Page 150 - Materials Chemistry, Second Edition

Climate change responses: carbon offsets, biofuels and the life cycle assessment contribution

path for transactions-based greenhouse abatement, such as carbon trading, carbon taxation 137
and carbon offsetting. These standards provide one practical approach to overcome difficul-
ties and uncertainties in data and methods – an approach which contrasts with LCA practice.
Indeed, the mere existence of carbon accounting standards could be seen as a failure of the
LCA standards and LCA methods, since these existed previously, and could have been used
more overtly as the basis for carbon accounting standards and practice. However, LCA stand-
ards leave open a range of methodological issues and approaches that create uncertainty and
variable results.
This is not to say that LCA practice does not deal with uncertainty and methodological
variations. On the contrary, it deals with these increasingly successfully through an overriding
emphasis on openness and transparency, and rigorous sensitivity testing of the potential range
of results arising from uncertain data or varied methodological approaches. This approach is
essential for open, critical debate and development, for example, around allocation and
boundary setting, which are discussed in standards but for which no definitive practice is pre-
scribed. In contrast, the carbon accounting standards provide more specific rules, which
truncate debate or methodological variations and thus gloss over many of the more difficult
issues. The benefit is increased clarity and replicability. Moreover, these standards do cover
many non-LCA related issues that could warrant standardisation.
Perhaps the larger failure of both LCA and carbon accounting standards is the lack of cross
referencing of key methodological issues that are common to both. The magnitude of this
failure is still to be determined and can be minimised if more attention is placed on methodo-
logical alignment through a ‘best-of-both-worlds’ approach. LCA’s systemic approach contrib-
utes to the rigour required to underpin existing and future development of carbon accounting
methods. Specific contributions of LCA could include boundary issues, in particular, the task
of appropriate allocation of carbon burdens in complex systems and supply chains. This could
lead to a functional, cumulative supply chain approach to emissions accounting, similar to the
GST system.
Meanwhile, the clock is ticking and the window for early climate change action is closing
– raising the pressure for a relentless focus on carbon. Carbon assessment and emissions reduc-
tion should not be pursued in a ‘vacuum’ to the detriment of other environmental issues, since
this may lead to new perverse incentives and environmentally poor outcomes. Again, the
growing history and practice of LCA provides a significant and useful body of knowledge and
learning about how to assess and quantify environmental impact more holistically. LCA
practice is familiar with problems of ‘forest biodiversity versus embodied carbon savings of
timber use’ and can provide methodological consideration of the potential for burden-shifting
(or problem-shifting) over time or between impacts from different abatement or efficiency
projects. It can also bring the technique of consequential analysis to determine the additional
effects of particular actions.
As the limits of carbon assessment are probed and revealed, so the prospects for LCA con-
tributions to solutions will be raised. One possibility is that a reflective learning period will
ensue, where evidence of burden shifting from greenhouse emission programs to other impacts
will arise, and then more LCA-like methods will be used to improve the decision and account-
ing tools. There is already evidence of this in the biofuels debate, but it is as yet relatively absent
from other carbon abatement forums. Beyond this, it is possible that widespread use of carbon
offsets in affluent countries may cause a ‘rebound effect’ in people’s behaviour. A sense that
offsets ‘solve’ or ‘atone’ for greenhouse ‘sins’ may lead to carbon-intensive behaviour being
allowed or even positively encouraged. Instead of looking for ways to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, consumers may use sequestration as a justification to continue existing practices
unchecked, and emissions may increase as a result. Given the uncertainties and potential

100804•Life Cycle Assessment 5pp.indd 137 17/02/09 12:46:23 PM