|14:00||Sylvia Sleep, Younes Ahmadi, Jared Carbone, Joule Bergerson and Heather MacLean
Use of CGE modeling in LCA-based policy assessments
SPEAKER: Sylvia Sleep
ABSTRACT. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is being used by policymakers to inform decision-making about the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regulations, particularly regulations applied to transportation fuels. LCA can be a useful tool for comparing the environmental impacts of different products or processes. However, there is no mechanism within traditional LCA for capturing the indirect, market-mediated effects resulting from a policy change, a major criticism of the use of LCA as a policy tool. Computable general equilibrium (CGE) models have been used by economists to predict how different sectors in an economy will react when a policy is implemented. While several LCA examples exist that have utilized both CGE and LCA models to explore these indirect effects, a broader understanding of the role of these modeling approaches for GHG emissions policy analysis is lacking.
We compare LCA and CGE modeling approaches and their potential use by policymakers, paying particular attention to how they have been utilized and are expected to be applied in assessments of GHG emissions regulations. We present a case study of the oil sands, using an existing LCA model and an existing CGE model that have been developed to assess different carbon policy options and the impacts on different oil sands stakeholders. The oil sands provide a unique case in which to examine these model approaches outside of the typical U.S. or European bioenergy examples where these models have been most widely applied. This is the first application that employs CGE and LCA to a Canadian energy issue. The results from the oil sands case study are used to demonstrate how each of the approaches can be applied outside of the US and EU bioenergy discussion, and the types of insights that can be obtained from each of the modeling approaches. A discussion of the appropriate development and application of these tools follows that can provide policymakers with more information to better inform policy decisions.
|14:15||Russell Balzer, Annekatrin Lehmann, Matthias Finkbeiner and Clare Broadbent
Investigating options for integrating LCA in policy
ABSTRACT. Policy makers across the world are implementing increasingly stringent regulations in an attempt to curb the GHG emissions released by automobiles into our environment. Current legislation focuses almost exclusively on ‘tailpipe’ or use-phase emissions. There is a clear need for policy makers to account for emissions from other phases, because:
• Present regulations aren’t achieving the intended net GHG reductions • There is the very real possibility of unintended consequences, including higher overall emissions, problem-shifting, etc.
As part of our ongoing, long term commitment to Life Cycle Assessment, worldautosteel has partnered with the Technical University of Berlin to study modalities for including life cycle thinking in policy, particularly automotive emissions regulations.
The research study (2013-2015) includes the identification and prioritization of policy options, the description of its technical requirements and characteristics and the development of implementation scenarios. As an example CO2 legislation in the automotive industry is chosen, but the principal approach can be transferred to other environmental regulations and sectors as well.
In the 1st phase of the study promising policy options were identified without having indicated a clear analytical, scientific overall preference for one single option. We learned that technical implementation strongly depends on the implementation level and that solutions for most technical requirements are already available, but that a consensus on their proper setting is missing. In the 2nd phase the research process was continued including a broader stakeholder dialogue in Europe, the US, Japan and China. Now, in the 3rd phase, the feedback obtained is used for refining the policy options and specifying implementation scenarios for integrating LCA in policy.
