Response to “Attributional life cycle assessment: is a land-use baseline necessary?”—appreciation, renouncement, and further discussion

International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

Volumn 20, Issue 12, 2015, Pages 1607-1611

  Brander, Matthew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Attributional life cycle assessment; Baselines; Consequential life cycle assessment; Decision making; National greenhouse gas inventories; Sequestration; Substitution

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; DECISION MAKING; DEFORESTATION; ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; FOREST; GREENHOUSE GAS; HUMAN; LAND USE; LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPONSIBILITY;

EID: 84947495751     PISSN: 09483349     EISSN: 16147502     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11367-015-0974-8     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Anex R, Lifset R (2014) Life cycle assessment: different models for different purposes. J Ind Ecol 18(3):321–323
2. Brandão M et al (2014) The use of life cycle assessment in the support of robust (climate) policy making: comment on “Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation…”. J Ind Ecol 18(3):461–463
3. Brander M (2015) Transposing lessons between different forms of consequential greenhouse gas accounting: lessons for consequential life cycle assessment, project-level accounting, and policy-level accounting. J Clean Prod. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.101
4. Brander M, Wylie C (2011) The use of substitution in attributional life cycle assessment. Greenhouse Gas Meas Manag 1(3–4):161–166
5. Brander M et al. (2009) Consequential and attributional approaches to LCA: a guide to policy makers with specific reference to greenhouse gas LCA of biofuels. Ecometrica Press, pp.1–14. Available at: http://ecometrica.com/assets//approachesto_LCA3_technical.pdf
6. British Standards Institute (2013) PAS 2070: 2013. Specification for the assessment of greenhouse gas emissions of a city. British Standards Institute, London
7. Curran MA, Mann M, Norris G (2005) The international workshop on electricity data for life cycle inventories. J Clean Prod 13(8):853–862
8. Dale BE, Kim S (2014) Can the predictions of consequential life cycle assessment be tested in the real world? comment on “Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation…”. J Ind Ecol 18(3):466–467
9. Hertwich E (2014) Understanding the climate mitigation benefits of product systems: comment on “Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation…”. J Ind Ecol 18(3):464–465
10. IPCC (2013) Methods for estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of LULUCF activities. In: Hiraishi T et al. (eds) Revised supplementary methods and good practice arising from the Kyoto protocol. IPCC, pp. 1–180. Available at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/kpsg/
11. ISO (2006a) ISO 14064–1: 2006 - Specification with guidance at the organization level for quantification and the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
12. ISO (2006b) ISO 14064–2: 2006 - Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
13. Milà i Canals L, Rigarlsford G, Sim S (2013) Land use impact assessment of margarine. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(6):1265–1277. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11367-012-0380-4. Accessed 17 Aug 2015
14. Milà i Canals L et al (2007) Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(1):5–15
15. Penman J et al. (2006) IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories 2006. Available at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/0_Overview/V0_1_Overview.pdf
16. Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014a) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind Ecol 18(1):73–83
17. Plevin R, Delucchi M, Creutzig F (2014b) Response to comments on “Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation…”. J Ind Ecol 18(3):468–470
18. Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014c) Response to “On the uncanny capabilities of consequential LCA” by Sangwon Suh and Yi Yang. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(8):1559–1560. doi: 10.1007/s11367-014-0739-9
19. Schultz S et al. (2014) Global protocol for community-scale greenhouse gas emissions inventories - version 2.0. Geneva, Switzerland and Washington, DC, USA. Available at: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/GPCDraft 2.0 for public comment.pdf
20. Soimakallio S et al (2015) Attributional life cycle assessment: is a land-use baseline necessary? Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(10):1364–1375
21. Suh S, Yang Y (2014) On the uncanny capabilities of consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(6):1179–1184
22. Tillman A-M (2000) Significance of decision-making for LCA methodology. Environ Impact Asses 20(1):113–123
23. United Nations (1992) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at: http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf
24. WBCSD/WRI (2004) Greenhouse gas protocol: a corporate accounting and reporting standard. World Business Council for Sustainable Development and World Resources Institute, Geneva
25. WBCSD/WRI (2005) GHG protocol for project accounting. World Business Council for Sustainable Development and World Resources Institute, Geneva
26. WRI (2014a) Greenhouse gas protocol policy and action standard: an accounting and reporting standard for estimating the greenhouse gas effects of policies and actions. World Resources Institute, Washington
27. WRI (2014b) Greenhouse gas protocol: mitigation goal standard. Washington. Available at: http://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/Mitigation_Goal_Standard_July15.pdf