ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING IN SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION: ASSESSMENT OF KEY DECISIONS AND CASE STUDIES

Transcription

1 24 th LCA Discussion Forum, Lausanne, December 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING IN SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION: ASSESSMENT OF KEY DECISIONS AND CASE STUDIES Industrial Ecology - Life Cycle Systems, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL)

2 Goal & Approach Extracts from an ongoing study for the Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL): 1. Assess the environmental impact per capita with life-cycle approaches 2. Analyze and identify key factors, decisions and actors in regard to sustainable consumption 3. Elaborate sustainable consumption patterns presenting important benefits for the environment Functional unit: Quantity Q of products needed to fulfill the demand of Swiss consumers per year.

3 Consumption domains Consumption domains LC: Life cycle Attribution of particular elements Transport of goods and persons Household appliances Heating Housing LC building Living Transport of construction materials and waste Use stage (electricity, ) Private housing Private mobility LC vehicle LC infrastructure Private mobility (commuting included) Consumption goods and services LC other goods Up to retail store Production and end of life Offices and production plants Nutrition LC food Transport of food an animal feed Public consumption and services Mobility at work Public buildings

4 Comparisons of different studies Expenses, CH, 2002 [1] Primary energy, CH [2] Primary energy, CH [3] Primary energy, EU [5] 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Total Unit 39'000 CHF 217 GJ 199 GJ 161 GJ Values per capita and year Housing (including electricity) Private mobility GWP, CH [3] GWP, CH [4] GWP, EU [5] Photochem. pollution, EU [5] Acidification, EU [5] Eutrophication, EU [5] Human Health, EU [5] Ozone depletion, EU [5] 10.1 t CO 2 eq. 7.1 t CO 2 eq. 8.9 t CO 2 eq. 15 kg H 5 C 2 eq. 47 kg SO 2 eq. 6.9 kg PO 3-4 eq DALY 3 kg CFC-11 eq Transport of goods Consumer goods and services Nutrition Public consumption and services Nondetermined

5 E2 vectors (Energy & Expenses /capita) Non renewable primary energy [GJ] Consumer goods and services Private mobility Nutrition Housing (including electricity use) Public consumption and services High expenses, low energy consumption Little expenses, high energy consumption Expenses Euro

6 Key factors: Consumer behaviour I I don t don t laze laze around - I am saving saving energy energy some truth... Consumer s behaviour is of importance for the environmental impact!!!

7 Key factors, decisions and actors Domain Housing including electricity (Use stage!) Private mobility (Use stage!) Consumer goods and services (Whole life cycle) Nutrition (Production!) Public consumption and services Key factors & decisions Thermal quality (isolation) Living space (m 2 /capita) Type of housing Consumer behaviour ( C, etc.) Distances (km) Mode of transport and occupancy Motor technology Energy consumption and material use etc. Useful time Eco-design / Label Recycling rate Animal or cereal production Origin, season (greenhouse, air transport etc.) Number of employees Key actors Builder-owner, Architect Government (regulation, financial incentives) Buyer - Consumer Government (regulation, financial incentives) Buyer - Consumer Government (regulation, financial incentives) Producer Buyer - Consumer Government (regulation, financial incentives) Producer Buyer - Consumer Companies Government

8 Life Cycle Assessment of a low energy house Important environmental benefits. Problem: ~5% higher capital costs for MINERGIE. Advantages: Energy savings Less dependent on energy prize More comfort: Noise protection, no disturbing flows of air etc. Isolation: 20 cm Double-glazed windows Heat recuperation Gas heating Solar thermal collector for hot water House built according to the standard MINERGIE. Architect: atelier Pont12, F. Jolliet.

9 Life Cycle Assessment housing: Energy (Average vs. conventional vs. low energy) Non renewable primary energy [GJ / pers.-yr] Energy use during the use phase is more important than energy use for materials and construction. Materials: No significant differences.

10 Life Cycle Assessment housing: Ecological scarcity (Average vs. conventional vs. low energy) Ecological scarcity: Ecopoints (UBP) / pers.-yr.] Impact due to use stage is much more important than impact due to materials and construction.

