LCA: What the Big Guys are doing

Life Cycle Assessment provides the techniques to assess the overall environmental effect of products from sourcing raw materials to the disposal of the final products. It has become a good measure of the environmental impact connected to various inputs and releases.

A crash course on the definition and importance of LCA can be found in the following video:

In order to fully understand the implications of doing LCA, here are some important evaluations and assessment made by some companies whose products we all probably know:

1. Levi Strauss & Company

While the struggle to find the perfect jeans is real, the environmental impact of making and using one Levi’s jeans is also real. The LCA work done in 2007 revealed that a typical pair of blue jeans consumes 919 gallons of water during its life cycle—enough to fill 15 spa-sized bathtubs. Better think again when you want to wash those barely worn jeans! Currently, the focus of the company is improving their process to lessen water usage of their product.

2. NIKE, Inc.

Apart from looking at the impact of our running to our overall fitness, our very own NIKE shoes have their own footprint that affects the environment. Comparing the Air Pegasus in 2008 with the ones released in 2014, the Air Pegasus now uses fewer materials as well as less water, energy and chemically intensive. So go ahead and buy a new pair. They’re not only lighter and beautiful to look at, they’re also more environmentally-friendly.

3. Apple, Inc.

While taking selfies in your iPhone, it’s also good to think that in the past years, Apple Inc. has been doing good in reducing their total greenhouse gas emissions. While bulk of the emissions come from the production accounting for 65% for iPhone 4, customer usage still plays a large role in the emissions amounting to 26%.

4. Coca-Cola Company

Packaging has been one of the major challenges faced by the Coca-Cola Company since 1969. They are one of the first companies to engage in LCA to evaluate their products. Their life-cycle management focuses on sustaining the use of high value recyclable materials and reusable packages.

5. Proctor & Gamble

P&G has conducted a comparative LCA for their Ariel detergents in 1998, 2001 and 2006. The study shows apart from improving the packaging and chemistry of the detergent, they have also improvident the average wash temperature of the product as well as the effective dosage. So, not only can you buy Ariel at a lower price, you definitely can wash more with it. Finally!

While LCA may entail more time and more critical analysis of the product life cycle, not does it reduce the environmental impact of the products, it also provides great room for improvement for the manufacturing company which, if properly applied, can boost sales significantly.

References:

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebOq74HotmQ

[2] http://www.life-cycle.org/?p=1420

[3] http://www.nikeresponsibility.com/report/uploads/files/Product_LCA_Method.pdf

[4] https://www.apple.com/au/environment/answers/

[5] http://www.seeds4green.net/sites/default/files/iCycle.pdf

[6] http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/reduce#TCCC

[7] http://www.ftms.edu.my/pdf/Download/UndergraduateStudent/internationalenvironmental/LCA_07.03.pdf

[8] http://www.jmu.edu/EnvironmentalMgt/Courses/ISAT422/Supplements/Laundry%20Soap%20LCA.pdf

Want some food?

I was supposed to write a blog post about the journal, “Life Cycle Assessment: Past, Present, and Future” by Guinee, Heijungs, Huppes et al. But then, we love the enggvironment has already posted something about this. Which was also why it took me this long to write a new blog post. Next to that journal, what has caught my attention was Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) on food.

When you think of food, what really comes to mind is the taste, the flavor, the amount of calories it has (if you’re health conscious), and sometimes the price, but never the effects of it on the environment. Instead, one of the more pressing issues that concerns food is world hunger and its relation to poverty. For me, solving this issue shouldn’t only focus on how to mass produce food to feed those who are starving. The people trying to solve this issue should look into the bigger picture; they should include how their proposed solutions would affect the environment. We live in a place where all actions have corresponding consequences and solving world hunger may cause detrimental effects on our environment, then again, these effects on the environment may cause problems with food production, and the cycle goes on and on.

