European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute of Environment and Sustainability, Sustainability Assessment Unit, Ispra (VA), Italy.
Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2013 Oct;9(4):623-32. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1471.
The development and use of footprint methodologies for environmental assessment are increasingly important for both the scientific and political communities. Starting from the ecological footprint, developed at the beginning of the 1990s, several other footprints were defined, e.g., carbon and water footprint. These footprints-even though based on a different meaning of "footprint"-integrate life cycle thinking, and focus on some challenging environmental impacts including resource consumption, CO2 emission leading to climate change, and water consumption. However, they usually neglect relevant sources of impacts, as those related to the production and use of chemicals. This article presents and discusses the need and relevance of developing a methodology for assessing the chemical footprint, coupling a life cycle-based approach with methodologies developed in other contexts, such as ERA and sustainability science. Furthermore, different concepts underpin existing footprint and this could be the case also of chemical footprint. At least 2 different approaches and steps to chemical footprint could be envisaged, applicable at the micro- as well as at the meso- and macroscale. The first step (step 1) is related to the account of chemicals use and emissions along the life cycle of a product, sector, or entire economy, to assess potential impacts on ecosystems and human health. The second step (step 2) aims at assessing to which extent actual emission of chemicals harm the ecosystems above their capability to recover (carrying capacity of the system). The latter step might contribute to the wide discussion on planetary boundaries for chemical pollution: the thresholds that should not be surpassed to guarantee a sustainable use of chemicals from an environmental safety perspective. The definition of what the planetary boundaries for chemical pollution are and how the boundaries should be identified is an on-going scientific challenge for ecotoxicology and ecology. In this article, we present a case study at the macroscale for the European Union, in which the chemical footprint according to step 1 is calculated for the year 2005. A proposal for extending this approach toward step 2 is presented and discussed, complemented by a discussion on the challenges and the use of appropriate methodologies for assessing chemical footprints to stimulate further research and discussion on the topic.
用于环境评估的足迹方法的开发和使用对于科学界和政治界都越来越重要。从 20 世纪 90 年代初开发的生态足迹开始,已经定义了其他几种足迹,例如碳足迹和水足迹。这些足迹——尽管基于“足迹”的不同含义——整合了生命周期思维,并侧重于一些具有挑战性的环境影响,包括资源消耗、导致气候变化的二氧化碳排放和水消耗。然而,它们通常忽略了相关的影响源,例如与化学品生产和使用有关的影响源。本文提出并讨论了开发一种评估化学足迹的方法的必要性和相关性,即将基于生命周期的方法与其他背景下(如 ERA 和可持续性科学)开发的方法相结合。此外,现有的足迹概念存在差异,这也可能是化学足迹的情况。至少可以设想两种不同的方法和步骤来评估化学足迹,可以在微观、中观和宏观尺度上应用。第一步(步骤 1)与产品、部门或整个经济的生命周期中化学品使用和排放的核算有关,以评估对生态系统和人类健康的潜在影响。第二步(步骤 2)旨在评估化学品的实际排放在多大程度上危害生态系统超过其恢复能力(系统的承载能力)。后一步可能有助于广泛讨论化学污染的行星边界:为了从环境安全角度保证化学品的可持续利用,不应超过的阈值。化学污染的行星边界是什么以及如何确定边界是生态毒理学和生态学的一个持续的科学挑战。在本文中,我们以欧盟为例,在宏观尺度上进行了案例研究,计算了 2005 年的化学足迹(步骤 1)。提出并讨论了将这种方法扩展到步骤 2 的建议,并对评估化学足迹的挑战和适当方法的使用进行了讨论,以促进对该主题的进一步研究和讨论。