Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate‐Change Mitigation Benefits Misleads Policy Makers

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is generally described as a tool for environmental decision making. Results from attributional LCA (ALCA), the most commonly used LCA method, often are presented in a way that suggests that policy decisions based on these results will yield the quantitative benefits estimated by ALCA. For example, ALCAs of biofuels are routinely used to suggest that the implementation of one alternative (say, a biofuel) will cause an X% change in greenhouse gas emissions, compared with a baseline (typically gasoline). However, because of several simplifications inherent in ALCA, the method, in fact, is not predictive of real‐world impacts on climate change, and hence the usual quantitative interpretation of ALCA results is not valid. A conceptually superior approach, consequential LCA (CLCA), avoids many of the limitations of ALCA, but because it is meant to model actual changes in the real world, CLCA results are scenario dependent and uncertain. These limitations mean that even the best practical CLCAs cannot produce definitive quantitative estimates of actual environmental outcomes. Both forms of LCA, however, can yield valuable insights about potential environmental effects, and CLCA can support robust decision making. By openly recognizing the limitations and understanding the appropriate uses of LCA as discussed here, practitioners and researchers can help policy makers implement policies that are less likely to have perverse effects and more likely to lead to effective environmental policies, including climate mitigation strategies.     

Consequential life cycle assessment: a review

Purpose  

Over the past two decades, consequential life cycle assessment (CLCA) has emerged as a modeling approach for capturing environmental impacts of product systems beyond physical relationships accounted for in attributional LCA (ALCA). Put simply, CLCA represents the convergence of LCA and economic modeling approaches.     

Environmental assessment of brownfield rehabilitation using two different life cycle inventory models

Goal, Scope and Background The primary goal of this paper is to present a LCI modelling approach that allows the inclusion of all three types of impacts. The approach is based on consequential LCA (CLCA) rather than more common attributional LCA (ALCA). In CLCA, system boundaries are expanded in order to include all significantly affected activities. In addition we show how changing from an attributional to a consequential approach alters how the impacts are evaluated, and discuss the applicability of these two distinct approaches to brownfield rehabilitation decision support. The paper is restricted to urban and contaminated brownfields that are the result of industrial use and whose rehabilitation is aimed at allowing residential redevelopment. Main Features The approach is based on an analogy between the open-loop recycling of material resources and brownfield rehabilitation. Brownfield rehabilitation is associated with two functions: (1) managing the legacy of past occupations on the site, analogous to a waste management function, and (2) providing redevelopable land, analogous to a commodity production function. The consequential system is expanded to cover the subsequent occupation life cycle of the brownfield and the effects on the occupation life cycles of other sites. The proposed model quantifies effects on sites competing to supply the same occupation function. Two approaches are proposed to determine the nature of the sites that are affected and to what extent they are affected: the first resembling a closed-loop approximation, and the second based on economic partial-equilibrium models. Results and Conclusions The scope of the CLCA is far more complex than that of the ALCA. It requires additional data that are associated with important sources of uncertainty. It does allow, however, for the inclusion of tertiary impacts, making it suitable for the evaluation of the often cited environmental benefits of reintegrating the site in the economy. In addition, the ALCA methodology seems to be inappropriate to compare brownfield management options that result in different subsequent uses of the site. Since the effects of this fate are included within the scope of CLCA, however, virtually any brownfield management option available to a decision-maker can aptly be compared. The evaluation of primary and secondary impacts also differs when the consequential approach is used rather than the attributional approach. It is impossible to anticipate the effects of these methodological differences on the results based on the qualitative discussion presented in this paper. Perspectives The complexity and uncertainty introduced by switching to a consequential approach is very high: it is therefore recommendable to evaluate the significance in the gain of environmental information in an actual case study to determine if system expansion is recommendable. Such a case study is presented in Part II to this paper. [39] Lesage P, Ekvall T, Deschênes L, Samson R (20006): Environmental Assessment of Brownfield Rehabilitation Using Two Different Life Cycle Inventory Models. Part 2: Case Study. Int J LCA, OnlineFirst (DOI: )     

Consequential Life Cycle Assessment of Policy Vulnerability to Price Effects

The application of life cycle assessment (LCA) in a policy context highlights the need for a “consequential” LCA (CLCA), which differs from an “attributional” LCA (ALCA). Although CLCA offers some advantages over ALCA, such as a capacity to account for emissions resulting from both substitution and price effects, it entails additional assumptions and cost and may yield estimates that are more uncertain (e.g., estimates of impact of biofuel policies on greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions). We illustrate how a CLCA that relies on simple partial equilibrium models could provide important insights on the direction and magnitude of price effects while limiting the complexity of CLCA. We describe how such a CLCA, when applied early in the policy life cycle, could help identify policy formulations that reduce the magnitude of adverse price effects relative to the beneficial substitution effect on emissions because—as the experience with biofuel regulations indicates—regulating price effects is costly and controversial. We conclude that the salient contribution of CLCA in the policy process might lie in warning policy makers about the vulnerabilities in a policy with regard to environmental impact and to help modify potentially counterproductive formulations rather than in deriving the precise estimates for uncertain variables, such as the life cycle GHG intensity of product or average indirect emissions.     

Energy decision making in a pulp and paper mill: selection of LCA system boundary

Background, aim, and scope  

North American pulp and paper mills are facing tremendous challenges, which may necessitate major mill modernizations. An example is process modification to reduce dependency on purchased power, which is an expensive resource. Such modifications may have environmental implications at the mills’ sites, on their product life cycle, and on other interconnected systems, and therefore, systematic tools such as life cycle assessment (LCA) need to be applied. Different LCA system boundary approaches can be used for such process design applications, and these approaches need to be compared to determine their respective benefits and limitations in this context. This study compares setting the system boundary according to a cradle-to-gate approach [attributional LCA (ALCA)] and a system expansion [consequential LCA (CLCA)] approach using a case study, which deals with implementing cogeneration and increased de-inked pulp production at an integrated newsprint mill.     

On the uncanny capabilities of consequential LCA

Purpose

Plevin et al. (2014) reviewed relevant life cycle assessment (LCA) studies for biofuels and argued that the use of attributional LCA (ALCA) for estimating the benefits of biofuel policy is misleading. While we agree with the authors on many points, we found that some of the arguments by the authors were not presented fairly and that a number of specific points warrant additional comment. The main objective of this commentary is to examine the authors’ comparative statements between consequential LCA (CLCA) and ALCA.

Methods

We examined the notion that the LCA world is divided into CLCA and ALCA. In addition, we evaluated the authors’ notion of “wrong” models.

Results

We found that the authors were comparing an idealized, hypothetical CLCA with average (or less than average), real-life ALCAs. Therefore, we found that the comparison alone cannot serve as the basis for endorsing real-life CLCAs for biofuel policy. We also showed that there are many LCA studies that do not belong to either of the two approaches distinguished by the authors. Furthermore, we found that the authors’ notion of “wrong” models misses the essence of modeling and reveals the authors’ unwarranted confidence in certain modeling approaches.

Conclusions

Dividing the LCA world into CLCAs and ALCAs overlooks the studies in between and hampers a constructive dialog about the creative use of modeling frameworks. Unreasonable confidence in certain modeling approaches based on their “conceptual” superiority does not help support “robust decision making” that should ultimately land itself on the ground.     

Legacy effects of individual crops affect N2O emissions accounting within crop rotations

Uruguay is pursuing renewable energy production pathways using feedstocks from its agricultural sector to supply transportation fuels, among them ethanol produced from commercial technologies that use sweet and grain sorghum. However, the environmental performance of the fuel is not known. We investigate the life cycle environmental and cost performance of these two major agricultural crops used to produce ethanol that have begun commercial production and are poised to grow to meet national energy targets for replacing gasoline. Using both attributional and consequential life cycle assessment (LCA) frameworks for system boundaries to quantify the carbon intensity, and engineering cost analysis to estimate the unit production cost of ethanol from grain and sweet sorghum, we determined abatement costs. We found 1) an accounting error in estimating N₂O emissions for a specific crop in multiple crop rotations when using Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) Tier 1 methods within an attributional LCA framework, due to N legacy effects; 2) choice of baseline and crop identity in multiple crop rotations evaluated within the consequential LCA framework both affect the global warming intensity (GWI) of ethanol; and 3) although abatement costs for ethanol from grain sorghum are positive and from sweet sorghum they are negative, both grain and sweet sorghum pathways have a high potential for reducing transport fuel GWI by more than 50% relative to gasoline, and are within the ranges targeted by the US renewable transportation fuel policies.     

