Department of Environmental Science, Institute for Wetland and Water Research, Faculty of Science, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Environ Sci Technol. 2010 Mar 15;44(6):2189-96. doi: 10.1021/es902870s.
Cumulative energy demand has been used as a methodology to assess life cycle environmental impacts of commodity production since the early seventies, but has also been criticized because it focuses on energy only. During the past 30 years there has been much research into the development of more complex single-score life cycle impact assessment methodologies. However, a comprehensive analysis of potential similarities and differences between these methodologies and cumulative energy demand has not been carried out so far. Here we compare the cumulative energy demand of 498 commodities with the results of six frequently applied environmental life cycle impact assessment methodologies. Commodity groups included are metals, glass, paper and cardboard, organic and inorganic chemicals, agricultural products, construction materials, and plastics. We show that all impact assessment methods investigated often provide converging results, in spite of the different philosophies behind these methodologies. Fossil energy use is identified by all methodologies as the most important driver of environmental burden of the majority of the commodities included,with the main exception of agricultural products. We conclude that a wide range of life cycle environmental assessment methodologies point into the same environmental direction for the production of many commodities.
自 20 世纪 70 年代初以来，累计能源需求一直被用作评估商品生产生命周期环境影响的方法，但也因其仅关注能源而受到批评。在过去的 30 年中，人们对开发更复杂的单一分数生命周期影响评估方法进行了大量研究。然而，迄今为止，尚未对这些方法与累计能源需求之间的潜在相似点和差异进行全面分析。在这里，我们将 498 种商品的累计能源需求与六种常用的环境生命周期影响评估方法的结果进行了比较。所包括的商品组有金属、玻璃、纸和纸板、有机和无机化学品、农产品、建筑材料和塑料。我们表明，尽管这些方法背后的理念不同，但所有调查的影响评估方法通常都会提供趋同的结果。所有方法都认为，化石能源的使用是包括在内的大多数商品环境负担的最重要驱动因素，农产品除外。我们的结论是，广泛的生命周期环境评估方法为许多商品的生产指明了相同的环境方向。
