• Energy Research

Purpose Guidance is needed on best-suited indicators to quantify and monitor the man-made impacts on human health, biodiversity and resources. Therefore, the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative initiated a global consensus process to agree on an updated overall life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) framework and to recommend a non-comprehensive list of environmental indicators and LCIA characterization factors for (1) climate change, (2) fine particulate matter impacts on human health, (3) water consumption impacts (both scarcity and human health) and 4) land use impacts on biodiversity. Methods The consensus building process involved more than 100 world-leading scientists in task forces via multiple workshops. Results were consolidated during a 1-week Pellston Workshop™ in January 2016 leading to the following recommendations. Results and discussion LCIA framework: The updated LCIA framework now distinguishes between intrinsic, instrumental and cultural values, with disability-adjusted life years (DALY) to characterize damages on human health and with measures of vulnerability included to assess biodiversity loss. Climate change impacts: Two complementary climate change impact categories are recommended: (a) The global warming potential 100 years (GWP 100) represents shorter term impacts associated with rate of change and adaptation capacity, and (b) the global temperature change potential 100 years (GTP 100) characterizes the century-scale long term impacts, both including climate-carbon cycle feedbacks for all climate forcers. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) health impacts: Recommended characterization factors (CFs) for primary and secondary (interim) PM2.5 are established, distinguishing between indoor, urban and rural archetypes. Water consumption impacts: CFs are recommended, preferably on monthly and watershed levels, for two categories: (a) The water scarcity indicator “AWARE” characterizes the potential to deprive human and ecosystems users and quantifies the relative Available WAter REmaining per area once the demand of humans and aquatic ecosystems has been met, and (b) the impact of water consumption on human health assesses the DALYs from malnutrition caused by lack of water for irrigated food production. Land use impacts: CFs representing global potential species loss from land use are proposed as interim recommendation suitable to assess biodiversity loss due to land use and land use change in LCA hotspot analyses. Conclusions The recommended environmental indicators may be used to support the UN Sustainable Development Goals in order to quantify and monitor progress towards sustainable production and consumption. These indicators will be periodically updated, establishing a process for their stewardship. info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion

AbstractThe chemical pollution crisis severely threatens human and environmental health globally. To tackle this challenge the establishment of an overarching international science–policy body has recently been suggested. We strongly support this initiative based on the awareness that humanity has already likely left the safe operating space within planetary boundaries for novel entities including chemical pollution. Immediate action is essential and needs to be informed by sound scientific knowledge and data compiled and critically evaluated by an overarching science–policy interface body. Major challenges for such a body are (i) to foster global knowledge production on exposure, impacts and governance going beyond data-rich regions (e.g., Europe and North America), (ii) to cover the entirety of hazardous chemicals, mixtures and wastes, (iii) to follow a one-health perspective considering the risks posed by chemicals and waste on ecosystem and human health, and (iv) to strive for solution-oriented assessments based on systems thinking. Based on multiple evidence on urgent action on a global scale, we call scientists and practitioners to mobilize their scientific networks and to intensify science–policy interaction with national governments to support the negotiations on the establishment of an intergovernmental body based on scientific knowledge explaining the anticipated benefit for human and environmental health.

Abstract It is commonly acknowledged that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from anthropogenic sources accelerate climate change impacts. Efforts are made by governments and companies to reduce GHG emissions via policies and actions. In order to determine which actions to prioritize among many options, benefits of emission reductions are often monetized, to compare with the costs of action or with benefits that can be obtained from other actions. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a commonly used tool to assess the amount of GHGs emitted over the life cycle of a service, policy or product system. However, the damage modelling of GHGs in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) and its monetary values have not been separately evaluated. This hinders the application of LCA in relevant decision contexts. This study evaluates the cause-effect chains and associated monetary values of GHG in three LCIA methods LIME2, EPS2015 and ReCiPe2016. Among these three, EPS2015 covers most damage categories, including the ones on human health, ecosystem and social assets. ReCiPe2016 does not include social assets damages and LIME2 does not consider ecosystem damages in climate change impact. Human health damages are well estimated in all three methods, contributing to 70–97% of the GHG monetary values. The lack of data is a clear obstacle across methods. Further research is needed to develop comprehensive and robust modelling approach for ecosystem damages, which are not well covered in current LCIA methods. Moreover, due to the scope of environmental LCA, there is a lack of consideration on socio-economic consequences, which may not be negligible for climate change. The resulting monetary value of GHG, expressed in per tonne CO2-eq are 16, 160 and 140 US$2017 respectively in LIME2, EPS2015 and ReCiPe 2016. These monetary values are reasonable for use in decision contexts where LCA is applied. Further research is, however, needed to reduce the current uncertainty of at least 1–2 orders of magnitude.

Biochemical production faces economic and environmental challenges that need to be overcome to enable a viable and sustainable bioeconomy. We propose an assessment framework that consistently combines environmental and economic indicators to support optimized biochemical production at early development stages. We define internally consistent system boundaries and a comprehensive set of quantitative indicators from life cycle assessment (LCA) and techno-economic assessment (TEA) to combine environmental and economic performance in a single score. Our framework enables the identification of trade-offs across environmental and economic aspects over the entire biochemical life cycle. This approach provides input for the optimization of future biochemicals in terms of overall sustainability, to overcome prevailing obstacles in the development of biochemical production processes.

AbstractThere is a growing global need to transition from a fossil-based to a bio-based economy to produce fuels, chemicals, food, and materials. In the specific context of industrial biotechnology, a successful transition toward a sustainable development requires not only steering investment toward a bioeconomy, but also responsibly introducing bio-based products with lower footprints and competitive market prices. A comprehensive sustainability assessment framework applied along various research stages to guide bio-based product development is urgently needed but currently missing. To support holistic approaches to strengthen the global bioeconomy, the present study discusses methodologies and provides perspectives on the successful integration of economic and environmental performance aspects to guide product innovation in biotechnology. Efforts on quantifying the economic and environmental performance of bio-based products are analyzed to highlight recent trends, challenges, and opportunities. We critically analyze methods to integrate Techno-Economic Assessment (TEA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as example tools that can be used to broaden the scope of assessing biotechnology systems performance. We highlight the lack of social assessment aspects in existing frameworks. Data need for jointly applying TEA and LCA of succinic acid as example commodity chemical are assessed at various Technology readiness levels (TRLs) to illustrate the relevance of the level of integration and show the benefits of the use of combined assessments. The analysis confirms that the implementation of integrated TEA and LCA at lower TRLs will provide more freedom to improve bio-based product’s sustainability performance. Consequently, optimizing the system across TRLs will guide sustainability-driven innovation in new biotechnologies transforming renewable feedstock into valuable bio-based products.