Advertisement

Assessment of Carbon Footprinting in the Wood Industry

  • Andreja KutnarEmail author
  • Callum Hill
Part of the EcoProduction book series (ECOPROD)

Abstract

The management of natural resources is a subject that often arises when sustainable development is considered. Wood is a renewable, biological raw material used in numerous applications and is therefore growing in importance for sustainable development efforts. This chapter presents the applicability of carbon footprinting in the wood industry by comparing the carbon footprint of 14 primary wood products: air-dried and kiln-dried softwood and hardwood sawn timber, hard fiberboard, glued laminated timber for indoor and outdoor use, medium-density fiber board, oriented strand board, particleboard for indoor and outdoor use, plywood for indoor and outdoor use, and wood pellets. Furthermore, the use of timber products for the purposes of carbon storage and the effect of allocation methods on carbon footprinting are discussed. Additionally, the European policy strategies and actions directly impacting the forest products industry are discussed in relation to primary wood products. Also, wood as a building material and its placement in green building programs are considered.

Keywords

Allocation Carbon footprint Carbon storage Primary wood products Sawn wood Wood composites 

Notes

Acknowledgment

Andreja Kutnar would like to acknowledge the Slovenian Research Agency for financial support within the frame of the project Z4-5520.

References

  1. Barbu M, van Riet C (2008) European panels market developments—current situation and trends. In: The proceeds of the SWST annual convention, Concepción, Chile, 2008. Madison 2008. Society of Wood Science and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  2. Benetto E, Becker M, Welfring J (2009) Life cycle assessment of oriented strand boards (OSB): from process innovation to ecodesign. Env Sci Technol 43(15):6003–6009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berglund L, Rowell RM (2005) Handbook of wood chemistry and wood composites. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 279–301Google Scholar
  4. Bodig J, Jayne B (1982) Mechanics of wood and wood composites. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. New York, p 712Google Scholar
  5. Bowyer JL (2008) The green movement and the forest products industry. Forest Prod J 58(7/8):6–13Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan AH (2006) Can timber buildings help reduce global CO2 emissions? Proceedings, world conference on timber engineering, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchanan AH (2010) Energy and CO2 advantages of wood for sustainable buildings. Proceedings, world conference on timber engineering, Riva-del-GardaGoogle Scholar
  8. Carre A (2011) A comparative life cycle assessment of alternative constructions of a typical Australian house design. Forest and Wood Products Australia Limited, p 121. www.fwpa.com.au
  9. CEN/TC 350 (2012) Sustainability of construction worksGoogle Scholar
  10. Cherubini F, Strømman AH (2011) Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: state of the art and future challenges. Bioresour Technol 102:437–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cherubini F, Bird ND, Cowie A, Jungmeier G, Schlamadinger B, Gallasch S (2009) Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resour Conserv Recycl 53:434–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Climate Change (2001) IPCC third assessment report. The scientific basis. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/. Accessed 3 May 2010
  13. Construction Products Regulation (305/2011) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EECGoogle Scholar
  14. Earles J, Halo A, Shaler S (2011) Improving the environmental profile of wood panels via co-production of ethanol and acetic acid. Env Sci Technol 45(22):9743–9749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ecoinvent 2.0 (2010) Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  16. European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2012) EN 15804: sustainability of construction works—environmental product declarations—core rules for the product category of construction productsGoogle Scholar
  17. European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2011) EN 15978: sustainability of construction works—assessment of environmental performance of buildings—calculation methodGoogle Scholar
  18. European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2013) FprEN 16449: wood and wood-based products—calculation of the biogenic carbon content of wood and conversion to carbon dioxide Final draft 2013Google Scholar
  19. European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2012). EN 16485: round and sawn timber—environmental product declarations—product category rules for wood and wood-based products for use in construction Draft 2012Google Scholar
  20. European Commission (2009) Mainstreaming sustainable development into EU policies: 2009 review of the European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development. Communication. European Commission European Commission, Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52009DC0400:EN:NOT
  21. European Commission (2011) A roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. Communication. European Commission European Commission, Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0112:EN:NOT
  22. European Committee for Standardization (2011) 15942:2011: Sustainability of construction works—environmental product declarations—communication format business-to-business. Standard. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  23. European Parliament, Council (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. Directive. European Parliament European Parliament, Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008L0098:EN:NOT
  24. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2010) Global forest resource assessment 2010 main report. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, RomeGoogle Scholar
  25. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2013) FAOSTAT database. http://faostat.fao.org/site/362/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=362. Accessed 4 Nov 2013
