBA SASK. ALTA. B.C. ' YUKON & N.W.T. CANADA 2.1 0.5 5.0 3.2 39.1 23.0 7.5 3.7 5.0 11.0 NITROGEN PHOSPHORUS REFRACTORY ORGANICS (RO) CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD + RO) SETTLEABLE AND SUSPENDED SOLIDS 1.8 0.4 4.0 2.6 31.4 33.5 7.1 3.9 6.1 9.1 1.6 0.4 3.6 2.3 28.8 36.4 7.6 4.0 6.8 8;5 1.8 0.5 4.1 2.6 32.3 30.5 8.1 4.5 6.1 9.3 2.0 0.5 4.7 3.0 37.2 25.1 7.6 3.9 5.3 10.5 2.4 0.6 5.5 3.5 42.7 17.6 5.0 2.8 3.7 16.3 AVERAGE OIL & DISTRIBUTION GREASE FACTOR 3.1 0.7 7.1 4.5 54.4 14.2 0.8 0.5 14.6 2.1 0.5 4.9 3.1 38.0 25.8 6.1 3.4 4.8 11.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: see text, p. 308. the d i s t r i b u t i o n of thermal e l e c t r i c i t y production, even though t h i s gives very poor estimates of the waterborne wastes from u t i l i t i e s which, i n t h i s study, come e n t i r e l y from the Municipal sewer system. In a more disaggregated model, i n which sewage dispo s a l and e l e c t r i c i t y production could be entered as separate a c t i v i t i e s , the problems from aggregating such d i s s i m i l a r estimates would be avoided. The communications and service i n d u s t r i e s were prorated to Provinces according to the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the population i n 187 1961. This d i s t r i b u t i o n i s recorded i n Table 34. 6. FINAL DEMAND Section E above includes a discussion o f the f i n a l demand of households and Governments, f o r c o a l , n a t u r a l gas and petroleum products. Since no independent data e x i s t ? f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of these f i n a l demands by Province, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of population f o r 1961, recorded i n Table 34, i s used to describe the P r o v i n c i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the f i n a l demand f o r these commodities. This completes the presentation o f the data on 'free' goods and waste products used and produced i n Canada during 1961. Nearly a l l o f t h i s data i s used i n conjunction with some of the input-output models developed i n Chapter I I I . The r e s u l t s are presented i n the following Chapter. As f o r the unused data i t remains i n the present Chapter so that the estimates of the Canadian economy's links with the natural enviroment may be f u l l as possible. CHAPTER IV  FOOTNOTES 1. N. L. Nemerow, Theories and Practices of Industrial Waste Treatment, Addison-Wesley Series in the Engineering Sciences (Reading, Mass. Addison-Wesley, 1963), p. 277. 2. American Chemical Society. A Report by the Subcommittee on Environ-mental Improvement. Committee on Chemistry and Public Affairs. Cleaning Our Environment. The Chemical Basis For Action (American Chemical Society, Washington, D . C , 1969), p.167. 3. Dominion Bureau of Statistics Input-Output Research and Development Staff, The Input-Output Structure of the Canadian Economy, 1961, Vol. I. (Ottawa, August 1969). 4. Austin N. Heller and Donald F. Walters, 'Impact of Changing Patterns of Energy Use on Community Air Quality', Journal of the Air Pollution  Control Association, Vol. 15 (1965), pp. 423-429. 5. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Compilation of Air  Pollutant Emission Factors, by R. L. Duprey, Public Health Service Publication No. 999 - AP - 42. (Durham, North Carolina, 1968). 6. E. Robinson and R. C. Robbins, Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous  Atmospheric Pollutants. Final Report prepared for American Petroleum Institute. S.R.I. Project PR-6755. (Stanford Research Institute, February 1968). 7. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Atmospheric  Emission from Coal Combustion - An Inventory Guide, by Walter S. Smith, Public Health Service Publication No. 999 - AP 2 (1963). 8. See Robinson and Robbins, Gaseous Atmospheric Pollution for some estimates of the emission of airborne water from natural sources. 9. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1963 Census of  Manufactures, Vol. I. (Washington, D.C. 1966). Chapter 10. 10. Greeley and Hansen, Report on Refuse Disposal in Vancouver, Part 1., Summary and Recommendation. (Unpublished: 1958). 11. J. F. MacLaren Ltd., Report and Technical Discussion on Refuse Disposal  for the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, (Unpublished, May 1967). 12. Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Input-Output Structure. 13. Ibid, pp. 176-177. 14. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1963 Census of Manufactures, Chapter 10. 15. Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Input-Output Structure, pp. 176-177. 16. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1963 Census of Manufactures. Section 10. 17. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, St a t i s t i c a l  Abstract of the United States, 1965. (Washington, D.C. 1965). p.326. 18. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1963 Census of Manufactures, Chapter 10. 19. Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Input-Output Structure, pp. 262-267. 20. L. Rasminsky, Bank of Canada Annual Report, 1962. (Bank of Canada, Ottawa, 1963), p. 37. 21. U.S. Department of Commerce., Stat i s t i c a l Abstract. 1966, p. 351. 22. U.S.. Department of Commerce, 1963 Census of Manufactures. Section 10-19, Table 1. 23. American Chemical Society, Cleaning our Environment, p. 97. 24. 1.2 U.S. Gallon = 1 Imperial gallon. 25; Final Report on the Economic Evaluation of Watsr Quality ~-.o the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Department  of the Interior, Report No. 68-9, by the Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, (University of Berkeley, November 1969). 26. Final Report, Task 11-4, Determination of Present Water Use and Waste Loads, Kaiser Engineers Report to the California State Water Quality Control 3oard for the project San Francisco Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Programs, (15th December 1967). 27. Table 4 shows that 3,440 million pounds of B.O.D, were produced by the food products industry whose output was valued at $76,688 million. 28. Determination of Present Water Use and Waste Loads. 29. Economic Evaluation of Water Quality, p. 34 30. The data are taken from the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1963  Census of Manufactures. Chapter 10. 31. Economic Evaluation of Water Quality, p. 34 32. A l l of the data on ' a g r i c u l t u r a l ' water use in t h i s section comes from the p u b l i c a t i o n of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Water, by W.V. Morris (Ottawa). 33. Dominion Bueau of S t a t i s t i c s , Canada Yearbook, 1963-64-. (Ottawa, 1964), p. 31. 34. I b i d . , pp. 441-442. 35. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Water, p. 38. 36. Ibi d . 37. C a t t l e and sheep population data come from Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Report on Livestock Surveys: C a t t l e , Horses and Sheep, June 1st, 1962. Cat. No. 23-004, pp. 4-6. Hog population data comes from Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Report  on Livestock Surveys: Hogs, December 1st 1962, Cat. No. 23-005, p.2. Chicken population data comes from the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Report on Poultry Surveys of December 1st 1962. Cat. No. 23-006, p.2. 38. E. Kuiper, Water Resources Development (Butterworths, 1965). p.390. 39. J . W. Clark and W. Viessman Jnr., Water Supply and P o l l u t i o n Control, (International Textbook Company, 1965). p. 39. HO. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Canada Yearbook, 1963-64.(Ottawa, 1964),p. 590. 41. American Chemical Society, Cleaning our Environment, p. 96. 42. V. M. Ehlers and E. W. S t e e l , Municipal and Rural S a n i t a t i o n , 6th ed., McGraw-Hill Series on Sanitary Service and Water Resources Engineering (McGraw-Hill, 1965), p.104. 43. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Canada Yearbook, 1963-54, p. 158. 44. Ehlers and S t e e l , Municipal and Rural Sanitation, p. 104. 45. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Water, p. 28. 46. See page 130of the study. 47. Ehlers and S t e e l , Municipal and Rural S a n i t a t i o n , p. 104. 48. See, f o r example, Ehlers and S t e e l , Municipal and Rural Sanitation. Chapter 4. 49. Ibi d . 50. L. W. Weinberger, D. G. Stephan and F. M. Middleton, 'Solving Our Water Problems - Water Renovation and Reuse, 'Annals of the New  York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 136, A r t i c l e 5, ( J u l y , 1966). pp. 131-134. 51. 'Canadian Sewerage Works S t a t i s t i c s , 'Municipal U t i l i t i e s , Vol. 98. No. 2 (February, 1960), p. 6. 52. Ibid., Vol. 100. No. 12 (December, 1962). 53. Weinberger, Stephan and Middleton, 'Solving our Water Problems', p. 150. 54. T. W. Lesperance, 'Water Treatment Processes', Environmental Science  and Technology, Vol. 1. 1967. p. 790. 55. Weinberger, Stephan and Middleton, 'Solving our Water Problems', p. 150. 