Carbon emissions are ONE element of sustainable environment, society, and commerce. While climate change is indeed important, we must be mindful to not exclusively focus on one factor alone. For the purposes of examining a holistic environmental impact, a comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment is necessary. This article puts light onto the environmental aspect of sustainability.
The public discussion on carbon has gone on for the last couple years, helping fuel greater awareness of activities’ contributions to greenhouse gas accumulation. While this is great, there are three major problems with carbon:
.
Misconceptions
Many people have only a vague idea of what a carbon footprint is, or means. A study by Harris Interactive for Dow Corning, from a sample of 1,000 individuals from a cross-section of companies in 8 countries, revealed that 68% of respondents were unfamiliar with the term. Here’s the lowdown:
The measurement of a carbon footprint entails the amount (expressed in units of CO2 equivalents) of greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere as the result of a given activity or product. On the surface, this is acceptable because there are environmental accounting methodologies for calculating it (ISO 14040, 14044 and 14064). Let’s think about those ‘equivalents’ though. The three primary greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. While the first is the largest contributor, the latter two have a MUCH higher impact (per unit) on global warming.
A carbon footprint tells us only about emissions though. The danger is that if people who want to be more environmentally friendly, compare products and services solely on the basis of carbon footprints, they might make the wrong choices. While carbon labels like those advised by organizations like the U.K. Carbon Trust, and implemented by manufacturers and retailers in Britain and Japan, are good in theory and I commend them for their efforts, it’s just not a good enough measurement - It does not deliver a total environmental impact.
.
Narrow Scope
Secondly, the scope of carbon footprints don’t cover a product or activity’s total impact over time. For that, we need a comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment to consider many other environmental factors including:
- Acid rain
- Smog
- Habitat alteration
- Ozone depletion
- Fossil fuel depletion
- Water usage and effluence quality
- Indoor air pollutants
- Solid and hazardous waste
- Human and ecological health
How are carbon emissions from organizations measured then? There are generally accepted 3 Tiers of scope:
1) From the company’s own activities
2) Emissions from electricity and steam purchased by the company.
3) All other emissions, including the entire supply chain of goods and services.
According to research conducted by researchers at MIT, most measurement and reporting is carried out in the first two tiers. Further elaborating,
“Two-thirds of U.S. industries would overlook 75 percent of their total greenhouse gas emissions if they continue to use the same tier one or tier two reporting boundaries. The average industry has only 14 percent of its total greenhouse gas emissions in tier one and 12 percent in tier two for a total of 26 percent.
Specifically, the research finds that only 6 percent of the publishing industry’s greenhouse gas emissions result from its tier one and tier two uses of petroleum products and electricity. However, there are large emissions from electricity and paper in the supply chain that would otherwise be ignored. Similar results appear for other industries.”
As you probably see, all of these factors consider production and distribution within the supply chain. But what about carbon impact measurements for the product/service’s useful life and eventual disposal?
.
The Difficulty with Compare & Contrast
With the vast potential for inaccurate carbon reporting, scenario analysis can thus be quite difficult. There are a variety of carbon calculators out there, but according to a University of Washington study on 10 different ones, the results can vary substantially for three big reasons. While air travel is a massive contributor, its calculation methods differ. Second, there is no standard set of behaviors measured by all; each behavioral measurement can vary by either nominal inputs or per capita averages. Third, the weighted coefficients differ for each like variable across the calculators’ formulas. Claire Trageser of Seattlepi.com writes,
“Since there’s no oversight of the increasingly popular calculators, Steinemann [UW civil and environmental engineering professor who headed the research] agreed that there’s nothing preventing anyone from running a Web site that claims to calculate carbon footprints.
And if the results can’t be trusted, that means some people may be changing their lifestyle or donating money for carbon “offsets,” such as those offered by public utilities, under false assumptions.”
Stefan Glimm of Flexible Packaging Europe writes that:
“In calculating a footprint we need to make certain assumptions – for example predicting the conditions under which activities will take place, or how a product will be used. Obviously, the reliability of the resulting footprint will depend crucially on the accuracy of these assumptions. If one footprint is calculated on the basis of realistic assumptions, while another is based on an overly optimistic or idealised scenario, then clearly any comparison between the two will be meaningless.”
Regarding the lack of contextual effects, Stefan further adds,
“Many people believe fewer goods should be packaged, on the grounds that by not using packaging a certain ‘footprint’ is saved. But if, as a result of eliminating packaging, the goods perish the environmental impact of producing and transporting them will have been for nothing – and the small environmental benefit gained by eliminating packaging will be more than outweighed by the loss of the goods.”
.
The Case for a Comprehensive Life Cycle Analysis
Carbon emissions are important aspects of environmental impact assessments, so long as they’re measured properly and given appropriate weight within a multi-attribute life cycle analysis. This considers the triple bottom line of ecology, society, and economics.
.
Additional Resources:
