Environmental impact of machinery and equipment: a comparison between EXIOBASE, national environmentally extended input-output models, and ecoinvent

Liu, Yiwen and Jiang, Meng and Hertwich, Edgar G. (2025): Environmental impact of machinery and equipment: a comparison between EXIOBASE, national environmentally extended input-output models, and ecoinvent.

Abstract

Environmental impact assessments of machinery and equipment (ME) are constrained by process-based life cycle assessment (LCA) with limited system coverage, and by aggregated top-down models with reduced representativeness. Lack of knowledge about consistency across these approaches hampers understanding of ME impacts and policy-making. This study quantifies greenhouse gas (GHG) emission multipliers (cradle-to-gate emissions per unit production) of ME using data from process LCA (ecoinvent), national environmentally extended input-output (EEIO) models and a multi-regional EEIO model (EXIOBASE) for the United States, China, Japan, and South Korea, assessing variations, reliability and compatibility. While EXIOBASE (7 ME sectors) and national EEIO data (32-102 sectors) broadly align, national EEIO models differ more in production technologies, with deviations from 100-fold lower to 3.7-fold higher than EXIOBASE results. Ecoinvent offers broad ME product-level coverage (~390 sectors), especially for general and electrical ME, but with uneven representation and limited geographic differentiation. Its multipliers vary widely and often exceed EXIOBASE values, challenging the assumption that process-based LCA underestimates impacts due to truncation. Overall, our results reveal cross-model variation, confirm the relative reliability of EEIO data, point to limitations in ecoinvent, and underscore the need to link technical detail with global trade representation in ME modeling.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Machinery capital, Supply and use tables, Life cycle analysis, National accounts, carbon footprints, climate change mitigation
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D2 - Production and Organizations > D24 - Production ; Cost ; Capital ; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity ; Capacity; D - Microeconomics > D5 - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium > D57 - Input-Output Tables and Analysis; D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D62 - Externalities; F - International Economics > F1 - Trade > F18 - Trade and Environment; L - Industrial Organization > L6 - Industry Studies: Manufacturing > L61 - Metals and Metal Products ; Cement ; Glass ; Ceramics; L - Industrial Organization > L6 - Industry Studies: Manufacturing > L63 - Microelectronics ; Computers ; Communications Equipment; L - Industrial Organization > L6 - Industry Studies: Manufacturing > L64 - Other Machinery ; Business Equipment ; Armaments

References

(1) Hertwich, E. G. Increased Carbon Footprint of Materials Production Driven by Rise in Investments. Nat. Geosci. 2021, 14 (3), 151–155. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00690-8. (2) Jiang, M.; Wang, R.; Wood, R.; Rasul, K.; Zhu, B.; Hertwich, E. Material and Carbon Footprints of Machinery Capital. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57 (50), 21124–21135. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c06180. (3) Wen, B.; Jin, Q.; Huang, H.; Tandon, P.; Zhu, Y. Life Cycle Assessment of Quayside Crane: A Case Study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 148, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.146. (4) Pradel, M. Life Cycle Inventory Data of Agricultural Tractors. Data Brief 2023, 48, 109174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2023.109174. (5) Auer, J.; Meincke, A. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Electric Motors with Different Efficiency Classes: A Deep Dive into the Trade-Offs between the Life Cycle Stages in Ecodesign Context. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018, 23 (8), 1590–1608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1378-8. (6) Famiglietti, J.; Toppi, T.; Pistocchini, L.; Scoccia, R.; Motta, M. A Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment between a Condensing Boiler and a Gas Driven Absorption Heat Pump. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 762, 144392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144392. (7) Biswas, W. K.; Duong, V.; Frey, P.; Islam, M. N. A Comparison of Repaired, Remanufactured and New Compressors Used in Western Australian Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Terms of Global Warming. J. Remanufacturing 2013, 3 (1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/2210-4690-3-4. (8) Violante, A. C.; Donato, F.; Guidi, G.; Proposito, M. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of the Ground Source Heat Pump vs Air Source Heat Pump. Renew. Energy 2022, 188, 1029–1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.02.075. (9) Giraldi, A.; Delogu, M.; Del Pero, F.; Verdi, A.; Lombardozzi, L. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of a Centrifugal Compressor Impeller: Hybrid Technology Production versus Welding Production. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 2024, 09544054241245467. https://doi.org/10.1177/09544054241245467. (10) Vignali, G. Environmental Assessment of Domestic Boilers: A Comparison of Condensing and Traditional Technology Using Life Cycle Assessment Methodology. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2493–2508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.025. (11) Zhang, X.; Gerada, D.; Xu, Z.; Zhang, F.; Gerada, C. A Review of Carbon Emissions from Electrical Machine Materials. Electronics 2024, 13 (9), 1714. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13091714. (12) Hernandez, M.; Messagie, M.; Hegazy, O.; Marengo, L.; Winter, O.; Van Mierlo, J. Environmental Impact of Traction Electric Motors for Electric Vehicles Applications. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22 (1), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0973-9. (13) de Souza, D. F.; da Silva, P. P. F.; Sauer, I. L.; de Almeida, A. T.; Tatizawa, H. Life Cycle Assessment of Electric Motors - A Systematic Literature Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 456, 142366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142366. (14) Pérez-Martínez, M. M.; Carrillo, C.; Rodeiro-Iglesias, J.; Soto, B. Life Cycle Assessment of Repurposed Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment in Comparison with Original Equipment. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1637–1649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.03.017. (15) Arshad, F.; Lin, J.; Manurkar, N.; Fan, E.; Ahmad, A.; Tariq, M.-N.; Wu, F.; Chen, R.; Li, L. Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium-Ion Batteries: A Critical Review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 180, 106164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106164. (16) Porzio, J.; Scown, C. D. Life-Cycle Assessment Considerations for Batteries and Battery Materials. Adv. Energy Mater. 2021, 11 (33), 2100771. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202100771. (17) Lai, X.; Chen, Q.; Tang, X.; Zhou, Y.; Gao, F.; Guo, Y.; Bhagat, R.; Zheng, Y. Critical Review of Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium-Ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles: A Lifespan Perspective. eTransportation 2022, 12, 100169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etran.2022.100169. (18) Peters, J. F.; Baumann, M.; Zimmermann, B.; Braun, J.; Weil, M. The Environmental Impact of Li-Ion Batteries and the Role of Key Parameters – A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 67, 491–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.039. (19) da Silva Müller Teixeira, F.; de Carvalho Peres, A. C.; Gomes, T. S.; Visconte, L. L. Y.; Pacheco, E. B. A. V. A Review on the Applicability of Life Cycle Assessment to Evaluate the Technical and Environmental Properties of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. J. Polym. Environ. 2021, 29 (5), 1333–1349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-020-01966-7. (20) Clément, L.-P. P.-V. P.; Jacquemotte, Q. E. S.; Hilty, L. M. Sources of Variation in Life Cycle Assessments of Smartphones and Tablet Computers. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2020, 84, 106416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106416. (21) Subramanian, K.; Yung, W. K. C. Review of Life Cycle Assessment on Consumer Electronic Products: Developments and the Way Ahead. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 46 (18), 1441–1497. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2016.1245550. (22) Grimm, D.; Weiss, D.; Erek, K.; Zarnekow, R. Product Carbon Footprint and Life Cycle Assessment of ICT – Literature Review and State of the Art. In 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; 2014; pp 875–884. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.116. (23) Bieser, J. C. T.; Hintemann, R.; Hilty, L. M.; Beucker, S. A Review of Assessments of the Greenhouse Gas Footprint and Abatement Potential of Information and Communication Technology. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2023, 99, 107033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.107033. (24) Pirson, T.; Delhaye, T. P.; Pip, A. G.; Le Brun, G.; Raskin, J.-P.; Bol, D. The Environmental Footprint of IC Production: Review, Analysis, and Lessons From Historical Trends. IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manuf. 2023, 36 (1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSM.2022.3228311. (25) Pirson, T.; Delhaye, T.; Pip, A.; Le Brun, G.; Raskin, J.-P.; Bol, D. The Environmental Footprint of IC Production: Meta-Analysis and Historical Trends. In ESSDERC 2022 - IEEE 52nd European Solid-State Device Research Conference (ESSDERC); 2022; pp 352–355. https://doi.org/10.1109/ESSDERC55479.2022.9947198. (26) Cong, N.; Song, Y.; Zhang, M.; Wu, W. Life Cycle Assessment of Carbon Reduction Potential of EoL Wind Turbine Blades Disposal Scenarios in China. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2023, 100, 107072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107072. (27) Peng, S.; Li, T.; Dong, M.; Shi, J.; Zhang, H. Life Cycle Assessment of a Large-Scale Centrifugal Compressor: A Case Study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 139, 810–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.105. (28) Smoucha, E.; Fitzpatrick, K.; Buckingham, S.; Knox, O. Life Cycle Analysis of the Embodied Carbon Emissions from 14 Wind Turbines with Rated Powers between 50Kw and 3.4Mw. J. Fundam. Renew. Energy Appl. 2016, 6 (4), 1000211. https://doi.org/10.4172/2090-4541.1000211. (29) Lin, H.; Clavreul, J.; Jeandaux, C.; Crawley, J.; Butnar, I. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Heating Systems in the UK: Comparative Assessment of Hybrid Heat Pumps vs. Condensing Gas Boilers. Energy Build. 2021, 240, 110865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110865. (30) Koroneos, C. J.; Nanaki, E. A. Environmental Impact Assessment of a Ground Source Heat Pump System in Greece. Geothermics 2017, 65, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2016.08.005. (31) Shi, J.; Li, T.; Zhang, H.; Peng, S.; Liu, Z.; Jiang, Q. Energy Consummation and Environmental Emissions Assessment of a Refrigeration Compressor Based on Life Cycle Assessment Methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20 (7), 947–956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0896-5. (32) Liu, H.; Yu, S.; Wang, T.; Li, J.; Wang, Y. A Systematic Review on Sustainability Assessment of Internal Combustion Engines. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 451, 141996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141996. (33) Wernet, G.; Bauer, C.; Steubing, B.; Reinhard, J.; Moreno-Ruiz, E.; Weidema, B. The Ecoinvent Database Version 3 (Part I): Overview and Methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21 (9), 1218–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8. (34) Music, O.; Allwood, J. M. Connecting Environmental Systems Analysis to Manufacturing Technology: A Catalogue of the World’s Steel and Aluminium Components. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2025, 212, 107949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107949. (35) Hertwich, E. G.; Liu, Y.; Jiang, M. Critical Review of Climate and Resource Costs and Benefits of Machinery and Equipment. Engineering (under review). (36) Lenzen, M.; Treloar, G. J. Endogenising Capital - A Comparison of Two Methods. J. Appl. Input-Output Anal. 2004, 10, 1–11. (37) Södersten, C.-J.; Wood, R.; Hertwich, E. G. Endogenizing Capital in MRIO Models: The Implications for Consumption-Based Accounting. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52 (22), 13250–13259. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02791. (38) Miller, T. R.; Berrill, P.; Wolfram, P.; Wang, R.; Kim, Y.; Zheng, X.; Hertwich, E. G. Method for Endogenizing Capital in the United States Environmentally-Extended Input-Output Model. J. Ind. Ecol. 2019, 23 (6), 1410–1424. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12931. (39) Södersten, C.-J.; Wood, R.; Hertwich, E. G. Environmental Impacts of Capital Formation. J. Ind. Ecol. 2018, 22 (1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12532. (40) Chen, Z.-M.; Ohshita, S.; Lenzen, M.; Wiedmann, T.; Jiborn, M.; Chen, B.; Lester, L.; Guan, D.; Meng, J.; Xu, S.; Chen, G.; Zheng, X.; Xue, J.; Alsaedi, A.; Hayat, T.; Liu, Z. Consumption-Based Greenhouse Gas Emissions Accounting with Capital Stock Change Highlights Dynamics of Fast-Developing Countries. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9 (1), 3581. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05905-y. (41) Södersten, C.-J.; Wood, R.; Wiedmann, T. The Capital Load of Global Material Footprints. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 158, 104811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104811. (42) Wang, R.; Hertwich, E. G.; Fishman, T.; Deetman, S.; Behrens, P.; Chen, W.; de Koning, A.; Xu, M.; Matus, K.; Ward, H.; Tukker, A.; Zimmerman, J. B. The Legacy Environmental Footprints of Manufactured Capital. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2023, 120 (24), e2218828120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2218828120. (43) Timmer, M. P.; Dietzenbacher, E.; Los, B.; Stehrer, R.; de Vries, G. J. An Illustrated User Guide to the World Input–Output Database: The Case of Global Automotive Production. Rev. Int. Econ. 2015, 23 (3), 575–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/roie.12178. (44) IELAB. Global Resource Input Output Assessment (GLORIA) Database. https://ielab.info/labs/ielab-gloria. (45) Lenzen, M.; Geschke ,Arne; Abd Rahman ,Muhammad Daaniyall; Xiao ,Yanyan; Fry ,Jacob; Reyes ,Rachel; Dietzenbacher ,Erik; Inomata ,Satoshi; Kanemoto ,Keiichiro; Los ,Bart; Moran ,Daniel; Schulte in den Bäumen ,Hagen; Tukker ,Arnold; Walmsley ,Terrie; Wiedmann ,Thomas; Wood ,Richard; and Yamano, N. The Global MRIO Lab – Charting the World Economy. Econ. Syst. Res. 2017, 29 (2), 158–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2017.1301887. (46) Stadler, K.; Wood, R.; Bulavskaya, T.; Södersten, C.-J.; Simas, M.; Schmidt, S.; Usubiaga, A.; Acosta-Fernández, J.; Kuenen, J.; Bruckner, M.; Giljum, S.; Lutter, S.; Merciai, S.; Schmidt, J. H.; Theurl, M. C.; Plutzar, C.; Kastner, T.; Eisenmenger, N.; Erb, K.-H.; Koning, A.; Deck, C. E. C. A. E.; Rasul, K.; Hertwich, E.; Tukker, A. EXIOBASE 3, 2025. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14614930. (47) Su, B.; Huang, H. C.; Ang, B. W.; Zhou, P. Input–Output Analysis of CO2 Emissions Embodied in Trade: The Effects of Sector Aggregation. Energy Econ. 2010, 32 (1), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.07.010. (48) Lenzen, M. Aggregation Versus Disaggregation in Input–Output Analysis of the Environment. Econ. Syst. Res. 2011, 23 (1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2010.548793. (49) Majeau-Bettez, G.; Strømman, A. H.; Hertwich, E. G. Evaluation of Process- and Input–Output-Based Life Cycle Inventory Data with Regard to Truncation and Aggregation Issues. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45 (23), 10170–10177. https://doi.org/10.1021/es201308x. (50) National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS). Chinese input-output tables. https://data.stats.gov.cn/ifnormal.htm?u=/files/html/quickSearch/trcc/trcc01.html&h=740 (accessed 2025-05-07). (51) Tian, X.; Liu, Y.; Xu, M.; Liang, S.; Liu, Y. Chinese Environmentally Extended Input-Output Database for 2017 and 2018. Sci. Data 2021, 8, 256. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-01035-1. (52) Nansai, K. Embodied Energy and Emission Intensity Data for Japan Using Input-Output Tables (3EID); National Institute for Environmental Studies: Japan, 2019. https://www.cger.nies.go.jp/publications/report/d031/index.html (accessed 2025-01-31). (53) Yang, Y.; Park, Y.; Smith, T. M.; Kim, T.; Park, H.-S. High-Resolution Environmentally Extended Input–Output Model to Assess the Greenhouse Gas Impact of Electronics in South Korea. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56 (4), 2107–2114. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c05451. (54) Agez, M.; Wood, R.; Margni, M.; Strømman, A. H.; Samson, R.; Majeau-Bettez, G. Hybridization of Complete PLCA and MRIO Databases for a Comprehensive Product System Coverage. J. Ind. Ecol. 2020, 24 (4), 774–790. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12979. (55) Agez, M.; Muller, E.; Patouillard, L.; Södersten, C.-J. H.; Arvesen, A.; Margni, M.; Samson, R.; Majeau-Bettez, G. Correcting Remaining Truncations in Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment Database Compilation. J. Ind. Ecol. 2022, 26 (1), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13132. (56) Agez, M.; Majeau-Bettez, G.; Margni, M.; Strømman, A. H.; Samson, R. Lifting the Veil on the Correction of Double Counting Incidents in Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 2020, 24 (3), 517–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12945. (57) Castellani, V.; Beylot, A.; Sala, S. Environmental Impacts of Household Consumption in Europe: Comparing Process-Based LCA and Environmentally Extended Input-Output Analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 240, 117966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117966. (58) Beylot, A.; Corrado, S.; Sala, S. Environmental Impacts of European Trade: Interpreting Results of Process-Based LCA and Environmentally Extended Input–Output Analysis towards Hotspot Identification. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25 (12), 2432–2450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01649-z. (59) Steubing, B.; de Koning, A.; Merciai, S.; Tukker, A. How Do Carbon Footprints from LCA and EEIOA Databases Compare? A Comparison of Ecoinvent and EXIOBASE. J. Ind. Ecol. 2022, 26 (4), 1406–1422. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13271. (60) Eurostat. NACE Rev. 2 - Statistical Classification of Economic Activities. http://data.europa.eu/ux2/nace2.1/ (accessed 2024-05-05). (61) UNSD. UNSD — ISIC. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/classifications/Econ/isic (accessed 2024-09-19). (62) Annex II: Definitions, Units and Conventions. In Climate Change 2022 - Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC, Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2023; pp 1821–1840. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.021. (63) UNIDO. International Yearbook of Industrial Statistics 2024; 2024. https://stat.unido.org/publications/international-yearbook-industrial-statistics-2024 (accessed 2025-04-23). (64) Tukker, A.; de Koning, A.; Wood, R.; Moll, S.; Bouwmeester, M. C. Price Corrected Domestic Technology Assumption—A Method To Assess Pollution Embodied in Trade Using Primary Official Statistics Only. With a Case on CO2 Emissions Embodied in Imports to Europe. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47 (4), 1775–1783. https://doi.org/10.1021/es303217f. (65) Jiang, M.; Liu, L.; Behrens, P.; Wang, T.; Tang, Z.; Chen, D.; Yu, Y.; Ren, Z.; Zhu, S.; Tukker, A.; Zhu, B. Improving Subnational Input–Output Analyses Using Regional Trade Data: A Case-Study and Comparison. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54 (19), 12732–12741. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c04728. (66) Ingwersen, W. W.; Li, M.; Young, B.; Vendries, J.; Birney, C. USEEIO v2.0, The US Environmentally-Extended Input-Output Model v2.0. Sci. Data 2022, 9 (1), 194. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01293-7. (67) Nansai, K.; Fry, J.; Malik, A.; Takayanagi, W.; Kondo, N. Carbon Footprint of Japanese Health Care Services from 2011 to 2015. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 152, 104525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104525. (68) National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report of JAPAN, 2019; 2019. https://cger.nies.go.jp/publications/report/i144/en/ (accessed 2025-02-11). (69) Ritchie, H.; Rosado, P.; Roser, M. Breakdown of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions by sector. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector (accessed 2025-05-09). (70) Li, M.; Ingwersen, W. W.; Young, B.; Vendries, J.; Birney, C. Useeior: An Open-Source R Package for Building and Using US Environmentally-Extended Input–Output Models. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12 (9), 4469. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12094469. (71) Leontief, W. Environmental Repercussions and the Economic Structure: An Input-Output Approach. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1970, 52 (3), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.2307/1926294. (72) Miller, R. E.; Blair, P. D. Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions (Chapter 10), The second edition.; Cambridge University Press, 2009. (73) Wiedmann, T.; Lenzen, M.; Turner, K.; Barrett, J. Examining the Global Environmental Impact of Regional Consumption Activities — Part 2: Review of Input–Output Models for the Assessment of Environmental Impacts Embodied in Trade. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 61 (1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.12.003. (74) European Central Bank. Euro exchange rates charts - Chinese yuan renminbi (CNY). https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/policy_and_exchange_rates/euro_reference_exchange_rates/html/eurofxref-graph-cny.en.html (accessed 2025-02-05). (75) European Central Bank. Euro exchange rates charts - Japanese yen (JPY). https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/policy_and_exchange_rates/euro_reference_exchange_rates/html/eurofxref-graph-jpy.en.html (accessed 2025-02-05). (76) European Central Bank. Euro exchange rates charts - South Korean won (KRW). https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/policy_and_exchange_rates/euro_reference_exchange_rates/html/eurofxref-graph-krw.en.html (accessed 2025-02-05). (77) European Central Bank. Euro exchange rates charts - US dollar (USD). https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/policy_and_exchange_rates/euro_reference_exchange_rates/html/eurofxref-graph-usd.en.html (accessed 2025-02-05). (78) Eurostat. ECU/EUR Exchange Rates versus National Currencies, 2025. https://doi.org/10.2908/TEC00033. (79) Mutel, C. Brightway: An Open Source Framework for Life Cycle Assessment. J. Open Source Softw. 2017, 2 (12), 236. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00236. (80) United Nations. Statistical Yearbook 2019 Edition; 2019. https://unstats.un.org/UNSDWebsite/Publications/StatisticalYearbook/syb62.pdf. (81) Wei, C. Historical Trend and Drivers of China’s CO2 Emissions from 2000 to 2020. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02811-8. (82) Minnuogas. Best Affordable Farm Equipment Brands from China. Minnuo Agricultural Machinery. https://minnuoagro.com/best-affordable-farm-equipment-brands-from-china/ (accessed 2025-09-12). (83) Krausmann, F.; Wiedenhofer, D.; Lauk, C.; Haas, W.; Tanikawa, H.; Fishman, T.; Miatto, A.; Schandl, H.; Haberl, H. Global Socioeconomic Material Stocks Rise 23-Fold over the 20th Century and Require Half of Annual Resource Use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2017, 114 (8), 1880–1885. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1613773114. (84) Hertwich, E. G.; Gibon, T.; Bouman, E. A.; Arvesen, A.; Suh, S.; Heath, G. A.; Bergesen, J. D.; Ramirez, A.; Vega, M. I.; Shi, L. Integrated Life-Cycle Assessment of Electricity-Supply Scenarios Confirms Global Environmental Benefit of Low-Carbon Technologies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2015, 112 (20), 6277–6282. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312753111. (85) Ye, Q.; Hertwich, E. G.; Krol, M. S.; Font Vivanco, D.; Lounsbury, A. W.; Zheng, X.; Hoekstra, A. Y.; Wang, Y.; Wang, R. Linking the Environmental Pressures of China’s Capital Development to Global Final Consumption of the Past Decades and into the Future. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55 (9), 6421–6429. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c07263. (86) Rodrigues, J. F. D.; Moran, D.; Wood, R.; Behrens, P. Uncertainty of Consumption-Based Carbon Accounts. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52 (13), 7577–7586. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00632. (87) Tukker, A.; de Koning, A.; Owen, A.; Lutter, S.; Bruckner, M.; Giljum, S.; Stadler, K.; Wood, R.; Hoekstra, R. Towards Robust, Authoritative Assessments of Environmental Impacts Embodied in Trade: Current State and Recommendations. J. Ind. Ecol. 2018, 22 (3), 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12716. (88) Arvesen, A.; Birkeland, C.; Hertwich, E. G. The Importance of Ships and Spare Parts in LCAs of Offshore Wind Power. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47 (6), 2948–2956. https://doi.org/10.1021/es304509r. (89) Lenzen, M.; Dey, C. Truncation Error in Embodied Energy Analyses of Basic Iron and Steel Products. Energy 2000, 25 (6), 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(99)00088-2. (90) Font Vivanco, D. The Role of Services and Capital in Footprint Modelling. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25 (2), 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01687-7. (91) United Nations. UN Comtrade. https://comtradeplus.un.org/ (accessed 2025-03-07). (92) Statista. Statista - The Statistics Portal. Statista. https://www.statista.com/ (accessed 2025-03-07). (93) Jakobs, A.; Schulte, S.; Pauliuk, S. Price Variance in Hybrid-LCA Leads to Significant Uncertainty in Carbon Footprints. Front. Sustain. 2021, 2, 666209. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2021.666209. (94) Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Towards a circular economy: Business rationale for an accelerated transition. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/towards-a-circular-economy-business-rationale-for-an-accelerated-transition (accessed 2024-04-01). (95) Zheng, H.; Li, E.; Wang, Y.; Shi, P.; Xu, B.; Yang, S. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Remanufactured Engines with Advanced Restoring Technologies. Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 2019, 59, 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2019.04.005. (96) Chen, Q.; Lai, X.; Gu, H.; Tang, X.; Gao, F.; Han, X.; Zheng, Y. Investigating Carbon Footprint and Carbon Reduction Potential Using a Cradle-to-Cradle LCA Approach on Lithium-Ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 369, 133342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133342. (97) Bobba, S.; Mathieux, F.; Ardente, F.; Blengini, G. A.; Cusenza, M. A.; Podias, A.; Pfrang, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Repurposed Electric Vehicle Batteries: An Adapted Method Based on Modelling Energy Flows. J. Energy Storage 2018, 19, 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2018.07.008. (98) Kim, B.; Azzaro-Pantel, C.; Pietrzak-David, M.; Maussion, P. Life Cycle Assessment for a Solar Energy System Based on Reuse Components for Developing Countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 1459–1468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.169. (99) Alejandre, C.; Akizu-Gardoki, O.; Lizundia, E. Optimum Operational Lifespan of Household Appliances Considering Manufacturing and Use Stage Improvements via Life Cycle Assessment. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 32, 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.04.007. (100) Hischier, R.; Böni, H. W. Combining Environmental and Economic Factors to Evaluate the Reuse of Electrical and Electronic Equipment – a Swiss Case Study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 166, 105307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105307. (101) Bovea, M. D.; Ibáñez-Forés, V.; Pérez-Belis, V. Repair vs. Replacement: Selection of the Best End-of-Life Scenario for Small Household Electric and Electronic Equipment Based on Life Cycle Assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 2020, 254, 109679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109679. (102) Boldoczki, S.; Thorenz, A.; Tuma, A. The Environmental Impacts of Preparation for Reuse: A Case Study of WEEE Reuse in Germany. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119736. (103) Boldoczki, S.; Thorenz, A.; Tuma, A. Does Increased Circularity Lead to Environmental Sustainability?: The Case of Washing Machine Reuse in Germany. J. Ind. Ecol. 2021, 25 (4), 864–876. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13104. (104) Coughlan, D.; Fitzpatrick, C.; McMahon, M. Repurposing End of Life Notebook Computers from Consumer WEEE as Thin Client Computers – A Hybrid End of Life Strategy for the Circular Economy in Electronics. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 192, 809–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.029. (105) Fatimah, Y. A.; Biswas, W. K. Sustainability Assessment of Remanufactured Computers. Procedia CIRP 2016, 40, 150–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.087.