About

Log in?

DTU users get better search results including licensed content and discounts on order fees.

Anyone can log in and get personalized features such as favorites, tags and feeds.

Log in as DTU user Log in as non-DTU user No thanks

DTU Findit

Journal article

Key issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting

From

European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute1

Polytechnique Montreal2

Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research3

Aalborg University4

University of New England5

Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark6

Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark7

Purpose: Biological sequestration can increase the carbon stocks of non-atmospheric reservoirs (e.g. land and landbased products). Since this contained carbon is sequestered from, and retained outside, the atmosphere for a period of time, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is temporarily reduced and some radiative forcing is avoided.

Carbon removal from the atmosphere and storage in the biosphere or anthroposphere, therefore, has the potential to mitigate climate change, even if the carbon storage and associated benefits might be temporary. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and carbon footprinting (CF) are increasingly popular tools for the environmental assessment of products, that take into account their entire life cycle.

There have been significant efforts to develop robust methods to account for the benefits, if any, of sequestration and temporary storage and release of biogenic carbon. However, there is still no overall consensus on the most appropriate ways of considering and quantifying it. Method: This paper reviews and discusses six available methods for accounting for the potential climate impacts of carbon sequestration and temporary storage or release of biogenic carbon in LCA and CF.

Several viewpoints and approaches are presented in a structured manner to help decision-makers in their selection of an option from competing approaches for dealing with timing issues, including delayed emissions of fossil carbon. Results: Key issues identified are that the benefits of temporary carbon removals depend on the time horizon adopted when assessing climate change impacts and are therefore not purely science-based but include value judgments.

We therefore did not recommend a preferred option out of the six alternatives presented here. Conclusions: Further work is needed to combine aspects of scientific and socio-economic understanding with value judgements and ethical considerations.

Language: English
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Year: 2013
Pages: 230-240
ISSN: 16147502 and 09483349
Types: Journal article
DOI: 10.1007/s11367-012-0451-6
ORCIDs: Hauschild, Michael Zwicky

DTU users get better search results including licensed content and discounts on order fees.

Log in as DTU user

Access

Analysis