When Do Allocations and Constructs Respect Material,Energy, Financial,and Production Balances in LCA and EEIO?

Conservation of mass and energy are essential to physical accounting, just as price and market balances are essential to economic accounting. These principles guide data collection and inventory compilation in industrial ecology. The resulting balanced surveys, however, can rarely be used directly for life cycle assessment (LCA) or environmentally extended input‐output (EEIO) analysis; some modeling is necessary to recast coproductions by multifunctional activities as monofunctional unit processes (a.k.a. Leontief production functions or technical “recipes”). This modeling is done with allocations in LCA and constructs in input‐output. In this article, we ask how these models respect or perturb the balances of the original inventory. Which allocations or constructs, applied to what type of data set, have the potential to simultaneously respect its multiple physical, financial, and market balances? Our analysis builds upon the recent harmonization of allocations and constructs and the ongoing development of multilayered supply and use inventory tables. We derive the necessary and sufficient conditions for balanced models, investigate the role of data aggregation, and clarify these models' relation to system expansion. We find that none of the modeling families in LCA and EEIO are balanced in general, but special data characteristics can allow for the respect of multiple balances. An analysis of these special cases allows for clear guidance for data compilation and methods integration.     

45th Discussion forum on LCA—environmentally extended input–output analysis and LCA, September 15, 2011, Berne, Switzerland

The discussion forum on life cycle assessment (LCA) on September 15, 2011, aimed at summarizing recent environmentally extended input?Coutput analysis (EE-IOA) and the combination with LCA for the computation of environmental impact of imports. Input?Coutput tables (IOT) represent the financial flows in a country or economic regions. Extending IOT with information on emissions and resource uses allows for the analysis of environmental impacts due to production and consumption activities in a country. This instrument is called EE-IOA. It enables the analysis of total environmental impacts of countries or economic regions. The combination with trade statistics and LCA was presented as an alternative to multiregional input?Coutput models for determining environmental impacts of imports over the whole life cycle. The 45th LCA forum gathered several international speakers who provided a broad and qualified view on the topic. The theoretical background, results for different countries and regions, uncertainties, and possible improvement options for EE-IOA were discussed. The following main conclusions were drawn at the end of the discussion forum: EE-IOA is a useful instrument for analyzing the total environmental impacts of countries and the main drivers of environmental impacts. As a next important step, the participants would like to see an increase in user friendliness of EE-IOA combined with LCA, e.g., by harmonizing data, data formats, and classifications.     

Similarities,Differences and Synergisms Between HERA and LCA—An Analysis at Three Levels

Linkages between Human and Environmental Risk Assessment (HERA) and Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) can be analyzed at three levels: the basic equations to describe environmental behavior and dose-response relationships of chemicals; the overall model structure of these tools; and the applications of the tools. At level 1 few differences exist: both tools use essentially the same fate and effect models, including their coefficients and data. At level 2 distinctive differences emerge: regional or life-cycle perspective, emission pulses or fluxes, scope of chemicals and types of impacts, use of characterization factors, spatial and temporal detail, aggregation of effects, and the functional unit as basis of the assessment. Although the two tools typically differ in all these aspects, only the functional unit issue renders the tools fundamentally different, expressing itself also in some main characteristics of the modeling structure. This impedes full integration, which is underpinned in mathematical terms. At level 3 the aims of the tools are complementary: quantified risk estimates of chemicals for HERA versus quantified product assessment for LCA. Here, beneficial synergism is possible between the two tools, as illustrated by some cases. These also illustrate that where full integration is suggested, in practice this is not achieved, thus in fact supporting the conclusions.     

Regionalization in LCA: current status in concepts,software and databases—69th LCA forum,Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,Zurich, 13 September, 2018

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment -     

Obsolescence in LCA–methodological challenges and solution approaches

Purpose

Obsolescence, as premature end of use, increases the overall number of products produced and consumed, and thereby can increase the environmental impact. Measures to decrease the effects of obsolescence by altering the product or service design have the potential to increase use time (defined as the realized active service life) of devices, but can themselves have (environmental) drawbacks, for example, because the amount of material required for production increases. As such, paying special attention to methodological choices when assessing such measures and strategies using life cycle assessment (LCA) needs is crucial.

Methods

Open questions and key aspects of obsolescence, including the analysis of its effects and preventative measures, are discussed against the backdrop of the principles and framework for LCA given in ISO 14040/44, which includes guidance on how to define a useful functional unit and reference flow in the context of real-life use time.

