Broadening GHG accounting with LCA: application to a waste management business unit

Abstract

In an effort to obtain the most accurate climate change impact assessment, greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting is evolving to include life-cycle thinking. This study (1) identifies similarities and key differences between GHG accounting and life-cycle assessment (LCA), (2) compares them on a consistent basis through a case study on a waste management business unit. First, GHG accounting is performed. According to the GHG Protocol, annual emissions are categorized into three scopes: direct GHG emissions (scope 1), indirect emissions related to electricity, heat and steam production (scope 2) and other indirect emissions (scope 3). The LCA is then structured into a comparable framework: each LCA process is disaggregated into these three scopes, the annual operating activities are assessed, and the environmental impacts are determined using the IMPACT2002+ method. By comparing these two approaches it is concluded that both LCA and GHG accounting provide similar climate change impact results as the same major GHG contributors are determined for scope 1 emissions. The emissions from scope 2 appear negligible whereas emissions from scope 3 cannot be neglected since they contribute to around 10% of the climate change impact of the waste management business unit. This statement is strengthened by the fact that scope 3 generates 75% of the resource use damage and 30% of the ecosystem quality damage categories. The study also shows that LCA can help in setting up the framework for a annual GHG accounting by determining the major climate change contributors.

Environmental evaluation of waste treatment scenarios for the towns Khanty-Mansiysk and Surgut, Russia

“…The time period chosen for the landfilling process also plays a significant role (Finnveden, 1999). Fallaha et al 2009 supported that LCA results can set the annual production of climate change contributors (such as methane) and therefore, users of LCA such as representatives of urban administration can identify the contributors for each scenario and can reach a decision.…”

Carbon accounting: a systematic literature review

“…Furthermore, there are also case studies at the corporate scale (for example, Fallaha et al, 2009;Stein and Khare, 2009;Xuchao et al, 2010). Fallaha et al's (2009) case study focuses on a waste management business unit and differentiates between GHG accounting and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).…”

“…The application of software for monitoring and reporting purposes leads to decreased costs, improved verification, and in the end, to higher transparency (Patel, 2008). Some researchers suggest that climate change impact assessment should be extended to scope 3 emissions and to other impact categories for improved decision-making (Fallaha et al, 2009) and GHG emission risk and opportunity management (Putt del Pino et al, 2006). Molisa and Wittneben (2008) note that CDM projects can also support product innovation and dematerialization.…”

“…Fallaha et al's (2009) case study focuses on a waste management business unit and differentiates between GHG accounting and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). GHG accounting is linked to the GHG Protocol, which involves direct and indirect emissions.…”

“…According to Air Pollution Consultant (2011), GHG accounting encompasses the measuring of GHG emissions from direct and indirect activities. Fallaha et al (2009), who specify the term GHG accounting to corporate GHG accounting, add that emissions arise "from the annual operation of a . management business unit" (p. 892).…”