updated lca climate metrics

© SCS Global Services | 1

Updated LCA Climate Metrics

Presentation at meeting of US TAG 207 August 4, 2014

Washington, D.C.

Tobias C. L. Schultz and Stanley RhodesSCS Global Services

© Scientific Certification Systems | 2© SCS Global Services | 2

Public Discussion and Review of LCA Climate Metrics

LCA Climate Metrics are included in a publicly available draft ANSI standard, which has completed its public comment period.

The metrics have separately been reviewed by industry, government, ENGOs, and leading climate scientists, with widespread support.

Applications of the metrics have been presented to:

American Geophysical Union (December 2013).

UNEP-SETAC (Basel, 2014).

American Center for LCA (October 2013).

And others.

Metrics will be presented to presented to SETAC North America in November.

© Scientific Certification Systems | 3© SCS Global Services | 3

The Global Climate Cause-Effect Chainbased on IPCC AR 5

1. Emissions released, human-caused and natural

2. Increasing atmospheric concentrations

3. Increases in global and regional radiative forcing

4. Additional heat trapped in the Earth-atmosphere system from integrated radiative forcing

5. Increase in the Global Mean Temperature (GMT)

6. Accelerating climate change as GMT rises above key thresholds

7. Dangerous impacts to resources, ecosystems, frequency and intensity of extreme events, coastal areas.

Scope of LCA Characterization

© Scientific Certification Systems | 4© SCS Global Services | 4

Environmental Relevance According to ISO 14044

ISO 14044 recommends that indicators used in comparisons should be environmentally relevant, and that environmental relevance should consider: ⎯ the condition of the category endpoint(s), ⎯ the relative magnitude of the assessed change in the category endpoints, ⎯ the spatial aspects, such as area and scale, ⎯ the temporal aspects, such as duration, residence time, persistence, timing, etc., ⎯ the reversibility of the environmental mechanism, and ⎯ the uncertainty of the linkages between the category indicators and the category endpoints.

ISO 14044 §4.4.2.2.2: “Environmental relevance encompasses a qualitative assessment of the degree of linkage between category indicator results and category endpoints: for example, high, moderate or low linkage.”

© Scientific Certification Systems | 5© SCS Global Services | 5© SCS Global Services | 5

Uncertainty arising from weakness of

linkage to endpoint

Uncertainty in characterization

Selecting Environmentally Relevant Indicators

As one proceeds along the cause-effects chain, the relevance increases, but the uncertainty in measurement also increases.

Environmental relevance is the degree of linkage to endpoints, considering both these sources of uncertainty.

The most environmentally relevant indicator is selected subject to these constraints.

Node in cause effects chain

Environmental relevance

© Scientific Certification Systems | 6© SCS Global Services | 6© SCS Global Services | 6

Nodal indicator selected

1: Emissions released

2: Increasing atmospheric concentrations

3: Increases in global and regional radiative forcing

4: Additional heat trapped from integrated radiative forcing

5: Increase in the Global Mean Temperature

Global Climate Change

6: Accelerating climate change as GMT exceeds key thresholds

7: Dangerous impacts to resources, ecosystems, etc.

Selecting the Environmentally Relevant Indicator for Global Climate Change

Integrated radiative forcing

Environmental relevance

© Scientific Certification Systems | 7© SCS Global Services | 7

Radiative Forcing

The Earth is continually bathed in radiative energy from the sun.

Upon entering the Earth’s atmosphere: Some sunlight is reflected (scattered) Some is absorbed in the atmosphere Some is absorbed by the Earth’s surface Some is reflected by the Earth’s surface

The Earth’s surface emits infra-red radiation: Some escapes into space Some is absorbed by the Earth’s atmos-

phere on its way out (the greenhouse effect)

Image source: http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/journal%20of%20energy,%20climate,%20and%20the%20environment/Earth_Western_Hemisphere_white_background.jpg

© Scientific Certification Systems | 8© SCS Global Services | 8

Radiative Forcing AnomalyClimate forcers warm or cool the Earth, by absorbing or reflecting radiative heat.

