Relevance of attributional and consequential life cycle assessment for society and decision support

Abstract

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an essential tool for assessing the environmental impact of product systems. There are two main types: attributional LCA (ALCA), which assesses the global impact share of a product's life cycle, and consequential LCA (CLCA), which evaluates the consequential impact of a decision. In our analysis, we explored the relevance of these types for society and their ability to aid decision-making. This analysis builds upon existing literature and incorporates two ideological and three pragmatic criteria. First, when it comes to realistic modeling as desired in the context of sustainable development, in theory, CLCA attempts to model realistically, whereas ALCA falls short to a certain degree because of conceptual rules, e.g., artificial splitting of co-product processes. Concerning the second criterion of alignment with ethics, CLCA completely aligns with consequential ethics, where an action is judged based on its consequences. This alignment of CLCA makes it undoubtedly relevant in a world where we aim to obtain favorable consequences in the future, e.g., meeting sustainability goals. ALCA is only partially consequential, as it is restricted by conceptual rules relating to deontological ethics and, for example, covers the relative past of the product. Since deontological ethics, i.e. judging an action based on its alignment with rules, is generally relevant for our modern human society, there is room for complementarity in ethical relevance between ALCA and CLCA. However, the conceptual rules of ALCA (e.g., additivity) and their relevance have not been accepted by society. As a result, ethical acceptance of ALCA is still required. In the context of decision support, CLCA evaluates the consequences of decisions, while ALCA encompasses the approval and sharing of potential responsibility for the environmental impact throughout the life cycle of the product associated with the decision. We also highlight the unique valorization of Organizational ALCA, which entails the aforementioned aspects for the organizations responsible for the product. Concerning the three practical criteria, the following conclusions were drawn. Although ALCA has received the most attention in terms of standards, only CLCA can currently be consistently conducted in a reliable manner. This is because the current life cycle impact assessment methods applied in ALCA do not yet partition environmental multi-input processes. CLCA should be given greater prominence in standards. Furthermore, the complexity and uncertainty associated with modeling may often be only slightly higher for CLCA than for ALCA, mainly due to the consideration of change resulting from a decision. However, both ALCA and CLCA modeling may be similarly complex and have equally high levels of uncertainty as both methods encompass past and/or future projections (e.g., prediction of future background processes). Finally, ALCA modeling may be viewed as a practical approximation of CLCA, but the current CLCA models are more suitable for studying consequential effects. As CLCA modeling and databases continue to improve, this distinction will become even more pronounced.

Climate vs Energy Security: Quantifying the Trade-offs of BECCS Deployment and Overcoming Opportunity Costs on Set-Aside Land

“…The scope of this work is attributional . As such, the LCA presented here does not consider indirect effects arising from changes in the relationships between demand for inputs, price elasticities, supply, and market effects of coproducts .…”

“…The scope of this work is attributional . As such, the LCA presented here does not consider indirect effects arising from changes in the relationships between demand for inputs, price elasticities, supply, and market effects of coproducts . Similarly, market effects on CRP acreage (e.g., petroleum or land price changes resulting from increased fuel EtOH production) are beyond the scope of this study.…”

“…System boundary of farm-to-fuel analysis depicting the carbon equivalent savings (credits) and losses (costs) of the life cycle inventory encompassing: (i) feedstock production (green), (ii) transportation (yellow), and (iii) conversion (blue). Dashed lines indicate carbon that is part of a closed cycle based on the premise that carbon released during conversion and combustion processes equals carbon captured into biomass upon regrowth . Solid lines indicate carbon temporarily or permanently taken out of the carbon cycle generating negative emissions .…”