11 Life Cycle Assessment housing: Human health (Average vs. conventional vs. low energy) Impact [points] The impact of housing on human health is quite important.

12 Life Cycle Assessment housing: Ecosystem quality (Average vs. conventional vs. low energy) Impact [points] Impact on ecosystem quality rather small. Impact due to wastewater dominates. Impact 2002+

13 Life Cycle Assessment housing: Climate change (Average vs. conventional vs. low energy) [person-year Impact equivalent] [points] The use stage has the most important impact on climate change. The standard MINERGIE reduces the global warming potential of heating by 2! Impact 2002+

14 Housing: Dissipater and ecologist Key factors Heating (room temperature) Air condition Quantity of warm water Open windows Boiler (T. of warm water) Valorisation of waste Dissipater C (24h/24h) > C Bath Hours 80 C No sorting Ecologist C day 17 C night > 33 C Shower 2-3 times a day 5 min. 55 C Sorting High potential for improvement?!

15 Private mobility: Characteristics Example: Passenger car average distance per capita (Switzerland): ~9000 passenger-km/year Key parameters: Distance! Gasoline consumption [litres/100km] Occupancy of the vehicle (e.g. 4 persons per car instead of only one person reduces impact per person almost by a factor 4) Behaviour of the driver (eco-drive => -12% of gasoline) Motor technology High potential savings that are directly dependent on consumers behaviour.

16 Private mobility: Impact due to total passenger kilometres in Switzerland resources Energie non Energie Dioxide de Oxides Particules, < Moyen de transport Distance renouvelable totale carbone d'azote 2.5 um climate change Pkm éq. MJ éq. MJ kg kg kg Tram E E E E E-03 Trolleybus E E E E E-04 Bus régulier E E E E E-03 Train regional, SBB mix E E E E E-02 Voiture 9' E E E E E-01 Camion 28t ecosystem quality E E E E E-03 Autocar E E E E E-03 Train longue distance, SBB mix 1' E E E E E-02 Train ICE E E E E E-03 Avion 2' E E E E E-02 Motocycle ( cc) E E E E E-03 Motocycle (50 cc) E E E E E-03 Reste human health 1'833 Total Suisse 17' E E E E E-01 ecological scarcity 1997 Distance [Pkm] Passenger car Plane 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Train Impact of passenger car use is dominant! (Noise is not included). How to reduce impacts of private mobility?

17 Private mobility: Impacts of different modes of transport Use stage Vehicle (Production, maintenance, elimination) Infrastructure (Production, maintenance, elimination) Tramway transport, tram Buses transport, regular bus Passenger car transport, passenger car, CH Passenger car transport, passenger car, CH Toyota Prius Range Rover Coach transport, coach Regional train, CH transport, regional train, SBB mix High speed train, CH transport, long-distance train, SBB mix Long distance train, Ge transport, ICE Passenger aircraft transport, aircraft, passenger 4 people 1 person Long distance short distance Speed and distance Based on database ecoinvent 1.1 Non renewable primary energy [MJ/passenger-km]

18 2000 [ C H F ] Private mobility: Week-end end in Paris (2*650 km) 10 Avion, Airplane, offre special spécial limited limité offer [GJ non renewable primary energy] Airplane Passenger car train [CHF] Avion Airplane Train, special de nuit, limited offre offer spécial limité Train ICE High-speed train (TGV) Voiture, 1 personne Passenger car, 1 person Voiture 2 personnes Passenger car, 2 people Voiture 3 personnes Passenger car, 3 people Voiture, Passenger 4 car, personnes 4 people 1 Euro = 1.5 CHF Factor of 6 difference between train and airplane as far as non renewable energy consumption is concerned. Occupancy is very important!

19 Consumer goods: Characteristics Active products Mobile products Passive products Refrigerator Dishwasher Washing machine Oven Lighting Car part Jewellery Sport goods Textiles (carpet, clothing, ) Paper Perishable goods (cosmetic) Buying efficient appliances Reduce weight Lengthen the useful time (e.g. through maintenance or better quality) Recycling Avoid losses

20 EU energy labeling: : Fridge class A+ Savings with an energy efficient refrigerator (class A+, volume: 230 litres, lifetime: 15 years). Use stage is dominant as far as energy is concerned. Non renewable primary energy [GJ] [GJ d'énergie primaire nonrenouvelable] Money saved (15%) Euro = 1.5 CHF [CHF] Classe A+ Classe BC Energy saved (47% ) Use stage B Purchase/Production [CHF/person-year]

21 Efficient household appliances (class A(+)) Energy savings / person-year with efficient household appliances A(+) Classe A+ Classe CB Classe A Classe C Euro = 1.5 CHF Refrigerator [CHF] Washing machine [CHF] Classe A Classe E Classe A Classe C Classe A Classe C Dishwasher Drier Lighting (7 bulbs) [CHF] [CHF] [CHF]

22 Cumulated savings with efficient household appliances (class A(+)) Non renewable primary energy [GJ/pers.-yr] Swiss electricity mix ~45% nuclear, ~41% hydropower Inefficient household appliances Efficient household appliances and drying the washing on the line [CHF/pers.-yr] 1 Euro = 1.5 CHF Savings: 5.5 GJ and 180 CHF per person and year.

23 Savings with efficient household appliances and renewable energy Non renewable primary energy [GJ/pers.-yr] Swiss electricity mix ~45% nuclear, ~41% hydropower Wind electricity Inefficient household appliances Efficient household appliances Inefficient household appliances + wind power Efficient household appliances + wind power [CHF/pers.-yr] Save energy first and then invest in renewable energy!

24 Consumer goods: Useful time and costs of shoes The longer a passive product is used, the better.

25 Nutrition: recommendations 5 recommendations for a more environmental friendly food consumption (adapted from Jungbluth, 1999 et 2004) 1. Reduce meat consumption less water consumption, less energy consumption, less land use, less photochemical pollution 2. Avoid food transported by air, choice of products implying short transport distances 3. Buy seasonal products (avoid greenhouses) 4. Buy regional products 5. Give a preference for products with light packaging

26 Comparative analysis with E2 vectors Environemental impact favorable unfavorable Cheaper but unfavorable for the env. Win-win Irrational Reference scenario favorable for the env. but higher expenses favourable unfavorable Expenses Concept of E2 vectors: Goedkoop M., 2001

27 Consumer s rose of decision (E2 vectors) Non renewable primary energy savings [GJ/person-year] CHF GJ km (public transport vs. car) Week-end in Berlin (2x800km: train vs. car) Vegetarian (meat vs. milk products) Household appliances (~ classe A vs. C) Household appliances (~class A vs. Classs C) + electricity from wind power Housing (Low energy vs. conventional) Holidays CH (2x200km) vs. Chicago (2x8200km) 2150 kwh electricity (Wind power vs. Swiss mix) Week-end in Berlin (2x800km: train vs. plane) [CHF/person-year] 1 Euro = 1.5 CHF

28 Synthesis of sustainable consumption patterns Non renewable primary energy [GJ] Energy and expenses /person-year Public consumption and services Nutrition Consumer goods and services Private mobility Housing Scenarios of sustainable consumption Only half of the average meat consumption Efficient household appliances (class A(+)) Public instead of personal transport (10 000km) Week-end Berlin by train instead of plane (2*860km) Low energy house Wind power for electricity Room temperature -2 C, Euro Expenses 1 Euro = 1.5 CHF

29 Conclusions and outlook Potential energy savings /person- year with proposed scenarios: -57 GJ non renew. primary energy (-28%). High potential for reduction of the environmental impact. Money savings (thanks to energy savings e.g.) can be reinvested in sustainable products (e.g. low energy house, renewable energy, ). Prioritizing of consumption patterns and alternatives that can make a significant difference. Communication of sustainable consumption alternatives utilizing appealing images and positive terms.