LCA review did not support the environmental preference of bio-based lubricants.
Based on this, the approach suggested for this EU Ecolabel revision is to focus on
‘loss lubricants’ (i.e. released during use phase) independently from their sourcing.
Toxicity and biodegradability are considered the main aspects to be addressed.
Some clarifications were asked about how the LCA review was conducted and
which differences were found between various types of lubricants. Trade-offs were
identified between conventional and bio-based lubricants. For the latter ones,
environmental concerns are significantly associated with the agricultural stage,
impacts of which could be mitigated through third-party certified sourcing of
sustainable bio-based materials. Additionally, the life cycle performance was found
to depend on the application. For instance, conventional and/or synthetic lubricants
tend to have longer lifetime, which can be advantageous in some cases. However,
some synthetic (e.g. PAGs, PAOs, esters) and bio-based lubricants could have
better performance with respect to toxicity and biodegradability than the conventional mineral ones.
2.4 Recommended Water Scarcity Footprint Method
AWARE: Learning from 11 Case Studies
This presentation was given by Ms. Anne-Marie Boulay representing LIRIDE
(University of Sherbrooke, Canada) and CIRAIG (Polytechnique of Montreal,
Canada).
The authors described the testing phase of AWARE, a consensus-based indicator
developed by the WULCA working group of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle
Initiative in order to assess impacts from water consumption at the midpoint level.
This method can be an important milestone for harmonising the assessment of
products with respect to water scarcity [4].
The methodology, candidate for inclusion in the European Commission’s
Environmental Footprint (EF) guide, has been applied to eleven case studies to gain
insights on method, associated results and reference values. The selected case
studies were: an Italian beer, a biofuel, a bio-based plastic, cement, sweet beverages, a flow-regulator, an average basket of food products, a burger, a Volkswagen
car, a bowl of rice, the EU total consumption.
No major problems were found although some challenges were encountered for
interpreting country level data and testing the sensitivity of modelling choices (e.g.
cut-offs and water demand for ecosystems). All in all, the results are considered to
build trust in this and contributing to its wider acceptance.
The presenter was asked to provide further arguments supporting the choice of
AWARE since other methods can also be used to yield similar outcomes. It was
clarified that AWARE is the result of a consensus process aiming to develop a
widely agreed method.
472
M. Cordella and R. Kaps
Based on this, the approach suggested for this EU Ecolabel revision is to focus on
‘loss lubricants’ (i.e. released during use phase) independently from their sourcing.
Toxicity and biodegradability are considered the main aspects to be addressed.
Some clarifications were asked about how the LCA review was conducted and
which differences were found between various types of lubricants. Trade-offs were
identified between conventional and bio-based lubricants. For the latter ones,
environmental concerns are significantly associated with the agricultural stage,
impacts of which could be mitigated through third-party certified sourcing of
sustainable bio-based materials. Additionally, the life cycle performance was found
to depend on the application. For instance, conventional and/or synthetic lubricants
tend to have longer lifetime, which can be advantageous in some cases. However,
some synthetic (e.g. PAGs, PAOs, esters) and bio-based lubricants could have
better performance with respect to toxicity and biodegradability than the conventional mineral ones.
2.4 Recommended Water Scarcity Footprint Method
AWARE: Learning from 11 Case Studies
This presentation was given by Ms. Anne-Marie Boulay representing LIRIDE
(University of Sherbrooke, Canada) and CIRAIG (Polytechnique of Montreal,
Canada).
The authors described the testing phase of AWARE, a consensus-based indicator
developed by the WULCA working group of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle
Initiative in order to assess impacts from water consumption at the midpoint level.
This method can be an important milestone for harmonising the assessment of
products with respect to water scarcity [4].
The methodology, candidate for inclusion in the European Commission’s
Environmental Footprint (EF) guide, has been applied to eleven case studies to gain
insights on method, associated results and reference values. The selected case
studies were: an Italian beer, a biofuel, a bio-based plastic, cement, sweet beverages, a flow-regulator, an average basket of food products, a burger, a Volkswagen
car, a bowl of rice, the EU total consumption.
No major problems were found although some challenges were encountered for
interpreting country level data and testing the sensitivity of modelling choices (e.g.
cut-offs and water demand for ecosystems). All in all, the results are considered to
build trust in this and contributing to its wider acceptance.
The presenter was asked to provide further arguments supporting the choice of
AWARE since other methods can also be used to yield similar outcomes. It was
clarified that AWARE is the result of a consensus process aiming to develop a
widely agreed method.
472
M. Cordella and R. Kaps