在生命周期评估中应用气候变化的环境可持续性界限:方法回顾及对决策的影响

IF 4.9 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL Journal of Industrial Ecology Pub Date : 2024-04-15 DOI:10.1111/jiec.13481
Caroline Amalie Clausen, Anders Bjørn, Esther Sanyé-Mengual, Morten Ryberg
{"title":"在生命周期评估中应用气候变化的环境可持续性界限:方法回顾及对决策的影响","authors":"Caroline Amalie Clausen,&nbsp;Anders Bjørn,&nbsp;Esther Sanyé-Mengual,&nbsp;Morten Ryberg","doi":"10.1111/jiec.13481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Environmental sustainability boundaries can be used as references in evaluations of the absolute sustainability of activities and for developing policy targets and strategies. Recent literature has applied boundaries for climate change in different ways in life cycle assessment and there is a need for a systematic overview of these approaches, their compatibility with different types of assessments, and their effects on assessment results. This paper addresses that need by identifying and contrasting five approaches to operationalizing the climate change boundary and applying these approaches to a common case of the EU27 + UK consumption footprint in 2019. The identified operationalization approaches are found to be either static or dynamic. Static approaches enable comparison with a boundary which is constant through time, while dynamic approaches interpret the environmental sustainability boundary as a trajectory toward reaching net-zero emissions at the right time. When applying the five operationalization approaches to the 2019 consumption footprint of the EU27 + UK, we find that emissions reduction should be more ambitious than the current European Green Deal targets. For policymaking, the static approaches can offer a highly ambitious ideal reference aiding immediate action but can lack adaptability to evolving conditions. Dynamic approaches better address long-term goals and evolving knowledge but are more complex. This study contributes to the literature on absolute sustainability assessment by unravelling model choices and their implications for assessment results and policymaking.</p>","PeriodicalId":16050,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Industrial Ecology","volume":"28 3","pages":"617-630"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Applying environmental sustainability boundaries for climate change in life cycle assessment: A review of approaches and implications for policymaking\",\"authors\":\"Caroline Amalie Clausen,&nbsp;Anders Bjørn,&nbsp;Esther Sanyé-Mengual,&nbsp;Morten Ryberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jiec.13481\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Environmental sustainability boundaries can be used as references in evaluations of the absolute sustainability of activities and for developing policy targets and strategies. Recent literature has applied boundaries for climate change in different ways in life cycle assessment and there is a need for a systematic overview of these approaches, their compatibility with different types of assessments, and their effects on assessment results. This paper addresses that need by identifying and contrasting five approaches to operationalizing the climate change boundary and applying these approaches to a common case of the EU27 + UK consumption footprint in 2019. The identified operationalization approaches are found to be either static or dynamic. Static approaches enable comparison with a boundary which is constant through time, while dynamic approaches interpret the environmental sustainability boundary as a trajectory toward reaching net-zero emissions at the right time. When applying the five operationalization approaches to the 2019 consumption footprint of the EU27 + UK, we find that emissions reduction should be more ambitious than the current European Green Deal targets. For policymaking, the static approaches can offer a highly ambitious ideal reference aiding immediate action but can lack adaptability to evolving conditions. Dynamic approaches better address long-term goals and evolving knowledge but are more complex. This study contributes to the literature on absolute sustainability assessment by unravelling model choices and their implications for assessment results and policymaking.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16050,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Industrial Ecology\",\"volume\":\"28 3\",\"pages\":\"617-630\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Industrial Ecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13481\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Industrial Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13481","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

环境可持续性界限可作为评估活动绝对可持续性的参考,也可用于制定政策目标和战略。近期的文献以不同的方式将气候变化边界应用于生命周期评估,因此有必要对这些方法、它们与不同类型评估的兼容性以及它们对评估结果的影响进行系统性概述。为了满足这一需求,本文确定并对比了五种气候变化边界的操作方法,并将这些方法应用于2019年欧盟27国+英国消费足迹的共同案例。所确定的操作方法有静态的,也有动态的。静态方法可与时间恒定的边界进行比较,而动态方法则将环境可持续性边界解释为在适当时间达到净零排放的轨迹。将这五种操作方法应用于欧盟 27 国+英国 2019 年的消费足迹时,我们发现减排目标应比当前的欧洲绿色交易目标更宏伟。对于政策制定而言,静态方法可以提供一个雄心勃勃的理想参考,有助于立即采取行动,但可能缺乏对不断变化的条件的适应性。动态方法能更好地应对长期目标和不断变化的知识,但更为复杂。本研究通过揭示模型选择及其对评估结果和政策制定的影响,为有关绝对可持续性评估的文献做出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Applying environmental sustainability boundaries for climate change in life cycle assessment: A review of approaches and implications for policymaking

Environmental sustainability boundaries can be used as references in evaluations of the absolute sustainability of activities and for developing policy targets and strategies. Recent literature has applied boundaries for climate change in different ways in life cycle assessment and there is a need for a systematic overview of these approaches, their compatibility with different types of assessments, and their effects on assessment results. This paper addresses that need by identifying and contrasting five approaches to operationalizing the climate change boundary and applying these approaches to a common case of the EU27 + UK consumption footprint in 2019. The identified operationalization approaches are found to be either static or dynamic. Static approaches enable comparison with a boundary which is constant through time, while dynamic approaches interpret the environmental sustainability boundary as a trajectory toward reaching net-zero emissions at the right time. When applying the five operationalization approaches to the 2019 consumption footprint of the EU27 + UK, we find that emissions reduction should be more ambitious than the current European Green Deal targets. For policymaking, the static approaches can offer a highly ambitious ideal reference aiding immediate action but can lack adaptability to evolving conditions. Dynamic approaches better address long-term goals and evolving knowledge but are more complex. This study contributes to the literature on absolute sustainability assessment by unravelling model choices and their implications for assessment results and policymaking.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Industrial Ecology
Journal of Industrial Ecology 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
117
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Industrial Ecology addresses a series of related topics: material and energy flows studies (''industrial metabolism'') technological change dematerialization and decarbonization life cycle planning, design and assessment design for the environment extended producer responsibility (''product stewardship'') eco-industrial parks (''industrial symbiosis'') product-oriented environmental policy eco-efficiency Journal of Industrial Ecology is open to and encourages submissions that are interdisciplinary in approach. In addition to more formal academic papers, the journal seeks to provide a forum for continuing exchange of information and opinions through contributions from scholars, environmental managers, policymakers, advocates and others involved in environmental science, management and policy.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information, Cover, and Table of Contents Prospective life cycle assessment of climate and biodiversity impacts of meat‐based and plant‐forward meals: A case study of Indonesian and German meal options Unpacking the path toward a sustainable circular economy through industrial ecology An integrated urban metabolism and ecosystem service assessment: The case study of Lima, Peru Additive inclusion in plastic life cycle assessments part I: Review of mechanical recycling studies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1