uab impact assessmenticta.uab.cat/ecotech/sudoe/advanced_course/impact... · 2012. 11. 27. ·...

Bo P. Weidema November 9th, 2012 Barcelona

Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Choice of impact categories

Scope: What impacts to include?

•  ISO 14040: The selecJon of impact categories shall reflect a comprehensive set of environmental issues related to the product system being studied, taking the goal and scope into consideraJon.

What is the environment?

“The surroundings that an organisaJon operates in” (ISO 14001)

•  Bio-‐physical environment (nature) •  Social environment (well-‐being of humans) •  Economic environment (resources = capital)

Scope: What impacts to include?

Nature occupaJon Global warming Invasive alien species NutrificaJon AcidificaJon Photochemical ozone Ecotoxicity OverexploitaJon of bioJc resources Poverty-‐related diseases Accidents OccupaJonal health Respiratory inorganics Noise Human toxicity Food-‐borne diseases Ionising radiaJon Ozone-‐layer depleJon PoliJcal exclusion Child labour Infringement on freedom of expression Excessive work Inequity in opportuniJes Inadequate access to health care ViolaJon of worker’s rights Unwanted pregnancies

•  How do you ensure that your list of impact categories is comprehensive?

What contributes to impacts on nature?

•  Nature occupaJon (26% of global area) •  Global warming (14) •  Invasive alien species (9) •  NutrificaJon (4) •  AcidificaJon (2) •  Photochemical ozone (1) •  Ecotoxicity (1) •  OverexploitaJon of bioJc resources (?)

What contributes to impacts on human health?

•  Poverty-‐related diseases (50 QALY/1000 capita) •  Accidents (14) •  OccupaJonal health (7) •  Respiratory inorganics (6) •  Noise (2) •  Human toxicity (0.3) •  Food-‐borne diseases (0.3) •  Global warming (0.2) •  Ionising radiaJon (0.1) •  Ozone-‐layer depleJon (0.2)

Non-‐health contribuJons to impacts on human well-‐being

•  PoliJcal exclusion (39 QALY / 1000 capita) •  Child labour (38) •  Infringement on freedom of expression (38) •  Excessive work (32) •  Inequity in opportuniJes (26) •  Inadequate access to health care (23) •  ViolaJon of worker’s rights (22) •  Unwanted pregnancies (16)

What contributes to impacts on the economy?

•  ProducJon costs (17000 USD2000PPS/cap.) •  Loss of educaJon (9700) •  Loss of social infrastructure (5900) •  Health and other work-‐disabling impact (5800) •  Trade barriers (5200) •  Loss of physical infrastructure (4500) •  Loss of bioJc producJon (2000) •  Unemployment and underemployment (960) •  DepleJon of mineral deposits (2)

Stepwise2006: Combining the best of midpoint impact models

•  AcidificaJon •  Ecotoxicity •  EutrophicaJon •  Global warming (100yrs) •  Human toxicity •  Injuries, work and traffic •  Ionizing radiaJon •  Mineral extracJon •  Nature occupaJon •  Non-‐renewable energy •  Ozone layer depleJon •  Photochemical ozone impacts on vegetaJon •  Respiratory inorganics •  Respiratory organics (human impact of p.o.)

Criteria: Best coverage of impact chain & substances Missing: Noise and Invasive species, both closely related to traffic

EDIP X X X X X

IMPACT2002+ NEW X (modified) X X X X X (incl. deforestation) X X X

Environment

SETAC/UNEP framework for impact assessment

Humans Non-human, biotic Abiotic

Environment


Humans Non-human, biotic Abiotic Safeguard subjects -  Intrinsic - Instrumental (functional)

Environment Humans Non-human, biotic Abiotic

Safeguard subjects - Intrinsic - Biodiversity - Heritage - Life & longevity - Animal welfare - Health - Autonomy - Instrumental - Human - Biotic - Resources productivity productivity


Environment

Safeguard subjects related to the three areas of sustainability

Humans Non-human, biotic Abiotic Safeguard subjects - Intrinsic - Instrumental

Environment

Ecoindicator99: One unit for each of the three areas


Environment

One unit for each of the three areas (our modificaJon):


Mortality gap

QuanJfying impacts on human well-‐being

Intrinsic safeguard subjects - Life & longevity - Health -  Autonomy -  Safety, security & tranquillity -  Equal opportunities -  Participation & influence