56. Lesperance, 'Water Treatment Processes', p. 790. 57. U.S. Department of the I n t e r i o r , The Cost of Clean Water: Vol.1. Summary Report. Federal Water P o l l u t i o n Control Administration. (Washington, D.C.: Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e . January 1968). p. 97. 58. Economic Evaluation of Water Q u a l i t y , p. 36. 59. Weinberger, Stephan and Middleton, 'Solving our Water Problems' 60. Morris i n Water, p. 28 gives the following data f o r the per capita use of water i n Canada's 5 largest c i t i e s , during 1965. The population data i s from the Canada Yearbook, f o r 1969: Water Use (gallon/person/day) Population, 1966 Ottawa: 100 290,741 Winnipeg: 80 257,005 Vancouver: 120 410,375 Montreal: 120 1,222,255 Toronto: 175 664,584 By weighting the water use figures with the population data, the average water use i s c a l c u l a t e d as 140 gallons/person/day. 61. American Chemical Society, Cleaning our Environment, p. 143. 62. Professor William Rees in a lecture given to the Society for the New Political Economy at the University of British Columbia. (March 1970). 63. Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The General Review of Manufacturing  Industries of Canada , 1963, Cat. No. 31-201, pp. 106-107. 64. Duprey, Emission Factors, pp. 4-5. 65. Ibid. , p. 6. 66. Robinson and Robbins, Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants, p. 71. 67. Duprey, Emission Factors, p. 50 68. Robinson and Bobbins, Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants, p. 99. 69. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics 1 classification of refined petroleum products. Dominion Bureau of Statistics.., Refined Petroleum Products, 1963, Cat. No. 45-204. pp. 6-7, includes residual fuel o i l in the larger category of heavy fuel o i l . Throughout the present study i t is assumed that heavy fuel o i l and residual fuel o i l are synonymous, the same being true of distillate fuel o i l and light fuel o i l . 70. Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Refined Petroleum Products, Vol. II^ 1963. Cat. No. 45-208, pp. 17-18. 71. Ibid. 72. Heller and Walters, 'Community Air Quality', p. 427. 73. Robinson and Robbins. Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants, p. 71 74. Ibid, p. 71. 75. Duprey. Emission Factors, pp. 4-5. 76. U.S. Deaprtment of Health, Education and Welfare, Atmospheric  Emissions from Coal Combusion - An Inventory Guide, by W. S. Smith and C. W. Gruber. Public Health Service Publication No. 999 - AP- 24. (Cincinnati, 1966). p.11. 77. This is the average of the range for bituminous coal used in the U.S. ibid, p. 14. - m -78. Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Manufacturing Industries of Canada 1961, pp. 107-110. 79. World Forest Product Statistics 1954-1963, (F.A.O.Rome, 1965), p. 343. 80. Dominion Bureau of Statistics, The General Review of the Mineral  Industries, 1961. Cat. No. 26-201. Table 34. pp. A-32-A-35. 81. Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Canada Yearbook 1963-64. (The Queen's Printer, 1964). p. 590. 82. The data comes from Ibid . 83. Ibid, p. 591 . 84. Ibid, p. 590. 85. Duprey, Emission Factors, p.6. 86. Robinson and Robbins, Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants, p. 71. 87. Duprey, Emission Factors, p. 7. 88. H e l l e r and Walters, 'Community A i r Quality', p. 427, 89. Robinson and Robbins, Gaseous Atmospheric P o l l u t a n t s , p. 71. 90. I b i d , p. 99. 91. Duprey, Emission Factors, p. 50. 92. Robinson and Robbins, Gaseous Atmospheric P o l l u t a n t s , p. 79. 93. Duprey, Emission Factors, p. 52. 94. Robinson and Robbins, Gaseous Atmospheric P o l l u t a n t s , p. 99. 95. Ibid , p. 71. 96. Duprey, Emission Factors, pp. 4-5. 97. H e l l e r and Walters, 'Community A i r Qualit y ' , p. 427. 98. This i s the average of the range f o r bituminous c o a l used i n the United States. See Smith and Gruber, Atmospheric Emissions from  Coal Combustion, p. 14. 99. Dorr.-.nion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Crr.de Petroleum and Nature L Gas Industry 1961. Cat. No. 26-213, Table 22, p. 1-13. 100. Consumption of Petroleum Products, 1963. Cat. No. 45-206. p.3. 101. Energy Supply and Demand Balances 1955-1967. National Energy Board (Ottawa, 1968). Appendix C. p.4. 102. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Refined Petroleum Products, Vol. I I , 1963, Table 9, p. 18. 103. Energy Supply and Demand Balances. 104. Ibid. Appendix B., p. 14. 105. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Refined Petroleum Products, V o l t - I I . 1963, p.10. 106. ' Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Refined Petroleum Products, V ol. I I . 107. Ibi d . Table 9, p. 18. 108. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Canada Yearbook 1963-64, p. 790. 109. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . The Motor Vehicle, part I I : Motive Fuel Sales 1961. Cat. No. 53-218 • 110. I b i d . 111. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Motor Transport T r a f f i c , Canada  1961. Cat. No. 53-207. p.11. 112. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Urban T r a n s i t , 1961. Cat. No. 53-216 Table 6, p.12. 113. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Urban T r a n s i t , 1961, Cat. No. 53-216, p.8. 114. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Passenger Bus S t a t i s t i c s 1961, Cat. No. 53-215. p.5. 115. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Passenger Bus S t a t i s t i c s , 1961, Cat. No. 53-215, Table 2, page. 8. 116. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Railway Transport: Part I I I , 1961. Cat. No. 52-209, Table 8, p. 13. 117. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s Refined Petroleum Products V o l. II 1963. To make use of the data from t h i s source i t was necessary to assume that Railways accounted f o r the same proportion of t o t a l f u e l use i n 1961 and 1963. 118. Figures f o r the P r o v i n c i a l consumption of d i e s e l f u e l by railways are given i n D.B.S. Cat. No. 52-209. Table 8, p. 13. Railway Transport Part I I I , 1961 119. Ibi d . Table 2, pp. 8-9. 120. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Refined Petroleum Products, 1961 Table 3, pp. 152-161, and 1963 Table 3, pp. 150-159. 121. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Refined Petroleum Products, Vol. I I , 1963. 122. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Refined Petroleum Products, Vol I I , 1963, pp. 17-18. 123. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Refined Petroleum Products, Cat. No. 45-204. 124. Duprey, Emission Factors. 125. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Manufacturers of I n d u s t r i a l  Chemicals 1961, Cat. No. 46-219. Table 9, p. 12. 126. Duprey, Emission Factors, pp. 17-18. 127. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Products Shipped by Canadian  Manufacturers, 1961. Cat. No. 31-211, p.4. 128. Duprey, Emission Factors, p. 13. 129. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Smelting and Refining, 1962. Cat. No. 41-214. Table 16, p. 1-11. 130. Duprey, Emission Factors, pp. 23-24. 131. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Primary Iron and S t e e l  i n Canada, by G. E. Wittur. Mineral Information B u l l e t i n , MR 92., pp. 105, 25. 132. Duprey, Emission Factors, p. 27. 133. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Iron and Steel M i l l s , 1961, Cat. No. 4-1-203. Table 10, p. 14. 134. Wittur. Primary Iron and S t e e l i n Canada. 135. Robinson and Robbins. Gaseous Atmospheric P o l l u t a n t s . 136. Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Petroleum  Refineries i n Canada. Ottawa, January 1962, p.3. 137. Ibid, pp. 23-25. The t o t a l crude capacity of Canadian r e f i n e r i e s i n 1961 was 961,760 Bbls. per day. C a t a l y t i c capacity accounted f o r 300,290 Bbls. The extent of c a t a l y t i c cracking operations,as recorded in Table 45, was estimated on the assumption that the proportion of c a t a l y t i c capacity u t i l i z e d i n 1961 was the same as the proportion of t o t a l capacity u t i l i z e d i n that year. 138. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Smelting and Refining, pp. c-9, c-10. 139. Robinson and Robbins. Gaseous Atmospheric P o l l u t a n t s , p. 16. 140. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Pulp and Paper M i l l s , 1961. Cat. No. 36-204. Table 6A, p. 15. 149. Greeley and Hansen. Report on Refuse Disposal in Vancouver. 150i MacLaren Ltd. Report on Refuse Disposal in Toronto. 151. American Public Works Association, Committee on Solid Wastes. Refuse Collection Practice 3rd. ed., (Chicago, Public Administration Service, 1966). p. 25. 152. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 'Refuse Reduction Processes' by E.R. Kaiser. Proceedings of the  Surgeon General's Conference on Solid Waste Management for  Metropolitan Washington. P.H.S. no. 1729 (July 1966). 