Environmental Life Cycle Analysis - Term Paper Example

Running Head: Environmental life cycle analysis Introduction Carbon foot printing can be defined as the method of accounting for the total quantity of carbon dioxide and other GHG (greenhouse gas), emissions for which an organization as well as an individual is responsible. Generally, the gauge of accounting for a carbon footprint is basically founded on CO2e (carbon dioxide emissions). Other emissions from greenhouses such as Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O, Hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs), per fluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6) are all reported as carbon dioxide emissions. Reporting all the other greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) as a single value of measurement makes it easy to manage, calculate as well as reporting. While carbon dioxide emissions are primarily used as a method of calculating CO2e, there are efforts by the international coordination of standards and control to make sure that an approach that is consistent is adopted for purposes of usage as well as calculation of the value (Weidema 1995). It is worth noting that there are a set of rules referred to as GHG Protocol that are generally used as the basis of calculating carbon footprint. These protocols are in line with the propositions under the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) for national level calculation of carbon emission. Nevertheless, despite the existence of well-built international standards, there are no institutions to enforce such standards, and therefore some companies opt to design their own computation methods. The computations of carbon footprint consist of two key mechanisms which are indirect and direct emissions (McGregor & Vorley 2006). The purpose of this distinction is to enable easy calculation of a particular company or entry as well as to provide a suitable system that eliminates any possibilities of double accounting. It is worth mentioning the various reasons behind computation of carbon footprint, these reasons may include: To set up a true and fair account of carbon emission (CO2e), the calculations also reduces and simplify the costs associated with carbon emission, in addition, it provides information that facilitates involvement in mandatory as well as voluntary carbon emission reduction programs, the calculation also helps in providing valuable information to the management that can be used to design an effective and viable approach to facilitate the implementation of a carbon management program in an organization (Brenton 2009). Discussion For purposes of computing carbon footprint, it is pertinent to ensure that there are established boundaries of computation. This is because the computation of carbon footprint can be visualized as having a number of boundaries that are different. These boundaries may include: Carbon footprint at the department level, Carbon footprint at the organizational level, Carbon footprint across the supply chain, and the LCA (full life-cycle assessment) on a service or product based model. This study will generally focus on product level carbon foot printing (Kasterine & Vanzetti 2010). As aforementioned, Product carbon foot printing approach is based on LCA (full life-cycle assessment). It is therefore pertinent to describe what is entailed under full life-cycle assessment (LCA) before attempting to understand what product carbon foot printing. LCA boundaries of evaluation broadly encompass the raw materials extraction and processing, manufacturing or production, consumer-use, as well as end-of-life scenarios; this may involve the process of material recycling (Hesselbach & Herrmann 2011). As such, the result obtained from a full life-cycle assessment can be used for purposes of identifying significant impacts on human health and environment emanating from a particular product, and such information can be used to alleviate the impact. The information gathered through LCA evaluation may also be useful in terms of designing an effective strategy that can reduce product cost while at the same time providing an opportunity to improve the value of a given brand and also yielding environmental benefits. Product carbon foot printing therefore involves using LCA evaluation to focus particularly on the quantification of emissions of gas from greenhouse during the life cycle of a product. As such, the product carbon footprint results are more often than not presented in terms of the total absolute value of carbon dioxide emission measured in metric tons or at times as kilograms (Carbon Trust 2008). Carbon foot printing have been recognized by quite a good number of organization as an effective tool for evaluating the effectiveness with which using different sets of metrics they produces services and products within their organizations. (Sorensen 2009) shows that the use of this process has enabled organizations to trim down manufacturing and costs in the supply chain, embrace business activities that are geared toward improving environmental performance, place the organization in an economy that is completely carbon-constrained, and also to identify environmental risks in relation to the supply chain. The carbon footprint results may therefore be used to inform vital decisions in an organization as well as act as product environmental performance indicators. In an effort to successfully