Accounting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from waste landfilling is summarized with the focus on processes and technical data for a number of different landfilling technologies: open dump (which was included as the worst-case-scenario), conventional landfills with flares and with energy recovery, and landfills receiving low-organic-carbon waste. The results showed that direct emissions of GHG from the landfill systems (primarily dispersive release of methane) are the major contributions to the GHG accounting, up to about 1000 kg CO(2)-eq. tonne( -1) for the open dump, 300 kg CO(2)-eq. tonne( -1) for conventional landfilling of mixed waste and 70 kg CO(2)-eq. tonne(-1) for low-organic-carbon waste landfills. The load caused by indirect, upstream emissions from provision of energy and materials to the landfill was low, here estimated to be up to 16 kg CO(2)-eq. tonne(-1). On the other hand, utilization of landfill gas for electricity generation contributed to major savings, in most cases, corresponding to about half of the load caused by direct GHG emission from the landfill. However, this saving can vary significantly depending on what the generated electricity substitutes for. Significant amounts of biogenic carbon may still be stored within the landfill body after 100 years, which here is counted as a saved GHG emission. With respect to landfilling of mixed waste with energy recovery, the net, average GHG accounting ranged from about -70 to 30 kg CO(2)-eq. tonne(- 1), obtained by summing the direct and indirect (upstream and downstream) emissions and accounting for stored biogenic carbon as a saving. However, if binding of biogenic carbon was not accounted for, the overall GHG load would be in the range of 60 to 300 kg CO(2)-eq. tonne( -1). This paper clearly shows that electricity generation as well as accounting of stored biogenic carbon are crucial to the accounting of GHG of waste landfilling.

No abstract

No abstract

HighlightsThe waste hierarchy is not enough for prioritizing food waste prevention measures.The methodology proposed prioritizes measures using LCA and mathematical programming.The methodology identifies quick wins – actions with low cost and high impact avoided.The relevance of the weighting set used in the prioritization is limited.Targets for food waste prevention must be set at the level of environmental impact.

Purpose This paper presents a structured comparison of the European Commission (EC) Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method with a number of existing European environmental accounting methods and standards that were taken into account during its development. In addition to the ISO 14040 and 14044 which represent the main reference, also the ISO/TS 14067, ILCD Handbook, PAS 2050, Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Ecological Footprint and BPX 30-323-0 were considered. This comparison aims at evaluating the extent to which the EC PEF method contributes to filling the identified methodological gaps and, ultimately, the extent to which it meets a number of key principles for PEF studies: relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy and transparency. The EC PEF method has been developed by the Directorate General Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission (EC) in close cooperation with the Directorate General for Environment (DG ENV). It aims at providing a European, common methodology for evaluating the environmental performance of products. Its use for undertaking product environmental footprint studies is supported by the 2013 Recommendation to the EC Communication "Building the single market for green products -Facilitating better information on the environmental performance of products and organisations."Methods In this paper, the selected environmental accounting methods are compared against a set of nine identified core criteria for EF studies. These criteria include, e.g. applicability of results, boundary of the evaluation, requirements on data type and quality, requirements on uncertainty evaluation, requirements on reporting and review. Results from this comparison have been used to evaluate the extent to which the methods considered meet a number of key identified principles for EF studies: relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy and transparency. Results and discussion Overall, results of the analysis demonstrate that the EC PEF method resolves most shortcomings identified in the other methods with respect to the core comparison criteria. This, in turn, allows the EC PEF method to largely satisfy all of the key identified principles for PEF studies, and in particular the consistency principle, which is often not fulfilled by the other environmental accounting methods. Conclusions The EC PEF method provides for a greater degree of methodological consistency and establishes unambiguous requirements, hence facilitating increased consistency, comparability and reproducibility of results. It fills most of the shortcomings of the other methods, meeting virtually all of the key principles for PEF studies.