Analysis of Embodied Emissions in Purchased Materials - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Analysis of Embodied Emissions in Purchased Materials

Prepared for the OUS Sustainability Conference

February 28, 2011

Corvallis, Oregon

David Allaway

Allaway.david@deq.state.or.us

503-229-5479Slide2

Today’s overview

Materials matter – the big picture

An introduction to life cycle analysis (LCA)

What LCAs tell us about the environmental impacts of materials . . . and opportunities to reduce them

Questions and discussion throughoutSlide3

DEQ Priority Toxics Focus List (Draft)

PAHs

Triclosan

Phthalates

Naphthalenes

Dioxins & Furans

Nonyphenol, 4- (& ethoxylates)

Diethyltoluamide, N, N- (DEET)

Bisphenol A

Diazinon

Chlorothalonil

2,4-D

Pendamethalin

Malathion

Carbaryl

Permethrin

Pentachlorophenol

Hexachlorocyclohexane

(HCH), gamma- (Lindane)

Chlorpyrifos

Atrazine

Trifluralin

Diuron

Propoxur (Baygon)

Glyphosate

PCBs

PBDEs

Ammonia

Heptachlor (& Heptachlor epoxide)

Aldrin

Hexachlorocyclohexane, alpha- (alpha-BHC)

Chlordane (and metabolites)

DDT (and metabolites)

Dieldrin

Methoxychlor

Hexachlorocyclohexane, beta- (beta-BHC)

Hexachlorobenzene

Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5- (2,4,5-T)

Silver

Manganese

Nickel

Lead

Copper

Chromium

Arsenic

Cadmium

Mercury (and methylmercury)

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethylene

Ethylbenzene

Benzene

Formaldehyde

Toluene

Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- (Dichlorobenzene-p)Slide4

DEQ Priority Toxics Focus List (Draft)

PAHs

Triclosan

Phthalates

Naphthalenes

Dioxins & Furans

Nonyphenol, 4- (& ethoxylates)

Diethyltoluamide, N, N- (DEET)

Bisphenol A

Toxic Chemicals In Current Consumer Products

Diazinon

Chlorothalonil

2,4-D

Pendamethalin

Malathion

Carbaryl

Permethrin

Pentachlorophenol

Hexachlorocyclohexane

(HCH), gamma- (Lindane)

Chlorpyrifos

Atrazine

Trifluralin

Diuron

Propoxur (Baygon)

Glyphosate

PCBs

PBDEs

Ammonia

Heptachlor (& Heptachlor epoxide)

Aldrin

Hexachlorocyclohexane, alpha- (alpha-BHC)

Chlordane (and metabolites)

DDT (and metabolites)

Dieldrin

Methoxychlor

Hexachlorocyclohexane, beta- (beta-BHC)

Hexachlorobenzene

Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5- (2,4,5-T)

Silver

Manganese

Nickel

Lead

Copper

Chromium

Arsenic

Cadmium

Mercury (and methylmercury)

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethylene

Ethylbenzene

Benzene

Formaldehyde

Toluene

Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- (Dichlorobenzene-p)Slide5

DEQ Priority Toxics Focus List (Draft)

PAHs

Triclosan

Phthalates

Naphthalenes

Dioxins & Furans

Nonyphenol, 4- (& ethoxylates)

Diethyltoluamide, N, N- (DEET)

Bisphenol A

Diazinon

Other Product-Related Toxics

Chlorothalonil

2,4-D

Pendamethalin

Malathion

Carbaryl

Permethrin

Pentachlorophenol

Hexachlorocyclohexane

(HCH), gamma- (Lindane)

Chlorpyrifos

Atrazine

Trifluralin

Diuron

Propoxur (Baygon)

Glyphosate

PCBs

PBDEs

Ammonia

Heptachlor (& Heptachlor epoxide)

Aldrin

Hexachlorocyclohexane, alpha- (alpha-BHC)

Chlordane (and metabolites)

DDT (and metabolites)

Dieldrin

Methoxychlor

Hexachlorocyclohexane, beta- (beta-BHC)

Hexachlorobenzene

Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5- (2,4,5-T)

