Advertisement

Rethinking system boundary in LCA—reply to “Lifting the fog on the characteristics and limitations of hybrid LCA” by Thomas Gibon and Thomas Schaubroeck (2017)

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Introduction

The comments made by Gibon and Schaubroeck (2017) on my previous article (Yang 2017) are highly appreciated. The authors raised several interesting questions that warrant further discussion. As the limitations of the conventional linear framework are increasingly recognized (Searchinger et al. 2008b; Ferng 2009; Haberl et al. 2012; Plevin et al. 2014; McManus and Taylor 2015; Yang and Campbell 2017), it is time to reevaluate some of its long-held assumptions. One such assumption is a complete, economy-wide system boundary. It is my hope that our exchanges here will trigger further discussion and research that lead to more robust life-cycle assessment (LCA) methodologies for decision-making.

Rethinking a complete, economy-wide system boundary

Gibon and Schaubroeck (2017) rightly pointed out that whether promotion of one, or any, product would affect all other processes across the world “depends on the data and not only on the methodology.” But, it was not the data, but the...

Keywords

Large Hadron Collider System Boundary Methodological Development Bamboo Shoot Corn Ethanol 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ferng J-J (2009) Applying input–output analysis to scenario analysis of ecological footprints. Ecol Econ 69:345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gibon T, Schaubroeck T (2017) Lifting the fog on the characteristics and limitations of hybrid LCA—a reply to “Does hybrid LCA with a complete system boundary yield adequate results for product promotion?” by Yi Yang (Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(3):456–406, doi: 10.1007/s11367–016–1256-9. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:  10.1007/s11367–017–1291-1
  3. Haberl H, Sprinz D, Bonazountas M et al (2012) Correcting a fundamental error in greenhouse gas accounting related to bioenergy. Energy Policy 45:18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) The computational structure of life cycle assessment. Kluwer Academic Pub, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hill J, Tajibaeva L, Polasky S (2016) Climate consequences of low-carbon fuels: the United States Renewable Fuel Standard. Energy Policy 97:351–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Majeau-Bettez G, Strømman AH, Hertwich EG (2011) Evaluation of process- and input–output-based life cycle inventory data with regard to truncation and aggregation issues. Environ Sci Technol 45:10170–10177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. McManus MC, Taylor CM (2015) The changing nature of life cycle assessment. Biomass Bioenergy 82:13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind Ecol 18:73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rajagopal D, Hochman G, Zilberman D (2011) Indirect fuel use change (IFUC) and the lifecycle environmental impact of biofuel policies. Energy Policy 39:228–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton R et al (2008a) Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319:1238–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Searchinger TD, Heimlich R et al (2008b) Estimating greenhouse gas emissions from soy-based US biodiesel when factoring in emissions from land use change. Lifecycle Carbon Footpr Biofuels 35–45Google Scholar
  12. Stasinopoulos P, Compston P, Newell B, Jones HM (2012) A system dynamics approach in LCA to account for temporal effects—a consequential energy LCI of car body-in-whites. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Suh S, Huppes G (2005) Methods for life cycle inventory of a product. J Clean Prod 13:687–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar G et al (2004) System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ Sci Technol 38:657–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Yang Y (2017) Does hybrid LCA with a complete system boundary yield adequate results for product promotion? Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:456–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Yang Y (2016) Two sides of the same coin: consequential life cycle assessment based on the attributional framework. J Clean Prod 127:274–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Yang Y, Campbell JE (2017) Improving attributional life cycle assessment for decision support: the case of local food in sustainable design. J Clean Prod 145:361–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Yang Y, Heijungs R (2016) Consequential life cycle assessment: different models for the same question. Int J Life Cycle Assess (in review)Google Scholar
  19. York R (2012) Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels? Nat Clim Chang 2:441–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CSRA IncFalls ChurchUSA

Personalised recommendations