Electric Vehicles with the Lowest Environmental Impact Throughout Their Lifecycle

Electric cars have much lower life cycle emissions, new study confirms

If you listen to electric vehicle naysayers, switching to EVs is pointless because even if the cars are vastly more efficient than ones that use internal combustion enginesand they arethat doesn't take into account the amount of carbon required to build and then scrap them. Well, rest easy because it's not true. Today in the US market, a medium-sized battery EV already has 6068 percent lower lifetime carbon emissions than a comparable car with an internal combustion engine. And the gap is only going to increase as we use more renewable electricity.

That finding comes from a white paper (.pdf) published by Georg Bieker at the International Council on Clean Transportation.The comprehensive study compares the lifetime carbon emissions, both today and in 2030, of midsized vehicles in Europe, the US, China, and India, across a wide range of powertrain types, including gasoline, diesel, hybrid EVs (HEVs), plug-in hybrid EVs (PHEVs), battery EVs (BEVs), and fuel cell EVs (FCEVs).(The ICCT is the same organization that funded the research into VW Group's diesel emissions.)

The study takes into account the carbon emissions that result from the various fuels (fossil fuels, biofuels, electricity, hydrogen, and e-fuels), as well as the emissions that result from manufacturing and then recycling or disposing of vehicles and their various components. Bieker has also factored in real-world fuel or energy consumptionsomething that is especially important when it comes to PHEVs, according to the report. Finally, the study accounts for the fact that energy production should become less carbon-intensive over time, based on stated government objectives.

According to the study, the life cycle emissions of a BEV driving around in Europe today are 6669 percent lower than a comparable gasoline-powered car. In the US, that range is 6068 percent less over its lifetime. In China and India, the magnitude is not as great, but even so, a BEV is still cleaner than a fossil-burner. China is at 3745 percent fewer emissions for BEVs, and India shows 1934 percent.

Assuming the four regions stick to officially announced decarbonization programs, 2030 will see the gap widen in favor of BEVs. The study even accounts for more efficient engine technologies and fuel production. In Europe, the gap is predicted to be 7477 percent; in the US, 6276 percent; in China, 4864 percent; and in India, 3056 percent. Bieker writes that the wide spread is due to "a large uncertainty... in how the future electricity mix develops in each region."

There's some good news for hydrogen hounds in the paper, too. Currently, FCEVs are only abut 2640 percent less carbon-intensive than a comparable gasoline vehicle. But if hydrogen was produced using renewable energy rather than steam reformation of natural gas, that number would jump to 7680 percenteven better than a BEV's numbers.

But Bieker's analysis says that there is no future for internal combustion engine vehicles if we are to actually decarbonize. HEVs only reduce life cycle emissions by about 20 percent, and PHEVs are little better in Europe (2527 percent lower than gasoline), a little worse in China (612 percent lower than gasoline), and adequate in the US (4246 percent lower than gasoline). But compared to BEVs, a PHEV will have much greater lifetime emissions in all three areas. (India has almost no PHEVs, apparently.) And the advantage of BEVs over HEVs and PHEVs only grows as the grid decarbonizes more.

Even the introduction of biofuels will not help the internal combustion engine stay relevant. Bieker writes that "the registration of new combustion engine vehicles should be phased out in the 20302035 time frame" if we want to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement. Last September, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order setting 2035 as the date that all new vehicles sold in the Golden State must be zero-emissions vehicles.

Life-cycle assessment to guide solutions for the triple planetary crisis

1. Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).

   Article Google Scholar

2. Emissions Gap Report 2021: The Heat Is On A World of Climate Promises Not Yet Delivered (UNEP, 2021); https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2021.

3. Liu, Z., Deng, Z., Davis, S. & Ciais, P. Monitoring global carbon emissions in 2022. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 4, 205206 (2023).

   Article Google Scholar

4. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds. Shukla, P. R. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022); https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf.

5. Pimm, S. L. et al. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344, 1246752 (2014).

   Article Google Scholar

6. Barnosky, A. D. et al. Has the Earths sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471, 5157 (2011).

   Article Google Scholar

7. Living Planet Report 2022 Building a Nature-Positive Society (eds Almond, R. E. A. et al.) (WWF, 2022).

8. Global Resources Outlook 2019: Natural Resources for the Future We Want (International Resources Panel, 2019).

9. Andersen, I. et al. Defining science-based targets. Natl Sci. Rev. 8, nwaa186 (2021).

   Article Google Scholar

10. Hellweg, S. & Mil i Canals, L. Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science 344, 11091113 (2014).

    Article Google Scholar

11. Schrijvers, D. L., Loubet, P. & Sonnemann, G. Developing a systematic framework for consistent allocation in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 976993 (2016).

