Advertisement

A unified framework of life cycle assessment

COMMENTARY AND DISCUSSION ARTICLE

Abstract

Purpose

The dichotomy between the attributional approach and the consequential approach is one of the major unsettled questions in life cycle assessment (LCA). Debates continue on. Here, I suggest a different view that hopefully will help us move past the dichotomy and toward a unified framework for decision support.

Methods

I argue the dichotomy is unnecessary. Attributional LCA, as reflected in how the conventional models like process- and input-output (IO)-based LCA have been applied, is simply a linear consequential modeling that establishes cause and effect through product supply chain. This is how economists see IO analysis, namely, a linear model based on Leontief production functions. There are other consequential and causal models, such as computable general equilibrium (CGE) and system dynamics (SD), that may have different production functions or focus on other aspects of the economy. These models have been increasingly integrated into LCA to estimate the environmental effects, impacts, or consequences of products, which is at the core of LCA. I further argue that as a field, we may be better off eliminating both terms: attributional fails to capture the essence of LCA and consequential is redundant. Likewise, economists did not call IO attributional and CGE consequential because both are consequential models, nor did they use the term consequential as that would be stating the obvious.

Results and discussion

I suggest LCA be unified around its goal to support decision-making, which requires estimating the impact of changes associated with a decision versus that without it (the counterfactual). This is the basic methodology adopted in many other fields. LCA then becomes an overarching framework that encompasses a suite of models, including our conventional IO/process-based LCA, to support different levels of decision-making related to products. Which distinguishes LCA from other fields of study is the focus on product systems. I also discuss, for the linear IO/process-based models, under what circumstances their estimates of the existing systems as an approximation of changes may be meaningful or misleading for decision-making. I further touch upon the importance of understanding the counterfactual, which has been largely neglected in LCA literature.

Recommendations

For an LCA to support decision-making, (1) make explicit what the potential changes are and clearly define the scale of change and (2) derive range estimates to capture the high uncertainties in modeling complex systems and be willing to admit inconclusiveness. For decisions with potentially large impacts across sectors, a multi-model approach may be helpful.

Keywords

Attributional Consequential Life cycle assessment Conterfactual Process model EEIO 