Anthropogenic emissions have increased concentrations of many climate forcers. These forcers can:

Increase the amount of radiative heat trapped (warming)

Increase the amount of sunlight reflected (cooling)

Radiative forcing is a measure of the net additional heat trapped by a climate forcer.

It is measured in Watts per meter squared (W/m2), or milli-Watts per meter squared (mW/m2). It can be positive or negative.

© Scientific Certification Systems | 9© SCS Global Services | 9

Understanding the Effects from Changes in Radiative Forcing

The Krakatoa volcanic eruption dropped Global Mean RF by -3.4 W/m2, causing global

temperatures to drop by ~1°C for three years, resulting in widespread crop losses and famine.

© Scientific Certification Systems | 10© SCS Global Services | 10

Radiative Forcing of Black and Brown Carbon (W/m2) Source: Chung, C.E., V. Ramanathan, et al. 2005.

Black Carbon: The Second Most Powerful Climate Forcer (Global Mean RF =+1.1 W/m2)

Black Carbon Hot Spot over South Asia• Δ RF =+12 W/m2

• Size = 1 million sq. km.• Duration: Constant year-round• Sources: Cooking fires, coal combustion

© Scientific Certification Systems | 11© SCS Global Services | 11

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

Methane Nitrous oxide

Years after emission of 1 million tons

Glo

bal m

ean

radi

ative

forc

ing:

mW

/ m

2

Using Radiative Forcing to Develop Climate MetricsGWPs are a measure of global mean integrated radiative forcing, over a time horizon.

This is compared to the integrated forcing of CO2 over the same time horizon.

GWPs have been established for all types of climate forcers.

The updated metrics the GWP measurement, but the factor is called the Global Forcing Potential (GFP).

The IPCC AR5 notes that “Global Warming Potential” can be a misleading term:

GWP does not consider temperature, only forcing, and do not consider coolants.

100 Years

20 Years

© Scientific Certification Systems | 12© SCS Global Services | 12

Key Parameters in Assessing Integrated Radiative Forcing

Accounting for all climate forcers (both positive and negative climate forcers).

Selecting the time horizons based on maximum temperature targets.

Including indirect effects on the climate (e.g. for methane and black carbon).

Developing characterization factors to account for regional and source variability.

Using updated terminology.

© Scientific Certification Systems | 13© SCS Global Services | 13

Key Features of the Updated Climate Metrics

© Scientific Certification Systems | 14© SCS Global Services | 14

Kyoto Climate Forcers list (41%)

Radiative Forcing (2011)

Carbon dioxide 1.8 W/m2

Methane 0.5 W/m2

Nitrous oxide 0.2 W/m2

Other WMGHGs (CFCs, HCFCs, etc.)

0.3 W/m2

Total 2.8 W/m2

Short-Lived Climate Forcers (27%)

Radiative Forcing (2011)

Black carbon 1.1 W/m2

Brown carbon 0.3 W/m2

Tropospheric Ozone 0.4 W/m2

Total 1.8 W/m2

LCA Metrics Include All Major Climate Forcers (Total Global Net Forcing =+2.3 W/m2)

Cooling Climate Forcers(32%)

Radiative Forcing (2011)

Cooling aerosols (sulfate, nitrate, and organics)

-2.1 W/m2

© Scientific Certification Systems | 15© SCS Global Services | 15

Targets are linked to Temperature Thresholds

+2°C

+1.5

°C

+4°C

Thresholds of increasing irreversibility

© Scientific Certification Systems | 16© SCS Global Services | 16© SCS Global Services | 16

Significance of these Temperature Thresholds

+1.5°C Threshold (2035) Possible point of Arctic destabilization, and projected loss of small island states into the oceans.

+2.0°C Threshold (2050) The point beyond which dangerous climate interference will occur, according to international consensus.

+4.0°C Threshold (2100) This threshold is considered by many scientists to be “potentially catastrophic“.