Results and discussion

The open and foundational requirements of ISO 14040/14044 already form an excellent basis for analysis of the phenomenon obsolescence and its environmental impact in product comparisons. However, any analysis presumes clear definition of the goal and scope phase with special attention paid to aspects relevant to obsolescence: the target product and user group needs to be placed into context with the analysed “anti-obsolescence” measures. The reference flow needs to reflect a realized use time (and not solely a technical lifetime when not relevant for the product under study). System boundaries and types of data need to be chosen also in context of the anti-obsolescence measure to include, for example, the production of spare parts to reflect repairable design and/or manufacturer-specific yields to reflect high-quality manufacturing.

Conclusions

Understanding the relevant obsolescence conditions for the product system under study and how these may differ across the market segment or user types is crucial for a fair and useful comparison and the evaluation of anti-obsolescence measures.

     

LCA of energetic biomass utilization: actual projects and new developments—April 23, 2012, Berne, Switzerland

Introduction

In the last years, the use of biomass for energy purposes has been seen as a promising option to reduce the use of nonrenewable energy sources and the emissions of fossil carbon. However, LCA studies have shown that the energetic use of biomass also causes impacts on climate change and, furthermore, that different environmental issues arise, such as land use and agricultural emissions. While biomass is renewable, it is not an unlimited resource. Its use, to whatever purpose, must therefore be well studied to promote the most efficient option with the least environmental impacts. The 47th LCA Discussion Forum gathered several national and international speakers who provided a broad and qualified view on the topic.

Summary of the topics presented in DF 47

Several aspects of energetic biomass use from a range of projects financed by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE) were presented in this Discussion Forum. The first session focused on important aspects of the agricultural biogas production like the use of high energy crops or catch crops as well as the influence of plant size on the environmental performance of biogas. In the second session, other possibilities of biomass treatment like direct combustion, composting, and incineration with municipal waste were presented. Topic of the first afternoon session was the update and harmonization of biomass inventories and the resulting new assessment of biofuels. The short presentations investigated some further aspects of the LCA of bioenergy like the assessment of spatial variation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from bioenergy production in a country, the importance of indirect land use change emissions on the overall results, the assessment of alternative technologies to direct spreading of digestate or the updates of the car operation datasets in ecoinvent.

Conclusions

One main outcome of this Discussion Forum is that bioenergy is not environmentally friendly per se. In many cases, energetic use of biomass allows a reduction of GHG and fossil energy use. However, there is often a tradeoff with other environmental impacts linked to agricultural production like eutrophication or ecotoxicity. Methodological challenges still exist, like the assessment of direct and indirect land use change emissions and their attribution to the bioenergy production, or the influence of heavy metal flows on the bioenergy assessment. Another challenge is the implementation of a life cycle approach in certification or legislation schemes, as shown by the example of the Renewable Energy Directive of the European Union.     

LCA capability roadmap—product system model description and revision

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners face many challenges in their efforts to describe, share, review, and revise their product system models, and to reproduce the models and results of others. Current life cycle inventory modeling techniques have weaknesses in the areas of describing model structure, documenting the use of proxy or non-ideal data, specifying allocation, and including modeler’s observations and assumptions—all affecting how the study is interpreted and limiting the reuse of models. Moreover, LCA software systems manage modeling information in different and sometimes non-compatible ways. Practitioners must also deal with licensing, privacy/confidentiality of data, and other issues around data access which impact how a model can be shared.

Methods

This letter was prepared by a working group of the North American Life Cycle Assessment Advisory Group to support the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative’s Flagship Activity on Data, Methods, and Product Sustainability Information. The aim of the working group is to define a roadmap of the technical advances needed to achieve easier LCA model sharing and improve replicability of LCA results among different users in a way that is independent of the LCA software used to compute the results and does not infringe on any licensing restrictions or confidentiality requirements. This is intended to be a consensus document providing the state of the art in this area, with milestones for research and implementation needed to resolve current issues.

Results and Conclusions

The roadmap identifies fifteen milestones in three areas: “describing model contents,” “describing model structure,” and “collaborative use of models.” The milestones should support researchers and software developers in advancing practitioners’ abilities to share and review product system models.

