Eleanor Chan
WRIT340 (66813)
Illumin Assignment
Life Cycle Assessment: Bean Counting Energy Intelligently
Introduction
This is global fact: although the world’s resources are depleting to worrisome levels, global
demand for them is skyrocketing, and there are no signs of this trend abating in the decades to
come. This leads into the number-one most urgent challenge faced by the world economy: how
can they deploy the scarce resources of today more efficiently in order to satisfy an exploding
consumer base? Furthermore: in such a way that those resources can still be conserved for the
future, in a sustainable manner that will not adversely affect the environment?
One way the world is trying to evaluate the feasible solutions to this challenge for everyone
everywhere, piece by piece, is by applying Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). LCA is an analytical
framework that is all about cataloguing the material inputs and outputs in the production of a
product. It is called “life cycle” because the analysis tracks the product’s entire lifetime, from the
extraction of raw materials to the recycling/disposal phase. Beginning to end, cradle to grave. In
fact, LCA is more commonly referred to as a “cradle-to-grave” analysis to the general public, as
the official one-liner definition.
This attractive quality of LCA has already prompted governments to adopt it on a national
scale, albeit in environmentally conscious countries—a list which excludes the United States.
The most notable and prominent application is the European Union’s Ecolabel, a program
launched in 1991 to analyze as many products as possible through the LCA lens that has gained
considerable traction in Europe [1]. The Rainforest Alliance and Japan’s Ecomark label do not
use LCA, but they still assess the environmental impacts of their products because of the need to
seek and validate the most sustainable practice possible.
2
More than anything else, LCA is a kind of mindset, a kind of thinking. It is an exhaustive,
comprehensive view of a product’s development and frankly, an unnatural way of thinking for
people. As humans, we tend to think narrowly and immediately because that is how our brains
have naturally evolved for convenience’s sake. However, LCA demands both wide breadth and
deep investigation if we ever want to formulate a realistic picture of our products’ environmental
impact. Left up to human convenience, we will just willfully ignore the problem for generations
to come until it is too late.
3
The Methodology in Question
LCA was developed throughout the 1970s before becoming finalized in 1992, when the
first complete presentation of the methodology was published in the Environmental Impact
Assessment Review. The LCA procedure is now well-established (aside from minor tweaks now
and then) and is public information for anyone to consult on the Environmental Protection
Agency’s website [5].
The LCA framework always comprises four distinct phases:
Figure 1: General LCA diagram [7].
In goal and scope definition, scope is key. An LCA that is too broad will practically be
impossible to fulfill according to the guidelines set forth by the ISO. The LCA will usually
analyze a discrete, separable component of that product—for example, if you were to conduct an
4
LCA of an office chair, you might only analyze the metal frame. That alone would be a
formidable task in the later stages, believe it or not. Anything beyond the boundaries of that
metal system, such as the cushioning, would not be considered. LCAs are typically this small in
scale unless the product is extremely simple and basic.
In inventory analysis, every production process has multiple steps and stages, each with
its own subset of inputs and outputs. Here is where those inputs and outputs are inventoried.
Even low-concentration outputs are listed, particularly if a trace amount of toxin can bring about
lethal harm once released into the environment. This step tracks where each material travels and
ultimately ends up.
If some of the outputs—like solid waste—in the inventory analysis have detrimental effect
once released in the environment, impact assessment is the step where the author of the LCA
would make this explicit. If one or several major stages are particularly polluting or energyintensive, they are explicated and described in more detail in the interpretation section.
In quick summary, then, the four LCA phases are:

Goal and Scope Definition: Defining goals, system boundaries, and fundamental unit.

Inventory Analysis: Documenting resources, energy used, solid wastes, and air and
waterborne emissions for every stage of the cycle.

Impact Assessment of environmental releases, such as toxicity to humans, climate
change, acidification of water bodies, etc.

Interpretation: Description of one or several major stages that are particularly polluting
or energy-intensive.
5
The first two steps (Goal and Scope Definition, Inventory Analysis) are the most timeconsuming, exhausting portions of LCA. The latter two (Impact Assessment, Interpretation) are
mostly a summarization of results, translating the numbers into more tangible conclusions that
will be more digestible for the public (e.g. “Every time a chair is made, five milligrams of Toxin
A leeches into the waste water”). As seen in Figure 1, these four phases are not strictly sequential;
each phase will necessarily inform the other, especially while the LCA is being conducted.