Silver

Manganese

Nickel

Lead

Copper

Chromium

Arsenic

Cadmium

Mercury (and methylmercury)

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethylene

Ethylbenzene

Benzene

Formaldehyde

Toluene

Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- (Dichlorobenzene-p)Slide6

DEQ Priority Toxics Focus List (Draft)

PAHs

Triclosan

Phthalates

Naphthalenes

Dioxins & Furans

Nonyphenol, 4- (& ethoxylates)

Diethyltoluamide, N, N- (DEET)

Bisphenol A

Toxic Chemicals In Current Consumer Products

Diazinon

Other Product-Related Toxics

Chlorothalonil

2,4-D

Pendamethalin

Malathion

Carbaryl

Permethrin

Pentachlorophenol

Hexachlorocyclohexane

(HCH), gamma- (Lindane)

Chlorpyrifos

Atrazine

Trifluralin

Diuron

Propoxur (Baygon)

Glyphosate

PCBs

PBDEs

Ammonia

Heptachlor (& Heptachlor epoxide)

Aldrin

Hexachlorocyclohexane, alpha- (alpha-BHC)

Chlordane (and metabolites)

DDT (and metabolites)

Dieldrin

Methoxychlor

Hexachlorocyclohexane, beta- (beta-BHC)

Hexachlorobenzene

Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5- (2,4,5-T)

Silver

Manganese

Nickel

Lead

Copper

Chromium

Arsenic

Cadmium

Mercury (and methylmercury)

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethylene

Ethylbenzene

Benzene

Formaldehyde

Toluene

Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- (Dichlorobenzene-p)Slide7

Traditional Sector-Based View of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2006)

Electric Power Industry

34%

Transportation

28%

Industry

19%

Agriculture

8%

Commercial

6%

Source: US EPA (2009)

Residential

5%Slide8

Materials Matter: Systems-Based Geographic Emissions Inventory (2006)

Building Lighting and HVAC

25%

Transportation of People

24%

Infrastructure

1%

Use of Appliances and Devices

8%

Provision of Materials:

Non-Food Goods

29%

Source: US EPA (2009)

Provision of Materials: Food

13%

42

%Slide9

Systems-Based Emissions Inventory, Geographic Emissions

Adjusted for Imports and Exports

(2006)

Building Lighting and HVAC

21%

Transportation of People

22%

Infrastructure

1%

Use of Appliances

and Devices

7%

Provision of Goods

37%

Source: Joshuah Stolaroff/Product Policy Institute (2009), based on EPA (2009) and

Weber & Matthews (2007)

Provision of Food

12%

49%Slide10

Source: Good Company (2009)Slide11

OUS FY2008 Emissions Embodied in Goods and Services (Draft)

Building Construction

& Services

43%

Resale Merchandise

15%

IT 7%

Commercial Printing 6%

Other Goods

& Services

29%

Source: Good Company (2009)Slide12

A Note RE: OUS Supply Chain Emissions

By nature, these emissions estimates are very rough . . . a “sense of scale”

But just because they’re imprecise doesn’t mean they should be ignored!

Over time, estimates will likely become more precise, and product-specificSlide13

Impacts vs. Attributes

Impacts are more challenging to evaluate . . .

requires life cycle assessment

.

Examples

of Impacts

Examples

of Attributes

Emissions of VOCs

Recyclability

GHG

emissions

%

r

ecycled content

Use of non-renewable resources

BiodegradableSlide14

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

The science of estimating environmental

impacts

across the “life cycle” of a product (or service)

A powerful tool for understanding impacts, where/how impacts occur, and how to reduce them

Far from perfect; potential for abuse; rapidly evolving

Two basic approaches:Process LCA

Input/output LCASlide15

Process LCA: A Partial ExampleSlide16

Process LCA

ISO 14040 series provides standards on conducting process LCAs:Slide17

Process LCA

Inventory

analysis: accounting of energy and material flows

Impact

analysis: conversion of those flows into “impact categories”, such as:

Acidification

EcotoxicityEutrophication

Global warmingOzone depletionSmog

Human Health

Cancer

Non-cancer

Respiratory effectsSlide18

Some Process LCA-Derived Tools

Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES)