153. National Academy of Sciences - National Research Committee. Waste Management and Control. National Academy of Sciences -National Research Council Publication No. 1400 (1966), Washington, D.C. pp. 13-14. 154. American Chamical Society, Cleaning our Environment. p. 166. 155. Muhich, Klee and Britton, National Survey of Community Solid  Waste Production. 156. MacLaren Ltd. Report on Refuse Disposal in Toronto. m i . Ib i d . Table 5, p. 15 142. Duprey, Emission Factors, p. 44. 143. I b i d . , p. 10. 144. Robinson and Robbins, Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants 145. This view i s supported by Mr. Arthur Smolensky who i s cu r r e n t l y a Doctoral candidate i n Chemistry at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. 146. A. J . .Muhich, A. J . Klee and P. U. B r i t t o n , Preliminary Data  Anal y s i s , 1968, National Survey o f Community S o l i d Waste Production, J P.H.S. No. 1867. (Washington, 1968). 147. 'Refuse Incineration' Canadian Municipal U t i l i t i e s , V o l . 98. No.2. (February, 1960), p.6. 148. This i s the opinion of Mr. J . K a l l e r who i s a s p e c i a l i s t i n s o l i d waste d i s p o s a l methods, and i s currently employed by the Burnaby Municipal Council. 157. Toronto Globe and Ma i l , 'Man and h i s Garbage - A Special Report on a Growing C r i s i s ' , No. 11, 1967. p. 6. 158. A. W. P. A. Refuse C o l l e c t i o n P ractice pp. 29-30. 159. Greeley and Hansen. Report on Refuse Disposal i n Vancouver. 160. A. W. P. A. Municipal Refuse Disposal, p. 30. 161. Ibid. 162. MacLaren Ltd. Report on Refuse Disposal i n Toronto 163. Muhich, Klee and B r i t t o n , National Survey of Community Solid  Waste Production. 164. Muhich, Klee and B r i t t o n , National Survey of Community S o l i d  Wate Production. 165. Kaiser 'Refuse Reduction Processes', p. 94. 166. MacLaren L t d . , Report on Refuse Disposal i n Toronto. 167. Kaiser, 'Refuse Reduction Processes*. 168. 'Refuse Incinerators'. 169. Munich, Kles and B r i t t o n , National Survey of Community S o l i d  Waste Production 170. 'Man and His Garbage 1, Toronto Globe and M a i l , Nov. 11. 1967, p.8. 171. Kaiser, 'Refuse Reduction Processes' p. 197. 172. American Chemical Society. Cleaning our Environment p. 171. 173. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . The Input-Output Structure of  the Canadian Economy, 1961. The 16 in d u s t r i e s mentioned i n the text correspond to the most aggregated version of t h i s input-output model. 174. See s e c t i o n E«8' above . 175. Dominion Bureau o f S t a t i s t i c s , Input-Output Structure of the  Canadian Economy, 1961. Table 8. pp. 305-331-176. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s Canada Yearbook 1963-64. Sale of farm products, p. 445; value of a l l f o r e s t products, p. 511; value o f a l l f i s h e r i e s products. 177. Table 1 of the Input-Output Structure of the Canadian Economy, 1961 contains the following data: Commodity. To t a l Output ($million) Live animals 1108.3 Grain 468.6 Other a g r i c u l t u r a l produce 1236.5 To t a l a g r i c u l t u r a l produce 2813.4 Forestry products 838.1 Fis h and f u r 123.1 178. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Canada Yearbook 1963-64 pp. 562-564. 179. Table 1 of the Input-Output Structure of the Canadian Economy  1961, Contains the following data Commodity T o t a l Output ($million) M e t a l l i c ores and concentrates 1192.6 Non-metal minerals 275.7 To t a l industry output 1468.3 180. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s Canada Yearbook 1963-64, p. 564 181. Table 1 of the Input-Output Structure of the Canadian Economy, 1961 contains the following data: Commodity T o t a l Output ($million) Coal 68.5 O i l and Natural Gas 801.5 T o t a l Industry Output 870.0 182. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . General Review of the Manufacturing Industries of Canada, 1961. Cat. No. 31-201. 183. I b i d . 184. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Canada Yearbook, 1963-64. 185. Ibid, p. 847. 186. See Section £. above. 187. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Canada Yearbook 1963-64. p. 158. CHAPTER V SOME EXAMPLES OF THE USE OF ECOLOGIC INPUT-OUTPUT MODELS  INTRODUCTION In Chapter I I I a v a r i e t y of input-output models were established which can be used i n analysing some of the r e l a t i o n s between an economy and the nat u r a l environment which supports i t . The data requirements of each of these models vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y according to the degree of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of the model concerned. It w i l l be r e c a l l e d that some of the models allowed only f o r the material flows i n and out of the economic system. Other models took account of what happens to the outflow of wastes once they enter the environment and i t was further suggested that a properly dynamic model would recognise the temporal l i n k s between these outflows and subsequent inflows from the environment. It takes only the most casual acquaintance with the av a i l a b l e data to r e a l i s e that the models which include e x p l i c i t statements of e c o l o g i c a l processes can, at present, only serve as guides to the type of data that need to be c o l l e c t e d i f these models are to become operational. Owing to the obvious l i m i t a t i o n s imposed by the data presented i n Chaper IV i t i s possible with these data to do no more than examine the grossest r e l a t i o n s between the Canadian economy and the Canadian environment. This Chapter i s a summary of the r e s u l t s obtained from f i t t i n g t h i s data to two of the more simple economic-ecologic input-output models of Chapter III. The economic accounting data used for f i t t i n g the models comes primarily from the D.B.S. input-output study of Canada for the year 1961.''' The economic data is suitable for use in the basic D.B.S. model and the Rosenbluth input-output model, both of which were described in Chaper III, section E. The results that follow therefore, constitute a preliminary attempt to quantify some of the important relations between the Canadian economy and the natural environment of Canadians. B. THE D.B.S. MODEL AND THE CANADIAN ECONOMY Three main exercises were possible using the data of Table 45 and the different versions of the D.B.S. model. The f i r s t of these was to establish ecologic impact tables. These tables show the effect on the ecologic inputs and outputs of industry, of supplying one dollar's worth of each economic commodity to f i n a l demand. Secondly, by applying a set of shadow prices indicating the social evaluation of the ecologic commodities i t was possible to estimate the ecologic cost of supplying one dollar's worth of each commodity to f i n a l demand. The third exercise involved setting up a model which shows the regional distribution of each of the ecologic commodities produced and used in the course of indus-t r i a l operations. Each of these three ways of using the D.B.S. models w i l l now be examined in detail. B.l. ECOLOGIC IMPACT TABLES In Chapter III, section G.l. i t was explained how ecologic commodity inputs and outputs can be related to the f i n a l demand for economic commodities. Equation (56), reproduced below, expresses a relation between ecologic commodity outputs and one dollar of f i n a l demand, spent domestically, for each economic commodity: F = y {/I-UV7 _1U} 56 It w i l l be recalled that an element, f.. of the F matrix shows the output of the i * * 1 ecologic commodity associated with the supply of one dollar's worth of the j * * 1 economic commodity. th An element, Y J ^ J of the y matrix shows the quantity of the i ecologic commodity produced per dollar of marketed output of the "til j industry. The elements Yj^ were estimated for the Canadian economy using the 1961 ecologic data presented in Table 50 and the 2 economic data from the D.B.S. input-output accounts. The remaining part of equation (56), /I-UV/ "Hj ,is an expression for a matrix in t h which the i j element shows the direct and indirect impact on the th i domestic industry's marketed output of producing one dollar's t h worth of the j economic commodity. Such a matrix i s estimated in 3 the D.B.S. study. With a l l the necessary information available i t was possible to estimate the elements of the matrix F for the Canadian economy based upon 1961 data. This matrix F is recorded in the lower part of Table 65, (Rows 5-31, Columns 1-40). The upper part of Table 65 (Rows 1-4, Columns 1-40), corresponds to an equivalent impact table for ecologic commodity inputs which was estimated with the use of equation (57),the relevant data in Table 55, and the D.B.S. input-output accounts. Table 65 therefore, shows the impact on ecologic commodity inputs and outputs of one