Key issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting
- 3.3k Downloads
Biological sequestration can increase the carbon stocks of non-atmospheric reservoirs (e.g. land and land-based products). Since this contained carbon is sequestered from, and retained outside, the atmosphere for a period of time, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is temporarily reduced and some radiative forcing is avoided. Carbon removal from the atmosphere and storage in the biosphere or anthroposphere, therefore, has the potential to mitigate climate change, even if the carbon storage and associated benefits might be temporary. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and carbon footprinting (CF) are increasingly popular tools for the environmental assessment of products, that take into account their entire life cycle. There have been significant efforts to develop robust methods to account for the benefits, if any, of sequestration and temporary storage and release of biogenic carbon. However, there is still no overall consensus on the most appropriate ways of considering and quantifying it.
This paper reviews and discusses six available methods for accounting for the potential climate impacts of carbon sequestration and temporary storage or release of biogenic carbon in LCA and CF. Several viewpoints and approaches are presented in a structured manner to help decision-makers in their selection of an option from competing approaches for dealing with timing issues, including delayed emissions of fossil carbon.
Key issues identified are that the benefits of temporary carbon removals depend on the time horizon adopted when assessing climate change impacts and are therefore not purely science-based but include value judgments. We therefore did not recommend a preferred option out of the six alternatives presented here.
Further work is needed to combine aspects of scientific and socio-economic understanding with value judgements and ethical considerations.
KeywordsClimate change Carbon footprint Carbon cycle Carbon stocks Carbon sinks Global warming potential (GWP) Time preferences
The authors acknowledge the inputs of every participant of the workshop, particularly those who presented their work in addition to some of the authors: Viorel Blujdea, Francesco Cherubini, Roland Clift, Laura Draucker, Annemarie Kerkhof, Gregg Marland, Glen Peters, Frank Werner, Marc-Andree Wolf, Katherina Wührl, and Giuliana Zanchi.
Some of the views and opinions raised in this workshop and presented in this summary paper are not necessarily shared by all of the authors nor by their associated organisations.
- Bird DN, Cowie A, Strømman AH, Frieden D (2011) The timing of greenhouse gas emissions from bioenergy systems using financial type indicators and terminology to discuss emission profiles from bioenergy. In Proceedings of the 19th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, Berlin. 10.5071/19thEUBCE2011-VP5.2.6
- Brandão M, Levasseur A (2011) Assessing temporary carbon storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting: Outcomes of an expert workshop. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. ISBN 978-92-79-20350-3. http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/assessment/publications
- BSI (2008) PAS 2050:2008 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards Institution, LondonGoogle Scholar
- BSI (2011) PAS 2050:2011 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards Institution, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Clift R, Brandão M (2008) Carbon storage and timing of emissions. University of Surrey. Centre for Environmental Strategy Working Paper Number 02/08. ISSN: 1464–8083, GuildfordGoogle Scholar
- European Commission (2010a) Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Communication from the Commission. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF
- European Commission (2010b) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook—general guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance. Joint Research Centre—Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
- European Commission (2011) Recommendations based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors for Life Cycle Assessment in European context. ILCD Handbook—International Reference Life Cycle Data System, European Union EUR24571EN. ISBN 978-92-79-17451-3. Available at http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu
- Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts R, Fahey DW et al (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In: Solomon S, Quin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: The physical science basic. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 129–234Google Scholar
- Herzog H, Caldeira K, Reilly J (2003) An issue of permanence: Assessing the effectiveness of ocean carbon sequestration. Climatic Change 59:293–310Google Scholar
- IPCC (2007) Summary for policymakers. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
- IPCC (2009) Meeting Report of the Expert Meeting on the Science of Alternative Metrics. [Plattner G-K, Stocker TF, Midgley P, Tignor M (eds)]. IPCC Working Group I. Technical Support Unit, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, pp 75Google Scholar
- ISO (2003) Environmental management—life cycle impact assessment—examples of application of ISO 14042. ISO Technical Report 14047. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences (2010) Massachusetts Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study: Report to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. Walker T (ed). Contributors: Cardellichio P, Colnes A, Gunn J, Kittler B, Perschel R, Recchia C, Saah D, Walker T, Natural Capital Initiative Report NCI-2010- 03. Brunswick, MaineGoogle Scholar
- Meinshausen M, Hare B (2002) Temporary sinks do not cause permanent climatic benefits. Achieving short-term emissions reduction targets at the future’s expense. Greenpeace Background Paper, 7 ppGoogle Scholar
- Penman J, Gytarsky M, Hiraishi T, Krug T, Kruger D, Pipatti R, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, Wagner F (2003) Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme and Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Kanagawa, Japan. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
- Watson RT, Noble IR, Bolin B, Ravindranath NH, Verardo DJ, Dokken DJ (2000) IPCC Report on Land use, land-use change and forestry. Intergovernmental Panel for Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
- WRI and WBCSD (2011) Product life cycle accounting and reporting standard. World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- Zanchi G, Pena N, Bird N (2010) The upfront carbon debt of bioenergy. Joanneum Research. http://www.birdlife.org/eu/pdfs/Bionergy_Joanneum_Research.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2011