| |
| Please note: If the download icon is not visible on this screen, this document is not available to non-members for download. Although the abstracts for all Technical Bulletins may be searched and viewed by the public, most are available only to NCASI members for download. Employees of NCASI member companies may login with a user name and password to access members-only resources.
|
| |
| Special Report No. 04-03: An Analysis of the Methods Used to Address the Carbon Cycle in Wood and Paper Product LCA Studies |
| Type: |
Special Report No. 04-03 |
| Published: |
August 2004 |
| |
| File Size: |
493 KB |
Category: |
Reports |
| File Type: |
 |
(Adobe PDF) |
Frequency: |
As Needed |
|
|
|
| |
| Bibliographic Citation |
| National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2004. An Analysis of the Methods Used to Address the Carbon Cycle in Wood and Paper Product LCA Studies. Special Report No. 04-03. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. |
| |
| Abstract |
An extensive worldwide literature search was conducted to find Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies that considered the carbon cycle for wood or paper products in the use and end of life stages. The principal issues of interest were how the fate of carbon was evaluated during the product use phase and end of life in landfills, including methane emissions from landfills.
Sixty-six LCAs have been identified on wood and paper products. Most of these do not address carbon flow issues throughout the entire life cycle, but focus instead on other environmental parameters usually included in life cycle studies. Where biomass carbon is addressed, it is usually only in the context of carbon taken from the atmosphere and fixed into trees. Carbon sequestered in products and methane emissions from landfills are ignored in most studies, although many more studies address methane emissions than address carbon sequestration in products and landfills. Where biomass carbon is included it is usually, but not always, considered “global warming neutral.”
Of the 66 LCA studies, 13 were selected for in-depth review. Many of these presented clear statements on how product use and end-of-life carbon storage and carbon dioxide and methane releases were handled, but most of these lacked good data support. Many of the authors used very simple assumptions and cited the lack of good data or methodology. Typical assumptions for landfills were that all organic products decay in landfills, or no organic products decay in landfills, or some fraction decays in landfills. There was little uniformity in assumptions on methane emissions and recovery, with only studies for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a German company—IFEU—citing actual measurements.
Carbon sequestration in products in use or in landfills was usually not addressed, or was addressed via simplifying assumptions, e.g., that wood products permanently sequester carbon. Data from EPA, Dr. Morton Barlaz at North Carolina State University, and the German company IFEU were cited in several cases. Even where the reports were comprehensive, the methodologies for carbon flows and sequestration varied significantly.
The report cites 11 references (at the end of Appendix A) that provide useful background on how to develop carbon cycle data for LCAs. In addition, ISO/TR 14047 –published in the fall of 2003 –gives in “Example 3” a number of ideas for carbon cycle LCA methods for harvested wood products. Although carbon sequestration is receiving significant attention as an option for controlling atmospheric CO2 levels, there is no uniform peer-reviewed methodology for characterizing sequestration in the ISO standards, nor has one been adopted by LCA practitioners. |
|
|