dollar of final demand spent domestically on each economic commodity. Thus, the first element of the twelfth column shows that to supply one dollar's worth of beverages to final demand, a total of 278.8 pounds of water is used directly and indirectly by industry. The second and third elements of the twelfth column show, respectively, that of this total water use, 235.3 pounds are fresh water and 43.6 pounds are brackish water. The eighteenth element of the twelfth column shows that 0.199 pounds of the gas, carbon monoxide are generated in the production of one dollar's worth of beverages. Owing to the highly aggregated data used in the derivation of Table 65 some of the figures appearing in the table are clearly in error. For example, the inclusion of agriculture and forestry in one industry group leads to the anomolous result that the estimated production of animal wastes generated by the supply of one dollar of live animals to final demand is the same as that estimated LIVE GRAIN ANIMALS 1 2 TOTAL WATER 1 1 3 3 . 1 2 5 3 9 6 7 1 3 3 . 2612000 FRESH WATER 2 9 8 . 1 5 3 1 5 2 5 9 8 . 2785187 BRACKISH WATER 3 3 5 . 1 1 9 5 3 7 4 3 5 . 1298370 GROSS WATER 4 3 1 5 . 2 1 8 5 0 5 9 3 1 5 . 4970703 WATER DISCHARGED 5 1 2 5 . 0 8 1 9 2 4 4 1 2 5 . 2074280 WATER TREATED 6 2 8 . 7 1 8 7 3 4 7 2 8 . 7513580 B . O . D . 7 0 . 0 3 2 9 0 5 6 0 . 0329636 SET. £ SUSP. SOLIDS 8 0 . 0 2 0 8 2 2 8 0 . 0209011 NITROGEN 9 0 . 0 0 2 2 8 5 5 0 . 0022882 PHOSPHOROUS 10 0 . 0 0 0 3 3 7 1 0 . 0003374 OIL AND GREASE 11 0 . 0 0 0 9 8 8 4 0 . 0009913 PHENOLS 12 0 . 0 0 0 3 1 9 9 0 . 0003207 GROSS METALS 13 0 . 0 0 0 3 7 5 1 0 . 0003751 REFRACTORY ORGANICS 14 0 . 0 0 3 1 4 0 9 0 . 0031417 NITROGEN OXIDES 15 0 . 0 3 6 3 2 9 9 0 . 0363271 SULPHUR DIOXIDE 16 0 . 0 7 4 9 9 2 7 0 . 0750165 SULPHUR TRIOXIDE 17 0 . 0 0 0 3 4 7 7 0 . 0003477 CARBON MONOXIDE 18 0 . 3 5 6 2 5 5 7 0 . 3561460 PARTICULATES 19 0 . 0 2 8 4 9 9 6 0 . 0285155 ALDEHYDES 20 0 . 0 0 1 1 3 2 1 0 . 0011318 AMMONIA 21 0 . 0 0 1 2 4 7 9 0 . 0012483 TOTAL HYDROCARBONS 22 0 . 0 3 5 2 1 6 4 0 . 0352051 REACTIVE HYDROCARBONS 23 0 . 0 1 4 9 9 1 4 0 . 0149864 OTHER ORGANICS 24 0 . 0 0 1 2 4 7 1 0 . 0012466 HYDROGEN SULPHIDE 25 0 . 0 0 0 1 1 7 3 0 . 0001176 METHYL MERCAPTAN 26 0 . 0 0 0 1 5 4 0 0 . 0001544 DIMETHYL SULPHIDE 27 0 . 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 . 0001043 FLUORIDE 28 0 . 0 0 0 0 5 4 1 0 . 0000542 SULPHURIC ACID MIST 29 0 .0000174 0 . 0000174 SOLID ANIMAL WASTE 30 6 6 . 7 3 9 1 8 1 5 6 6 . 7182007 LIQUID ANIMAL WASTE 31 2 5 . 5 7 2 5 7 0 8 2 5 . 5645294 FORESTRY OTHER AGRICUL-PRODUCTS TURAL PRODUCTS 4 5 FISH AND FUR 3 1 3 3 . 1 3 1 1 6 4 6 9 8 . 1 5 6 1 2 7 9 3 5 . 1 2 2 2 5 3 4 3 1 5 . 2 3 2 9 1 0 2 1 2 5 . 0 8 7 3 4 1 3 2 8 . 7 1 9 5 1 2 9 0 . 0 3 2 9 0 6 3 0 . 0 2 0 8 2 2 6 0 . 0 0 2 2 8 5 4 0 . 0 0 0 3 3 7 0 0 . 0 0 0 9 8 8 4 0 . 0 0 0 3 1 9 8 0 . 0 0 0 3 7 5 1 0 . 0 0 3 1 4 0 8 0 . 0 3 6 3 3 0 3 0 . 0 7 4 9 9 4 9 0 . 0 0 0 3 4 7 7 0 . 3 5 6 2 8 6 0 0 . 0 2 8 4 9 6 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 3 2 1 0 . 0 0 1 2 4 7 9 0 . 0 3 5 2 1 8 0 0 . 0 1 4 9 9 2 1 0 . 0 0 1 2 4 6 9 0 . 0 0 0 1 1 7 3 0 . 0 0 0 1 5 4 0 0 . 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 . 0 0 0 0 5 4 1 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 7 4 6 6 . 7 5 3 1 2 8 1 2 5 . 5 7 7 9 1 1 4 1 3 3 . 5 6 3 9 4 9 6 9 8 . 5 4 9 4 3 8 5 3 5 . 1 5 9 2 4 0 7 3 1 5 . 7 8 2 7 1 4 8 1 2 5 . 4 1 1 4 5 3 2 2 8 . 8 2 6 2 7 8 7 0 . 0 3 3 2 1 2 1 0 . 0 2 1 0 4 7 1 0 . 0 0 2 3 4 8 5 0 . 0 0 0 3 4 8 4 0 . 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 3 2 0 4 0 . 0 0 0 3 7 4 6 0 . 0 0 3 2 7 1 4 0 . 0 3 6 3 6 2 9 0 . 0 7 5 3 4 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 3 4 7 3 0 . 3 5 5 2 4 4 0 0 . 0 2 8 7 1 1 7 0 . 0 0 1 1 3 3 1 0 . 0 0 1 2 4 7 6 0 . 0 3 5 1 1 9 9 0 . 0 1 4 9 4 9 8 0 . 0 0 1 2 4 4 0 0 . 0 0 0 1 1 7 5 0 . 0 0 0 1 5 4 3 0 . 0 0 0 1 0 4 3 0 . 0 0 0 0 5 4 3 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 7 4 6 6 . 5 1 8 7 3 7 8 2 5 . 4 8 8 0 9 8 1 1 3 3 . 1 6 5 7 5 6 2 9 8 . 2 1 1 7 4 6 2 3 5 . 1 0 1 6 5 4 1 3 1 5 . 2 7 7 0 9 9 6 1 2 5 . U 8 0 5 7 3 2 8 . 7 3 3 9 3 2 5 0 . 0 3 2 9 3 8 1 0 . 0 2 0 8 7 6 7 0 . 0 0 2 2 8 7 6 0 . 0 0 0 3 3 7 4 0 . 0 0 0 9 9 0 4 0 . 0 0 0 3 2 0 7 0 . 0 0 0 3 7 4 7 0 . 0 0 3 1 4 2 2 0 . 0 3 6 3 2 3 8 0 . 0 7 4 9 8 8 8 0 . 0 0 0 3 4 7 4 0 . 3 5 5 8 9 7 1 0 . 0 2 8 5 4 3 2 0 . 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 0 . 0 0 1 2 4 7 7 0 . 0 3 5 1 9 3 5 0 . 0 1 4 9 8 1 2 0 . 0 0 1 2 4 8 4 0 . 