Yao Yuan, Zhang Bingquan
Center for Industrial Ecology, Yale School of the Environment, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, United States.
Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Yale School of Engineering and Applied Science, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, United States.
Environ Sci Technol. 2025 Jun 24;59(24):11950-11963. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.4c09510. Epub 2025 Mar 27.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been widely used to evaluate the carbon negativity and environmental impacts of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) pathways. Various monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) protocols have been developed to assess the carbon credits of CDR projects within voluntary and compliant carbon markets. Many MRV protocols incorporate life cycle thinking, LCA methods, and data. This perspective examined recent LCA studies and MRV protocols published by main carbon registries, focusing on four critical land-based CDR methods: bioenergy combined with carbon capture and storage, biochar, enhanced rock weathering, and afforestation and reforestation. We compared the carbon accounting and environmental impact assessment methods employed in these LCA studies and MRV protocols to identify their methodological similarities and differences. Our analysis reveals that the LCA community can support MRV protocols by providing critical insights into baselines, additionality, uncertainty, multifunctionality, environmental safeguards, holistic emission factors, and overlooked carbon pools. We recommend that future LCA research prioritize timing, permanence, scaling, and dynamic modeling for CDR. Addressing co-benefit and land use change impact assessment will further benefit both LCA and MRV development. Collaboration between the LCA and CDR communities is essential for developing robust frameworks to support carbon markets and policymaking.
生命周期评估（LCA）已被广泛用于评估二氧化碳去除（CDR）途径的碳负性和环境影响。为评估自愿性和合规碳市场内CDR项目的碳信用额度，已制定了各种监测、报告和核查（MRV）协议。许多MRV协议纳入了生命周期思维、LCA方法和数据。本观点审视了主要碳登记机构最近发表的LCA研究和MRV协议，重点关注四种关键的陆地CDR方法：生物能源与碳捕获和储存相结合、生物炭、强化岩石风化以及造林和再造林。我们比较了这些LCA研究和MRV协议中采用的碳核算和环境影响评估方法，以确定它们在方法上的异同。我们的分析表明，LCA界可以通过对基线、额外性、不确定性、多功能性、环境保障措施、整体排放因子和被忽视的碳库提供关键见解来支持MRV协议。我们建议未来的LCA研究将CDR的时间安排、持久性、规模扩大和动态建模作为优先事项。解决共同效益和土地利用变化影响评估问题将进一步有利于LCA和MRV的发展。LCA和CDR界之间的合作对于制定强有力的框架以支持碳市场和政策制定至关重要。
