286 A. Brekke et al.
reductions or increases in another sector. A high level of sector integration in
the value chain (waste, agricultural and transport sectors) has been beneficial
for biogas production in Norway in terms of reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions (Lyng, Stensgård, Hanssen & Modahl, 2018). At the same time, the
demand for biogas in the transport sector is limited (Sund, Utgård & Christensen, 2017) and biogas has lost in public tenders in competition with traditional diesel engines. Without targeted political instruments, the actors
involved may lack incentives to choose the options that give the largest
overall reduction of environmental impacts and instead focus on a single
sector (see the case of liquefied biogas in Chapter 4).
14.5.2 Pitfalls and possibilities
LCA is particularly useful for regulation (Lowi, 1972), framing conditions and
constraints for individual and collective behaviours (environmental or consumer protection), and it can be applied at various stages of the policy cycle:
agenda setting and problem definition, policy formulation and impact assessment, as well as implementation and evaluation (Sala et al., 2016, p. 11).
With these opportunities, however, come certain pitfalls. LCA provides
information on environmental impacts, but their prioritisation lies in the
policy domain, including qualitative or quantitative weighting and prioritisation of impacts of higher societal importance (as climate change versus
eutrophication). This division is not always clear- cut, with differing expectations for LCA to, on the one hand, deliver robust results (Wardenaar et al.,
2012) as input to policymaking in different forms, and, on the other, provide
broader knowledge on trade- offs, uncertainties, risks, etc. (Herrmann,
Hauschild, Sohn & McKone, 2014).
As previously discussed, using LCA for policy without careful distinction and
understanding of attributional and consequential LCA can cause various problems such as inappropriate method selections, unfair results, misinterpretation of
results, etc. (Brander, Tipper, Hutchison & Davis, 2009). In addition, LCA
studies can rely on different types of data and set different system boundaries
which make them difficult to compare and evaluate for policy purposes. Even
considering solutions to such issues, LCA has proven unable to meet expectations in solving societal debates, for instance regarding environmental protection policies for chlorine substances (Bras- Klapwijk, 1998; Tukker, 2000), and
the current disagreement on the environmental impacts of biofuels.
It seems that one of the possible options for widening LCA applications in
policymaking is expanding the method of LCA into other areas, and thus
providing policymakers with larger frameworks for decisions. On this track,
the ideal for sustainability assessment is to have a holistic view, building
bridges between methodologies, much like the recent attempts to broaden
the environmental pillar- focused LCA with social (Agyekum, Fortuin & van
der Harst, 2017) and economic factors (Di Maria, Eyckmans & Van Acker,
2018). Other ideas for furthering the scope of LCA include combinations
reductions or increases in another sector. A high level of sector integration in
the value chain (waste, agricultural and transport sectors) has been beneficial
for biogas production in Norway in terms of reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions (Lyng, Stensgård, Hanssen & Modahl, 2018). At the same time, the
demand for biogas in the transport sector is limited (Sund, Utgård & Christensen, 2017) and biogas has lost in public tenders in competition with traditional diesel engines. Without targeted political instruments, the actors
involved may lack incentives to choose the options that give the largest
overall reduction of environmental impacts and instead focus on a single
sector (see the case of liquefied biogas in Chapter 4).
14.5.2 Pitfalls and possibilities
LCA is particularly useful for regulation (Lowi, 1972), framing conditions and
constraints for individual and collective behaviours (environmental or consumer protection), and it can be applied at various stages of the policy cycle:
agenda setting and problem definition, policy formulation and impact assessment, as well as implementation and evaluation (Sala et al., 2016, p. 11).
With these opportunities, however, come certain pitfalls. LCA provides
information on environmental impacts, but their prioritisation lies in the
policy domain, including qualitative or quantitative weighting and prioritisation of impacts of higher societal importance (as climate change versus
eutrophication). This division is not always clear- cut, with differing expectations for LCA to, on the one hand, deliver robust results (Wardenaar et al.,
2012) as input to policymaking in different forms, and, on the other, provide
broader knowledge on trade- offs, uncertainties, risks, etc. (Herrmann,
Hauschild, Sohn & McKone, 2014).
As previously discussed, using LCA for policy without careful distinction and
understanding of attributional and consequential LCA can cause various problems such as inappropriate method selections, unfair results, misinterpretation of
results, etc. (Brander, Tipper, Hutchison & Davis, 2009). In addition, LCA
studies can rely on different types of data and set different system boundaries
which make them difficult to compare and evaluate for policy purposes. Even
considering solutions to such issues, LCA has proven unable to meet expectations in solving societal debates, for instance regarding environmental protection policies for chlorine substances (Bras- Klapwijk, 1998; Tukker, 2000), and
the current disagreement on the environmental impacts of biofuels.
It seems that one of the possible options for widening LCA applications in
policymaking is expanding the method of LCA into other areas, and thus
providing policymakers with larger frameworks for decisions. On this track,
the ideal for sustainability assessment is to have a holistic view, building
bridges between methodologies, much like the recent attempts to broaden
the environmental pillar- focused LCA with social (Agyekum, Fortuin & van
der Harst, 2017) and economic factors (Di Maria, Eyckmans & Van Acker,
2018). Other ideas for furthering the scope of LCA include combinations