Something discovered in Interpretation might mean refining the Goal and Scope, for example.
The Need for LCA
LCA budded in the 1960s as a vague response to increasing environmental awareness. The
1970s augmented the need, wherein petroleum shortages sunk most of the industrial world into
an energy crisis. Though the 2010s do not face an energy crisis, it is imminent as global demand
for resources will keep growing while supply continues to dwindle. The need to track more exact
numbers for resoruce consumption drives the social need for LCA.
More technically, there is good reason why LCA is defined cradle-to-grave, with a strict
requirement on system boundaries: the lack of them can lead to fraudulent advertising. Organic
and environmentally-conscious products like to promote environmental friendliness in their
advertising, perhaps by boasting that they save x gallons of water compared to the leading
competition, or that the carbon footprint in transporting the product from source to destination
expelled only y tons of CO2.
These labels can be deceptive! These are ambiguous claims that, by themselves, cannot
prove true environmental friendliness.
6
First, the water. If you were to analyze the product in an LCA framework, one would have
to explicitly state which stage(s) that water was saved, be it during raw material extraction,
manufacturing, or product use. Suppose water was saved during the manufacturing process. This
is a nice accomplishment. But, if the manufacturing changed the makeup of the product such that
more water becomes necessary to ultimately dispose of or recycle the product, it is very possible
that there was actually no water saved once the cradle-to-grave breadth of LCA is applied.
This is in fact the case for dishwashing detergent [8]. Because a massive amount of
phosphates from a variety of sources ends up in lakes, rivers, and drinking supplies, laws were
passed in several states to restrict the amount of phosphates in products, starting with
dishwashing detergent. (They are actually not the primary contributor to the phosphate releases,
but environmentalists insisted that any small change was an improvement for the environment.)
Companies developed and released these “greener” detergents to the consumer market, which
were warmly welcomed until consumers discovered that the detergents were flat-out incompetent
for cleaning dishes. In fact, they often left a white film on the cleaned dishes, making them
dirtier than before.
It turns out that phosphates are the primary ingredient that gives detergent its cleaning
ability. Formerly comprising 8% of the fluid, they can be as low as 0.7% in “green” detergents.
Homeowners often had to wash the dishes a second time to dispose of the film. While the “green”
detergents may have slightly decreased phosphate leakage into water sources, having to consume
twice the amount of water to achieve the same clean results does not spell out a net benefit for
the environment.
Second, the tonnage of CO2. CO2 is the poster-child greenhouse gas where climate change
is concerned, but the public sphere tends to think of CO2 as the only culprit at hand. There are in
7
fact multiple greenhouse gases, and because CO2 happens to be the best known one, it became
the basis for defining a common metric to evaluate the GWP (Global Warming Potential) of
different gases. This unit is expressed as tons of CO2-equivalent. To demonstrate, one ton of
methane is equal to 21 tons of CO2-equivalent, meaning that methane has 21 times the
destructive power as CO2 in effecting climate change [4]. (Consider that methane only remains
in the atmosphere for 14 years as opposed to CO2’s 100 years. It compensates heavily for its
short-livedness with atmospheric damage!)
Thus, declaring a transportation carbon footprint of y tons of CO2 could technically be
right—but if a product neglects to mention the emission of other greenhouse gases, and claims to
be environmentally friendly, then they are spitting outright lies. “Carbon footprint” evaluations
are incomplete and inaccurate until all species are accounted for and converted into CO2equivalents.
These are only two of infinitely possible methods of false advertising that the average
person would be unable to detect. Only the discerning eye, then, can pick out such sinister
subtleties. They are covert, and it takes an exacting eye, an exacting methodology, to avoid this
kind of convenient make-believe. Because arbitrary boundaries differ from product to product, to
person to person, there needs to be a standardized way to define all of this. This is why LCA
exists, and why they say to start with the raw materials. This is the only fair way to categorize
the full material inputs and outputs involved in producing a product.
