4.6 Article

Biogenic Carbon and Temporary Storage Addressed with Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment

期刊

JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 117-128

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00503.x

关键词

carbon footprint; carbon storage; climate change; global warming; industrial ecology; time

资金

  1. Alcan
  2. Arcelor-Mittal
  3. Bell Canada
  4. Cascades
  5. Eco-Entreprises-Quebec/Recyc-Quebec
  6. Groupe EDF/GDF-SUEZ
  7. Hydro-Quebec
  8. Johnson Johnson
  9. Mouvement des caisses Desjardins
  10. RONA
  11. Total
  12. Veolia Environnement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A growing tendency in policy making and carbon footprint estimation gives value to temporary carbon storage in biomass products or to delayed greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Some life cycle-based methods, such as the British publicly available specification (PAS) 2050 or the recently published European Commission's International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook, address this issue. This article shows the importance of consistent consideration of biogenic carbon and timing of GHG emissions in life cycle assessment (LCA) and carbon footprint analysis. We use a fictitious case study assessing the life cycle of a wooden chair for four end-of-life scenarios to compare different approaches: traditional LCA with and without consideration of biogenic carbon, the PAS 2050 and ILCD Handbook methods, and a dynamic LCA approach. Reliable results require accounting for the timing of every GHG emission, including biogenic carbon flows, as soon as a benefit is given for temporarily storing carbon or delaying GHG emissions. The conclusions of a comparative LCA can change depending on the time horizon chosen for the analysis. The dynamic LCA approach allows for a consistent assessment of the impact, through time, of all GHG emissions (positive) and sequestration (negative). The dynamic LCA is also a valuable approach for decision makers who have to understand the sensitivity of the conclusions to the chosen time horizon.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据