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees/

Waste Reduction Model (WARM)

http://www.epa.gov/warm/

Recycled Content Tool (ReCON)

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/ReCon_home.htmlComparative Packaging Assessment Tool (COMPASS)

https://www.design-compass.org/ Slide19

Input-Output LCASlide20

Input-Output LCA (continued)

Traditional (economic) input-output analysis estimates financial flows through the supply chain

Estimate

emissions intensities

(direct emissions/dollar) for different industries

Single-region or multi-region

Most common tool:

www.eiolca.net Life cycle emissions = (emissions/dollar) x (dollars)Slide21

OUS FY2008 Emissions Embodied in Goods and Services (Draft) – Input-Output LCA

Building Construction

& Services

43%

Resale Merchandise

15%

IT 7%

Commercial Printing 6%

Other Goods

& Services

29%

Source: Good Company (2009)Slide22

So, what do LCAs tell us?

?Slide23

Materials: What Are We Looking For?

In the absence of readily-available life-cycle data (impacts), buyers and sustainability champions often turn to attributes such as:

Local

Energy-efficient

Recyclable

Recycled content

Bio-based

Biodegradable

How well do these attributes actually correlate with “low impact” or “sustainable”?Slide24

Less is best! (Usually)

“Reduce, then reuse, then recycle”

A hierarchy of preferences

All equally effective at diverting materials from landfills

But that’s not where the big impacts occur!Slide25

For Materials, “Upstream” Emissions Dominate

Building Lighting and HVAC

25%

Transportation of People

24%

Infrastructure

1%

Use of Appliances and Devices

8%

Provision of Materials

42%

Landfills & Wastewater

2.2%

Freight

7.1%

“Upstream” Processes

32.2%Slide26

Tellus Institute Packaging Study (1992):

Human Health ImpactsSlide27

Tellus Institute Packaging Study (1992):

Human Health Impacts (continued)

Note: These costs are per-ton, not per-package!Slide28

DEQ’s Life Cycle Analysis of Water Delivery

3 basic systems:

Full study at:

http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/wasteprevention/drinkingwater.htm

Slide29

Recycling, Recycled Content, and Lightweighting Example: PET Water Bottles

“Baseline” = PET, half-liter,

13.3 grams

,

0% post-consumer recycled content (PCR)

, on-site molding,

purified municipal water (reverse osmosis, ozone and uv), 50 miles to retail, 5 miles home-to-retail,

co-purchase w/24 other products, no chilling,

62% recycling rate

.

Normalized impact

(baseline w/62% recycling = 100%)Slide30

Recycling, Recycled Content, and Lightweighting Example: PET Water Bottles

“Baseline” = PET, half-liter,

13.3 grams

,

0% post-consumer recycled content (PCR)

, on-site molding,

purified municipal water (reverse osmosis, ozone and uv), 50 miles to retail, 5 miles home-to-retail,

co-purchase w/24 other products, no chilling,

62% recycling rate

.

Normalized impact

(baseline w/62% recycling = 100%)Slide31

Recycling, Recycled Content, and Lightweighting Example: PET Water Bottles

“Baseline” = PET, half-liter,

13.3 grams

,

0% post-consumer recycled content (PCR)

, on-site molding,

purified municipal water (reverse osmosis, ozone and uv), 50 miles to retail, 5 miles home-to-retail,

co-purchase w/24 other products, no chilling,

62% recycling rate

.

Normalized impact

(baseline w/62% recycling = 100%)Slide32

Recycling, Recycled Content, and Lightweighting Example: PET Water Bottles

“Baseline” = PET, half-liter,

13.3 grams

,

0% post-consumer recycled content (PCR)

, on-site molding,

purified municipal water (reverse osmosis, ozone and uv), 50 miles to retail, 5 miles home-to-retail,

co-purchase w/24 other products, no chilling,

62% recycling rate

.

Normalized impact

(baseline w/62% recycling = 100%)Slide33

Disposal

vs.

Recycling

Normalized impact

(purchase + disposal = 100%)

*Half-liter bottle; 0% recycled content;

13.3 grams; local water

Not a meaningful differenceSlide34

Disposal

vs.

Recycling

vs.

