Page 211 - Materials Chemistry, Second Edition
P. 211

10  Life Cycle Impact Assessment                                197

















            Fig. 10.4 The fundamental difference in scope and completeness between LCA and footprints
            while both apply the life cycle perspective

              They can be applied to a large variety of assessment targets like products,
            services, organisations, persons and populations, sites and regions, even countries
            or the entire world. Their success in the last decades lies in their particular
            strengths:
            • Easily accessible and intuitive concept
            • Easy to communicate about specific environmental issues or achievements with
              non-environmental experts (policy and decision-making communities, general
              public)
            • Availability of data
            • Easy to perform
            • Wide range of assessment targets can easily be assessed
              These strengths, however, also come with a number of important limitations:

            • Their focus on one environmental issue does not inform about a potential
              burden-shifting from one environmental issue (e.g. climate change) to another
              (e.g. water availability). Therefore, while they allow for identification of the best
              option for one environmental problem, they are not suitable to support decisions
              regarding environmental sustainability, which need to consider all potential
              environmental problems.
            • Some footprints only assess the quantity of a resource used (e.g. ecological
              footprint, CED, MIPS and volumetric water footprint), which is comparable to
              the accounting of quantities used or emitted in the life cycle inventory (see
              Chap. 9). Such footprints therefore do not inform about the associated envi-
              ronmental consequences of the resources used or emissions accounted, and they
              do not quantify potential impacts on a given area of protection. Among other,
              this limitation compromises the comparability of footprints for different options
              to choose from.
            • Impact-based footprints (e.g. carbon footprint), at least historically, assess
              impacts on midpoint level and hence do not reflect damages, which has
              implications on their environmental relevance. However, with an increasing
   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216