     

How can LCA include prospective elements to assess emerging technologies and system transitions? The 76th LCA Discussion Forum on Life Cycle Assessment, 19 November 2020

This paper summarizes the 76th LCA Discussion Forum end its main findings. Main issues when addressing emerging technologies identified were: the lack of primary data, the need for (shared) future background scenarios and (guidlines for) a common methodology. The following recommendations have been derived by the organizers: 1) Specific foreground inventories are always tailor-made, but consistency can be improved through lists of mandatory considerations. 2) Continue sharing (future) technology data and proxy processes, that can be readily replicated to new studies and assist in developing inventories. 3) Streamline and unify the process of including scenarios for background systems. New approaches may provide first important solutions to efficiently include consistent future scenarios in prospective LCA.

     

Recycle,Bury, or Burn Wood Waste Biomass?: LCA Answer Depends on Carbon Accounting,Emissions Controls,Displaced Fuels,and Impact Costs

This study extends existing life cycle assessment (LCA) literature by assessing seven environmental burdens and an overall monetized environmental score for eight recycle, bury, or burn options to manage clean wood wastes generated at construction and demolition activity sites. The study assesses direct environmental impacts along with substitution effects from displacing fossil fuels and managed forest wood sourcing activities. Follow‐on effects on forest carbon stocks, land use, and fuel markets are not assessed. Sensitivity analysis addresses landfill carbon storage and biodegradation rates, atmospheric emissions controls, displaced fuel types, and two alternative carbon accounting methods commonly used for waste management LCAs. Base‐case carbon accounting considers emissions and uptakes of all biogenic and fossil carbon compounds, including biogenic carbon dioxide. Base‐case results show that recycling options (recycling into reconstituted wood products or into wood pulp for papermaking) rank better than all burning or burying options for overall monetized score as well as for climate impacts, except that wood substitution for coal in industrial boilers is slightly better than recycling for the climate. Wood substitution for natural gas boiler fuel has the highest environmental impacts. Sensitivity analysis shows the overall monetized score rankings for recycling options to be robust except for the carbon accounting method, for which all options are highly sensitive. Under one of the alternative methods, wood substitution for coal boiler fuel and landfill options with high methane capture efficiency are the best for the overall score; recycling options are next to the worst. Under the other accounting alternative, wood substitution for coal and waste‐to‐energy are the best, followed by recycling options.     

Marine plastics in LCA: current status and MarILCA’s contributions

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment -     

Evaluation of the effect of accounting method,IPCC v. LCA,on grass-based and confinement dairy systems’ greenhouse gas emissions

Life cycle assessment (LCA) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guideline methodology, which are the principal greenhouse gas (GHG) quantification methods, were evaluated in this study using a dairy farm GHG model. The model was applied to estimate GHG emissions from two contrasting dairy systems: a seasonal calving pasture-based dairy farm and a total confinement dairy system. Data used to quantify emissions from these systems originated from a research study carried out over a 1-year period in Ireland. The genetic merit of cows modelled was similar for both systems. Total mixed ration was fed in the Confinement system, whereas grazed grass was mainly fed in the grass-based system. GHG emissions from these systems were quantified per unit of product and area. The results of both methods showed that the dairy system that emitted the lowest GHG emissions per unit area did not necessarily emit the lowest GHG emissions possible for a given level of product. Consequently, a recommendation from this study is that GHG emissions be evaluated per unit of product given the growing affluent human population and increasing demand for dairy products. The IPCC and LCA methods ranked dairy systems’ GHG emissions differently. For instance, the IPCC method quantified that the Confinement system reduced GHG emissions per unit of product by 8% compared with the grass-based system, but the LCA approach calculated that the Confinement system increased emissions by 16% when off-farm emissions associated with primary dairy production were included. Thus, GHG emissions should be quantified using approaches that quantify the total GHG emissions associated with the production system, so as to determine whether the dairy system was causing emissions displacement. The IPCC and LCA methods were also used in this study to simulate, through a dairy farm GHG model, what effect management changes within both production systems have on GHG emissions. The findings suggest that single changes have a small mitigating effect on GHG emissions (<5%), except for strategies used to control emissions from manure storage in the Confinement system (14% to 24%). However, when several management strategies were combined, GHG emissions per unit of product could be reduced significantly (15% to 30%). The LCA method was identified as the preferred approach to assess the effect of management changes on GHG emissions, but the analysis indicated that further standardisation of the approach is needed given the sensitivity of the approach to allocation decisions regarding milk and meat.     