Prevention

Normalized impact

(purchase + disposal = 100%)

*Half-liter bottle; 0% recycled content;

13.3 grams; local water**Average of aluminum/PET/steel;

no recycling; high-water use dishwasherSlide35

Best Case Recycling

vs.

Best Case Prevention

Normalized impact

(“best” single-use PET = 100%)

*Not currently on market. 9.8 grams;

25% recycled content; very short

transport; minimal processing of water; 100% recycling.

**Steel reusable; used 5 years; used 2 times/day; washed weekly in efficient, full dishwasher; 100%

recyclingSlide36

DEQ’s Life Cycle Analysis of E-Commerce Packaging

Full study at:

http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/sw/packaging/lifecycleinventoryshort.pdf

Slide37

DEQ’s E-Commerce LCA:

Materials Evaluated

*Different levels of post-consumer content also evaluated.Slide38

E-Commerce

Results: PetroleumSlide39

E-Commerce

Results: Natural GasSlide40

E-Commerce

Results: CoalSlide41

E-Commerce Results: Atmospheric ParticulatesSlide42

E-

Commerce

Results: Atmospheric NO

XSlide43

E-Commerce Results: Atmospheric MercurySlide44

E-Commerce Results: Biological Oxygen

DemandSlide45

E-Commerce

Results: Waterborne Suspended SolidsSlide46

Void Fills in E-Commerce Packaging (Boxes)

Lbs CO2e*/10,000 packages

*on a cradle-to-distribution center basisSlide47

Mass Matters!

Weight of materials used is a critical factor:

All

bags evaluated have lower burdens than boxes (in most categories) because of their much lower weight.

This confirms (indirectly) the relative ranking of waste prevention and recycling in the waste management hierarchy.

When comparing

dissimilar materials

, recyclability and recycled content do not always correlate with reduced GHG emissions:

BUT, once you’ve chosen a packaging material, increasing post-consumer content and recycling opportunities typically reduce emissions.Slide48

What about degradable products?

When wastes degrade (in a landfill), they produce methane

Methane is 23 – 72 times more potent of a GHG than CO

2

Many landfills use some of the methane to produce energy

But no landfill captures 100% of its methane

Photos: EPUDSlide49

DEQ Drinking Water Study: Greenhouse Gas Impacts of 3 Bottled Water Systems

Lbs CO2e per 1,000 gallons

Assumes no cross-contamination between PET and PLA

1120 1105 1464Slide50

For goods that use energy, energy efficiency is very important

Building Lighting and HVAC

25%

Transportation of People

24%

Infrastructure

1%

Use of Appliances and Devices

8%

Provision of Goods

29%

Source: US EPA (2009)

Provision of Food

13%Slide51

GHG/Product Life Cycles

Source: Lawrence Berkeley National LabSlide52

Is local better?

EPA (

2006)

pounds CO2e per ton of productSlide53

Production emissions typically dominate (transportation doesn’t)

EPA (2006), DEQ (2009)

pounds CO2e per ton of productSlide54

Imported vs. local rice?

Pretty and Ball (2001), DEQ (2009)Slide55

Carnegie Mellon University: “Meat vs. Miles”Slide56

Input-Output LCA Example:

Average US Household Food Consumption

Total

GHG

emissions by supply chain tier (c) associated with household food consumption in the United

States.

Food groups are aggregates of 50

commodities.

Published in: Christopher L. Weber; H. Scott Matthews;

Environ. Sci. Technol.

2008,

42, 3508-3513.

DOI: 10.1021/es702969f

Copyright © 2008 American Chemical SocietySlide57

Country of origin matters

(but not for the reason most people think)

Shui & Harriss (2006)Slide58

Products are more impactful than packaging

Sightline Institute (2007)

Embodied Energy (MJ per bag)Slide59

So, Which Product Attributes Are Most Important (from a GHG perspective)?

Energy efficiency

Energy use

Waste prevention

Country of origin

Less important

Recyclable

Recycled content

Bio-basedBiodegradable (unless discharged to water)

LocalPackaging attributes

Life cycle assessment results trump attributesSlide60

Thank you! Questions?

David Allaway

Allaway.david@deq.state.or.us

503-229-5479