Life cycle assessment 277
Sustainability, 2010) and the Nordic guidelines on life cycle assessment
(Finnveden & Lindfors, 1996). Comparability between LCAs has been an
important issue as studies following different method rules and using different
assumptions could suggest different, and even contradictory, conclusions for
action. It also links to the development of two different types of LCA, namely
attributional LCA and consequential LCA.
14.3.3 Different life cycle assessments for stable systems and systems
in change
A standardised and harmonised method is not sufficient if the method is considered to produce unreliable results. Developers of regulations or business
strategies, or purchasers of specific items, are rightfully confused about the
merits of LCA when results for the environmental performance of what seems
to be the same product vary by several orders of magnitude. This has been
shown within the waste community (Lazarevic, 2015), and, as another
example, a significant stir was caused in the field of bioenergy in 2008 when
studies showed that the assumptions regarding land use change for corn
ethanol completely overturned the idea of bioethanol as a climate- friendly
fuel (Fargione, Hill, Tilman, Polasky & Hawthorne, 2008; Searchinger et al.,
2008). Still, there might be good reasons for different results for the same
production system. In the first stage of performing an LCA, the LCA practitioner should clearly state the goal of the study. The goal affects the method
choices and data to be used since an assessment of the environmental performance of last year’s production of a well- known commodity requires a
different set of assumptions and method tools than the assessment of the
environmental performance of the transportation system in 2030.
The LCA community has recognised the difference in assessing stable
systems with few consequences for global economic markets and assessing
systems that lead to changes in demand of products and, consequentially,
changes in production systems. These two different approaches are coined
attributional LCA and consequential LCA. There are heated debates in the
LCA community as to which of these approaches are better, not least for
policy applications (Bento & Klotz, 2014; McManus & Taylor, 2015; Plevin,
Delucchi & Creutzig, 2014). While no consensus has been reached, the
majority of practitioners adhere to the view that they are both useful, just for
different purposes.
One of the main characteristics speaking in favour of consequential LCA’s
potential to inform policy is the focus on assessing impacts as a result of
change, including indirect impacts (Bento & Klotz, 2014; McManus et al.,
2015). McManus and Taylor (2015) go so far as to say that consequential
LCA “is essentially a policy tool, rather than a technology assessment tool”,
while Suh and Yang (2014) criticise an overly optimistic view on consequential LCA and point out that the methodology is still developing and to a large
extent untested within the policy field. There is, however, little doubt that
Sustainability, 2010) and the Nordic guidelines on life cycle assessment
(Finnveden & Lindfors, 1996). Comparability between LCAs has been an
important issue as studies following different method rules and using different
assumptions could suggest different, and even contradictory, conclusions for
action. It also links to the development of two different types of LCA, namely
attributional LCA and consequential LCA.
14.3.3 Different life cycle assessments for stable systems and systems
in change
A standardised and harmonised method is not sufficient if the method is considered to produce unreliable results. Developers of regulations or business
strategies, or purchasers of specific items, are rightfully confused about the
merits of LCA when results for the environmental performance of what seems
to be the same product vary by several orders of magnitude. This has been
shown within the waste community (Lazarevic, 2015), and, as another
example, a significant stir was caused in the field of bioenergy in 2008 when
studies showed that the assumptions regarding land use change for corn
ethanol completely overturned the idea of bioethanol as a climate- friendly
fuel (Fargione, Hill, Tilman, Polasky & Hawthorne, 2008; Searchinger et al.,
2008). Still, there might be good reasons for different results for the same
production system. In the first stage of performing an LCA, the LCA practitioner should clearly state the goal of the study. The goal affects the method
choices and data to be used since an assessment of the environmental performance of last year’s production of a well- known commodity requires a
different set of assumptions and method tools than the assessment of the
environmental performance of the transportation system in 2030.
The LCA community has recognised the difference in assessing stable
systems with few consequences for global economic markets and assessing
systems that lead to changes in demand of products and, consequentially,
changes in production systems. These two different approaches are coined
attributional LCA and consequential LCA. There are heated debates in the
LCA community as to which of these approaches are better, not least for
policy applications (Bento & Klotz, 2014; McManus & Taylor, 2015; Plevin,
Delucchi & Creutzig, 2014). While no consensus has been reached, the
majority of practitioners adhere to the view that they are both useful, just for
different purposes.
One of the main characteristics speaking in favour of consequential LCA’s
potential to inform policy is the focus on assessing impacts as a result of
change, including indirect impacts (Bento & Klotz, 2014; McManus et al.,
2015). McManus and Taylor (2015) go so far as to say that consequential
LCA “is essentially a policy tool, rather than a technology assessment tool”,
while Suh and Yang (2014) criticise an overly optimistic view on consequential LCA and point out that the methodology is still developing and to a large
extent untested within the policy field. There is, however, little doubt that