| 1. |
- Bartoli, A., et al.
(author)
-
Coupling economic and GHG emission accounting models to evaluate the sustainability of biogas policies
- 2019
-
In: Renewable & sustainable energy reviews. - : Elsevier. - 1364-0321 .- 1879-0690. ; 106, s. 133-148
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The aim of this study is to evaluate and quantify the impacts of different biogas and related policies on the agricultural sector as well as their performance in terms of climate change mitigation and associated costs. To do so we coupled the partial equilibrium approach simulating the market clearing process with the perspective of Life Cycle Assessment of GHG applying it to the well-documented Lombardy case. Results show that the recent Italian biogas policy – prompting manure utilization and reducing the average subsidy per kWh – effectively increased the environmental sustainability of the system, which only now seems able to counteract global warming. Synergies are observed when the recent Common Agricultural Policy greening reform is simultaneously considered by the model.
|
|
| 2. |
- Brandao, Miguel
(author)
-
A life cycle approach for assessing the impacts of land-use systems on the economy and environment : Climate change, ecosystem services, and biodiversity
- 2022
-
In: Life Cycle Assessment. - : World Scientific Pub Co Pte Ltd. ; , s. 285-298
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)abstract
- In view of the competing demands of land use to feed the growing pop-ulation, sustain biodiversity, ecosystem services, and mitigate climate change, there is a clear need for a systematic approach for allocating land use with respect to economic and environmental objectives. This study formulates an integrated environmental and economic assessment of the global consequences of changing current land use in the UK with differ-ent land-use strategies for food, feed, fuel, timber, and carbon sink. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is used for the environmental assessment and a parallel economic assessment is integrated with LCA for the character-ization of the main land-use strategies in the UK. The results indicate that changing land use and management on current cropland generally does not deliver improvement in all three criteria of mitigating climate and impacts on ecosystem service and biodiversity, while creating addi-tional economic value. Expanding cropland onto set-aside and perma-nent grassland is more beneficial when crops are used for fuel or for carbon sink. Expansion onto set-aside grassland is largely undesirable if by arable cropping, but desirable by energy and forestry crops. The consequential assessment showed that indirect effects are relevant and ought to be considered when assessing land-use strategies.
|
|
| 3. |
- Brandao, Miguel, et al.
(author)
-
Consequential Life Cycle Assessment : What, How, and Why?
- 2017
-
In: Encyclopedia of Sustainable Technologies. - : Elsevier. - 9780128047927 ; , s. 277-284
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)abstract
- This article provides guidelines for conducting consequential life cycle assessment (LCA) studies. It presents the main features of two alternative approaches used in LCA—attributional and consequential—and describes how consequential LCA can be performed consistently and appropriately, with an example provided to guide practitioners. It is argued that, despite its limitations, consequential LCA is a robust approach for estimating important indirect effects of products.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Brandao, Miguel
(author)
-
Indirect Effects Negate Global Climate Change Mitigation Potential of Substituting Gasoline With Corn Ethanol as a Transportation Fuel in the USA
- 2022
-
In: Frontiers in Climate. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 2624-9553. ; 4
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Concerns over climate change have led to the promotion of biofuels for transport, particularly biodiesel from oilseed crops and ethanol from sugar and starch crops. However, additional concerns arose on whether the climate change mitigation potential of biofuels is negated by the associated direct land requirements (dLUC) for growing biofuel feedstocks, or by the indirect land requirements (iLUC) that compensate for the diversion of food/feed crops into biofuels, both cases leading to greenhouse gas emissions. We investigated data over the last 20-year period to estimate the magnitude of the effects ethanol production in the USA has had on land use domestically and abroad. The data analyzed suggests that, over the period, the use of corn for ethanol increased by 118 Mt per year, most of it coming from displacement of other uses of corn, mainly feed, which were compensated by increased feed production elsewhere. Results suggest a relatively low dLUC but a significant iLUC effect, mainly due to the compensation for the foregone feed production as a result of diverting corn into ethanol production. The resulting 18.0 Mt CO2-eq. associated with meeting the renewable-energy target of 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol more than negates the climate benefits from avoided use of gasoline, indicating that promoting corn ethanol for global climate change mitigation may be counter-productive as, despite decreasing domestic emissions, global emissions increase. We suggest that the policy be revised accordingly.
|
|
| 6. |
- Brandao, Miguel, et al.
(author)
-
Introduction and overview
- 2020
-
In: Handbook of the Circular Economy. - Cheltenham : Edward Elgar Publishing. ; , s. 1-7
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)
|
|
| 7. |
- Brandão, Miguel, et al.
