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, Anders Bjørn, Esther Sanyé-Mengual, 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, Anders Bjørn, Esther Sanyé-Mengual, 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}
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.
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.