Forget Carbon, Think Life Cycle September 2, 2008
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.
Related Articles:
- Lifecycle Assessment by MTS
- The 12 Principles of Green Chemistry
- The 12 Principles of Green Engineering
- Is Bisphenol-A Safe or Not?
Additional Resources:
- Harvard Business Review
- We Can’t Live by Carbon Alone - Environmental Science & Tech
- Do Food Miles Matter?
- Outsourcing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Water is the New Carbon, by Max Gladwell
Nice job Mario. You turned a complex subject into something that anyone can understand.
Hello Mario,
I agree that carbon lables alone are not comprehensive enough. But a detailed life-cycle carbon footprint of a product/process — tracked over a period of time — is a good total indicator of the energy used, transition to renewable energy sources, any energy efficiencies implemented, etc. It also indirectly measures transport impacts, water usage, waste generation, etc., as reflected by their GHG emissions. All major GHGs are included in this analysis (CO2, CH4, N2O, ..), expressed in CO2 equivalents — not only from energy use but from all parts of the process. We typically use a carbon footprint analysis as a process characterization and optimization tool. One of the advantages is the large amount of process data that can be efficiently captured in this single metric. Product labeling is just one of the simpler applications. The advantage of carbon footprint is the inherent simplicity of the metric — analogous to the use of “time” in lean systems. (Note: “Lean” is based on the premise that compressing time reveals hidden quality problems and that their resolution leads to more efficient, cost-effective business processes.)
Regards,
Kumar Venkat
CleanMetrics Corp.
Hi Kumar,
I really appreciate your valuable input.
Accurate measurements of a product/process ensure trust in validity not just in the functional scope, but also a macro scope, in which the original calculation is now a variable in its formula.
All of this is environmental accounting for which reporting and auditing are needed just like in finance.
I would suppose the great goal in the coming years is for standards recognition, accurate reporting, and 3rd party auditing…for functional areas like carbon, water, toxicity, fair trade, and more.
My primary concern is that just like in finance, we don’t place too much emphasis on single metrics to judge the holistic sustainability of a product/process. For that, we need multi-attribute life cycle assessments.
This is why I think carbon labels alone aren’t good enough. Calories on nutrition labels indicate embodied energy, but without additional information on the amount of fat, protein, carbohydrates (9, 4, and 4 calories per gram respectively), sodium, vitamins, minerals, and ingredients…calories fall short for a holistic health appraisal.
No one in the scientific or financial accounting world would disagree with this line of reasoning. As environmental and social accountability become more important in the coming years, it is my hope that comprehensive sustainability assessments are balanced.
And thanks for pointing out Lean thinking, which indeed by means of time compression and throughput and process analysis, help identify bottlenecks and Muda (waste).