Comparative LCA of treatment options for US scrap tires: material recycling and tire-derived fuel combustion

Purpose

This life cycle assessment (LCA) study compares two prevalent end-of-life (EOL) treatment methods for scrap tires: material recycling and energy recovery. The primary intended use of the study results is to inform stakeholders of the relative environmental burdens and trade-offs associated with these two EOL vehicle tire treatment methods. The study supports prioritization of the waste treatment hierarchy for this material stream in the US.

Methods

This LCA compares (1) material recycling through ambient-temperature mechanical processing and (2) energy recovery through co-incineration of both whole and preprocessed scrap tires at a cement kiln. The avoided burden recycling methodology reflects the substitution of virgin synthetic rubber used in asphalt modification with the ground tire rubber from material recycling and the substitution of conventional kiln fuels with the tire-derived fuel (TDF). Both attributional (ALCA) and consequential (CLCA) methodologies are used: the ALCA assesses the environmental profiles of the treatment methods and the CLCA examines the potential effects of shifting more scrap tires to material recycling. The attributional portion of the LCA study was conducted in accordance with ISO standards 14044 series.

Results

The results in both methodological approaches indicate that the material recycling scenario provides greater impact reductions than the energy recovery scenario in terms of the examined environmental impact potentials: energy demand, iron ore consumption, global warming potential, acidification, eutrophication, smog formation, and respiratory effects. The additional impact reductions from material recycling are significant, and the establishment of new infrastructure required for a shift to material recycling incurs relatively insignificant burdens. Sensitivity analyses indicate that this conclusion does not change for (1) a range of TDF heating values, (2) a decrease in the mixed scrap tire rubber-to-steel composition ratio, (3) two alternative electricity grid fuel mixes with higher and lower carbon dioxide emission rankings than that of the baseline scenario, or (4) a comparison of material recycling to energy recovery when TDF is used in pulp and paper mills instead of cement kilns.

Conclusions

These results provide a basis for more informed decision-making when prioritizing scrap tire waste treatment hierarchy.     

System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment of milk and beef production

Background, Goal and Scope  System expansion is a method used to avoid co-product allocation. Up to this point in time it has seldom been used in LCA studies of food products, although food production systems often are characterised by closely interlinked sub-systems. One of the most important allocation problems that occurs in LCAs of agricultural products is the question of how to handle the co-product beef from milk production since almost half of the beef production in the EU is derived from co-products from the dairy sector. The purpose of this paper is to compare different methods of handling co-products when dividing the environmental burden of the milk production system between milk and the co-products meat and surplus calves. Main Features  This article presents results from an LCA of organic milk production in which different methods of handling the co-products are examined. The comparison of different methods of co-product handling is based on a Swedish LCA case study of milk production where economic allocation between milk and meat was initially used. Allocation of the co-products meat and surplus calves was avoided by expanding the milk system. LCA data were collected from another case study where the alternative way of producing meat was analysed, i.e. using a beef cow that produces one calf per annum to be raised for one and a half year. The LCA of beef production was included in the milk system. A discussion is conducted focussing on the importance of modelling and analysing milk and beef production in an integrated way when foreseeing and planning the environmental consequences of manipulating milk and beef production systems. Results  This study shows that economic allocation between milk and beef favours the product beef. When system expansion is performed, the environmental benefits of milk production due to its co-products of surplus calves and meat become obvious. This is especially connected to the impact categories that describe the potential environmental burden of biogenic emissions such as methane and ammonia and nitrogen losses due to land use and its fertilising. The reason for this is that beef production in combination with milk can be carried out with fewer animals than in sole beef production systems. Conclusion, Recommendation and Perspective  Milk and beef production systems are closely connected. Changes in milk production systems will cause alterations in beef production systems. It is concluded that in prospective LCA studies, system expansion should be performed to obtain adequate information of the environmental consequences of manipulating production systems that are interlinked to each other.     