Environmental benchmarks for buildings: needs,challenges and solutions—71st LCA forum,Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,Zürich, 18 June 2019

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - The 71st LCA forum was held on 18 June 2019 in Zurich, Switzerland, to discuss the current status and future plans of environmental benchmarking...     

Impacts from hydropower production on biodiversity in an LCA framework—review and recommendations

Purpose

Expanding renewable energy production is widely accepted as a promising strategy in climate change mitigation. However, even renewable energy production has some environmental impacts, some of which are not (yet) covered in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). We aim to identify the most important cause-effect pathways related to hydropower production on biodiversity, as one of the most common renewable energy sources, and to provide recommendations for future characterization factor (CF) development.

Methods

We start with a comprehensive review of cause-effect chains related to hydropower production for both aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. Next, we explore contemporary coverage of impacts on biodiversity from hydropower production in LCA. Further, we select cause-effect pathways displaying some degree of consistency with existing LCA frameworks for method development recommendations. For this, we compare and contrast different hydrologic models and discuss how existing LCIA methodologies might be modified or combined to improve the assessment of biodiversity impacts from hydropower production.

Results and discussion

Hydropower impacts were categorized into three overarching impact pathways: (1) freshwater habitat alteration, (2) water quality degradation, and (3) land use change. Impacts included within these pathways are flow alteration, geomorphological alteration to habitats, changes in water quality, habitat fragmentation, and land use transformation. For the majority of these impacts, no operational methodology exists currently. Furthermore, the seasonal nature of river dynamics requires a level of temporal resolution currently beyond LCIA modeling capabilities. State-of-the-art LCIA methods covering biodiversity impacts exist for land use and impacts from consumptive water use that can potentially be adapted to cases involving hydropower production, while other impact pathways need novel development.

Conclusions

In the short term, coverage of biodiversity impacts from hydropower could be significantly improved by adding a time step representing seasonal ecological water demands to existing LCIA methods. In the long term, LCIA should focus on ecological response curves based on multiple hydrologic indices to capture the spatiotemporal aspects of river flow, by using models based on the “ecological limits to hydrologic alteration” (ELOHA) approach. This approach is based on hydrologic alteration-ecological response curves, including site-specific environmental impact data. Though data-intensive, ELOHA represents the potential to build a global impact assessment framework covering multiple ecological indicators from local impacts. Further, we recommend LCIA methods based on degree of regulation for geomorphologic alteration and a fragmentation index based on dam density for “freshwater habitat alteration,” which our review identified as significant unquantified threats to aquatic biodiversity.

     

What causes more LCA research—subjective values,objective problems,or scientific traditions?

Purpose

This paper aims to verify whether life cycle assessment (LCA) research can be mainly treated as a kind of pro-environmental behavior due to public environment concerns, or academic and research activities based on scientific traditions.

Methods

This paper uses the international comparisons method for modeling and SPSS 16.0 for data processing. The data in this study were obtained from the Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Programme and the Web of Science by the Institute for Scientific Information.

Results and discussion

Our empirical study shows that the two main factors influencing the outputs per capita of the research articles in LCA in a particular country are the value of Environmental Performance Index, which represents the overall environmental quality, as well as the outputs per capita of the research articles in environmental science and technology. The results of statistical analysis show two J-type curves: with the change of the independent variables, the dependent variable changes in the same direction, but at a rate that is first slow, then fast.

Conclusions

LCA research results from scientific traditions and can only develop based on fundamental research in environmental science and technology. Further, LCA research is a pro-environmental behavior due to actual and objective effects rather than subjective motives as more research on LCA can accompany, even in some degree may lead to better overall environmental qualities. However, although environmental concerns are likely to affect the number of LCA studies as an implicit variable, this has not been empirically confirmed in our optimization model.

     

LCA as an element in environmental management systems—comparison of conditions in selected organisations in Poland, Sweden and Germany

Purpose

In this two-part paper (Background and Initial Assumptions (part 1) and Results of Survey Research (part 2)), we present surveys whose main objective is to determine whether, and to what extent, the life cycle assessment (LCA) technique is used for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects in environmental management systems (EMS) and whether there are any differences in this respect between the companies and countries analysed.

Methods

The survey research was carried out using the computer assisted self-administered interviewing method among selected Polish, German and Swedish organisations which implement EMS in accordance with the requirements of ISO 14001 and/or the EMAS regulation.

