1932

Abstract

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a widely utilized technique to quantify inputs and emissions associated with the life cycle of a product, from raw materials extraction through the product's end-of-life. Given the basic economic principle of policy targeting, the case for focusing on emissions associated with a specific good as opposed to targeting each different externality needs development. This review identifies situations that merit a product life cycle approach in environmental regulation and then discusses the use of LCA with different types of policy instruments. We then discuss the methodological and implementation-related issues involved with using LCA as an economic decision aid as well as issues in designing regulations to control life cycle emissions. We conclude by identifying areas for future LCA research that are ripe for the application of microeconomic insights.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100815-095513
2017-10-05
2024-06-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/9/1/annurev-resource-100815-095513.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100815-095513&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Anex R, Lifset R. 2014. Life cycle assessment different models for different purposes. J. Ind. Ecol. 18:321–23 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bento AM, Klotz R, Landry JR. 2015. Are there carbon savings from US biofuel policies? The critical importance of accounting for leakage in land and fuel markets. Energy J 36:3 https://doi.org/10.5547/01956574.36.3.aben [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bergerson JA, Kofoworola O, Charpentier AD, Sleep S, MacLean HL. 2012. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of current oil sands technologies: surface mining and in situ applications. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46:147865–74 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bertolini M, Bottani E, Vignali G, Volpi A. 2016. Comparative life cycle assessment of packaging systems for extended shelf life milk. Packag. Technol. Sci. 29:10525–46 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boughton B, Horvath A. 2004. Environmental assessment of used oil management methods. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38:2353–58 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brandão M, Clift R, Cowie A, Greenhalgh S. 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. 18:461–63 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bras-Klapwijk RM. 2003. Procedures and tools for generating and selecting alternatives in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8:5266–72 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bushnell JB, Mansur ET. 2011. Vertical targeting and leakage in carbon policy. Am. Econ. Rev. 101:3263–67 [Google Scholar]
  9. Caswell JA, Mojduszka EM. 1996. Using informational labeling to influence the market for quality in food products. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 78:51248–53 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chakravorty U, Hubert M-H, Nøstbakken L. 2009. Fuel versus food. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 1:645–63 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cohen SA. 2013. Life cycle assessment and the U.S. policy-making context. Emerging Technologies: Socio-Behavioral Life Cycle Approaches N. Savage, M. Gorman, A. Street 217–44 Boca Raton, FL: Pan Stanford [Google Scholar]
  12. Consoli F, Allen D, Boustead I, Fava J, Franklin W. et al. 1993. Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: A Code of Practice Pensacola, FL: SETAC [Google Scholar]
  13. Cowell SJ, Fairman R, Lofstedt RE. 2002. Use of risk assessment and life cycle assessment in decision making: a common policy research agenda. Risk Anal 22:5879–94 [Google Scholar]
  14. Curran MA. 2013. Life Cycle Assessment: a review of the methodology and its application to sustainability. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2:3273–77 [Google Scholar]
  15. 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. 18:3466–67 [Google Scholar]
  16. de Gorter H, Drabik D. 2011. Components of carbon leakage in the fuel market due to biofuel policies. Biofuels 2:2119–21 [Google Scholar]
  17. Earles J, Halog A. 2011. Consequential life cycle assessment: a review. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16:5445–53 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ekvall T, Weidema BP. 2004. System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 9:3161–71 [Google Scholar]
  19. Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, Jones AD, O'Hare M, Kammen DM. 2006. Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311:5760506–8 [Google Scholar]
  20. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R. et al. 2009. Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 91:11–21 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fischer C, Fox AK. 2012. Comparing policies to combat emissions leakage: border carbon adjustments versus rebates. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 64:2199–216 [Google Scholar]
  22. Furuholt E. 1995. Life cycle assessment of gasoline and diesel. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 14:3–4251–63 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gerbrandt K, Chu PL, Simmonds A, Mullins KA, MacLean HL. et al. 2016. Life cycle assessment of lignocellulosic ethanol: a review of key factors and methods affecting calculated GHG emissions and energy use. Curr. Opin. Biotechol. 38:63–70 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hammond KR, Mumpower J, Dennis RL, Fitch S, Crumpacker W. 1983. Fundamental obstacles to the use of scientific information in public policy making. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 24:4287–97 [Google Scholar]