Ending the LCA at recycling/disposal is another way of ensuring a fair assessment. Some
products are energy-intensive or polluting during the manufacturing stage, and it is tempting to
emphasize this and villainize the product by cutting off the analysis at that point. Opponents to
solar panels build their cases this way, arguing that manufacturing solar panels consumes more
8
energy than it can generate on a daily basis, and therefore they call it an unfeasible alternative
energy source.
Meanwhile, numerous LCA studies on solar panel systems demonstrate the importance of
fixing product use in the analysis. Though solar panels do require many raw materials and heavy
energy inputs, they recuperate that initial energy cost in about four years, allowing it to produce
energy, emission-free, for the remainder of its 20-year lifetime [6]. This upholds the prime
appeal of solar panels and counteracts arguments like the above.
Limitations
Metrics like these are why LCA is often used as a supporting argument for the viability of
alternate energy sources. In most cases, though, alternative energy sources are difficult to
disseminate because of the high financial costs required (investment, maintenance, etc.). Money
is a crucial part of any decision-making process, but completely omitted from LCA, because its
developers wanted to leave money out of the consideration, and to emphasize the alreadyintricate analysis on the energy and environmental impacts. Social justice considerations are also
beginning to feature heavily in the decision-making process, but is another component not
accounted for in LCA.
For social justice, in fact, there is a separate social LCA framework being developed, but
still in its stages of infancy and not nearly to the point of being as well-defined as environmental
LCA. Social justice cannot be translated to numbers as easily as outputs of CO2 or gallons of
water, which remains the largest hurdle in its own framework development. The subjectivity
makes social LCA a struggle to define.
9
Researchers are attempting to address these limitations of LCA by creating an integrated
decision support tool that would feature environmental LCA, social LCA, and financial analysis
together [3]. In synthesis, they would form a so-called “triple bottom line” of environmental,
social, and economic considerations that would synthesize an optimum solution for decisionmakers in the future, and allow them to tweak the tool to their situation as they deem fit.
LCA maintains a low profile in the public conscience, though they are conducted regularly
in the scientific community and internally in companies. LCAs, though, are conducted primarily
in research and only on existing systems. They are time-consuming and if you want a complete
report at all, the scope has to be narrow enough for that to be accomplishable: that, by default,
means you will never gain anything near the full understanding of a product’s full environmental
impact prior to the product’s full development. They can never be used as a preventive tool.
While there are computer simulation tools for LCA, the process is no less exhausting.
Without exact information about the product or the company producing it, these LCAs can only
provide estimates at best since different companies have different procedures for proessing the
same raw material, even if they try to meet the same industrial standard. Internally-conducted
LCAs would therefore be the most accurate, but also the most private, since they would divulge
company secrets.
Where It All Started
Scientists engendered the idea of LCA in the 1960s, but the official progenitor of the
practiced LCA is actually a rather famous one—surely, you have consumed a product from The
Coca-Cola Company, and on multiple occasions. The term LCA was not coined until 1990; until
10
then, these studies were called Resource and Environmental Profile Analyses (REPA). In 1969,
the Coca-Cola Company commissioned one of these REPAs in order to answer two questions [9].
First: “Is it feasible to produce our own beverage containers?” Until then, they had
contracted outside companies to provide them with the classic glass bottles. Producing in-house
would help reduce these costs, but beyond that, Coca-Cola Co. was curious about the net energy
cost of their current practice, which included importing the raw materials as well the
dissemination of the finished product.
Second: “Should we continue using glass, or is using plastic better?” Considering the use
of plastic beverage containers was a radical idea for its time, particularly since even the industry
was wary of plastic as “an environmental villain.” Further, glass bottles are refillable, and were
collected to be refilled in those times. If plastic is used instead, they would more likely be
disposed than refilled. Given these considerations, and the pre-existing industry sentiment
against plastic, could plastic beat out glass?
11
Figure 2: The ultimate winner. [2]
The Coca-Cola REPA actually even made the company “comfortable” with the switch
from glass to plastic, because the report revealed that plastic was not as toxic as they had
believed. How much, exactly? Nobody knows—the REPA is trade secret to this day since it
contains intimate details on the company’s operations. Would the Coca-Cola Company still
choose plastic over glass today, given the global strain on petroleum resources? You hardly need
the REPA to know that answer—a cursory glance in the marketplace suffices.
In the aftermath of this REPA, hordes of companies followed Coca-Cola’s move, and for
years afterward, REPAs analyzed nothing else but beverage containers. You have LCA and
Coca-Cola to thank for the ubiquitous soda bottles.
12
It’s All Engineering to Me.
LCA involves a whole different way of thinking unfamiliar to the average person, in that we
need to define a system and rigorously define the rest of the process with respect to the initial
definitions. Everything is possible when considered in its theoretical stages, but the people who
make the ideas reality and actualizable are the engineers. In fact, this is why the origins of LCA
are traced back to the Coca-Cola Company in 1969 and not to any of the earlier scientists who
toyed with the idea: Coca-Cola Co. was the first to practice and apply LCA. To apply scientific
principles to the real world is in fact the total job description of an engineer. They are the best
equipped to apply this thinking to products because that is how they are trained in science: define
a system and surroundings, and describe the inputs and outputs of the system. LCA is the essence
of their schooling. Definition of system and surroundings is arbitrary from person to person, but
once there are rules for how to set them, those inflexible definitions give great power and insight
for the process as a whole. It is a subtlety that LCA hounds upon.
Conclusions
LCAs have been the tool used by industry to evaluate the environmental impact of their
products, starting with Coca-Cola in 1969 (and responsible for the ubiquitous plastic soda bottles)
and now being practiced with regularity in the scientific community as well as many companies
in industry. Governments have put LCA into practice with the European Union being the most
13
singular example. Many other ecolabels exist (e.g. Japan’s Ecomark, Rainforest Alliance),
though without the rigorous basis of LCA.
In a world whose resources will only be demanded more and more as the supply dwindles,
all countries must determine how to survive in these new conditions. Because of this urgency, it
is important to be thorough and encompassing in the way that LCA demands. LCA is not the
end-all solution, but a means to approach the issue. It is one of many ways to combat this issue,
but it stands powerfully alone as a scientific methodology of the engineers, by the engineers, for
the world of engineers and non-engineers alike.
14
Works Cited
[1] C. Goldsmith, “EC Sets 'Ecolabel' for Green Products,” NY Times, Dec. 1991.
News article discussing the EU’s adoption of the Ecolabel, and its reception in the EU.
[2] Coca-Cola. [Online]. Stock image. Available:
http://images.monstermarketplace.com/online-market/coca-cola-16-9-oz-plastic-bottle-6pk-500x500.jpg.
Stock image of Coca-Cola plastic bottle for a visual point.
[3] E. Chan et al, “Solar Powered Charge Stations: LCA Thinking,” KSU, Manhattan, KS,
Conf. LCA XII, 2012.
LCA conference paper introducing the idea of a synthesized decision tool to determine a
triple bottom line consideration: optimization between economic, environmental, and
social factors.
[4] EPA, “Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator” [Online]. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html
Calculates tons of CO2-eq. for various greenhouse gases.
[5] EPA, “LCA 101 Document,” EPA. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/lca/lca.html
The documentation for standardized LCA. This is a heavy home of information; trying to
add more sources that are already present in this one would be redundant.
[6] Good Company, Life-Cycle Environmental Performance of Silicon Solar Panel [online].
Rep. Oregon State Government, Aug. 2008. Available:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/OIPP/docs/solar_panel_lifecycle.pdf?ga=t
A study commissioned by the state of Oregon, analyzing the environmental impacts of
various solar panels and calculating the energy payback time.
15
[7] Mr3641. Public Domain. [Online]. Available:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ea/PhasesOfLifeCycleAnalysis.png. July 28,
2012 [date accessed].
Simple graphic adequately illustrating the four phases of LCA.
[8] Navarro, Mireya, “Cleaner for the Environment, Not for the Dishes,” NY Times, Sept.
2010.
News article discussing the impact of decreasing phosphate levels in dishwashing fluid.
[9] R.G. Hunt and W.E. Franklin, “LCA – How it Came About – Personal Reflection on the
Origin and Development of LCA in the USA,” Franklin Assoc. Ltd., Prairie Village, KS,
Tech. Rep. Int J. LCA 1 (1), 1996.
Article that discusses the landmark Coca-Cola REPA, that kicked off LCA development.