Insulation materials decrease the final energy consumption of buildings. In Germany, fossil and mineral insulations dominate the market despite numerous life cycle assessments (LCAs) showing that bio‐based insulations can offer environmental benefits. Evaluating the results of such LCAs is, however, complex due to a lack of comparability or costs considered. The objective of this study is comparing bio‐based insulations under equal conditions to identify the most environmentally friendly and cost‐efficient material. For this purpose, a comparative LCA and life cycle costing (LCC) were conducted from “cradle to grave” for four bio‐based and two nonrenewable insulations. The bio‐based insulation materials evaluated were wood fiber, hemp fiber, flax, and miscanthus. The nonrenewable insulations were expanded polystyrene (EPS) and stone wool. Key data for the LCA of the bio‐based insulations were obtained from preceding thermal conductivity measurements under ceteris paribus conditions. Eighteen environmental impact categories were assessed, and direct costs were cumulated along the life cycle. Results show that the most environmentally friendly bio‐based insulation materials were wood fiber and miscanthus. A hotspot analysis found that, for agriculturally sourced insulations, cultivation had the largest environmental impact, and for wood fiber insulation, it was manufacturing. The use phase (including installation) constituted a cost hotspot. The environmental impacts of end‐of‐life incineration were strongly influenced by the fossil components of the materials. Overall, bio‐based insulations were more environmentally friendly than EPS and stone wool in 11 impact categories. The LCC found EPS and miscanthus insulation to be most cost‐efficient, yet market integration of the latter is still limited. It can be concluded that miscanthus biomass is an environmentally and economically promising bio‐based insulation material. Comparability of the environmental performance of the bio‐based insulations was increased by applying the same system boundary and functional unit, the same impact assessment methodology, and the preceding ceteris paribus thermal conductivity measurements.

Climate change mitigation trade-offs between increasing harvests to exploit substitution effects versus accumulating forest carbon sequestration complicate recommendations for climate beneficial forest management. Here, a time dynamic assessment ascertains climate change mitigation potential from different rotation forest management alternatives across three Swedish regions integrating the forest decision support system Heureka RegWise with a wood product model using life cycle assessment data. The objective is to increase understanding on the climate effects of varying the forest management. Across all regions, prolonging rotations by 20% leads on average to the largest additional net climate benefit until 2050 in both, saved emissions and temperature cooling, while decreasing harvests by 20% leads to the cumulatively largest net climate benefits past 2050. In contrast, increasing harvests or decreasing the rotation period accordingly provokes temporally alternating net emissions, or slight net emission, respectively, regardless of a changing market displacement factor. However, future forest calamities might compromise potential additional temperature cooling from forests, while substitution effects, despite probable prospective decreases, require additional thorough and time explicit assessments, to provide more robust policy consultation.

The forest sector can play a pivotal role in mitigating climate warming by decreasing emissions to the atmosphere and increasing carbon removals. In an expanding bioeconomy, the pulp and paper industry provides opportunities for various low‐carbon wood products with promising substitution effects. However, assessing climate effects of wood product systems is complex and requires a holistic approach. The objective of this study was to advance time dynamic climate impact assessment of a bioeconomically promising wood product from a system perspective. For this purpose, a time dynamic life cycle assessment was conducted on a pulp‐based beverage carton. The assessment included fossil value chain emissions from cradle to grave, effects from biogenic carbon in a eucalyptus plantation, and credits from substitution. A polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle was considered for material substitution (MS) and differing marginal electricity and heat mixes for energy substitution. The results revealed dominating climate warming from value chain emissions and slight offsetting by biogenic carbon from standing biomass and soil organic carbon, and short‐term carbon storage in the beverage carton. MS and displacing marginal energy mixes transformed the climate warming into a substantial total cooling effect. However, substitution effects varied strongly in terms of substitution factors and temperature change with varying replacement rate of the beverage carton and different marginal energy mixes. A climate cooling range of −0.8 · 10−15 to −1.8 · 10−15 K per unit of beverage carton by 2050 was found, highlighting potential relevance for climate policy making. Thus, production and use of wood‐based beverage cartons over PET bottles can have climate cooling effects. Further assessments on alternative forestry systems (e.g., Nordic forests) are needed to identify the role of biogenic carbon in holistic climate assessments, with dynamic substitution effects included to increase the validity.