Simplified tools for global warming potential evaluation: when ‘good enough’ is best

Abstract

Background, aim and scope

In spite of a number of lingering issues, life cycle assessment (LCA) is widely recognised as one of the most powerful tools to investigate the environmental performance of a product or service. Carbon footprint (CF) analysis can also be considered a subset of LCA, limited to a single impact category (i.e. global warming potential (GWP)). However, the inherent complexity of a full LCA or CF analysis often stands in the way of their widespread application in the industry and policy-making sectors. For these latter ambits, this paper advocates the adoption of tailor-made streamlined approaches, with reduced inventory requirements and impact assessment scope. Two such examples are provided, respectively addressing the evaluation of GWP in the development of new product standards and the GWP savings attainable through the use of recycled materials.

Materials and methods

Both the application examples presented here are firmly rooted in life cycle thinking, and follow the guidelines provided by the current ISO standards on LCA. At the same time, the employed models are structured in such a way as not to require the deployment of specific LCA software but rely on simple algorithms instead, complemented by tables of data for the associated background processes sourced from standard life cycle inventory databases.

Results

In the first example, the simplified algorithm was found to produce reliable and satisfactorily accurate results in terms of GWP, i.e. within 10% of those produced by a fully fledged LCA performed in parallel for validation purposes. In the second example, the adopted simplification only applied to the goal of the study (i.e. assessment of the absolute GWP savings, with no quantitative indication of their relative extent with respect to the total). Within these limits, the proposed simplified tool provided accurate indications, which enabled a clear ranking of the analysed products, in terms of desirability of recycling.

Discussion

To the extent possible within the given set of constraints, simplified tools such as those presented here do not lose their scientific rigour and take into account all phases of the product life cycle. Their reduced goal and scope does of course limit the breadth of the information that they can produce, but this can be mitigated through a case-specific selection of the adopted inventory simplifications and impact category/ies.

Conclusions

The two application examples presented here have provided solid evidence that streamlined approaches such as these can go a long way in facilitating the introduction of life cycle thinking and LCA in the day-to-day practice of industries and policy makers, while still producing scientifically sound and robust results.

Recommendations and perspectives

Simplified LCA tools lend themselves to a wealth of possible applications in the industry and policy-making sectors. More case studies are in order, and it will be advisable not to limit the goal and scope of all streamlined approaches to carbon footprint evaluation but to pick the most relevant impact categories to be included in the model on a case-by-case basis.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    An open loop recycling systems was considered in this study. Thus, neither environmental credits nor impact allocation was considered. Only the collection and physical treatment of the PE waste to generate new pellets are considered.

References

  1. AENOR (1998) UNE 150041:1998 EX Simplified life cycle assessment.

  2. AENOR (2009) PNE 53942. Plásticos. Bolsas reutilizables de polietileno (PE) para el transporte de productos distribuidos al por menor. Requisitos particulares y métodos de ensayo.

  3. Ayres RU (1995) Life cycle analysis: a critique. Res Cons Rec 14:199–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. BSI (2008) PAS 2050:2008—specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. Available via http://www.bsigroup.com/en/Standards-and-Publications/Industry-Sectors/Energy/PAS-2050/

  5. Carbon Trust (2007) Carbon footprinting—an introduction for organizations. Available at http://www.carbontrust.com/publications/CTV033.pdf

  6. Christiansen K (1997) Simplifying LCA: just a cut? Final report from the SETAC-EUROPE LCA Screening and Streamlining Working Group, Brussels

  7. Consoli F, Allen D, Boustead I, de Oude N, Fava J, Franklin R, Jensen AA, Parrish R, Perriman R, Postlethwaite D, Quay B, Séguin J, Vigon B (eds.) (1993) Guidelines for life-cycle assessment: a “code of practice”. Report of the workshop organised by SETAC in Portugal

  8. Curran MA, Young S (1996) Report from the EPA conference on streamlining LCA. Int J LCA 1:57–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. EC (2003) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Integrated product policy—building on environmental life-cycle thinking. COM/2003/0302 final

  10. Ecoinvent (2008) Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Available at http://www.ecoinvent.ch

  11. Ekvall T, Assefa G, Björklund A, Eriksoon O, Finnveden G (2007) What life-cycle assessment does and does not to do in assessments of waste management. Waste Manag 27:989–996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. ELCD (2008) European Commission Joint Research Centre – European Reference Life Cycle Data System. http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasetArea.vm

  13. EPLCA (2009). Carbon footprint—what it is and how to measure it. European Commission Joint Research Centre. http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/eplca

  14. Fleischer G, Gerner K, Kunst H, Lichtenvort K, Rebitzer G (2001) A semi-quantitative method for the impact assessment of emissions within a simplified life cycle assessment. Int J LCA 6(3):149–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Frischknecht R, Steiner R, Braunschweig A, Egli N, Hildesheimer G (2006) Swiss ecological scarcity method: the new version 2006. Available at http://www.esu-services.ch/cms/fileadmin/download/Frischknecht-2006-EcologicalScarcity-Paper.pdf

  16. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The Eco-Indicator 99. A damage oriented method for life cycle assessment. Pré Consultants, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. http://www.pre.nl/download/EI99_methodology_v3.pdf

  17. Heijungs R, de Koning A, Ligthart T, Korenromp R (2004) Improvement of LCA characterization factors and LCA practice for metals. TNO-Report R 2004/347. http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/final%20report%20metals.pdf

  18. Hochschorner E, Finnveden G (2003) Evaluation of two simplified life cycle assessment methods. Int J LCA 8(3):119–128

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hur T, Lee J, Ryu F, Kwon E (2005) Simplified LCA and matrix methods in identifying the environmental aspects of a product system. J Environ Manag 75:229–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. ISO (2006a) International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14040:2006 - Environmental Management. Life Cycle Assessment. Principles and Framework. http://www.iso.org/iso/home.htm

  21. ISO (2006b) International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14044:2006 - Environmental Management. Life Cycle Assessment. Requirements and Guidelines. http://www.iso.org/iso/home.htm

  22. Lindfors L-G, Christiansen K, Hoffmann L, Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Hanssen OJ, Rønning A, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (1995) Nordic guidelines on life-cycle assessment. Nordic Council of Ministers, Nord 20. Copenhagen

  23. PE International (2007) GaBi professional database. http://documentation.gabi-software.com

  24. Potting J, Hauschild M (2005) Background for spatial differentiation in LCA impact assessment—the EDIP2003 methodology. Environmental project no. 996 2005, Danish Ministry of the Environment. Available at www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2005/87-7614-581-6/pdf/87-7614-582-4.pdf

  25. Raugei M, Ulgiati S (2009) A novel approach to the problem of geographic allocation of environmental impact in LCA, with special focus on the MFA method. J Ecol Indicators 9(6):1257–1264

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Schnoor JL (2009) LCA and environmental intelligence? EST 1(43):2997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sinden G (2009) The contribution of PAS 2050 to the evolution of international greenhouse gas emission standards. Int J LCA 14(3):195–203

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Steen BA (2006) Abiotic resource depletion—different perceptions of the problem with mineral deposits. Int J LCA 11(1):49–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Todd JA, Curran MA (1999) Streamlined life-cycle assessment: a final report from the SETAC North America streamlined LCA workgroup

  30. Ulgiati S, Raugei M, Bargigli S (2006) Overcoming the inadequacy of single-criterion approaches to life cycle assessment. Ecol Model 190(3–4):432–442

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Weidema BP, Wesnæs MS (1996) Data quality management for life cycle inventories—an example of using data quality indicators. J Clean Prod 4(3–4):167–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank CICLOPLAST (http://www.cicloplast.com) for providing funding and data for the plastic bags case study and the Catalan Waste Agency (www.arc-cat.net) for providing funding and expert collaboration on the second case study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alba Bala.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bala, A., Raugei, M., Benveniste, G. et al. Simplified tools for global warming potential evaluation: when ‘good enough’ is best. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15, 489–498 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0153-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Carbon footprint
  • Global warming potential
  • Green procurement
  • LCA
  • Product standards
  • Recycled materials
  • Simplified tools