Life Cycle Assessment as a Tool for Sustainable Management of Ecosystem Services Adisa Azapagic School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science Sustainable Consumption Institute adisa.azapagic@manchester.ac.uk
Overview Ecosystem services Life cycle assessment Energy Transport Consumer products Conclusions
Ecosystem services The processes by which the environment produces resources utilised by humans such as clean air, water, food and materials Supporting services For the production of other services including soil formation, photosynthesis, nutrient and water cycling Provisioning services The products obtained from ecosystems, including food, fuel, bio-chemicals, medicines, and fresh water Regulating services The benefits from the regulation of ecosystem processes, including air quality, climate, water and disease regulation Cultural services The non-material benefits including recreation and aesthetic experiences
Ecosystem services: The current three planet economy ENVIRONMENT Materials and Energy Emissions and Wastes Production systems INDUSTRY Goods and services CONSUMERS
Towards sustainable ecosystem management: The one planet economy Resources and Wastes Production systems Sustainable ecosystem management Goods and services
Ecosystem approach Seeks to achieve the sustainable use of ecosystem products and services through: Management within natural limits Management for the long term Management at micro and macro scales Making trade-offs clear
A life cycle approach to managing ecosystem services Materials Emissions Energy Waste
Life cycle assessment as an eco-services tool Assesses env l sustainability of provisioning services Quantifies emissions and impacts Identifies hot spots Identifies opportunities for improvements Enables comparison of alternatives Identifies impacts on supporting services Informs regulation services Improves cultural services
LCA of provisioning services Energy Transport Consumer products
The life cycle of energy Fuels Materials Extraction & processing Energy generation Energy distribution Emissions Waste Energy use
Carbon footprint of energy technologies 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Wind Hydropower CSP / Trough Geothermal Biomass PV Nuclear Gas / CC Coal / Steam CO2 eq. (g/kwh)
Energy technologies: Carbon footprint vs other life cycle impacts 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Wind Hydropower CSP / Trough Geothermal Biomass PV Nuclear Gas / CC Coal / Steam CO 2 eq. [g/kwh] Acidification [mg/kwh] Eutrophication [mg/kwh]
The life cycle of transportation Fuels Materials Extraction & processing Vehicle manufacture Vehicle use (transport) Emissions Waste Vehicle end-of-life
Comparison of different transport modes CO 2 eq. (g/person.km) CO2 eg (g/person.km) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 Source: Ecoinvent Database, v1.3 0 Plane (Intercontinental) (Intercont.) Plane (Europe) Plane (Europe) Rail (long distance) distance) Rail (regional) Bus Rail (regional) Bus Car Car
Carbon footprint of different fuels 120 100 CO2 eq (g/mj) 80 60 40 20 0 Petrol Bioethanol (wheat UK) Bioethanol (sugar beet UK) Bioethanol (sugar cane, Brazil) Bioethanol (corn US) Bioethanol (BMW, UK) Biodiesel (oilseed rape UKI) Biodiesel (soy US) Stichnothe and Azapagic, Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 2009. Resources, Conservation & Recycling. In press. Carbon and Sustainability Reporting within the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. Government Recommendation to RTFO Administrator. Department of Transport (DFT), June 2007
The life cycle of consumer products Energy Materials Extraction & processing Chemicals manufacture Product use Emissions Waste End-of-life management
Carbon footprinting food: Tomatoes in different countries CO 2 eq. (kg/kg) 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Cradle to farm gate Spain Netherlands UK
Carbon footprinting food: Meat vs vegetables 16.0 14.0 Comparison on a life cycle basis, cradle-to-farm gate, UK 14.0 14.3 CO 2 eq. (kg/kg) 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 9.4 5.4 4.1 5.1 2.0 0.0 0.21 0.23 Potatoes (nonorganic) Potatoes (organic) Tomatoes Pork Poultry Beef Lamb Turkey Williams, A.G., Audsley, E. & Sandars, D.L. (2006) Final report to Defra on project IS0205: Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. London: Defra.
Carbon footprint of orange juice (in carton packaging) Carbon footprint (kg CO2 eq/litre) 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 Source: Tesco 0.00 Freshly Squeezed Orange Juice (Chilled) Orange Juice Concentrate (Chilled) Orange Juice Concentrate (Ambient)
Carbon footprint of juice packaging 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 Glass PET Carton Carb on footprint (kg CO2 eq./litre juice) Carton 1l (100%V, 100%L) Carton 250ml (100%V, 100%L) PET 330ml (100%V,91%L,9%IER) Glass 750ml (85%R, 15%L) Glass 375ml (35.5%R, 64.5%L) Glass 275ml (35.5%R, 64.5%L) Glass 750ml (100%V, 100%L) Haruna Gujba and Adisa Azapagic, SCI, The University of Manchester.
Carbon labelling
Conclusions Life cycle assessment can help towards sustainable management of ecosystem services Mainly used for provisioning services but contributes to improving supporting, regulating and cultural services Important to consider a wide range of environmental impacts and socio-economic aspects Particularly important to make trade-offs clear