Even with global mitigation of all emissions, the +1.5°C GMT anomaly will be exceeded.

Projected impacts when GMT anomaly reaches +2.0°C.

3 feet of sea level rise

Coral reefs decimated by bleaching.

Projected impacts when GMT anomaly reaches +4.0°C.

Significant declines in food production in all

world regions.

Effects to water supplies , including a 40% reduction in surface water supplies in the

Mississippi River Basin.

Unprecedented heat extremes: July in the central U.S. will be 9°C (20°F) warmer

As much as an 80% reduction in surface water in the Mississippi River Basin.

In the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, +2.0°C was agreed to as the maximum temperature target.

The United States was a party to this agreement.

2000 205019501900

1.5°C

The Alliance of Small Island States and 49 Least Developed Countries have advocated that the

+1.5°C be selected as the maximum temperature target under UNFCCC agreements.

© Scientific Certification Systems | 17© SCS Global Services | 17

Potential Consequences of the +4.0°Temperature Threshold

+4.0°C: last exceeded 25

millions years ago

© Scientific Certification Systems | 18© SCS Global Services | 18

Complete Accounting Reveals New Mitigation Opportunities

Current metrics hide potential of projects for reducing black carbon emissions.

They underestimate the benefit of projects to reduce methane emissions.

As discussed, these types are projects are necessary to avoid exceeding +2°C.

2000 205019501900

“Dangerous” warming per Copenhagen Accord

© Scientific Certification Systems | 19© SCS Global Services | 19

Including Short Lived Climate Forcers (SLCFs)

© Scientific Certification Systems | 20© SCS Global Services | 20

IPCC Established GWPs for SLCFs

IPCC AR5 report synthesizes the consensus science on GWPs for SLCFs.

Includes global average values for black and organic carbon, and regionally differentiated values for NOx.

Values for black carbon must be updated to account for regional variability in forcing.

© Scientific Certification Systems | 21© SCS Global Services | 21

Accounting for Regional Variability of Black Carbon

The type of source of an emission is also very important.

The GWP for black carbon from biomass combustion is about 50% higher than the GWP for diesel fuel combustion.

Radiative Forcing of Black and Brown Carbon (W/m2). Source: Chung, C.E., V. Ramanathan, et al. 2005.

Accounting must consider the region of emission.

The GWP of black carbon can vary by 30% or more, based on the region of emission.

© Scientific Certification Systems | 22© SCS Global Services | 22© SCS Global Services | 22

Calculating Regional GWP Values for Black Carbon Using Consensus ScienceThree radiative effects of black carbon: “Direct” effect: darkened atmosphere absorbs

more sunlight. Snow and ice effects: darkened surfaces absorb

more sunlight. Cloud interactions: Cloud distributions,

structure, and presence are altered by black carbon inside and outside the cloud.

Applying the framework, findings from consensus climate science undergo a data quality assessment to establish GWP values for black carbon.

© Scientific Certification Systems | 23© SCS Global Services | 23

The Importance of Sulfate Cooling

IPCC AR5 estimates that cooling from sulfates today masks 75% of the radiative forcing caused by CO2.

Since 1800, sulfate cooling has mitigated 30-50% of global warming.

It has masked more than 50% of the warming caused by the United States.

© Scientific Certification Systems | 24© SCS Global Services | 24© SCS Global Services | 24

Tracking Global SO2 Emissions

2011: 85 million tons of sulfur emissions (MACEB, 2013)

© Scientific Certification Systems | 25© SCS Global Services | 25

Three Major Cooling Zones from Anthropogenic Sources (IPCC, 2001)

© Scientific Certification Systems | 26© SCS Global Services | 26© SCS Global Services | 26

Changes in SO2 Emissions Over Time

Since 1980: 60% decrease in emissions in USA and Europe

300% increase in China

Source: Smith, et al. 2011.