use carbon printing as an organizational tool, the enterprise should strike equilibrium between the complexities of the analysis carried out with viable results which may be commercially implemented. Notwithstanding the fact that in the United States, there are no contemporary regulatory requirements, a number of companies in the recent years have been involved in a drastic examination of the GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions in relation to their products and services supply chains. The concept of carbon labeling in the United States is therefore being explore drastically which gives a green light for future exploration. Most of the organizations that have reported greenhouse gas emissions have done so by particularly accounting for the impact in an entity wide greenhouse gas emissions inventory of their company. Companies have therefore used the outcomes of product carbon foot printing to trim down costs associated with energy use, manufacturing or producing, packaging , and waste; to manage their supply chain for purpose of achieving greater improvements in the environmental; to enumerate the business value of their initiatives on sustainability; and it has also been used for purposes of informing design using a Design for Environment (lifecycle approach) (Sinden 2009). Further the publication of carbon foot printing results by companies have been associated with several benefits, which involves; alleviating transparency in their environmental reporting,  enhancing brand reputation as well as targeting specific market audiences, strengthening the confidence of investor through demonstrating the relationship between long-term financial returns and efficient management of the environmental controlling risks that are related to climate change, and securing preferential product placement and rising market share. Through product carbon foot printing results, a company can be able to use the information to evaluate and identify areas in which there is considerable impact for purposes of finding ways of alleviating effectiveness in materials they intend to use, improve their manufacturing techniques, distribution, supply chain, as well as end-of- product or service life. Business-to-Business (B2B) Product in Environmental performance is drastically becoming profoundly measured and scrutinized in the supply chain of business. Study shows that the Supply Chain Questionnaire on the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) was among the initial mechanism of public reporting that requested companies to investigate their products and services impact on climate through reporting their indirect emissions (Wimmer 2010). Consequently, the public disclosure of this results and findings has enhanced more traceability and transparency of energy performance and climate within the chains of product supply. Under Consumer Product (B2C), carbon labeling is geared towards providing the consumers of a particular product or service with comparable and simplified information for purposes of assisting them to undertake decision on an informed point of view. The aim of carbon labeling is therefore to simplify the customers understanding and easy recognition of an absolute number that quantifies total life cycle emissions of the green houses gas (GHG) (Bolwig & Gibbon 2009). Even though there are a number of challenges associated with carbon labeling, a good number of organizations have successfully undertaken product carbon foot printing for purposes of establishing carbon labels The standards that are currently in existence provide a structure for purposes of consistent verification as well as application of (LCA) full life-cycle assessment. ISO 14044 sets out the guidelines and requirements necessary for (LCA) full life-cycle assessment, while on the other hand, the PAS 2050 outlines more explicit description for the data collection methods to be applied as well as the factors affecting emission that ought to be identified for purposed of quantifying the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of services and products manufactured. It should also be noted that the WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development) and the WRI (World Resources Institute) are working towards designing standards for purposes of application in product carbon foot printing, which are similar to the WBCSD /WRI greenhouse gas Protocols (Skals et al 2008). There are some challenges associated with product carbon foot printing approach. Companies that utilize this approach ought to understand these challenges as they asses their product performance. To incorporate carbon foot printing in an organization as a means of continual improvement, there must be an investment by a company in terms of finances as well as time. This can enable the organization to set up a suitable evaluation design that clearly define the boundaries and scope of the scheme, institutionalize the process for assessing both the new and existing products, and also to gather and identify the necessary data. Often a time, the process collecting data requires more integrated as well as consistent management of data throughout the geographical locations of the company and in all the units of an organization’s business (Brenton et al 2010). The company may therefore decide to hire consultants who are well vast in the field or they may choose to buy their software tools for purposes of training their employees to execute life-cycle assessments (LCAs) depending on the needs and goals of a particular organization. In addition, an organization may face some challenges in an attempt to use the carbon footing results for comparative assertion purposes in relation to the product environmental attribute. This may present a big challenge as an attempt to make such a comparison should only be carried out if the assumption, functional, and purpose unit that are concerned in the study are corresponding. There is also the possibility that similar study results may involve an exaggerated margin of error which may be misleading in terms of the variation between competing products. For this reason, the variation might greatly affect the use of product carbon foot printing for purposes of marketing the product in question. There is also the likelihood of misunderstanding the interpretation of the results, consequently, bringing up green washing allegations (BSI 2008). Conclusion It should be kept in mind that despite the existence of the aforementioned challenges associated with product carbon foot printing as a tool of assessing product performance, once the initial models and databases are recognized as well as proper training is given to the employees, carbon foot printing can present an effective, quick, and quantifiable structure for better appreciation of climate impacts related to various services and products. The efficacy of Product carbon foot printing cannot therefore be overemphasized as it has enabled organizations to trim down manufacturing and costs in the supply chain, embrace business activities that are geared toward improving environmental performance, place the organization in an economy that is completely carbon-constrained, and also to identify environmental risks in relation to the supply chain (Cohen 2010). The carbon footprint results may therefore be used to inform vital decisions in an organization as well as act as product environmental performance indicators. The carbon footprint results may therefore be used to inform vital decisions in an organization as well as act as product environmental performance indicators. publication of carbon foot printing results by companies have been associated with several benefits, which involves; alleviating transparency in their environmental reporting,  enhancing brand reputation as well as targeting specific market audiences, strengthening the confidence of investor through demonstrating the relationship between long-term financial returns and efficient management of the environmental controlling risks that are related to climate change, and securing preferential product placement and rising market share (Leimkühler 2010). Through product carbon foot printing, companies can use carbon labeling is geared towards providing the consumers of a particular product or service with comparable and simplified information for purposes of assisting them to undertake decision on an informed point of view. It should also be noted that there are some challenges associated with product carbon foot printing as aforementioned however, the do not supersede the benefits that accrue from the model. References Bolwig, S., and Gibbon, P., 2009. Emerging product carbon footprint standards and schemes and their possible trade impacts.Risø-R-Report 1719(EN). Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy, Technical University of Denmark (DTU). ISBN: 978-87-550r-r3796-0. Brenton, P., 2009. Carbon labelling and low income country exports: A review of the development issues. Development Policy Review 27, 243–265. Brenton, P., et al., 2010. Carbon footprints and food systems: do current accounting methodologies disadvantage developing countries? World Bank Publications. BSI, 2008. PAS 2050:2008. Specification for the Assessment of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Goods and Services. British Standards, London, UK. Carbon Trust. 2008. Energy and carbon conversions fact sheet– 2008 update. In: Factsheet CTL018. London, Carbon Trust. Cohen, N., 2010. Green Business: An A-to-Z Guide. London: SAGE. Hesselbach, J., & Herrmann, C., 2011. Glocalized Solutions for Sustainability in\Manufacturing .Springer, NY. Kasterine, A., & Vanzetti, D., 2010. The effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of market-based and voluntary measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from the agri-food sector. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Trade and Environment Review 2009/2010, New York/Geneva. Leimkühler, H., 2010. Managing CO2 Emissions in the Chemical Industry. John Wiley & Sons. McGregor, J., and Vorley, B. 2006. Fair Miles? Weighing Environmental and Social Impacts of Fresh Produce Exports from sub-Saharan Africa to the UK. Summary. London: SAGE. Sinden, G., 2009. The contribution of PAS 2050 to the evolution of international greenhouse gas emission standards. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 14,195–203. Skals et al., 2008 Environmental Assessment of carbon foot printing. International Journal of carbon foot printing Assessment, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 124–132. Sorensen, S., 2009. The Sustainable Network: The Accidental Answer for a Troubled Planet. OReilly Media, Inc. Weidema, B., 1995. Life Cycle Screening of Food Products. Danish Academy of Technical Sciences. Wimmer, W., 2010. ECODESIGN -- the Competitive Advantage. Springer. NY. Read More