Notes

References

  1. Anex R, Lifset R (2014) Life cycle assessment: different models for different purposes. J Ind Ecol 18:321–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clune S, Crossin E, Verghese K (2017) Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories. J Clean Prod 140:766–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cucurachi S, Yang Y, Bergesen JD, Qin Y, Suh S (2016) Challenges in assessing the environmental consequences of dietary changes. Environ Syst Decis 36:217–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis C, Nikolić I, Dijkema GPJ (2009) Integration of life cycle assessment into agent-based modeling. J Ind Ecol 13:306–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dervis K, Dervis K (1982) General equilibrium models for development policy. A World Bank research publication, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Dorfman R, Samuelson P, Solow R (1987) Linear programming and economic analysis. Dover Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Earles JM, Halog A (2011) Consequential life cycle assessment: a review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ekvall T, Tillman A, Molander S (2005) Normative ethics and methodology for life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 13:1225–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319:1235–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Farrell A, Plevin R, Turner B, Jones AD, O'Hare M, Kammen DM (2006) Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311:506–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferng J-J (2009) Applying input–output analysis to scenario analysis of ecological footprints. Ecol Econ 69:345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Ekvall T et al (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gelfand I, Sahajpal R, Zhang X, Izaurralde RC, Gross KL, Robertson GP (2013) Sustainable bioenergy production from marginal lands in the US Midwest. Nature 493:514–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guinée JB, Cucurachi S, Henriksson PJG, Heijungs R (2018) Digesting the alphabet soup of LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:1507–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) The computational structure of life cycle assessment. Kluwer Academic Pub, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knops JMH, Bradley KL (2009) Soil carbon and nitrogen accumulation and vertical distribution across a 74-year chronosequence. Soil Sci Soc Am J 73:2096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koponen K, Soimakallio S (2015) Foregone carbon sequestration due to land occupation—the case of agro-bioenergy in Finland. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1544–1556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koponen K, Soimakallio S, Kline KL, Cowie A, Brandão M (2018) Quantifying the climate effects of bioenergy – choice of reference system. Renew Sust Energ Rev 81:2271–2280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Manski CF (2013) Public policy in an uncertain world: analysis and decisions. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Marvuglia A, Benetto E, Rege S, Jury C (2013) Modelling approaches for consequential life-cycle assessment (C-LCA) of bioenergy: critical review and proposed framework for biogas production. Renew Sust Energ Rev 25:768–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miller R, Blair P (2009) Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, EnglandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Otto FEL, van Oldenborgh GJ, Eden J, Stott PA, Karoly DJ, Allen MR (2016) The attribution question. Nat Clim Chang 6:813–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Palazzo J, Geyer R (2019) Consequential life cycle assessment of automotive material substitution: replacing steel with aluminum in production of north American vehicles. Environ Impact Assess Rev 75:47–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Plevin R, Jones A, Torn M, Gibbs H (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels’ indirect land use change are uncertain but may be much greater than previously estimated. Environ Sci Technol 44:8015–8021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Plevin RJ (2017) Assessing the climate effects of biofuels using integrated assessment models, Part I: Methodological considerations: assessing biofuels’ climate effects-methods. J Ind Ecol 21:1478–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Qin Z, Canter CE, Cai H (2017) Toward life cycle analysis on land use change and climate impacts from bioenergy production: a review. In: Qin Z, Mishra U, Hastings A (eds) Geophysical monograph series. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA, pp 63–82Google Scholar
  27. Robertson GP, Hamilton SK, Barham BL et al (2017) Cellulosic biofuel contributions to a sustainable energy future: choices and outcomes. Science 356:eaal2324Google Scholar
  28. Rose A (1995) Input-output economics and computable general equilibrium models. Struct Change Econ Dyn 6:295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schlesinger WH (2018) Are wood pellets a green fuel? Science 359:1328–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Searchinger T, Edwards R, Mulligan D, Heimlich R, Plevin R (2015) Do biofuel policies seek to cut emissions by cutting food? Science 347:1420–1422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton R et al (2008) Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319:1238–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sen A (2011) The idea of justice. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  33. Solow R (1952) On the structure of linear models. Econometrica 20:29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Springmann M, Clark M, Mason-D’Croz D, Wiebe K, Bodirsky BL, Lassaletta L, de Vries W, Vermeulen SJ, Herrero M, Carlson KM, Jonell M, Troell M, DeClerck F, Gordon LJ, Zurayk R, Scarborough P, Rayner M, Loken B, Fanzo J, Godfray HCJ, Tilman D, Rockström J, Willett W (2018) Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562:519–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stanford (2013) Changing the game?: emissions and market implications of new natural gas supplies. Stanford University, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Suh S, Heijungs R (2007) Power series expansion and structural analysis for life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Suh S, Yang Y (2014) On the uncanny capabilities of consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1179–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tillman A (2000) Significance of decision-making for LCA methodology. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tilman D, Clark M (2014) Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515:518–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tilman D, Hill J, Lehman C (2006) Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science 314:1598–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tilman D, Socolow R, Foley J et al (2009) Beneficial biofuels--the food, energy, and environment trilemma. Science 325:270–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weidema PB (2003) Market information in life cycle assessment. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  44. West GR (1995) Comparison of input–output, input–output+ econometric and computable general equilibrium impact models at the regional level. Econ Syst Res 7:209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wiedmann T, Minx J (2008) A definition of ‘carbon footprint.’ In: Ecological economics research trends. NOva Science Publishers, Hauppauge NY, USA, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. Yang Y, Heijungs R (2018) On the use of different models for consequential life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:751–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yang Y, Heijungs R (2019) Moving from completing system boundary to more realistic modeling of the economy in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yang Y, Tilman D, Lehman C, Trost JJ (2018) Sustainable intensification of high-diversity biomass production for optimal biofuel benefits. Nat Sustain 1:686–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zink T, Geyer R, Startz R (2016) A market-based framework for quantifying displaced production from recycling or reuse. J Ind Ecol 20:719–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems EngineeringUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations