IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enscpo/v64y2016icp129-140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bridging the gap between impact assessment methods and climate science

Author

Listed:
  • Cherubini, Francesco
  • Fuglestvedt, Jan
  • Gasser, Thomas
  • Reisinger, Andy
  • Cavalett, Otávio
  • Huijbregts, Mark A.J.
  • Johansson, Daniel J.A.
  • Jørgensen, Susanne V.
  • Raugei, Marco
  • Schivley, Greg
  • Strømman, Anders Hammer
  • Tanaka, Katsumasa
  • Levasseur, Annie

Abstract

Life-cycle assessment and carbon footprint studies are widely used by decision makers to identify climate change mitigation options and priorities at corporate and public levels. These applications, including the vast majority of emission accounting schemes and policy frameworks, traditionally quantify climate impacts of human activities by aggregating greenhouse gas emissions into the so-called CO2-equivalents using the 100-year Global Warming Potential (GWP100) as the default emission metric. The practice was established in the early nineties and has not been coupled with progresses in climate science, other than simply updating numerical values for GWP100. We review the key insights from the literature surrounding climate science that are at odds with existing climate impact methods and we identify possible improvement options. Issues with the existing approach lie in the use of a single metric that cannot represent the climate system complexity for all possible research and policy contexts, and in the default exclusion of near-term climate forcers such as aerosols or ozone precursors and changes in the Earth’s energy balance associated with land cover changes. Failure to acknowledge the complexity of climate change drivers and the spatial and temporal heterogeneities of their climate system responses can lead to the deployment of suboptimal, and potentially even counterproductive, mitigation strategies. We argue for an active consideration of these aspects to bridge the gap between climate impact methods used in environmental impact analysis and climate science.

Suggested Citation

  • Cherubini, Francesco & Fuglestvedt, Jan & Gasser, Thomas & Reisinger, Andy & Cavalett, Otávio & Huijbregts, Mark A.J. & Johansson, Daniel J.A. & Jørgensen, Susanne V. & Raugei, Marco & Schivley, Greg , 2016. "Bridging the gap between impact assessment methods and climate science," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 129-140.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:64:y:2016:i:c:p:129-140
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901116303513
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.019?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexandre Tisserant & Francesco Cherubini, 2019. "Potentials, Limitations, Co-Benefits, and Trade-Offs of Biochar Applications to Soils for Climate Change Mitigation," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-34, November.
    2. Lelde Timma & Elina Dace & Troels Kristensen & Marie Trydeman Knudsen, 2020. "Dynamic Sustainability Assessment Tool: Case Study of Green Biorefineries in Danish Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-23, September.
    3. Otavio Cavalett & Sigurd Norem Slettmo & Francesco Cherubini, 2018. "Energy and Environmental Aspects of Using Eucalyptus from Brazil for Energy and Transportation Services in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-18, November.
    4. Albers, Ariane & Collet, Pierre & Lorne, Daphné & Benoist, Anthony & Hélias, Arnaud, 2019. "Coupling partial-equilibrium and dynamic biogenic carbon models to assess future transport scenarios in France," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(C), pages 316-330.
    5. Johan Berg Pettersen & Xingqiang Song, 2017. "Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the Arctic: Challenges and Research Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-20, September.
    6. Niko Heeren & Stefanie Hellweg, 2019. "Tracking Construction Material over Space and Time: Prospective and Geo‐referenced Modeling of Building Stocks and Construction Material Flows," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 23(1), pages 253-267, February.
    7. Lelde Timma & Elina Dace & Marie Trydeman Knudsen, 2020. "Temporal Aspects in Emission Accounting—Case Study of Agriculture Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, February.
    8. Morgan R. Edwards & Jessika E. Trancik, 2022. "Consequences of equivalency metric design for energy transitions and climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-27, November.
    9. Nariê Rinke Dias de Souza & Bruno Colling Klein & Mateus Ferreira Chagas & Otavio Cavalett & Antonio Bonomi, 2021. "Towards Comparable Carbon Credits: Harmonization of LCA Models of Cellulosic Biofuels," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-17, September.
    10. Lausselet, Carine & Cherubini, Francesco & Oreggioni, Gabriel David & del Alamo Serrano, Gonzalo & Becidan, Michael & Hu, Xiangping & Rørstad, Per Kr. & Strømman, Anders Hammer, 2017. "Norwegian Waste-to-Energy: Climate change, circular economy and carbon capture and storage," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 50-61.
    11. Shanshan Wang & Jiaxin Chen & Michael T. Ter‐Mikaelian & Annie Levasseur & Hongqiang Yang, 2022. "From carbon neutral to climate neutral: Dynamic life cycle assessment for wood‐based panels produced in China," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(4), pages 1437-1449, August.
    12. Charles Breton & Pierre Blanchet & Ben Amor & Robert Beauregard & Wen-Shao Chang, 2018. "Assessing the Climate Change Impacts of Biogenic Carbon in Buildings: A Critical Review of Two Main Dynamic Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-30, June.
    13. Dharik S. Mallapragada & Bryan K. Mignone, 2020. "A theoretical basis for the equivalence between physical and economic climate metrics and implications for the choice of Global Warming Potential time horizon," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 158(2), pages 107-124, January.
    14. Johanna Olofsson, 2021. "Time-Dependent Climate Impact of Utilizing Residual Biomass for Biofuels—The Combined Influence of Modelling Choices and Climate Impact Metrics," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:64:y:2016:i:c:p:129-140. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/environmental-science-and-policy/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.