Assessing the effects of land use change (LUC) at the product level, as it is done in life cycle assessment(LCA) and carbon footprinting (CF), has been and still is subject to debate, especially when the focus is on so-called indirect land use change(iLUC). It is in this context that Prof. Matthias Finkbeiner recently published a report titled ‘Indirect land use change (iLUC) within life cycle assessment (LCA) – scientific robustness and consistency with international standards’, where he addressed whether iLUC “can be included in the LCA or CF calculations of biofuels in a scientifically robust and consistent way” (Finkbeiner 2013a, p. 7). Finkbeiner´s conclusion to this core question is a ‘no’. The arguments for this conclusion are concisely summarised in seven bullet points in a 1-page document shared with the European Parliament (Finkbeiner 2013b), where we find statements such as ‘...there is no fact-based support for a scientifically robust and consistent inclusion of iLUC factors into LCA and carbon footprints (CF) assessments’.
......
* see also the document: Avoiding the streetlight effect - a longer version of the rebuttal.
This letter addresses the debate about assessing direct and indirect land use change at product level in life cycle assessment (LCA) and carbon footprinting. It responds to Matthias Finkbeiner’s report on whether indirect land use change (iLUC) can be included in biofuel assessments in a scientifically robust and standards-consistent way. The article sets out the authors’ disagreement with the report’s conclusion and points readers to a longer, point-by-point response, “Avoiding the streetlight effect.”