Integrated Economic Equilibrium and Life Cycle Assessment Modeling for Policy‐based Consequential LCA

Consequential life cycle assessment (CLCA) has emerged as a tool for estimating environmental impacts of changes in product systems that go beyond physical relationships accounted for in attributional LCA (ALCA). This study builds on recent efforts to use more complex economic models for policy‐based CLCA. A partial market equilibrium (PME) model, called the U.S. Forest Products Module (USFPM), is combined with LCA to analyze an energy demand scenario in which wood use increases 400 million cubic meters in the United States for ethanol production. Several types of indirect economic and environmental impacts are identified and estimated using USFPM‐LCA. A key finding is that if wood use for biofuels increases to high levels and mill residue is used for biofuels and replaced by natural gas for heat and power in forest products mills, then the increased greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas could offset reductions obtained by substituting biofuels for gasoline. Such high levels of biofuel demand, however, appear to have relatively low environmental impacts across related forest product sectors.     

Lights and shadows in consequential LCA

Purpose

Consequential LCA (CLCA) is becoming widely used in the scientific community as a modelling technique which describes the consequences of a decision. However, despite the increasing number of case studies published, a proper systematization of the approach has not yet been achieved. This paper investigates the methodological implications of CLCA and the extent to which the applications are in line with the theoretical dictates. Moreover, the predictive and explorative nature of CLCA is discussed, highlighting the role of scenario modelling in further structuring the methodology.

Methods

An extensive literature review was performed, involving around 60 articles published over a period of approximately 18?years, and addressing both methodological issues and applications. The information was elaborated according to two main aspects: what for (questions and modes of LCA) and what (methodological implications of CLCA), with focus on the nature of modelling and on the identification of the affected processes.

Results and discussion

The analysis points out that since the modelling principles of attributional LCA (ALCA) and CLCA are the same, what distinguishes the two modes of LCA is the choice of the processes to be included in the system (i.e. in CLCA, those that are affected by the market dynamics). However, the identification of those processes is often done inconsistently, using different arguments, which leads to different results. We suggest the use of scenario modelling as a way to support CLCA in providing a scientifically sound basis to model specific product-related futures with respect to technology development, market shift, and other variables.

Conclusions

The CLCA is a sophisticated modelling technique that provides a way to assess the environmental consequences of an action/decision by including market mechanisms into the analysis. There is still room for improvements of the method and for further research, especially in relation to the following aspects: clarifying when and which market information is important and necessary; understanding the role of scenario modelling within CLCA; and developing a procedure to support the framing of questions to better link questions to models. Moreover, we suggest that the logic of mechanisms could be the reading guide for overcoming the dispute between ALCA and CLCA. Going further, this logic could also be extended, considering CLCA as an approach??rather than as a modelling principle with defined rules??to deepen LCA, providing the conceptual basis for including more mechanisms than just the market ones.     

Choice of Allocations and Constructs for Attributional or Consequential Life Cycle Assessment and Input‐Output Analysis

The divide between attributional and consequential research perspectives partly overlaps with the long‐standing methodological discussions in the life cycle assessment (LCA) and input‐output analysis (IO) research communities on the choice of techniques and models for dealing with situations of coproduction. The recent harmonization of LCA allocations and IO constructs revealed a more diverse set of coproduction models than had previously been understood. This increased flexibility and transparency in inventory modeling warrants a re‐evaluation of the treatment of coproduction in analyses with attributional and consequential perspectives. In the present article, the main types of coproductions situations and of coproduction models are reviewed, along with key desirable characteristics of attributional and consequential studies. A concordance analysis leads to clear recommendations, which call for important refinements to current guidelines for both LCA/IO practitioners and database developers. We notably challenge the simple association between, on the one hand, attributional LCA and partition allocation, and on the one hand, consequential LCA and substitution modeling.     