  26. Forest-based Sector Technology Platform (2013a) Horizons—vision 2030 for the European forest-based sector. Research agenda. Filip De Jaeger, Gérant FTP Forest-based Sector Technology Platform, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  27. Forest-based Sector Technology Platform (2013b) Strategic research and innovation agenda for 2020. Research agenda. Filip de Jaeger, Gérant FTP Forest-based Sector Technology Platform, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  28. Forest Products Laboratory (2010) Wood handbook—wood as an engineering material. Forest Products Laboratory, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  29. Gonzalez-Garcia S, Feijoo G, Heathcote C, Kandelbauer A, Moreira M (2011) Environmental assessment of green hardboard production coupled with a laccase activating system. J Clean Prod 19(5):445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hall DO, Scrase JI (1998) Will biomass be the environmentally friendly fuel of the future? Biomass Bioenergy 15(4/5):357–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Halog A (2009) Models for evaluating energy, environmental and sustainability performance of biofuels value chain. Int J Glob Energy Energy Issues 32(1/2):87–101Google Scholar
  32. Hill CAS (2011) An introduction to sustainable resource use. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (1997) 14040: environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. Standard. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  34. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006) 14044:2006: environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. Standard. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  35. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2009) 14025: environmental Labels and declarations—type III environmental declarations—principles and procedures. Standard. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  36. Jungmeier G, Werner F, Jarnehammar A, Hohenthal C, Richter K (2002) Allocation in LCA of wood-based Products. Experiences of cost action E9. Part I. Methodology. Int J LCA 7(5):290–294Google Scholar
  37. Leek N (2010) Post-consumer wood. In: EUwood—real potential for changes in growth and use of EU forests. Final Report. EUwood, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  38. Lindholm EL, Berg S, Hansson PA (2010) Energy efficiency and the environmental impact of harvesting stumps and logging residues. Eur J Forest Res 129:1223–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oneil EE, Johnson LR, Lippke BR, McCarter JB, McDill ME, Roth PA, Finley JC (2010) Life-cycle impacts of inland Northwest and Northeast/North central forest resources. Wood Fiber Sci 42:29–51Google Scholar
  40. PAS 2050 (2011) Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and servicesGoogle Scholar
  41. Petersen AK, Solberg B (2005) Environmental and economic impacts of substitution between wood products and alternative materials: a review of micro-level analyses from Norway and Sweden. Forest Policy Econ 7:249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Puettmann ME, Wilson JB (2005) Life-cycle analysis of wood products: cradle-to-gate LCI of residential wood building materials. Wood Fiber Sci 37:18–29Google Scholar
  43. Puettmann ME, Bergman R, Hubbard S, Johnson L, Lippke B, Oneil E, Wagner FG (2010) Cradle-to-gate life-cycle inventory of US wood products production: corrim phase I and phase II products. Wood Fiber Sci 42:15–28Google Scholar
  44. Richter K (2001) LCA—reuse/recycle. In: Johansson CJ, Pizzi T, van Leemput M (eds.) Wood adhesion and glued products, Report on the State of the Art of COST Action E13, p 161–180Google Scholar
  45. Rivela B, Hospido A, Moreira T, Feijoo G (2006a) Life cycle inventory of particleboard: a case study in the wood sector. Int J LCA 11(2):106–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rivela B, Moreira M, Muñoz I, Rieradevall J, Feijoo G (2006b) Life cycle assessment of wood wastes: a case study of ephemeral architecture. Sci Total Env 357(1–3):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rivela B, Moreira T, Feijoo G (2007) Life cycle inventory of medium density fibreboard. Int J LCA 12(3):143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Saravia-Cortez A, Herva M, García-Diéguez C, Roca E (2013) Assessing environmental sustainability of particleboard production process by ecological footprint. J Cleaner Prod 52:301–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Silva D, Lahr F, Garcia R, Freire F, Ometto A (2013) Life cycle assessment of medium density particleboard (MDP) produced in Brazil. Int J LCA 18(7):1404–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. SimaPro, SimaPro Analyst Indefinite, Ecoinvent v2, Product Ecology Consultants, PEC, Netherlands, (2009). www.pre.nl/default.htm
  51. Suchsland O (2004) The swelling and shrinking of wood: a practical technology primer. Forest Products Society, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  52. Tucker S, Syme M, Foliente G (2009) Life cycle assessment of forest and wood products in Australia. N Z Timber Des J 17(4):3–9Google Scholar
  53. Wang M (2005) Energy and greenhouse gas emissions impacts of fuel ethanol. Center for Transportation Research Energy System Division, Argonne National Laboratory. NGCA Renewable fuels forum, the national Press club, 23 Aug 2005Google Scholar
  54. Werner F, Richter K (2007) Wood building products in comparative LCA. A literature review. Int J LCA 12(7):470–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Youngquist JA (1999) Wood handbook: wood as an engineering material. USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison. General technical report FPL; GTR-113: 10.1-10.31Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Primorska, Andrej Marušič InstituteKoperSlovenia
  2. 2.Faculty of Mathematics, Natural Sciences and Information TechnologiesUniversity of PrimorskaKoperSlovenia
  3. 3.Norsk Institutt for Skog og LandskapÅsNorway
  4. 4.JCH Industrial Ecology limitedBangorUK
  5. 5.RenuablesMenai BridgeUK

Personalised recommendations