Modelling incineration for more accurate comparisons to recycling in PEF and LCA.

When recycling is beneficial for the environment, results from a life cycle assessment (LCA) should give incentives to collection for recycling and also to the use of recycled material in new products. Many approaches for modeling recycling in LCA assign part of the environmental benefits of recycling to the product where the recycled material is used. For example, the Circular Footprint Formula in the framework for Product Environmental Footprints (PEF) assigns less than 45% of the benefits of recycling to a polymer product sent to recycling. Our calculations indicate that this creates an incorrect climate incentive for incineration of renewable LDPE, when the recovered energy substitutes energy sources with 100-300% more climate impact than the Swedish average district heat and electricity. The risk of incorrect incentives can be reduced through allocating part of the net benefits of energy recovery to the life cycle where the energy is used; we propose this part can be 60% for Sweden, but probably less in countries without a district-heating network. Alternatively, the LCA can include the alternative treatment of waste that is displaced at the incinerator by waste from the investigated product. These solutions both make the LCA more balanced and consistent. The allocation factor 0.6 at incineration almost eliminates the risk of incorrect incentives in a PEF of renewable polymers. However, the focus of LCA on one product at a time might still make it insufficient to guide recycling, which requires concerted actions between actors in different life cycles.

Out of sight out of mind? A life cycle-based environmental assessment of goods traded by the European Union.

Ensuring responsible production and consumption is one of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to which the European Union (EU) has committed. An increasing body of literature has demonstrated that global trade flows are key contributors to the environmental impacts of consumption. Indeed, very often developed countries import fuels and other resources from developing ones, displacing a large share of environmental burdens related to consumption of goods outside their boundaries. This paper has a triple goal. Firstly, it assesses the environmental impacts of traded goods with a bottom-up approach, adopting life cycle assessment (LCA) and identifying hotspots related to EU consumption. Secondly, it analyses the extent to which the trade of goods is contributing to the environmental impacts of EU apparent consumption. Finally, it compares the contribution of environmental impact of EU traded goods against overall global impacts. Forty representative products imported or exported by the EU were selected based on their relevance in mass and economic value according to official trade statistics. LCA was applied to these products using the EU Environmental Footprint method. The results were then upscaled in order to be representative of the entire impact of traded goods in the EU. Overall, consumption in the EU resulted to cause considerable environmental impacts outside EU boundaries and impacts of imports and exports were mostly associated with few products groups, which either were traded in large quantities (e.g. "Fuels and mineral oils") or had a high impact intensity compared to the others (e.g. "Pulp of wood and other cellulosic material" for land use).

Toward sustainable environmental quality: Priority research questions for Europe.

The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals have been established to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all. Delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals will require a healthy and productive environment. An understanding of the impacts of chemicals which can negatively impact environmental health is therefore essential to the delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, current research on and regulation of chemicals in the environment tend to take a simplistic view and do not account for the complexity of the real world, which inhibits the way we manage chemicals. There is therefore an urgent need for a step change in the way we study and communicate the impacts and control of chemicals in the natural environment. To do this requires the major research questions to be identified so that resources are focused on questions that really matter. We present the findings of a horizon-scanning exercise to identify research priorities of the European environmental science community around chemicals in the environment. Using the key questions approach, we identified 22 questions of priority. These questions covered overarching questions about which chemicals we should be most concerned about and where, impacts of global megatrends, protection goals, and sustainability of chemicals; the development and parameterization of assessment and management frameworks; and mechanisms to maximize the impact of the research. The research questions identified provide a first-step in the path forward for the research, regulatory, and business communities to better assess and manage chemicals in the natural environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:2281-2295. © 2018 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

An expanded conceptual framework for solution-focused management of chemical pollution in European waters.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes a conceptual framework for solutions-focused management of chemical contaminants built on novel and systematic approaches for identifying, quantifying and reducing risks of these substances. METHODS: The conceptual framework was developed in interaction with stakeholders representing relevant authorities and organisations responsible for managing environmental quality of water bodies. Stakeholder needs were compiled via a survey and dialogue. The content of the conceptual framework was thereafter developed with inputs from relevant scientific disciplines. RESULTS: The conceptual framework consists of four access points: Chemicals, Environment, Abatement and Society, representing different aspects and approaches to engaging in the issue of chemical contamination of surface waters. It widens the scope for assessment and management of chemicals in comparison to a traditional (mostly) perchemical risk assessment approaches by including abatement- and societal approaches as optional solutions. The solution-focused approach implies an identification of abatement- and policy options upfront in the risk assessment process. The conceptual framework was designed for use in current and future chemical pollution assessments for the aquatic environment, including the specific challenges encountered in prioritising individual chemicals and mixtures, and is applicable for the development of approaches for safe chemical management in a broader sense. The four access points of the conceptual framework are interlinked by four key topics representing the main scientific challenges that need to be addressed, i.e.: identifying and prioritising hazardous chemicals at different scales; selecting relevant and efficient abatement options; providing regulatory support for chemicals management; predicting and prioritising future chemical risks. The conceptual framework aligns current challenges in the safe production and use of chemicals. The current state of knowledge and implementation of these challenges is described. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the conceptual framework, and addressing the challenges, is intended to support: (1) forwarding sustainable use of chemicals, (2) identification of pollutants of priority concern for cost-effective management, (3) the selection of optimal abatement options and (4) the development and use of optimised legal and policy instruments.

Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future.

Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) has developed fast over the last three decades. Whereas LCA developed from merely energy analysis to a comprehensive environmental burden analysis in the 1970s, full-fledged life cycle impact assessment and life cycle costing models were introduced in the 1980s and 1990 s, and social-LCA and particularly consequential LCA gained ground in the first decade of the 21st century. Many of the more recent developments were initiated to broaden traditional environmental LCA to a more comprehensive Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis (LCSA). Recently, a framework for LCSA was suggested linking life cycle sustainability questions to knowledge needed for addressing them, identifying available knowledge and related models, knowledge gaps, and defining research programs to fill these gaps. LCA is evolving into LCSA, which is a transdisciplinary integration framework of models rather than a model in itself. LCSA works with a plethora of disciplinary models and guides selecting the proper ones, given a specific sustainability question. Structuring, selecting, and making the plethora of disciplinary models practically available in relation to different types of life cycle sustainability questions is the main challenge.