Abstract
Purpose
The common practice of summing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and applying global warming potentials (GWPs) to calculate CO2 equivalents misrepresents the global warming effects of emissions that occur over a product or system’s life cycle at a particular time in the future. The two primary purposes of this work are to develop an approach to correct for this distortion that can (1) be feasibly implemented by life cycle assessment and carbon footprint practitioners and (2) results in units of CO2 equivalent. Units of CO2 equilavent allow for easy integration in current reporting and policy frameworks.
Methods
CO2 equivalency is typically calculated using GWPs from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. GWPs are calculated by dividing a GHG’s global warming effect, as measured by cumulative radiative forcing, over a prescribed time horizon by the global warming effect of CO2 over that same time horizon. Current methods distort the actual effect of GHG emissions at a particular time in the future by summing emissions released at different times and applying GWPs; modeling them as if they occur at the beginning of the analytical time horizon. The method proposed here develops time-adjusted warming potentials (TAWPs), which use the reference gas CO2, and a reference time of zero. Thus, application of TAWPs results in units of CO2 equivalent today.
Results and discussion
A GWP for a given GHG only requires that a practitioner select an analytical time horizon. The TAWP, however, contains an additional independent variable; the year in which an emission occurs. Thus, for each GHG and each analytical time horizon, TAWPs require a simple software tool (TAWPv1.0) or an equation to estimate their value. Application of 100-year TAWPs to a commercial building’s life cycle emissions showed a 30 % reduction in CO2 equivalent compared to typical practice using 100-year GWPs. As the analytical time horizon is extended the effect of emissions timing is less pronounced. For example, at a 500-year analytical time horizon the difference is only 5 %.
Conclusions and recommendations
TAWPs are one of many alternatives to traditional accounting methods, and are envisioned to be used as one of multiple characterizations in carbon accounting or life cycle impact assessment methods to assist in interpretation of a study’s outcome.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
As indicated earlier, a lack of significant digits reported for radiative efficiency, lifetime, and/or indirect effects in the IPCC methodology leads to differences between the GWP and TAWP, even when in theory they should be identical. For example, the TAWP500(y = 10) for methane should be identical to the IPCC GWP500, but in fact it deviates by 0.08 kg CO2e.
References
Brandão M, Levasseur A (2011) Assessing temporary carbon storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting: outcomes of an expert workshop. October 7–8, 2010. Ispra, Italy. European Commission. DOI: 10.2788/22040
British Standards Institution (2008) PAS2050:2008 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse as emissions of goods and services. London
British Standards Institution (2011) PAS2050:2011 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse as emissions of goods and services. London
Clift R, Brandao M (2008) Carbon storage and timing of emissions—a note by Roland Clift and Miguel Brandao. Centre for Environmental Strategy Working Paper 02/08. University of Surrey, Surrey
Courchesne A, Bécaert V, Rosenbaum RK, Deschênes L, Samson R (2010) Using the Lashof accounting methodology to assess carbon mitigation projects with life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 14(2):309–321
Fearnside PM (2002) Why a 100-year time horizon should be used for global warming mitigation calculations. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Chang 7(1):19–30
Fearnside PM, Lashof DA, Moura-Costa P (2000) Accounting for time in mitigating global warming through land-use change and forestry. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Chang 5(3):239–270
Fuglestvedt JS, Berntsen TK, Godal O, Sausen R, Shine KP, Skodvin T (2003) Metrics of climate change: assessing radiative forcing and emission indices. Clim Change 58(3):27–331
IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
IPCC (2011) Errata: Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Kendall A, Chang B, Sharpe BA (2009) Accounting for time-dependent effects in biofuel life cycle greenhouse gas emissions calculations. Environ Sci Technol 43(18):7142
Kendall A, Price L (2012) Incorporating time-corrected life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in vehicle regulations. Environ Sci Technol 46(5):2557–2563
Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Deschênes L, Samson R (2010) Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming imact assessments. Environ Sci Technol 44(8):3169–3174
Levasseur A, Brandão M, Lesage P, Margni M, Pennington D, Clift R, Samson R (2012) Valuing temporary carbon storage. Nat Clim Change 2(1):6–8
Moura-Costa P, Wilson C (2000) An equivalence factor between CO2 avoided emissions and sequestration—description and applications in forestry. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Chang 5:51–60
Müller-Wenk R, Brandão M (2010) Climatic impact of land use in LCA—carbon transfers between vegetation/soil and air. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):172–182
O’Hare M, Plevin RJ, Martin JI, Kendall A, Hopson E (2009) Proper accounting for time increases crop-based biofuels’ GHG deficit versus petroleum. Environ Res Lett 4(024001)
Peters GP, Aamaas B, Lund MT, Solli C, Fuglestvedt JS (2011) Alternative “global warming” metrics in life cycle assessment: a case study with existing transportation data. Environ Sci Technol 45(20):8633–8641
Scheuer C, Keoleian G, Reppe P (2003) Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design implications. Energ Buildings 35(10):1049–1064
Schwietzke S, Griffin WM, Matthews HS (2011) Relevance of emissions timing in biofuel greenhouse gases and climate impacts. Environ Sci Technol 45(19):8197–8203
Shine KP, Fuglestvedt JS, Hailemariam K, Stuber N (2005) Alternatives to the global warming potential for comparing climate impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases. Clim Change 68(3):281–302
Shine KP, Berntsen TK, Fuglestvedt JS, Skeie RB, Stuber N (2007) Comparing the climate effect of emissions of short- and long-lived climate agents. Phil Trans R Soc A 365:1903–1914
Shine K (2009) The global warming potential—the need for an interdisciplinary retrial. Clim Change 96(4):467–472
Sygna L, Fuglestvedt JS, Aaheim HA (2002) The adequacy of GWPs as indicators of damage costsincurred by global warming. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Chang 7(1):45–62
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Mark Huijbregts
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Online resource 1
TAWPv1.0 (XLSM 1.73 mb)
Online resource 2
List of best-fit TAWP equations (DOC 57 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kendall, A. Time-adjusted global warming potentials for LCA and carbon footprints. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17, 1042–1049 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0436-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0436-5