Various regional and international standards have been developed to measure the environmental impacts of transportation fuels and minimize greenwashing and misinformation regarding their sustainability. These frameworks offer standardized methods and calculation guidelines for fuel producers to be able to verify compliance with predefined sustainability criteria and to achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
However, significant inconsistencies exist among these standards in terms of methods, calculation rules, and default values assigned to specific fuels.
This study reviews and analyses five fuel standards, namely the European Renewable Energy Directive, the United Nation’s Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard, the United States Renewable Fuel Standard, and the UK Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. A qualitative analysis of the different schemes’ methods identified several discrepancies.
Overall, our findings demonstrate substantial variations in the methods and calculation rules prescribed by the five standards, often resulting in markedly different carbon intensity scores for the same fuel. Based on this analysis, we propose specific changes to the calculation rules to enhance harmonization and improve the accuracy in reflecting the environmental consequences of fuel production and use. These recommendations include that indirect land use changes are always included, and more transparency regarding the methods for calculating the fuel carbon footprint.
The European Commission has asked for feedback on elements that could be potentially considered for the revision of the Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/2279 of 15 December 2021 on the use of the Environmental Footprint methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations.
In addition to the replies to the survey circulated, we have prepared this document with specific proposals to the PEF method as described in Annex 1 of the Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/2279 of 15 December 2021 (hereafter called the “2021 PEF method”).
Our proposals have three objectives:
1) To make it possible to follow the method description without unnecessary effort, while maintaining or enhancing the quality and practical applicability of the resulting PEF studies.
2) To clarify the text in places where the current text is ambiguous or can lead to mis-information relative to the decision that a PEF study intends to support.
3) To harmonise requirements, so that the same requirements apply across all products and across all elementary flows.
This article provides guidelines for conducting consequential life cycle assessment (LCA) studies. It presents the main features of two alternative approaches used in LCA-attributional and consequential-and describes how consequential LCA can be performed consistently and appropriately, with an example provided to guide practitioners. It is argued that, despite its limitations, consequential LCA is a robust approach for estimating important indirect effects of products.
Sub-optimal dietary patterns make major contributions to the Global Burden of Disease and are among the most pressing issues affecting human health. Consequently, they are key to consider when assessing the human health and other environmental impacts of foods and diets within life cycle assessments. The UN Environment Life Cycle Initiative convened a task force on nutrition-related human health impacts as part of the Global Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method (GLAM) project. The health impacts of dietary patterns can be expressed in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), in line with reporting human health impacts of other impact categories within the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) framework. The task force held a workshop with nutrition experts to receive guidance in its process to develop a consensus-based impact assessment framework for addressing nutrition-related health impacts in LCIA. The workshop aimed to (1) evaluate the general assessment framework, (2) discuss scientific questions for quantifying human health impacts from nutrition for food items and diets, and (3) provide initial guidance for further development. The proposed framework based on the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) risk ratios was regarded as a good starting point to assess the relative health risks of the general population, provided that the dietary context is considered and several limitations, such as incomplete disease coverage, are acknowledged. The experts advised against a potentially misleading use of adult-derived dietary risk factors for children. To improve global coverage of the GLAM framework, it is important to consider a wider range of dietary patterns. The experts also recommended using a metric complementary to DALYs, such as nutrient adequacy, also considering, e.g., vitamin A and iron, to complement the assessment.
An effective climate labelling scheme requires a methodology, a database, and a label format that allows consistent comparison both within and across product categories. To this end, we analyse the EU product environmental footprint (PEF) methodology, the state of databases on climate footprints, the current knowledge on effective label design, and relevant EU regulation. Based on this analysis, we conclude that further preparation is required before a voluntary, horizontal climate labelling scheme can be established under Union law, across all product categories. Specific improvements are proposed to harmonise and simplify the PEF methodology. We also propose that a globally complete, consistent, and open background database is established and maintained, with an acceptable level of product detail. A label design is proposed that allows seamless cross-category comparison and consideration of the 'monetary rebound' effect, as well as easy communication of uncertainty. The development of a roadmap is also proposed. This should consider the broader context of environmental and sustainability labelling and the need to improve international product life cycle assessment standards and harmonise conflicting EU calculation rules.
Input–output analyses are increasingly used to estimate consumption-based environmental footprints. The potential of estimates of social, economic, and ecosystem consequences of lifestyle interventions can be improved by detailing the complex way that final demand arises from patterns of household activities, i.e. from how households choose to use their time. We perform a systematic literature review by searching three scientific databases and using backward citation snowballing to clarify how input–output models have been used to analyse household activity patterns. We discuss the prospects of the used methods for estimating environmental footprints associated with households' time uses in activities. We identified 48 relevant studies, each contributing with motivations and methods that are important for household activity-level environmental footprint accounting. When linked with the market economy and environmentally extended, input–output tables detailing the use of time and money across household types provide a clear picture of the connections between the economy, the social sphere, and the environment. Realistic expenditure and time-use data structures quantify the production and consumption activities that occur in households and the associated household inequalities in time use and expenditure patterns. Household activity-level environmental footprints differ notably across household activities. The reviewed studies provide the foundation for detailed and complete environmental footprint data at the household activity level to support policy decisions targeting everyday life. The current research on the topic is patchy with only one study modelling multiple countries and only one country being modelled across years. The research needs to be harmonised and scaled up to allow for comprehensive analyses. Ideally, future modelling should cover more countries with continuous data series and harmonised data collection and analysis methods.
This report presents the methodology and data for calculating the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, nitrogen and phosphate leached to water, and phosphate leftover in the soil, related to the cultivation of crops. The GHG emissions include dinitrogen monoxide, ammonia, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide.
The emissions, leaches, and leftovers are calculated using a model described by the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC). Following the calculations are a summary where the inputs and the outputs of the model are outlined.
One Planet Foundation developed this publication in 2020, as a contribution to the UNEP project titled “Addressing Land Use Changes Leakage in Sustainable Land Use Financing and ‘Deforestation Free’ Claims” of the UNEP Life Cycle Initiative. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Environment Programme. We regret any errors or omissions that may have been unwittingly made.
The boundaries and names shown, and the designations used on any map used in this publication do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. For general guidance on matters relating to the use of maps in publications please go to https://www.un.org/geospatial.
Mention of a commercial company or product in this document does not imply endorsement by the United Nations Environment Programme or the authors. The use of information from this document for publicity or advertising is not permitted. Trademark names and symbols are used in an editorial fashion with no intention on infringement of trademark or copyright laws.
This report is prepared for Concito by 2.-0 LCA consultants January 2020 to February 2021. The report is the technical documentation of The Big Climate Database (“Den store klimadatabase”), which is published by Concito and funded by the Salling Foundations. It should be noted that all linked LCA activities and their flows can be accessed on the webpage: http://denstoreklimadatabase.dk/
This report presents a comparison of the requirements of the GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle Standard and the ISO 14040 series, with the purpose of assessing to what extent a Life Cycle Assessment study performed according to ISO 14044:2006 and ISO 14067:2018 can be applied for reporting according to the GHG Protocol, and what possible additions or modifications may be required for this purpose. The study has been conducted for Mærsk A/S (Maersk) in January 2022 by Bo P. Weidema of 2-0 LCA.