In general, Life Cycle Assessment studies have been employed before and usually focuses on environmental efficiency on food production, that is decreased environmental impact per unit output (Hellar, et al, 2013). Of course, if there is a production-oriented approach on LCA, there is also consumption-oriented approach on LCA. The latter focuses on the effects on the environment of food consumption based on consumption patterns in meal or in diet and their key characteristics. Shown on the figure below are different functional unit basis for different research goal and scope for both production and consumption oriented life cycle assessments.

However, life cycle assessment to date has accounted nutrition in food consumption in its studies. According to the study of Heller et al, there are two general categories under this new approach: (1) designing or modifying comparative meals or diets such that they provide equivalent levels of relevant nutrients, and (2) employing nutritional quality indices as indicators of supplied nutrition. The figure below shows a basic framework on how nutrition is integrated in a life cycle assessment.

When solving the world hunger problem, the amount of supplied food shouldn’t be the only concern; the supplied food should also be good for the health of those who are going to consume it. As a daughter, I always remind my dad not to eat fatty food ’cause it is bad for his health. But he would always oppose me and tell me that we’re lucky that we even have food to eat and this saying that “Kung patay, patay! Yung iba nga diyan, namamatay dahil sa gutom. Buti tayo, may nakakain pa.”, which means that it is worse to be killed by hunger than by a heart attack due to cholesterol buildup. Well, I guess that’s the thing, the nutrition should not be sacrificed when it concerns food. It is never just about the amount, but also about the quality. That is why these new trends that account nutrition in food consumption life cycle assessments are good efforts and should be further improved to help the problem on world hunger and environmental sustainability in general.

References:

Heller, M.C., Keoleian, G.A., Willett, W.C. (2013) Toward a Life Cycle-Based, Diet-level Framework for Food Environmental Impact and Nutritional Quality Assessment: A Critical Review. Environmental Science and Technology, 47, pp. 12632-12647.
Shah, A. (2010) World Hunger and Poverty. Global Issues. Retrieved from http://www.globalissues.org/issue/6/world-hunger-and-poverty last 23 April 2015.

Earth Hour (post-break post)

Hello engineering world, after a long time. Well this post is a bit hard to construct, considering that more than a week has passed since the last lectures.

The saturday before Holy Week was March 28 and at 8:15 in the evening, the world celebrated Earth Hour 2015 where millions unite for climate action. Earth hour is a global movement by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) that began in 2007 with partners in Sydney, Australia. After 8 years, it has now spread to ~7,000 towns and cities around the world. Around 2.2 million people worldwide turn off their lights as a sign of solidarity.

However, this movement, like many others, have been criticised and it has been asked if it really makes any difference, if it does any good. Some argue that although the lights are turned out, the generators are still running. They also say that the energy needed for people all over the world to drive the Earth Hour parties just cancel out the energy saved by turning out the lights. In addition to this, millions of batteries and candle wax were consumed in the process. Furthermore, they say that Earth Hour will not reduce carbon emissions. With some data from energy experts it is said that although power stations are shut down, the upsurge when the lights are turned back on will require power stations that can fire up quickly like coal and oil. Energy experts say that Earth Hour could even result to an increase in carbon emissions, making it useless.

But Earth Hour goes far beyond that one hour of lights out. And reducing carbon emissions is not really the main point, according to WWF. It is about raising awareness, to save energy in the long term. It aims to call for action on global climate change.

With 172 participating countries and territories, around 1,400 iconic landmarks switched off, 66 countries that have gone beyond turning off their lights, more than 378 million Twitter reach, 36.5 million video views, and 5.9 million Facebook reach, Earth Hour has been able to definitely make a difference. It may not solve all of the world’s problems, but definitely it has been able to truly raise awareness. It is the simple movements like these that will enable great change in the future. If only we all are able to participate and launch movements, as individuals, we can make a change and help save the earth!

Watch the official Earth Hour video here:

References:

[1]https://www.earthhour.org/

[2]http://ecosalon.com/does-earth-hour-really-make-a-difference/

[3]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7527469/Earth-Hour-will-not-cut-carbon-emissions.html

Engineering Perspectives

It's a matter of making people feel

Month: April 2015

LCA: What the Big Guys are doing

Want some food?

Earth Hour (post-break post)