  25. Heijungs R, Guinée JB. 2007. Allocation and “what-if” scenarios in life cycle assessment of waste management systems. Waste Manag 27:8997–1005 [Google Scholar]
  26. Helfand GE, Berck P, Maull T. 2003. The theory of pollution policy. Handb. Environ. Econ. 1:249–303 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hellweg S, Milà i Canals L. 2014. Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science 344:61881109–13 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hendrickson CT, Lave LB, Matthews HS. 2006. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Goods and Services: An Input-Output Approach Washington, DC: Resour. Future [Google Scholar]
  29. Hertel TW, Golub AA, Jones AD, O'Hare M, Plevin RJ, Kammen DM. 2010. Effects of US maize ethanol on global land use and greenhouse gas emissions: estimating market-mediated responses. BioScience 60:3223–31 [Google Scholar]
  30. 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. 18:464–65 [Google Scholar]
  31. Høgaas Eide M, Ohlsson T. 1998. A comparison of two different approaches to inventory analysis of dairies. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 3:4209–15 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hunt RG, Sellers JD, Franklin WE. 1992. Resource and environmental profile analysis: a life cycle environmental assessment for products and procedures. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 12:3245–69 [Google Scholar]
  33. ISO (Int. Organ. Stand.). 2006a. ISO 14040: Environmental management–life cycle assessment: principles and framework Rep., ISO Geneva: [Google Scholar]
  34. ISO (Int. Organ. Stand.). 2006b. ISO 14044: Environmental management–life cycle assessment: requirements and guidelines Rep. ISO Geneva: [Google Scholar]
  35. Jaramillo P, Griffin WM, Matthews HS. 2007. Comparative life-cycle air emissions of coal, domestic natural gas, LNG, and SNG for electricity generation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41:176290–96 [Google Scholar]
  36. Joseph T, Baah K, Jahanfar A, Dubey B. 2015. A comparative life cycle assessment of conventional hand dryer and roll paper towel as hand drying methods. Sci. Total Environ. 515–16:109–17 [Google Scholar]
  37. Karl H, Orwat C. 1999. Economic aspects of environmental labelling. Int. Yearb. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2000:107–70 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kendall A, Yuan J. 2013. Comparing life cycle assessments of different biofuel options. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 17:3439–43 [Google Scholar]
  39. Khanna M, Crago CL. 2012. Measuring indirect land use change with biofuels: implications for policy. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 4:161–84 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kløverpris J, Wenzel H, Nielsen PH. 2008. Life cycle inventory modelling of land use induced by crop consumption part 1: conceptual analysis and methodological proposal. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13:13–21 [Google Scholar]
  41. Knaggård Å. 2014. What do policy-makers do with scientific uncertainty? The incremental character of Swedish climate change policy-making. Policy Stud 35:122–39 [Google Scholar]
  42. Krutilla K. 2010. Transaction costs and environmental policy: an assessment framework and literature review. Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 4:261–354 [Google Scholar]
  43. Laurin L, Amor B, Bachmann TM, Bare J, Koffler C. et al. 2016. Life cycle assessment capacity roadmap (section 1): decision-making support using LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21:4443–47 [Google Scholar]
  44. Lemoine D. 2016. Escape from third-best: rating emissions for intensity standards. Environ. Resour. Econ In press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640–016–0006–6 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  45. Levinson A. 2009. Offshoring pollution: Is the United States increasingly importing polluting goods?. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 4:163–83 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lloyd SM, Ries R. 2007. Characterizing, propagating, and analyzing uncertainty in life-cycle assessment: a survey of quantitative approaches. J. Ind. Ecol. 11:1161–79 [Google Scholar]
  47. Luk J, Pourbafrani M, Saville BA, Maclean HL. 2013. Ethanol or bioelectricity? Life cycle assessment of lignocellulosic bioenergy use in light-duty vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47:1810676–84 [Google Scholar]
  48. Matthews HS, Hendrickson CT, Matthews DH. 2015. Life Cycle Assessment: Quantitative Approaches for Decisions That Matter http://www.lcatextbook.com [Google Scholar]
  49. McAusland C, Najjar N. 2015. Carbon footprint taxes. Environ. Resour. Econ. 61:137–70 [Google Scholar]
  50. McManus MC, Taylor CM, Mohr A, Whittaker C, Scown CD. et al. 2015. Challenge clusters facing LCA in environmental decision-making-what we can learn from biofuels. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20:101399–414 [Google Scholar]
  51. Metcalf GE, Weisbach D. 2009. The design of a carbon tax. Harvard Environ. Law Rev. 33:2499–556 [Google Scholar]
  52. Mullins KA, Griffin WM, Matthews HS. 2011. Policy implications of uncertainty in modeled life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of biofuels. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45:1132–38 [Google Scholar]
  53. Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L. 2007. Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol. Econ. 60:498–508 [Google Scholar]