© Scientific Certification Systems | 27© SCS Global Services | 27© SCS Global Services | 27

Mapping Trends: US Sulfate Cooling Zones have Dissipated

1999 Sulfate Cooling Zone 2009 Sulfate Cooling Zone

Regional Cooling = -1.0 W/m2

According to Harvard and NASA research (2011), this loss in sulfate cooling has raised regional mean temperatures by over +1oC.

Regional Cooling = -4.0 W/m2

© Scientific Certification Systems | 28© SCS Global Services | 28

LCA Characterization Modeling: Sharp Increase in the Chinese Sulfate Cooling Zone (1978-2008)

Regional Cooling = -8.0 W/m2Regional Cooling = -1.0 W/m2

1978 Sulfate Cooling Zone 2008 Sulfate Cooling Zone

© Scientific Certification Systems | 29© SCS Global Services | 29

The Increase in Chinese Cooling was a Major Reason for Pause in the Rise of GMT (2000-2008)

© Scientific Certification Systems | 30© SCS Global Services | 30© SCS Global Services | 30

© Scientific Certification Systems | 31© SCS Global Services | 31

Health Impacts Associated with Chinese Sulfate Cooling Zone

Trade-off: Lung cancer rates have doubled in China, and asthma now affects 30% of

children in the region.

© Scientific Certification Systems | 32© SCS Global Services | 32© SCS Global Services | 32

Implications of Dissipation of Chinese Sulfate Cooling Zone

IPCC AR5 projections do not include significant reductions in SO2 emissions in China.

China is working to reduce emissions from coal power plants and other industries. Since AR5 was published, China has invested $350 billion to reduce SO2 emissions.

An unintended consequence would be an immediate increase in global forcing.

?

© Scientific Certification Systems | 33© SCS Global Services | 33© Scientific Certification Systems | 33© SCS Global Services 33

Establishing GFP Values for the Three Temperature Thresholds

© Scientific Certification Systems | 34© SCS Global Services | 34

Applying the Global Temperature Thresholds in PracticeThe Global Warming Potential (GWP) equation, defined by IPCC, is used. Any one of three time horizons can be used, each with different implications:

1.5°C threshold: 20-year time horizon. Use of this threshold focuses on near-term mitigation options, such as mitigation of short-lived climate forcers.

2°C Threshold: 35-year time horizon. Use of this threshold focuses on mitigation options targeted at averting major irreversible climate change.

4°C Threshold: 100-year time horizon. Use of this threshold focuses on mitigation of emissions of long-lived GHGs.

© Scientific Certification Systems | 35© SCS Global Services | 35

Basis of Global Forcing PotentialsThe updated climate metrics are not based in original research.

IPCC AR5 Chapter 8 has metric values for all of the GHGs, most of which can be used without change. However, some of these values must be updated.

Establishment of GFPs is well-established in the peer-reviewed literature.

GFP values are based on published findings.

The climate metrics assimilate published data into a single unified framework.

Example data sources:

Chapter 8 of IPCC AR5

Collins, et al. (2013). Global and regional temperature-change potentials for near-term climate forcers. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2471-2485, 2013.

Shindell, D.T., (2009). Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing from Emissions. Vol. 326, 716-718. Science, October 2009.

Joos, F., et al (2013). Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2793-2825, doi:10.5194/acp-13-2793-2013, 2013.

Reisinger, A., M. Meinshausen, M. Manning, and G. Bodeker (2010), Uncertainties of global warming metrics: CO2 and CH4 , Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L14707, doi:10.1029/2010GL043803.

Bond, T. C., et al. (2013), Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 118, 5380–5552, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50171.

Bond, T., et al. Quantifying immediate radiative forcing by black carbon and organic matter with the Specific Forcing Pulse. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 1505-1525, 2011.

