Reply to the editorial “Product environmental footprint—breakthrough or breakdown for policy implementation of life cycle assessment?” written by Prof. Finkbeiner (Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(2):266–271)

Galatola, Michele; Pant, Rana

doi:10.1007/s11367-014-0740-3

Cited by 61 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It presents a series of water scarcity footprint examples which are simply not directly comparable, because the characterization models have different scales and ranges, and are based on different modeling choices, with some more human health or ecosystem quality oriented (Boulay et al 2014). The need for a consensus-based method emerged from method developers and several environmental label and declaration initiatives wishing to use global metrics and ensure comparability (Galatola and Pant 2014;ISO 14046 2014;Boulay et al 2015b) and was identified as priority by the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (Jolliet et al 2014). The Water Use in LCA (WULCA) Working Group took over this task by bringing together method developers and experts in LCA, hydrology, and ecology from academia, public and private sectors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE)

Boulay

Bare

Benini

et al. 2017

Int J Life Cycle Assess

578

381

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been used to assess freshwater-related impacts according to a new water footprint framework formalized in the ISO 14046 standard. To date, no consensus-based approach exists for applying this standard and results are not always comparable when different scarcity or stress indicators are used for characterization of impacts. This paper presents the outcome of a 2-year consensus building process by the Water Use in Life Cycle Assessment (WULCA), a working group of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, on a water scarcity midpoint method for use in LCA and for water scarcity footprint assessments. Methods In the previous work, the question to be answered was identified and different expert workshops around the world led to three different proposals. After eliminating one proposal showing low relevance for the question to be -017-1333-8 answered, the remaining two were evaluated against four criteria: stakeholder acceptance, robustness with closed basins, main normative choice, and physical meaning.Results and discussion The recommended method, AWARE, is based on the quantification of the relative available water remaining per area once the demand of humans and aquatic ecosystems has been met, answering the question BWhat is the potential to deprive another user (human or ecosystem) when consuming water in this area?^The resulting characterization factor (CF) ranges between 0.1 and 100 and can be used to calculate water scarcity footprints as defined in the ISO standard.Conclusions After 8 years of development on water use impact assessment methods, and 2 years of consensus building, this method represents the state of the art of the current knowledge on how to assess potential impacts from water use in LCA, assessing both human and ecosystem users' potential deprivation, at the midpoint level, and provides a consensusbased methodology for the calculation of a water scarcity footprint as per ISO 14046.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE)

Boulay

Bare

Benini

et al. 2017

Int J Life Cycle Assess

578

381

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To improve harmonisation and consistency of environmental claims, the European Commission created the Single Market for Green Products Initiative with rules for a product environmental footprint (PEF) and organisation environmental footprint (OEF;European Commission, 2013a, b, c;Galatola and Pant 2014). Apart from these general rules, more stringent standards are defined per product category or per sector during a pilot phase.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the product environmental footprint for supply chain management: lessons learned from a case study on pork

Six

Wilde

Vermeiren³

et al. 2017

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Finkbeiner (2014) has brought this point to attention in the context of a discussion on the European product environmental footprint initiative (PEF). 6 Galatola and Pant (2014) replied that Bthere are numerous examples of situations where weighting is already used by policy makers and LCA practitioners in the context of comparative assertions. A public, open and transparent discussion on this issue should be held^ (Galatola and Pant 2014, 1357-1358.…”

Section: Proposal Of De Camillis and Goralczykmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 Galatola and Pant (2014) replied that Bthere are numerous examples of situations where weighting is already used by policy makers and LCA practitioners in the context of comparative assertions. A public, open and transparent discussion on this issue should be held^ (Galatola and Pant 2014, 1357-1358. We would like to contribute to this discussion.…”

Section: Proposal Of De Camillis and Goralczykmentioning

confidence: 99%

From value-added tax to a damage and value-added tax partially based on life cycle assessment: principles and feasibility

Timmermans

Achten

2018

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this article is to examine the arguments in favor of a shift from value-added tax (VAT) or sales tax to a damage and value-added tax (DaVAT) partially based on the life cycle assessment (LCA) of goods and services. With this shift, goods and services that seriously harm the environment and human health will be priced up, those that impact them less will be priced down. The paper recalls the proposal made by De Camillis and Goralczyk (Int J Life Cycle Assess 18: [263][264][265][266][267][268][269][270][271][272] 2013) to differentiate the VAT rate associated with products according to their environmental impacts over their life cycle. The paper suggests a new way to convert VAT into DaVAT, examines the operating principles of such a system, and considers its practical feasibility. The new policy tool based on LCA presented is intended to be applied to every country wishing to reform its consumption tax system in order to strive for a more sustainable future. Some aspects specific to countries having the same currency, notably the Euro zone, are also discussed. Methods The proposal of De Camillis and Goralczyk is discussed from the perspective of both environmental performance and compliance with LCA standards. To overcome the identified difficulties, a new way of adapting VAT (or consumption taxes in general) according to LCA is suggested. The proposal relies on three essential points: (i) apply VAT (or consumption taxes in general) to all goods and services and reduce its multiple rates to one single low rate (e.g., 3%) called uniform VAT (UVAT); (ii) add to UVAT a per-unit tax called global damage tax (GDT) calculated on the basis of environmental impacts assessed by means of specific or generic LCAs. In the case of potentially high-polluting products or industries, a specific LCA will be automatically imposed. The obligation to assess high-polluting activities already exists in many countries with, e.g., environmental impact studies, but the impacts are not necessarily evaluated by LCA; (iii) in order to reflect environmental, social, or ethical concerns specific to a country, another damage tax termed specific damage tax (SDT) is proposed that extends beyond LCA. DaVAT is the sum of UVAT, GDT, and SDT. DaVAT is conceived not as an additional burden but rather as a shift of taxation, as the rate of the old consumption taxes can decrease proportionally to the increase of GDT. DaVAT is also designed in such a way that the erosion of tax revenues, when pollutant would decline, is offset by the extension of the tax to all goods and services and by the possibility to gradually re-increase the UVAT rate when the number of highly polluting products decreases. Results and discussion The proposal is examined first from a theoretical point of view by considering which principles should be used to comply with LCA standards and general requirements of (environmental) tax policies. Four general principles emerge: consistency in the choice of the functional unit and in the characterization, n...

show abstract

Reply to the editorial “Product environmental footprint—breakthrough or breakdown for policy implementation of life cycle assessment?” written by Prof. Finkbeiner (Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(2):266–271)

Cited by 61 publications

References 6 publications

The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE)

The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE)

Using the product environmental footprint for supply chain management: lessons learned from a case study on pork

From value-added tax to a damage and value-added tax partially based on life cycle assessment: principles and feasibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About