(author)
-
Life cycle assessment, quo vadis? Supporting or deterring greenwashing? A survey of practitioners
- 2023
-
In: Environmental Science: Advances. - : Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC). - 2754-7000. ; 3:2, s. 266-273
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been recognised as an important environmental systems analysis tool due to its potential for providing systematic results about the environmental impacts of alternative production and consumption systems that can lead to decisions towards greater sustainability in both private and public-policy contexts. However, LCA has been under increased scrutiny due to the wide range of published results on similar systems, such as biofuels, which can be contrasting. This variability is, in part, due to the proliferation of guidelines that have emerged over the last 20 years, which may undermine the perceived robustness of LCA as a decision-support tool. Following some interesting discussions on this topic in different fora, we took the pulse of the LCA community via a survey. We received 124 responses from respondents who varied in their background and experience in LCA (most were academics and/or had more than 10 years' experience), as well as in their opinions on whether they saw the inconsistency of published results problematic, or not, for decision making. Results suggest that respondents are of the opinion that (i) there is no single right way of performing LCA; (ii) the ISO 14040-44 standards were failing in their guiding of LCA practice, and that (iii) further efforts in harmonizing LCA practice would be beneficial, despite mixed opinions shown by respondents, which indicates the divisive nature of this topic in the LCA community. For example, there was no clear agreement on whether the significant flexibility with which practitioners perform LCA undermines its validity as a robust tool for decision making, though practitioners concerned with greenwashing were unified in the need for improved guidelines and harmonisation. Further harmonisation would help to ensure consistency in the application of the tool by practitioners which, in turn, would ensure results would be less variable, arguably more meaningful, and less prone to greenwashing. It is likely that methodological issues will remain unresolved in the near future, as some practitioners value the flexibility with which the ISO standards can be applied, even if that leads to inconsistent results. We recommended tighter standardization.
|
|
| 8. |
- Brandao, Miguel, et al.
(author)
-
On quantifying sources of uncertainty in the carbon footprint of biofuels : crop/feedstock, LCA modelling approach, land-use change, and GHG metrics
- 2022
-
In: Biofuel Research Journal. - : Greenwave Publishing of Canada. - 2292-8782. ; 9:2, s. 1608-1616
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Biofuel systems may represent a promising strategy to combat climate change by replacing fossil fuels in electricity generation and transportation. First-generation biofuels from sugar and starch crops for ethanol (a gasoline substitute) and from oilseed crops for biodiesel (a petroleum diesel substitute) have come under increasing levels of scrutiny due to the uncertainty associated with the estimation of climate change impacts of biofuels, such as due to indirect effects on land use. This analysis estimates the magnitude of some uncertainty sources: i) crop/feedstock, ii) life cycle assessment (LCA) modelling approach, iii) land-use change (LUC), and iv) greenhouse gas (GHG) metrics. The metrics used for characterising the different GHGs (global warming potential-GWP and global temperature change potential-GTP at different time horizons) appeared not to play a significant role in explaining the variance in the carbon footprint of biofuels, as opposed to the crop/feedstock used, the inclusion/exclusion of LUC considerations, and the LCA modelling approach (p<0.001). The estimated climate footprint of biofuels is dependent on the latter three parameters and, thus, is context-specific. It is recommended that these parameters be dealt with in a manner consistent with the goal and scope of the study. In particular, it is essential to interpret the results of the carbon footprint of biofuel systems in light of the choices made in each of these sources of uncertainty, and sensitivity analysis is recommended to overcome their influence on the result.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Brandao, Miguel, et al.
(author)
-
Quantifying the climate change effects of bioenergy systems : Comparison of 15 impact assessment methods
- 2019
-
In: Global Change Biology Bioenergy. - : Wiley. - 1757-1693 .- 1757-1707. ; 11:5, s. 727-743
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Ongoing concern over climate change has led to interest in replacing fossil energy with bioenergy. There are different approaches to quantitatively estimate the climate change effects of bioenergy systems. In the present work, we have focused on a range of published impact assessment methods that vary due to conceptual differences in the treatment of biogenic carbon fluxes, the type of climate change impacts they address and differences in time horizon and time preference. Specifically, this paper reviews fifteen different methods and applies these to three hypothetical bioenergy case studies: (a) woody biomass grown on previously forested land; (b) woody biomass grown on previous pasture land; and (b) annual energy crop grown on previously cropped land. Our analysis shows that the choice of method can have an important influence on the quantification of climate change effects of bioenergy, particularly when a mature forest is converted to bioenergy use as it involves a substantial reduction in biomass carbon stocks. Results are more uniform in other case studies. In general, results are more sensitive to specific impact assessment methods when they involve both emissions and removals at different points in time, such as for forest bioenergy, but have a much smaller influence on agricultural bioenergy systems grown on land previously used for pasture or annual cropping. The development of effective policies for climate change mitigation through renewable energy use requires consistent and accurate approaches to identification of bioenergy systems that can result in climate change mitigation. The use of different methods for the same purpose: estimating the climate change effects of bioenergy systems, can lead to confusing and contradictory conclusions. A full interpretation of the results generated with different methods must be based on an understanding that the different methods focus on different aspects of climate change and represent different time preferences.
|
|