LCA of soybean meal

Background, Aim and Scope  Soybean meal is an important protein input to the European livestock production, with Argentina being an important supplier. The area cultivated with soybeans is still increasing globally, and so are the number of LCAs where the production of soybean meal forms part of the product chain. In recent years there has been increasing focus on how soybean production affects the environment. The purpose of the study was to estimate the environmental consequences of soybean meal consumption using a consequential LCA approach. The functional unit is ‘one kg of soybean meal produced in Argentina and delivered to Rotterdam Harbor’. Materials and Methods  Soybean meal has the co-product soybean oil. In this study, the consequential LCA method was applied, and co-product allocation was thereby avoided through system expansion. In this context, system expansion implies that the inputs and outputs are entirely ascribed to soybean meal, and the product system is subsequently expanded to include the avoided production of palm oil. Presently, the marginal vegetable oil on the world market is palm oil but, to be prepared for fluctuations in market demands, an alternative product system with rapeseed oil as the marginal vegetable oil has been established. EDIP97 (updated version 2.3) was used for LCIA and the following impact categories were included: Global warming, eutrophication, acidification, ozone depletion and photochemical smog. Results  Two soybean loops were established to demonstrate how an increased demand for soybean meal affects the palm oil and rapeseed oil production, respectively. The characterized results from LCA on soybean meal (with palm oil as marginal oil) were 721 gCO₂ eq. for global warming potential, 0.3 mg CFC11 eq. for ozone depletion potential, 3.1 g SO₂ eq. for acidification potential, −2 g NO₃ eq. for eutrophication potential and 0.4 g ethene eq. for photochemical smog potential per kg soybean meal. The average area per kg soybean meal consumed was 3.6 m²year. Attributional results, calculated by economic and mass allocation, are also presented. Normalised results show that the most dominating impact categories were: global warming, eutrophication and acidification. The ‘hot spot’ in relation to global warming, was ‘soybean cultivation’, dominated by N₂O emissions from degradation of crop residues (e.g., straw) and during biological nitrogen fixation. In relation to eutrophication and acidification, the transport of soybeans by truck is important, and sensitivity analyses showed that the acidification potential is very sensitive to the increased transport distance by truck. Discussion  The potential environmental impacts (except photochemical smog) were lower when using rapeseed oil as the marginal vegetable oil, because the avoided production of rapeseed contributes more negatively compared with the avoided production of palm oil. Identification of the marginal vegetable oil (palm oil or rapeseed oil) turned out to be important for the result, and this shows how crucial it is in consequential LCA to identify the right marginal product system (e.g., marginal vegetable oil). Conclusions  Consequential LCAs were successfully performed on soybean meal and LCA data on soybean meal are now available for consequential (or attributional) LCAs on livestock products. The study clearly shows that consequential LCAs are quite easy to handle, even though it has been necessary to include production of palm oil, rapeseed and spring barley, as these production systems are affected by the soybean oil co-product. Recommendations and Perspectives  We would appreciate it if the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment had articles on the developments on, for example, marginal protein, marginal vegetable oil, marginal electricity (related to relevant markets), marginal heat, marginal cereals and, likewise, on metals and other basic commodities. This will not only facilitate the work with consequential LCAs, but will also increase the quality of LCAs.     

Developing a systematic framework for consistent allocation in LCA

Purpose

Multifunctionality in life-cycle assessment (LCA) is solved with allocation, for which many different procedures are available. Lack of sufficient guidance and difficulties to identify the correct allocation approach cause a large number of combinations of methods to exist in scientific literature. This paper reviews allocation procedures for recycling situations, with the aim to identify a systematic approach to apply allocation.

Methods

Assumptions and definitions for the most important terms related to multifunctionality and recycling in LCA are given. The most relevant allocation procedures are identified from literature. These procedures are expressed in mathematical formulas and schemes and arranged in a systematic framework based on the underlying objectives and assumptions of the procedures.

Results and discussion

If the LCA goal asks for an attributional approach, multifunctionality can be solved by applying system expansion—i.e. including the co-functions in the functional unit—or partitioning. The cut-off approach is a form of partitioning, attributing all the impacts to the functional unit. If the LCA goal asks for a consequential approach, substitution is applied, for which three methods are identified: the end-of-life recycling method and the waste mining method, which are combined in the 50/50 method. We propose to merge these methods in a new formula: the market price-based substitution method. The inclusion of economic values and maintaining a strict separation between attributional and consequential LCA are considered to increase realism and consistency of the LCA method.

Conclusions and perspectives

We identified the most pertinent allocation procedures—for recycling as well as co-production and energy recovery—and expressed them in mathematical formulas and schemes. Based on the underlying objectives of the allocation procedures, we positioned them in a systematic and consistent framework, relating the procedures to the LCA goal definition and an attributional or consequential approach. We identified a new substitution method that replaces the three existing methods in consequential LCA. Further research should test the validity of the systematic framework and the market price-based substitution method by means of case studies.

