Page 59 - Materials Chemistry, Second Edition

Life Cycle Assessment: Principles, Practice and Prospects
46
here are the implications for Australia. According to the WWF eco-footprint work, Austral-
ians are consuming the world’s biocapacity at three times the rate at which it is being produced
or regenerated. Nevertheless, the biocapacity available in Australia still exceeds our consump-
tion: WWF states that 12.4 global average hectares of biocapacity are available per person,
while only 6.6 global average equivalent hectares are being consumed per person.
The basis of the eco-footprint is aggregated and generalised data which, given the previous
discussion regarding the uniqueness of many of Australia’s ecosystems, may not be appropriate
to be applied to those ecosystems. Notwithstanding the doubts involved in applying eco-foot-
print calculations, there is a strong suggestion from this work that Australia has substantial
productive capacity coupled with one of the highest per capita consumption rates (sixth highest
consumption footprint in the world). Add to this the drivers for competition in the global
economy, and it becomes clear that Australia sits on the horns of a dilemma. The temptation to
eat further into biocapacity reserves in order to boost economic performance in the short term
sits uncomfortably alongside the emerging global view of Australia as an environmental pariah
– over-consuming, over-polluting and generally being profligate with the resources provided
by the global environment.
The position of Australia as relatively underpopulated and with available bioproductive
capacity places special responsibility on policy and decision-making in Australia as to the appro-
priate uses of this biocapacity. The Australian economy relies heavily on the export of primary
resources such as minerals and agricultural products. Any shift toward using agricultural capacity
to supplement depleting fuel reserves through biomass energy technologies will affect both the
domestic balance of trade and global food supply. The tension between food and fuel is increas-
ingly recognised as an issue (UN News Centre 2007). (See Chapters 8 and 10 for further discus-
sion.) Likewise, the balance between use of bioproductive capacity for short-term economic gain
and its retention for future biodiversity needs is inevitably contested and contentious.

5.5 Discussion: implications for LCA and a sustainable Australia
Discussion so far in this chapter has focused on the distinctiveness of the Australian environ-
ment in relation to its ecology, land use and biodiversity, and the urban environment with
respect to water and energy use. These can be regarded as input factors in LCA. The next issue
is the extent to which impact burdens vary in Australia, compared to other countries. Then,
across the input (resource) and output (burden) categories, we can contemplate the implica-
tions of this Australian ‘distinctiveness’ for LCA and sustainability assessment.
LCA requires that indicators of environmental impact are defined in advance of impact
assessment (see Chapter 3). This means that, while it is impossible to derive an overall vision of
sustainability from LCA (as from any assessment procedure), it is possible to set out a range of
impact factors, which taken together may represent a suitable surrogate measure of sustaina-
bility. Indeed, one explicit aim of LCA is to avoid burden shifting between different environ-
mental impacts or between different timeframes by choosing a range of impact factors. Hence,
LCA supports the multi-issue and intergenerational equity components of sustainability, and
aims to avoid narrow definitions that could lead to burden shifting. (See Chapter 4 for the
burden shifting problems of narrow definitions.)
Indicator models used in LCA implicitly take a position about what should be included in
environmental impacts. The Eco-indicator model developed in Europe, using a ‘top down’
approach (see Chapter 3 for a definiton of ‘top down’ approaches), began by defining what is
meant by the term ‘environment’ (the ‘Eco’ we indicate). The chain begins with Areas of Pro-
tection (Udo de Haes 1999), which are ultimately conditions or values that humans wish to
maintain or protect. These can be human health and/or the health of the Earth. Damage

100804•Life Cycle Assessment 5pp.indd 46 17/02/09 12:46:16 PM