  54. Ney RA, Schnoor JL. 2002. Incremental life cycle analysis: using uncertainty analysis to frame greenhouse gas balances from bioenergy systems for emission trading. Biomass Bioenergy 22:4257–69 [Google Scholar]
  55. Niederl-Schmidinger A, Narodoslawsky M. 2008. Life cycle assessment as an engineer's tool?. J. Clean. Prod. 16:2245–52 [Google Scholar]
  56. Nyquist S. 2003. The legislation of environmental disclosures in three Nordic countries: a comparison. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 12:112–25 [Google Scholar]
  57. Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F. 2014a. Response to comments on “using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation…”. J. Ind. Ecol. 18:1468–70 [Google Scholar]
  58. Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F. 2014b. Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J. Ind. Ecol. 18:173–83 [Google Scholar]
  59. Portney PR. 1993. The price is right: making use of life cycle analyses. Issues Sci. Technol. 10:269–75 [Google Scholar]
  60. Portney PR. 2012. The role of life cycle assessment in environmental policymaking Rep., Expert Group Environ. Stud. 2012:4 Gov. Off. Swed., Min. Finance Stockholm: [Google Scholar]
  61. Rajagopal D. 2013. The fuel market effects of biofuel policies and implications for regulations based on lifecycle emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 8:2024013 [Google Scholar]
  62. Rajagopal D. 2014. Consequential life cycle assessment of policy vulnerability to price effects. J. Ind. Ecol. 18:2164–75 [Google Scholar]
  63. Rajagopal D. 2016. A step towards a general framework for consequential life cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 21:2261–71 [Google Scholar]
  64. Rajagopal D. 2017. A synthesis of unilateral approaches to mitigating emissions leakage under incomplete policies. Clim. Policy 17:5573–90 [Google Scholar]
  65. Rajagopal D, Hochman G, Zilberman D. 2011. Indirect fuel use change and the environmental impact of biofuel policies. Energy Policy 39:1228–33 [Google Scholar]
  66. Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B. 2008. A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13:5374–88 [Google Scholar]
  67. Reed DL. 2012. Life-cycle assessment in government policy in the United States PhD Thesis Univ. Tenn. Knoxville: [Google Scholar]
  68. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A. et al. 2008. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319:58671238–40 [Google Scholar]
  69. Sedjo RA, Swallow SK. 2002. Voluntary eco-labeling and the price premium. Land Econ 78:2272–84 [Google Scholar]
  70. Seidel C. 2016. The application of life cycle assessment to public policy development. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21:3337–48 [Google Scholar]
  71. Spatari S, Bagley DM, MacLean HL. 2010. Life cycle evaluation of emerging lignocellulosic ethanol conversion technologies. Bioresour. Technol. 101:2654–67 [Google Scholar]
  72. Steinmann Z, Hauck M, Karuppiah R, Laurenzi I, Huijbregts MAJ. 2014. A methodology for separating uncertainty and variability in the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of coal-fueled power generation in the USA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19:1146–55 [Google Scholar]
  73. Suh S, Yang Y. 2014. On the uncanny capabilities of consequential LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19:61179–84 [Google Scholar]
  74. Tillman AM. 2000. Significance of decision-making for LCA methodology. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 20:1113–23 [Google Scholar]
  75. Tinbergen J. 1952. On the Theory of Economic Policy Amsterdam: North Holland [Google Scholar]
  76. Vandenbergh MP, Cohen MA. 2010. Climate change governance: boundaries and leakage. NYU Environ. Law J. 18:221–92 [Google Scholar]
  77. Venkatesh A, Jaramillo P, Griffin WM, Matthews HS. 2011. Uncertainty in life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from United States natural gas end-uses and its effects on policy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45:198182–89 [Google Scholar]
  78. Walls M. 2006. Extended producer responsibility and product design: economic theory and selected case studies Disc. Pap. 06-08 Resour. Future Washington, DC: [Google Scholar]
  79. Walls M, Palmer K. 2001. Upstream pollution, downstream waste disposal, and the design of comprehensive environmental policies. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 41:194–108 [Google Scholar]
  80. Wang M, Huo H, Arora S. 2011. Methods of dealing with co-products of biofuels in life-cycle analysis and consequent results within the U.S. context. Energy Policy 39:5726–36 [Google Scholar]
  81. Wardenaar T, Van Ruijven T, Beltran AM, Vad K, Guinée J, Heijungs R. 2012. Differences between LCA for analysis and LCA for policy: a case study on the consequences of allocation choices in bio-energy policies. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17:81059–67 [Google Scholar]
  82. Williams ED, Weber CL, Hawkins TR. 2009. Hybrid framework for managing uncertainty in life cycle inventories. J. Ind. Ecol. 13:6928–44 [Google Scholar]
  83. Zilberman D, Hochman G, Rajagopal D. 2011. On the inclusion of indirect land use in biofuel. Univ. Ill. Law Rev. 2:413–34 [Google Scholar]
  84. Zilberman D, Zhao J, Heiman A. 2012. Adoption versus adaptation, with emphasis on climate change. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 4:27–53 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100815-095513
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100815-095513
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error