     

Life cycle assessment of commercial furniture: a case study of Formway LIFE chair

Background, aims and scope  The environmental aspects of companies and their products are becoming more significant in delivering competitive advantage. Formway Furniture, a designer and manufacturer of office furniture products, is a New Zealand-based company that is committed to sustainable development. It manufactures two models of the light, intuitive, flexible and environmental (LIFE) office chair: one with an aluminium base and one with a glass-filled nylon (GFN) base. It was decided to undertake a life cycle assessment (LCA) study of these two models in order to: (1) determine environmental hotspots in the life cycle of the two chairs (goal 1); (2) compare the life cycle impacts of the two chairs (goal 2); and (3) compare alternative potential waste-management scenarios (goal 3). The study also included sensitivity analysis with respect to recycled content of aluminium in the product. Materials and methods  The LIFE chair models consist of a mix of metal and plastic components manufactured by selected Formway suppliers according to design criteria. Hence, the research methodology included determining the specific material composition of the two chair models and acquisition of manufacturing data from individual suppliers. These data were compiled and used in conjunction with pre-existing data, specifically from the ecoinvent database purchased in conjunction with the SimaPro7 LCA software, to develop the life cycle inventory of the two chair models. The life cycle stages included in the study extended from raw-material extraction through to waste management. Impact assessment was carried out using CML 2 baseline 2000, the methodology developed by Leiden University’s Institute for Environmental Sciences. Results  This paper presents results for global warming potential (GWP100). The study showed a significant impact contribution from the raw-material extraction/refinement stage for both chair models; aluminium extraction and refining made the greatest contribution to GWP100. The comparison of the two LIFE chair models showed that the model with the aluminium base had a higher GWP100 impact than the model with the GFN base. The waste-management scenario compared the GWP100 result when (1) both chair models were sent to landfill and (2) steel and aluminium components were recycled with the remainder of the chair sent to landfill. The results showed that the recycling scenario contributed to a reduced GWP100 result. Since production and processing of aluminium was found to be significant, a sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine the impact of using aluminium with different recycled contents (0%, 34% and 100%) in both waste-management scenarios; this showed that increased use of recycled aluminium was beneficial. The recycling at end-of-life scenarios was modelled using two different end-of-life allocation approaches, i.e. consequential and attributional, in order to illustrate the variation in results caused by choice of allocation approach. The results using the consequential approach showed that recycling at end-of-life was beneficial, while use of the attributional method led to a similar GWP100 as that seen for the landfill scenario. Discussion  The results show that the main hotspot in the life cycle is the raw-material extraction/refinement stage. This can be attributed to the extraction and processing of aluminium, a material that is energy intensive. The LIFE chair model with the aluminium base has a higher GWP100 as it contains more aluminium. Sensitivity analysis pertaining to the recycled content of aluminium showed that use of aluminium with high recycled content was beneficial; this is because production of recycled aluminium is less energy intensive than production of primary aluminium. The waste-management scenario showed that recycling at end-of-life resulted in a significantly lower GWP100 than landfilling at end-of-life. However, this result is dependent upon the modelling approach used for recycling. Conclusions  With respect to goal 1, the study found that the raw-material extraction/refinement stage of the life cycle was a significant factor for both LIFE chair models. This was largely due to the use of aluminium in the product. For goal 2, it was found that the LIFE chair model with the aluminium base had a higher GWP100 than the GFN model, again due to the material content of the two models. Results for goal 3 illustrated that recycling at end-of-life is beneficial when using a system expansion (consequential) approach to model recycling; if an attributional ‘cut-off’ approach is used to model recycling at end-of-life, there is virtually no difference in the results between landfilling and recycling. Sensitivity analysis pertaining to the recycled content of aluminium showed that use of higher recycled contents leads to a lower GWP100 impact. Recommendation and perspectives  Most of the GWP100 impact was contributed during the raw-material extraction/refinement stage of the life cycle; thus, the overall impact of both LIFE chair models may be reduced through engaging in material choice and supply chain environmental management with respect to environmental requirements. The study identified aluminium components as a major contributor to GWP100 for both LIFE chair models and also highlighted the sensitivity of the results to its recycled content. Thus, it is recommended that the use of aluminium in future product designs be limited unless it is possible to use aluminium with a high recycled content. With respect to waste management, it was found that a substantial reduction in the GWP100 impact would occur if the chairs are recycled rather than landfilled, assuming an expanding market for aluminium. Thus, recycling the two LIFE chair models at end-of-life is highly recommended.     