© Scientific Certification Systems | 36© SCS Global Services | 36© SCS Global Services | 36

Global Forcing Potentials by Temperature ThresholdClimate Forcer +1.5°C threshold

(Next 20 years)+2.0°C threshold(Next 35 years)

+4.0°C threshold(Next 100 years)

Carbon dioxideFrom IPCC AR5 1 1 1

Nitrous OxideFrom IPCC AR5 264 280 265

Methane From Shindell 2009 104 73 32

SO2 -> Sulfate aerosols From Collins, 2013 -313 -196 -85

Black carbon (U.S, energy)From Bond 2011 and 2013 2,525 1,608 717

Black carbon (South Asia, biomass)From Bond 2011 and 2013

3,625 2,308 1,030

© Scientific Certification Systems | 37© SCS Global Services | 37

Substance GWP-20 GWP-100

Methane (IPCC AR5) 86 34

IPCC has updated the GWP for methane, including one additional effect.

Updating the GWP of Methane

The climate effects of methane are complex:

Absorbs infrared radiation directly

Effects plant growth

On decay, forms ozone and CO2

Forms stratospheric water vapor

Decreases sulfate aerosol cooling

Commonly used GWP value (23) only accounts for one effect over

100 years

Substance GWP-20 GWP-100

Methane (Shindell 2009) 104 32

NASA scientists have assessed estimates including all other effects, resulting in even higher values.

The metrics include all climate effects of methane for which accurate data is available.

© Scientific Certification Systems | 38© SCS Global Services | 38

Outputs of Updated Climate Metrics

Climate Forcing Profiles

Represents net forcing over the next 100 years

Measured in units of milli-Watts per square meter, in each year

Used to understand changes in radiative forcing over time

Through integration, can be used to calculate Climate Footprints

Climate Footprints

Evaluate the net integrated forcing out to one of the three GMT anomaly thresholds

Measured in units of kg CO2e

To be used as the basis of any LCA comparisons

© Scientific Certification Systems | 39© SCS Global Services | 39

Applying Climate Metrics to a Refrigerator

• 14 years of use in

Georgia, US

• 477 kWh/yr.

• Made in China

© Scientific Certification Systems | 40© SCS Global Services | 40

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Years After Manufacture

Forc

ing

10-9

mW

m-2

Refrigerator Climate Footprint Changes over Time

2035 Climate Footprint = 9,900 kilograms

2050 Climate Footprint = 7,900 kilograms

2100 Climate Footprint = 7,700 kilograms

Emissions of short-lived forcers during manufacture

Emissions of CO2 from use accumulate over 14 years

Long-lived gases remain in atmosphere for 100+ years

China is one of the world’s largest emitters of black carbon!

Coal power plant in Inner Mongolia

100+ years

© Scientific Certification Systems | 41© SCS Global Services | 41

Changes in Climate Footprint Based on Manufacturing Location

2035 Climate Footprint(kg CO2e)

RefrigeratorMade in China

Manufacturing 5,700

Use(US-14 years) 4,200

Total 9,900

RefrigeratorMade in USA

800

4,200

4,900

© Scientific Certification Systems | 42© SCS Global Services | 42

5M tons

1M tons

LCA Scope (per 1,000,000

units)

RefrigeratorMade in

China(tons CO2e)

RefrigeratorMade in USA(tons CO2e)

Manufacturing 5.7 million 0.8 million

Use(US-14 years) 4.2 million 4.2 million

American VS Chinese Manufacturing

(Based on 2035 Climate Footprint)

Potential Impact Reductions

25% efficiency improvement

Switching site of manufacture

© Scientific Certification Systems | 43© SCS Global Services | 43

Conclusions

The updated climate metrics should include:

Factor in internationally-agreed upon maximum temperature targets.

Include all climate forcers, including black carbon.

Accurately account for the forcing effects of methane.

Account for effects from coolants.

Complete LCA information output: Calculating Climate Forcing Profiles and three changes in the Climate Footprint over the three critical time horizons.

© Scientific Certification Systems | 44© SCS Global Services | 44

Questions? Please Contact:Tobias Schultz, Life Cycle Assessment Practitioner

SCS Global Servicestschultz@scsglobalservices.com