0 0 0 1 1 7 7 0 . 0 0 0 1 5 4 5 0 . 0 0 0 1 0 4 4 0 . 0 0 0 0 5 4 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 7 4 6 6 . 5 9 5 7 4 8 9 2 5 . 5 1 7 6 0 8 6 METALLIC ORES NON-METALLIC COAL OIL AND 1 *4EATt FISH AND & CONCENTRATES MINERALS NATURAL GAS DAIRY PRODUCTS 6 7 8 9 10 TOTAL WATER I 156.0604095 99.6912079 70.7668457 73.0433197 261.6201172 FRESH WATER 2 128.6318665 77.2175598 55.8800049 57.4129639 218.7046051 BRACK ISH WATER 3 27.2979279 22.7180481 14.9562807 15.7047586 42.9959869 GROSS WATER 4 306.3627930 228.3302460 153.9886932 159.8267670 578.0244141 WATER DISCHARGED 5 147.0172729 93.7779999 66.5240326 68.6735992 243.7991791 WATER TREATED 6 37.1646576 22.9071503 16.3057861 16.7751770 60.2120819 B . O . D . 7 0.0285346 0.0291427 0.0224110 0.0228164 0.0891191 SET. & SUSP. SOLIDS B 0.0237557 0.0194695 0.0160603 0.0161689 0.0972915 NITROGEN 9 0.0038861 0.0031886 0.0029425 0.0029437 0.0049972 PHOSPHOROUS 10 0.0005461 0.0005374 0.0004743 0.0004748 0.0006527 OIL AND GREASE 11 0.0011361 0.0010992 0.0010303 0.0010301 0.0038202 PHENOLS 12 0.0002893 0.0003268 0.0001929 0.0001969 0.0011373 GROSS METALS 13 0.0002081 0.0002204 0.0001367 0.0001456 0.0003237 REFRACTORY ORGANICS 14 0.0057284 0.0055578 0.0050729 0.0050709 0.0041367 NITROGEN OXIDES 15 0.0224366 0.0215845 0.0155417 0.0158464 0.0329859 SULPHUR DIOXIDE 16 0.1580454 0.0392267 0.0577318 0.0587060 0.0957473 SULPHUR TRIOXIDE 17 0.0003273 0.0003235 0.0000772 0.0000823 0.0003009 CARBON MONOXIDE 18 0.0416584 0.0424592 0.0448254 0.0462465 0.2030419 PARTICULATES 19 0.0543549 0.0508969 0.0310310 0.0315659 0.0496585 ALDEHYDES 20 0.0004838 0.0004733 0.0003551 0.0003644 0.0008799 AMMONIA 21 0.0016115 0.0015352 0.0009202 0.0009338 0.0016460 TOTAL HYDROCARBONS 22 0.0052579 0.0053182 0.0052402 0.0054577 0.0217864 REACTIVE HYDROCARBONS 23 0.0019093 0.0019338 0.0020462 0.0021299 0.0090312 OTHER ORGANICS 24 0.0002210 0.0002165 0.0002882 0.0003028 0.0009614 HYDROGEN SULPHIDE 25 0.0001093 0.0001259 0.0000708 0.0000725 0.0004512 METHYL MERCAPTAN 26 0.0001435 0.0001653 0.0000930 0.0000951 0.0005924 DIMETHYL SULPHIDE 27 0.0000969 0.0001117 0.0000628 0.0000643 0.0004003 FLUORIDE 28 0.0002270 0.0000661 0.0000642 0.0000645 0.0000852 SULPHURIC ACID MIST 29 0.0000097 0.0000102 0.0000064 0.0000068 0.0000151 SOLID ANIMAL WASTE 30 0.6583018 0.7560490 1.1702147 I. 1722393 25.4209900 LIQUID ANIMAL WASTE 31 0.2522426 0.2896966 0.4483932 0.4491692 9.7406054 ALL OTHER FOODS 11 BEVERAGES 12 TOBACCO AND TOBACCO PROD. 13 LEATHER AND TEXTILE PROD. 14 CLOTHING 15 TOTAL WATER FRESH WATER BRACKISH WATER GROSS WATER 1 2 3 4 279 235 44. 614 .5710449 ,1905975 4236755 ,3361816 2 7 8 . 2 3 5 . 4 3 . 6 1 1 . 8598633 2940369 6047363 4523926 2 7 8 . 2 3 5 . 4 3 . 6 1 1 . 8666992 2999420 6055298 4665527 279. 238, 4 1 . 657. 5227051 6173096 3983307 8466797 2 6 8 . 230 . 3 8 . 6 2 5 . 5300293 6858521 1330261 9960938 WATER DISCHARGED 5 WATER TREATED 6 B . O . D . 7 SET. £ SUSP. SOLIDS 8 NITROGEN 9 PHOSPHOROUS 10 OIL AND GREASE 11 PHENOLS 12 GROSS METALS 13 REFRACTORY ORGANICS 14 NITROGEN OXIDES 15 SULPHUR DIOXIDE 16 SULPHUR TRIOXIOE 17 CARBON MONOXIDE 18 PARTICULATES 19 ALDEHYDES 20 AMMONIA 21 TOTAL HYDROCARBONS 22 REACTIVE HYDROCARBONS 23 OTHER ORGANICS 24 HYDROGEN SULPHIDE 25 METHYL MERCAPTAN 26 DIMETHYL SULPHIDE 27 FLUORIDE 28 SULPHURIC ACID MIST 29 SOLID ANIMAL WASTE 30 LIQUID ANIMAL WASTE 31 260 64, 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0. 0. 0 0, 0 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0 0, 27 10 ,3613281 ,4375458 ,0967567 ,1077872 ,0053507 ,0006887 ,0042099 ,0012319 0003216 .0042181 ,0327192 0992877 ,0003135 ,1993670 0503997 ,0008400 ,0017218 ,0208469 0086345 ,0008240 ,0004897 0006429 ,0004344 ,0000895 0000150 ,4868774 ,5321980 2 5 9 . 6 4 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 2 7 . 1 0 . 6525879 3913727 0970963 1088095 0053846 0006918 0042 511 0012419 0003094 0042183 0326517 0991718 0003144 1990091 0503641 0008378 0017241 0207466 0086026 0008166 0004938 0006482 0004380 0000899 0000144 5109711 5414295 2 5 9 . 6 4 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 2 7 . 1 0 . 6589355 3928986 0970990 1088130 0053847 0006919 0042513 0012419 0003094 0042184 0326517 0991731 0003144 1990082 0503643 0008378 0017241 0207463 0086024 0008166 0004938 0006483 0004380 0000899 0000144 5118866 5417786 261. 67. 0, 0. 0. 0. 0, 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0, 0. 0. 0. 0. 0, 0, 0, 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3. 1. 13