|14:30||John Jewell and Christoph Koffler
Legislation around the Product Environmental Footprint of non-leather shoes
ABSTRACT. The Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) has conducted screening LCAs on the production of three classes of non-leather shoes: Sport, Leisure/Fashion, and Work/Waterproof. The identified environmental hotspots of these shoes will be used to inform European legislation around calculation of Product Environmental Footprints (PEFs) for shoes. The European Commission is crafting legislation  requiring LCA-based reporting for products across many sectors via the PEF program  and PEF guide . Calculating these PEFs may become mandatory for doing business in Europe, so each affected industry is identifying hotspots within their product’s life cycle and creating PEF Category Rules (PEFCRs) to provide specific guidance for calculating and reporting a products’ life cycle environmental impacts, similar to a PCR being used for the creation of EPDs. This screening study identifies the most relevant life cycle stages, processes, impact categories, and data quality needs to derive the definition of benchmarks for comparison and any other major requirement to be part of the final PEFCR. The functional unit evaluated was one pair of non-leather shoes used for one year. Three shoe classes were sampled from eight brands, representing 14 specific shoes. Environmental hotspots were identified in life cycle phases raw material acquisition and manufacturing (separated between Tiers 1, 2, and 3). The impacts associated with raw material acquisition are affected by a combination of the shoe’s overall weight and its specific Bill of Materials (BOM), with the presence of leather as a key factor. Energy use is the main driver of impact in manufacturing, with location of manufacture also acting as a key factor. The contributions from transport, retail, use, and disposal are small, though the impacts of transportation are relevant for a few impact categories. This presentation will give an overview of the ongoing PEF process, describe hotspots in the life cycle of non-leather shoes, and explain how the results are being used in the creation of a PEFCR and benchmark classes. The PEF program drives requirements around legislation in Europe and affects the production of shoes world-wide, so understanding the life cycle impacts of shoes is of highest importance before standards for reporting and communication are finalized. : 2013/179/EU: Commission Recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations : Official Journal of the European Union; volume 56; PEF-OEF Methods; May 2013 : PEF Guide 4.0; Guidance for the implementation of the EU PEF during the EF pilot phase – Version 4.0
|14:45||Sebastien Humbert, Carole Dubois, Gwendolyn Bailey, Pascal Leglise, Frederic Vermeiren, Steven Vanhemelryck, Mieke Vercaeren, Hanna Schreiber, Romain Poivet, Martin Wildenberg, Kewin Comploi, Paolo Masoni, Emilie Aubry, Sophie Gillier, Arnaud Brulaire, Francois-Xavier Morvan, Sheila Fletcher and Jon Dettling
The EU Organisation Environmental Footprint Sector Rules for the retail sector
ABSTRACT. The European Commission started a pilot to create a “Single Market for Green Products”, that aims at facilitating better information on the environmental performance of products and organisations. Currently, 27 pilots made of companies, industrial and stakeholder organisations in the EU are drafting respectively 25 Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) and 2 Organisation Environmental Footprint Sector Rules (OEFSR). One of the pilot is drafting the OEFSR for the retail sector and is composed by six retailers: Carrefour SA, Colruyt Group, Oxylane Group (Decathlon), Picard, Kering, and Office Depot; three public agencies: Environment Agency Austria (EAA), French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME) and Italian National agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA); one non-governmental organization: Global 2000; one association PERIFEM; and one LCA consultant: Quantis. As of April 2015 an assessment of the impacts of an average retailer has been performed using the 15 impact categories required. A first OEFSR has been drafted and submitted for public consultation. The results of the assessment, the draft and its main methodological points (e.g., for direct, as well as upstream and downstream indirect contributions), as well as the benefits of this OEFSR for companies will be presented highlighting latest developments and feedback. These points also include the issue pertaining to consistency with the product approach for a sector as interdisciplinary as the retail sector. As an example of results, an average general retailer supplying products for 3’000’000 people can have a carbon footprint in the order of magnitude of 10’000’000 t CO2-eq per year, most of it being associated with the life cycle of its products sold. Interaction between OEFSRs and PEFCRs such as cross cutting issues and consistency will also be addressed. As an example of methodological agreement that has been reached among sectors is how allocation among meat, milk, pet food and leather should be performed among cattle co-products. Such type of agreement is key for a sector like the retail to be able to consistently perform its Environmental Footprint. One of the significant differences with traditional corporate footprint is that assessment and reporting for OEF goes beyond the traditional carbon footprint and includes impact categories such as water footprint, pressure on resources as well as impact on human health through environmental pollution. Pressure on biodiversity or deforestation throughout the supply chain is also included.