0%

50%

100%

82 Age

Survival LY

Health state



0%

50%

100%

82 Age

Health gap

DALY

QALY

Well-being gap



0%

50%

100%

82 Age

State of well-being

Incidence*Dura-on*Severity

MonetarisaJon

Damage categories - Human well-being -  Biodiversity

-  Economy

QALYs

QAm2years

EUR2003

QALY

EUR2003

Monetarisa-on methods: -‐  Revealed preferences -‐  Stated preferences

-‐  Willingness to pay -‐  Choice modelling

-‐  Budget constraint

MonetarisaJon using the budget constraint


-  Economy

QALYs

QAm2years

EUR2003

QALY

EUR2003

Budget constraint: PotenJal Global GEP with full human producJvity = 74000 EUR2003 / person i.e. 74000 EUR2003 / QALY

Compare: $25000 (Human capital approach), $93000 (Revealed preferences), $160000 (Willingness-‐to-‐pay)

Uncertainty: 62,000 – 84,000 EUR2003 / QALY versus the 27,000 – 225,000 Euro of the ExternE project

CalculaJng the potenJal global GEP = The global budget constraint

Ideal economic production relative to

the economic production of USA2000

Unemployment and underemployment

1.02

Health and other work-disabling impacts

1.19

Effect of trade barriers

1.05

Education

1.46

Product of all the above

1.87

1.87 * GEP of USA2000 = 1.87* 39,500 EUR2003 = 74,000 EUR2003

Expressing ecosystem impacts in terms of human well-‐being


-  Economy

QALYs

QAm2years

EUR2003

QALY

IniJal pragmaJc soluJon: 10% ProtecJon target from ConvenJon on Biological Diversity

( _21 BAHY / QALY or 3500 EUR/BAHY )

Ideally: Choice modelling

6.2 E9 people = 6.2 E9 QALY

13.1 E9 ha-years = 13.1 E9 BAHY

X ExternE: 63 – 350 EUR/ha

Ecosystem impacts assessed by choice modelling


-  Economy

QALYs

QAm2years

EUR2003

EUR2003

Japanese choice modelling

0.54 E6 DALY / species extinction

68’000 EUR/DALY and 34E9 EUR/species 4.5 E-8 species extinctions per BAHY 1400 EUR/BAHY (350 - 3500 EUR/BAHY)

Choosing QALYs or monetary units to express overall impact?


-  Economy

QALYs

QAm2years

EUR2003

QALY

EUR2003

Advantages of QALY measure: •  Represents intrinsic values •  Stable over Jme •  Applicable when communicaJng to opponents of monetarisaJon

Advantages of monetary measure: •  Size is immediately understandable •  Easier to integrate in ordinary decision making

A common framework for biophysical, social and economic impacts

1000 kg NOx

Health: 0.118 QALY = 6600 EUR Ecosystem impact:

0.43 ha*years = 1520 EUR

Impact on buildings: 300 EUR

Impact on agriculture: via ozone: 443 EUR

Fertiliser effect: - 200 EUR

Human productivity: 2100 EUR

Activity

RelaJve importance of impact categories in Europe

•  AcidificaJon •  Ecotoxicity •  EutrophicaJon •  Global warming •  Human toxicity •  Injuries, work and traffic •  Ionizing radiaJon •  Mineral extracJon •  Nature occupaJon •  Non-‐renewable energy •  Ozone layer depleJon •  Photochemical ozone impacts on vegetaJon •  Respiratory inorganics •  Respiratory organics (human impact of p.o.) Sum of all

EUR / capita-‐year 17 13 34 880 59 590 11 1 390 0 21 52 590 3 2650

Reality check of midpoint indicators

•  Total ecotoxicity impacts in IMPACT2002+ for Europe: 4.1 E12 QAm2years

•  Total European ecosystem area: 4 E12 m2 •  Main contribuJng substances: Emissions to soil of which

the main part are either emissions to agricultural soil or emissions in relaJon to mining overburden.

•  These substances are already covered by the impact category “nature occupaJon”

•  Revised Ecotoxicity impact for Europe: 8 E9 QAm2years corresponding to 0.2% of ecosystem area

ReCiPe – What is new?