Results

The organisations investigated, regardless of their country, are dominated by qualitative and semi-quantitative techniques of assessment and identification of environmental aspects. LCA was used sporadically, although some differences can be observed between the countries analysed.

Conclusions

The environmental managers accustomed to traditional qualitative and semi-quantitative solutions have not been given preparation to enable them to understand and adopt different approaches such as LCA. On the other hand, representatives of the organisations investigated declared that they were ready to accept an even longer timescale for the identification and assessment processes relating to environmental aspects, which represents a potential opportunity for LCA. The more precise understanding and definition of environmental problems that are precisely defined in LCA would represent a novelty for environmental managers. In practice, environmental problems are defined in a general sense and rather ambiguously, as this level of detail is sufficient in the context of qualitative and semi-quantitative techniques commonly used for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects.     

National environmental footprints and planetary boundaries: from methodology to policy implementation 59th LCA forum,Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,Zürich,June 12, 2015

The 59th LCA forum was held on 12 June, 2015 to discuss the situation with regard to national environmental footprints and their relation to planetary boundaries and to the global carrying capacity. This conference report presents the highlights of the LCA forum. Several approaches of how to quantify a safe operating space of the Earth were presented, such as the planetary boundary concept published by Rockström et al. (Nature 462:472–475, 2009) and the ecological footprint (Bastianoni et al. 2013). Several presenters showed how they transformed environmental planetary boundaries to national and per capita allowances. In a research project funded by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment safe and unsafe areas were determined by combining the level of overshoot, the level of confidence in the information and the trend in the environmental load. The areas of climate change, biodiversity losses and nitrogen losses show a large overshoot on a global level but also from the point of view of Swiss consumption. Other organizations use the planetary boundary concept to identify companies which qualify for environmentally sustainable funds. Finally, life cycle impact assessment methods are being developed using the planetary boundary concept. The weighting step is based on the level of overshoot, which is close to “distance to target” approaches. It was discussed that the nine planetary boundaries face some consistency and operationalisation problems. For instance, land use changes cause biodiversity losses, which is a planetary boundary parameter in its own. Chemical pollution on the other hand is a general topic, for which a quantification approach has to be developed first (load as well as its planetary boundary). The discussion forum showed that individual countries and political entities like the European Union start monitoring their consumption based environmental footprint. Within this context, approaches and concepts are needed to define the environmentally safe operating space. The LCA forum showed that there is still basic research needed to reliably and consistently quantify relevant planetary boundaries (avoiding overlapping indicators) and to transfer these boundaries to per capita allowances.     

49th Discussion forum on LCA—sustainable consumption patterns—September 18, 2012, Zurich, Switzerland

There are different ways and strategies to reduce the environmental impacts caused today. One starting point for reducing the environmental impacts of today is the private consumption. Finally, all goods and services provided in a country contribute to fulfil the needs and demands of consumers. Several national and international initiatives therefore aim for a considerable reduction of the environmental impacts of consumption patterns. The 49th LCA Discussion Forum analysed the present consumption patterns of households and their consequent environmental impacts. Based on this, potentials for a reduction of the environmental impacts were identified and discussed. In this context, the possible applications, advantages and drawbacks of the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology were analysed. National and international speakers provided qualified insights on the topic. The 49th Discussion Forum concentrated on different aspects of sustainable consumption patterns. The focus lay on private households and the environmental impacts caused by their consumption patterns. In the first session, the idea of the “2000-Watt society” was introduced as an example of a concept of a “sustainable lifestyle”. Another way of analysing the total impacts is the consumption perspective introduced in a second presentation. Based on an analysis of environmental impacts due to final demand of Swiss households, different measures for a reduction of environmental impacts were proposed and analysed. The second session examined similar activities in Germany. The short presentations covered the communication of LCA results. The third session focused on web-based eco-calculators. In the last session, two scientific inputs were given on the modelling of household consumption patterns and on the impact of rebound effects on the environmental impact of private consumption. The most important consumption domains are nutrition, mobility and energy use in households. Apart from different modelling approaches and boundary conditions, the majority of the presentations showed that today’s consumption patterns in Switzerland and Germany are far away from a sustainable level. Considerable reduction measures are needed in order to reach this goal. Eco-calculators and similar tools provide an effective way to raise customer awareness. In general, it is very important to communicate LCA results in a simple, clear and transparent way.