Attributional versus consequential life cycle assessment and feed optimization: alternative protein sources in pig diets

Purpose

Feed production is responsible for the majority of the environmental impact of livestock production, especially for monogastric animals, such as pigs. Some feeding strategies demonstrated that replacing one ingredient with a high impact, e.g. soybean meal (SBM), with an alternative protein source, e.g. locally produced peas or rapeseed meal, has potential to reduce the environmental impact. These studies, however, used an attributional life cycle assessment (ALCA), which solely addresses the direct environmental impact of a product. A replacement of SBM with alternative protein sources, however, can also have indirect environmental consequences, which might change environmental benefits of using alternative protein sources. This study aims to explore differences in results when performing an ALCA and a CLCA to reduce the environmental impact of pig production. We illustrated this for two case studies: replacing SBM with rapeseed meal (RSM), and replacing SBM with waste-fed larvae meal in diets of finishing-pigs.

Methods

We used an ALCA and CLCA to assess global warming potential (GWP), energy use (EU) and land use (LU) of replacing SBM with RSM and waste-fed larvae meal, for finishing-pigs. The functional unit was 1 kg of body weight gain.

Results and discussion

Based on an ALCA, replacing SBM with RSM showed that GWP (3%) and EU (1%) were not changed, but LU was decreased (14%). ALCA results for replacing SBM with waste-fed larvae meal showed that EU did not change (1%), but GWP (10%) and LU (56%) were decreased. Based on a CLCA, replacing SBM with RSM showed an increased GWP (15%), EU (12%) and LU (10%). Replacing SBM with waste-fed larvae meal showed an increased GWP (60%) and EU (89%), but LU (70%) was decreased. Furthermore, the results of the sensitivity analysis showed that assumptions required to perform a CLCA, such as definition of the marginal product, have a large impact on final results but did not affect the final conclusions.

Conclusions

The CLCA results seem to contradict the ALCA results. CLCA results for both case studies showed that using co-products and waste-fed larvae meal currently not reduces the net environmental impact of pork production. This would have been overlooked when results were only based on ALCA. To gain insight into the environmental impact of feed, animal nutritionists can use an ALCA. If policy makers or the feed industry, however, want to assess the net environmental impact of a potential feeding strategy, it is recommended to perform a CLCA. Feed and food markets are, however, highly dynamic. Pig feed optimization is based on least cost optimization and a wide range of ingredients are available; diet compositions can, therefore, change easily, resulting in different environmental impacts. Ideally, therefore, a CLCA should include a sensitivity analysis (e.g. different feed prices or different marginal products) to provide a range of possible outcomes to make the results more robust.

     

Applying the Technology Choice Model in Consequential Life Cycle Assessment: A Case Study in the Peruvian Agricultural Sector

Demand for grapes to produce pisco in southern‐coastal Peru is expected to double by 2030. However, the appellation of this beverage confines the production and limits the space for agricultural expansion, leading to a situation in which potential competition for resources with established constraints is foreseen. Hence, the objective of this study is to understand the environmental impacts, focused on climate change and water consumption, linked to the agricultural dynamism in the valleys of Ica and Pisco due to an increase in the demand of pisco. For this, the viticulture system was analyzed regarding predicted changes in terms of expansion, displacement or intensification using a consequential life cycle assessment (CLCA) approach, identifying the environmental consequences of these shifts. A two‐step CLCA model was used based on the results of a previous attributional study, in which marginal effects were estimated following the stochastic technology‐of‐choice model (STCM) operational framework. Results identified a potential for the increase of pisco production based on crop substitution in the valleys of Ica and Pisco and suggest that greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption will be reduced locally, but the displaced agricultural production would reverse this tendency. Regardless of the policy implications of the results in the analyzed system, the proposed methodology constitutes a robust methodology that can be applied to other highly constrained agricultural systems, namely, those regulated by geographic indications.