Abstract
Purpose
Current comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) studies claim to answer whether it is better or worse for the environment to change from old to new systems. Most commonly, the attributional LCA (ALCA) is practised despite its limitations to describe market effects. Hence, an attempt is done here to include market effects in the ALCA practice for comparisons in order to improve ALCA. The purpose is neither to investigate which LCA concept, ALCA, consequential LCA or decisional LCA, is the best for comparisons nor which is the best for decision-making.
Methods
Here, for the first time, a method based on marked changes which can be used for sensitivity checks of comparative ALCAs, advanced ALCA (AALCA) is presented. The new concept of global change mix factors (GCMF) is introduced. The method, based on accessible market data, is applied to previous comparative ALCAs of conductive adhesives, cooling modules used in radio base stations, office computing systems, as well as personal devices usage, here represented by multifunctional smartphones replacing other devices such as digital cameras.
Results and discussion
The results show that AALCA based on market data improves the understanding and can act as a sensitivity check of comparative ALCA results. For declining markets of products, with relatively high eco-environmental impacts, the difference between comparative AALCA and ALCA can be significant. As AALCA is founded in marginal electricity thinking and uses market data, there are similarities between AALCA and simplistic consequential LCA (CLCA). However, AALCA is not intended to replace CLCA or decisional LCA (DLCA).
Conclusions
By applying allocation factors, GCMF, based on real or future market changes, the interdependence of global markets and micro-level LCA shifts can be taken into account in comparative micro-level ALCA studies and make them more robust. Further, the sensitivity of using price units instead of physical units, as the basis for the GCMF, should be investigated. The degree to which AALCA and CLCA can complement each other should be examined. Also, the degree to which the GCMF used in AALCA-H address rebound effects should be further explored. The annual eco-environmental impacts of mobile devices towards 2020 are also of interest, and more LCA case studies are welcome.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andersen O (2013) Unintended consequences of renewable energy: problems to be solved. Springer
Andrae ASG, Östermark U, Liu J (2000) Life cycle assessment of a telecommunications exchange. J Electron Manuf 10:147–160
Andrae ASG, Itsubo N, Yamaguchi H, Inaba A (2008) Life cycle assessment of Japanese high-temperature conductive adhesives. Environ Sci Technol 42:3084–3089
Andrae ASG (2009) Global life cycle impact assessments of material shifts: the example of a lead-free electronics industry. Springer
Andrae ASG, Andersen O (2010) Life cycle assessments of consumer electronics—are they consistent? Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:827–836
Andrae ASG, Andersen O (2011) Life cycle assessment of integrated circuit packaging technologies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:258–267
Andrae ASG (2013) Comparative micro life cycle assessment of physical and virtual desktops in a cloud computing network with consequential, efficiency, and rebound considerations. J Green Eng 3:193–218
Andrae ASG, Corcoran PM (2013) Emerging trends in electricity consumption for consumer ICT. http://vmserver14.nuigalway.ie/xmlui/handle/10379/3563. Accessed: 17 June 2014
Benoît C (ed) (2010) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. United Nations Environment Programme
Corcoran PM, Andrae ASG (2014) On thin-clients and the cloud; can smartphones and tablets really reduce electricity consumption?. In 2014 I.E. International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE), Las Vegas, NA, pp 81–84
Croft McKenzie E, Durango-Cohen PL (2010) An input-output approach for the efficient design of sustainable goods and services. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:946–961
Dandres T, Gaudreault C, Tirado-Seco P, Samson R (2011) Assessing non-marginal variations with consequential LCA: application to European energy sector. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15:3121–3132
Ekvall T, Andrae ASG (2006) Attributional and consequential environmental assessment of the shift to lead-free solders. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:344–353
European Commission (EC) (2010) The International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) handbook—general guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance. European Commission, Joint Research Centre. Publications office of the European Union, Luxemburg
European Telecommunications Standards Institute (2011) ETSI TS 103 199 V1.1.1 (2011–11) Environmental Engineering (EE); Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of ICT equipment, networks and services; General methodology and common requirements
Fleck B, Huot M (2009) Comparative life-cycle assessment of a small wind turbine for residential off-grid use. Renew Energ 34:2688–2696
Frischknecht R, Stucki M (2010) Scope-dependent modelling of electricity supply in life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:806–816
Graedel TE, Allwood J, Birat JP, Buchert M, Hagelüken C, Reck BK, Sonnemann G (2011) Recycling rates of metals: a status report. United Nations Environment Programme
Hertwich EG (2005) Consumption and the rebound effect: an industrial ecology perspective. J Ind Ecol 9:85–98
Igos E, Benetto E, Baudin I, Tiruta-Barna L, Mery Y, Arbault D (2013a) Cost-performance indicator for comparative environmental assessment of water treatment plants. Sci Total Environ 443:367–374
Igos E, Benetto E, Venditti S, Köhler C, Cornelissen A (2013b) Comparative and integrative environmental assessment of advanced wastewater treatment processes based on an average removal of pharmaceuticals. Water Sci Technol J Int Assoc Water Pollut Res 67:387–394
ISO (2006a) 14040 - Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework
ISO (2006b) 14044 - Environmental management—life cycle assessment–requirements and guidelines
Jackson R (2014) An integrated environmental and economic modeling framework for technological transitions (No. 201401) http://www.rri.wvu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Jackson_WP2014-01_WRSA2014Jackson.pdf. Accessed 17 June 2014
Jung J, von der Assen N, Bardow A (2013) Comparative LCA of multi-product processes with non-common products: a systematic approach applied to chlorine electrolysis technologies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:828–839
Merciai S, Schmidt JH, Dalgaard R (2011) Inventory of country specific electricity in LCA – India. 2.0 LCA consultants, Aalborg, Denmark
Mutel CL, de Baan L, Hellweg S (2013) Two-step sensitivity testing of parametrized and regionalized life cycle assessments: methodology and case study. Environ Sci Technol 47:5660–5667
Pelletier N, Tyedmers P (2011) An ecological economic critique of the use of market information in life cycle assessment research. J Ind Ecol 15:342–354
Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate‐change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind Ecol 18:73–83
Renouf MA, Pagan RJ, Wegener MK (2011) Life cycle assessment of Australian sugarcane products with a focus on cane processing. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:125–137
Reinhard J, Zah R (2009) Global environmental consequences of increased biodiesel consumption in Switzerland: consequential life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 17(S1):S46–S56
Rajagopal D, Zilberman D (2013) On market-mediated emissions and regulations on life cycle emissions. Ecol Econ 90:77–84
Schmidt JH (2010) Comparative life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:183–197
Suh S, Weidema B, Schmidt JH, Heijungs R (2010) Generalized make and use framework for allocation in life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 14:335–353
Zhu Y, Andrae ASG (2014) System and method of life-cycle assessment for equipment of information and communication technology. WO2014012590 A1, 23 Jan 2014
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Huawei Technologies, my colleagues and the anonymous reviewer’s comments which greatly improved this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Adisa Azapagic
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Andrae, A.S.G. Method based on market changes for improvement of comparative attributional life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20, 263–275 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0830-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0830-2