•  All impact pathways from Ecoindicator99 re-‐assessed •  Marginal approach consistently applied •  Ecosystems assessed in species*years (= 77 million PDF*m2*years)

•  Natural resource depleJon assessed with marginal future costs, 3% discounJng, but without technology shits

Not included in ReCiPe (compared to Stepwise)

•  Photochemical ozone impacts on vegetaJon •  Terrestrial and marine eutrophicaJon •  Impacts on man-‐made environment •  Impacts on resource producJvity

(62 + 12 + 1 + 170 = 245 EUR2003 / person)

Comparison of ReCiPeH, Stepwise2006 and Ecoindicator 99H

•  Human well-‐being: -‐ DALY = QALY = 74000 EUR2003

•  Ecosystem: §  Lost species*years = 7700 BAHY = 77*106 PDF*m2*years = 10.8*106 EUR2003

•  Resource producJvity: §  USD = EUR2003 = 147 MJfuture (at 40 USD/barrel; no discounJng)

Total monetarised impact in the World per person per year (ReCiPe normalisaJon value), in EUR2003

Impact category ReCiPe Endpoint

(H) Stepwise2006 Ecoindicator

99 (H)

Total 32159 1518 1555

Climate change Ecosystems 586 569 0

Climate change Human Health 709 11 106

Global warming / Climate change, total 1295 580 106

Land use impacts, total 8612 494 947

Respiratory inorganics 269 307 358

Photochemical ozone, impact on vegetation 0 62 0

Human toxicity, non-carc. - 32 0

Human toxicity, carcinogens - 4 2

Human toxicity, total 6 36 2

Eutrophication, terrestrial 0 12 -

Eutrophication, aquatic 0.1 1.8 -

Acidification, terrestrial 2 5 -

Eutrophication/Acidification, total 3 19 24

Ecotoxicity, total 9 11 69

Respiratory organics 0.2 4.8 2.7

Ozone depletion 6 4 3

Ionising radiation 1.6 0.6 2.0

Metal depletion 31.6 0.5 1.0

Fossil depletion 21927 0 41

83 EUR / Mg CO2

Including ecosystem

effect

>> current average GDP ; not including

technology shift

Assuming technology

shift

Two very different approaches to

marginal modelling

Two very different approaches to marginal modelling of land use impacts

•  ReCiPe: –  OccupaJon including border effect => 1.3 PDF*m2*years / m2*years

arable agriculture –  Separate transformaJon impact with 4550 PDF*years relaxaJon Jme

for tropical forest (not yet supported by inventory) –  Implicit double-‐counJng of marginal effect of occupaJon

•  Stepwise2006: –  Only difference in occupaJon effect compared to marginal use

(agriculture; without border effect), i.e. posiJve impacts and no double-‐counJng

–  OccupaJon includes indirect transformaJon impact from agricultural land use with 100 PDF*years relaxaJon (500 years at 0.2 average severity) => 0.88 PDF*m2*years / m2*year agricultural land)

Total monetarised impact in the World per person per year (ReCiPe normalisa-on value), in EUR2003

Impact category ReCiPe Endpoint

(H) Stepwise2006 Ecoindicator

99 (H)

Total 32159 1518 1555

Climate change Ecosystems 586 569 0

Climate change Human Health 709 11 106

Global warming / Climate change, total 1295 580 106

Land use impacts, total 8612 494 947

Respiratory inorganics 269 307 358

Photochemical ozone, impact on vegetation 0 62 0

Human toxicity, non-carc. - 32 0

Human toxicity, carcinogens - 4 2

Human toxicity, total 6 36 2

Eutrophication, terrestrial 0 12 -

Eutrophication, aquatic 0.1 1.8 -

Acidification, terrestrial 2 5 -

Eutrophication/Acidification, total 3 19 24

Ecotoxicity, total 9 11 69

Respiratory organics 0.2 4.8 2.7

Ozone depletion 6 4 3

Ionising radiation 1.6 0.6 2.0

Metal depletion 31.6 0.5 1.0

Fossil depletion 21927 0 41

Improved model

Missing!

Superceeded by USETOX

Superceeded by USETOX

No endpoint model

Freshwater only

Improved models

ReCiPe – in conclusion

•  Impact categories excluded corresponds to 16% of total impacts in Stepwise2006

•  Veru high impacts from fossil fuel depleJon – based on very quesJonable assumpJons

•  Very high impacts from global warming (185 EUR/Mg CO2) •  UnrealisJcally high impacts from land use (21000 EUR/

ha*year) •  Model improvements on less important impacts

(improvements amounJng to -‐2% of total impacts) •  IndividualisJc perspecJve less extreme, but sJll very high

(19000 EUR/person*year) and even higher for global warming (234 EUR/Mg CO2) due to 20 year Jme-‐horizon!

•  MonetarisaJon provides a good reality check!

Main difference between methods depend on a few crucial assumpJons:

•  Technology shits for scarce resources •  Land use transformaJon:

–  AllocaJon –  RelaJon to occupaJon –  RelaxaJon Jme for natural areas

•  Human health impacts of global warming

uab impact assessmenticta.uab.cat/ecotech/sudoe/advanced_course/impact... · 2012. 11. 27. ·...

Documents