Climate impact assessment in life cycle assessments of forest products: implications of method choice for results and decision-making

Røyne, Frida; Peñaloza, Diego; Sandin, Gustav; Berlin, Johanna; Svanström, Magdalena

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.009

Cited by 61 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This does not include the effects of timing and possible differences between sequestration and emissions. In the review of LCA's, this has been found to be by far the most common chosen approach (Røyne et al 2016). In the PEF guidelines, this is described as a simplified approach, but which can address a permanent sink when relevant.…”

Section: Systematic Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All options (except the Fixed GWP method) offer the possibility to consider delayed emissions instead of instantaneous emissions. However, there is currently no consensus for the appropriate methods to be applied neither in scientific literature nor in technical standards (Klein et al 2015, Røyne et al 2016, Zea Escamilla et al 2016. Consequently undertaking LCA and EPDs of construction materials based on forest products remains a challenge for the practitioners.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative assessment for biogenic carbon accounting methods in carbon footprint of products: a review study for construction materials based on forest products

Tellnes¹,

Ganne-Chédeville²,

Dias³

et al. 2017

iForest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The forest and building sector is of major importance in climate change mitigation and therefore construction materials based on forest products are of great interest. While energy efficiency has had a large focus in climate change mitigation in the building sector, the carbon footprint of the construction material is gaining relevance. The carbon footprint of construction materials can vary greatly from one type to another, the building sector is consequently demanding documentation of the carbon footprint of the materials used. Using an environmental product declaration (EPD) is an objective and standardised solution for communicating the environmental impacts of construction products and especially their carbon footprint. Nevertheless, it is challenging to include the features of forest products as pools of carbon dioxide. There is currently a focus on research into methods for the accounting of sequestered atmospheric carbon dioxide and also implementation of these methods into technical standards. This paper reviews the recent research and technical standards in this field to promote a common understanding and to propose requirements for additional information to be included in EPDs of forest-based products. The main findings show the need for reporting the contribution of biogenic carbon to the total on greenhouse gas emissions and removals over the product's lifecycle. In order to facilitate the implementation of more advanced methods from research, the EPD should also include more detailed information of the wood used, in particular species and origin.

show abstract

Section: Systematic Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative assessment for biogenic carbon accounting methods in carbon footprint of products: a review study for construction materials based on forest products

Tellnes¹,

Ganne-Chédeville²,

Dias³

et al. 2017

iForest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A systematic approach based on Life‐cycle assessment (LCA) has shown that the climate assessed mitigation potential of bioenergy systems depends on a range of methodological choices (Breton, Blanchet, Amor, Beauregard, & Chang, ; Cherubini et al, ; Helin, Sokka, Soimakallio, Pingoud, & Pajula, ; Lamers & Junginger, ; Røyne, Peñaloza, Sandin, Berlin, & Svanström, ), such as selection of reference land uses (Koponen, Soimakallio, Kline, Cowie, & Brandao, ), system modelling approach (attributional or consequential, which determines which activities are included within the system boundary, including indirect land‐use change) and impact assessment method. These methodological choices and assumptions have led to a wide divergence among published studies assessing the effectiveness of bioenergy for climate change mitigation (Brandão & Cowie, ; Zanchi, Pena, & Bird, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These methodological choices and assumptions have led to a wide divergence among published studies assessing the effectiveness of bioenergy for climate change mitigation (Brandão & Cowie, ; Zanchi, Pena, & Bird, ). One aspect that has received only scant attention in the past is the sensitivity of climate impact results to the impact assessment method applied (Breton et al, ; Helin et al, ; Levasseur et al, ; Plattner, Stocker, Midgley, & Tignor, ; Røyne et al, ), and the present paper focuses on that aspect.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different impact assessment methods represent different mid‐point or endpoint impacts in the cause‐effect chain (e.g., carbon stock changes, cumulative radiative forcing or various aspects of temperature changes). Some of these impact assessment methods deal explicitly with the effect of timing of GHG emissions and credit delayed emissions or temporary carbon sequestration and storage in different ways (Lamers & Junginger, ; Levasseur et al, ; de Rosa et al, ; Røyne et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quantifying the climate change effects of bioenergy systems: Comparison of 15 impact assessment methods

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ongoing concern over climate change has led to interest in replacing fossil energy with bioenergy. There are different approaches to quantitatively estimate the climate change effects of bioenergy systems. In the present work, we have focused on a range of published impact assessment methods that vary due to conceptual differences in the treatment of biogenic carbon fluxes, the type of climate change impacts they address and differences in time horizon and time preference. Specifically, this paper reviews fifteen different methods and applies these to three hypothetical bioenergy case studies: (a) woody biomass grown on previously forested land; (b) woody biomass grown on previous pasture land; and (b) annual energy crop grown on previously cropped land. Our analysis shows that the choice of method can have an important influence on the quantification of climate change effects of bioenergy, particularly when a mature forest is converted to bioenergy use as it involves a substantial reduction in biomass carbon stocks. Results are more uniform in other case studies. In general, results are more sensitive to specific impact assessment methods when they involve both emissions and removals at different points in time, such as for forest bioenergy, but have a much smaller influence on agricultural bioenergy systems grown on land previously used for pasture or annual cropping. The development of effective policies for climate change mitigation through renewable energy use requires consistent and accurate approaches to identification of bioenergy systems that can result in climate change mitigation. The use of different methods for the same purpose: estimating the climate change effects of bioenergy systems, can lead to confusing and contradictory conclusions. A full interpretation of the results generated with different methods must be based on an understanding that the different methods focus on different aspects of climate change and represent different time preferences.

show abstract

A carbon footprint of HVO biopropane

Johnson¹

2017

Biofuels Bioprod Bioref

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biopropane made by hydrogenating vegetable or animal oil/fat is being commercialized as a biofuel alternative to liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Its carbon footprint has been calculated from field to tank, using public data for each process in the supply chain, for six main feedstocks: palm oil, palm oil fatty acid distillate, tallow, used cooking oil, rape oil, and soy oil. Scenarios have been applied to the calculations using four main variables: allocation method, i.e., economic or energy; methane capture at the oil mill (or not); application of indirect land‐use change (or not); and classification of the feedstock as a residue (or not). HVO biopropane's carbon footprint varies, depending on the feedstock and the four variables, from as low as 5 g CO2e/MJ to as high as 102 g. In most cases, this qualifies for government support, i.e., financial credits and biofuel mandates enacted by EU member states under the Renewable Energy Directive. © 2017 The Authors. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining published by Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Climate impact assessment in life cycle assessments of forest products: implications of method choice for results and decision-making

Cited by 61 publications

References 39 publications

Comparative assessment for biogenic carbon accounting methods in carbon footprint of products: a review study for construction materials based on forest products

Comparative assessment for biogenic carbon accounting methods in carbon footprint of products: a review study for construction materials based on forest products

Quantifying the climate change effects of bioenergy systems: Comparison of 15 impact assessment methods

A carbon footprint of HVO biopropane

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About