    Article Google Scholar

12. McAuliffe, G. A., Takahashi, T. & Lee, M. R. F. Applications of nutritional functional units in commodity-level life cycle assessment (LCA) of agri-food systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25, 208221 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

13. Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network. Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (GBD 2019) Reference Life Table (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 2021); https://ghdx.healthdata.org/record/ihme-data/global-burden-disease-study-2019-gbd-2019-reference-life-table.

14. Chaudhary, A., Verones, F., De Baan, L. & Hellweg, S. Quantifying land use impacts on biodiversity: combining species-area models and vulnerability indicators. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 99879995 (2015).

    Article Google Scholar

15. Kuipers, K. J. J., May, R. & Verones, F. Considering habitat conversion and fragmentation in characterisation factors for land-use impacts on vertebrate species richness. Sci. Total Environ. 801, 149737 (2021).

    Article Google Scholar

16. Ryberg, M. W., Andersen, M. M., Owsianiak, M. & Hauschild, M. Z. Downscaling the planetary boundaries in absolute environmental sustainability assessments a review. J. Clean. Prod. 276, 123287 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

17. Rockstrom, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472475 (2009).

    Article Google Scholar

18. Persson, L. et al. Outside the safe operating space of the planetary boundary for novel entities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 56, 15101521 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

19. Smeets, E. & Weterings, R. Environmental indicators: typology and overview. European Environment Agency. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/TEC25 (1999).

20. Verones, F. et al. LCIA framework and cross-cutting issues guidance within the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. J. Clean. Prod. 161, 957967 (2017).

    Article Google Scholar

21. Levasseur, A. in Lfe Cycle Impact Assessment (eds Hauschild, M. Z. & Huijbregts, M. A. J.) Ch. 3 (Springer, 2015).

22. Hauschild, M. Z. & Huijbregts, M. A. J. in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (eds Hauschild, M. Z. & Huijbregts, M. A. J.) Ch. 1 (Springer, 2015).

23. Liu, J. et al. Water scarcity assessments in the past, present, and future. Earths Futur. 5, 545559 (2017).

    Article Google Scholar

24. Frischknecht, R. & Jolliet, O. Global Guidance for Life Cycle Impact Assessment Indicators Vol. 2. UNEP Life Cycle Initiative. https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/training-resources/global-guidance-for-life-cycle-impact-assessment-indicators-volume-2/ (2019).

25. Frischknecht, R. & Jolliet O. Global Guidance on Environmental Life Cycle Impact Assessment Indicators Vol. 1. UNEP Life Cycle Initiative. https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/training-resources/global-guidance-lcia-indicators-v-1/ (2017).

26. Oberschelp, C., Pfister, S. & Hellweg, S. Global site-specific health impacts of fossil energy, steel mills, oil refineries and cement plants. Res. Sq. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2025915/v1 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

27. Lozhkina, O. V. & Lozhkin, V. N. Estimation of nitrogen oxides emissions from petrol and diesel passenger cars by means of on-board monitoring: Effect of vehicle speed, vehicle technology, engine type on emission rates. Transp. Res. Part D 47, 251264 (2016).

    Article Google Scholar

28. Yang, Y. Toward a more accurate regionalized life cycle inventory. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 308315 (2016).

    Article Google Scholar

29. Mutel, C. et al. Overview and recommendations for regionalized life cycle impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 24, 856865 (2019).

    Article Google Scholar

30. Scherer, L., Grdal, . & van Bodegom, P. M. Characterization factors for ocean acidification impacts on marine biodiversity. J. Ind. Ecol. 26, 20692079 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

31. Corella-Puertas, E., Guieu, P., Aufoujal, A., Bulle, C. & Boulay, A.-M. Development of simplified characterization factors for the assessment of expanded polystyrene and tire wear microplastic emissions applied in a food container life cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 26, 18821894 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

32. Woods, J. S., Verones, F., Jolliet, O., Vzquez-Rowe, I. & Boulay, A.-M. A framework for the assessment of marine litter impacts in life cycle impact assessment. Ecol. Indic. 129, 107918 (2021).

    Article Google Scholar

33. Kuipers, K. J. J. et al. Habitat fragmentation amplifies threats from habitat loss to mammal diversity across the worlds terrestrial ecoregions. One Earth 4, 15051513 (2021).

    Article Google Scholar

34. Piao, Z. et al. Environmental trade-offs for using low-noise pavements: life cycle assessment with noise considerations. Sci. Total. Environ. 842, 156846 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

35. Meyer, R., Benetto, E., Mauny, F. & Lavandier, C. Characterization of damages from road traffic noise in life cycle impact assessment: a method based on emission and propagation models. J. Clean. Prod. 231, 121131 (2019).

    Article Google Scholar

36. Elliot, T. et al. An expanded framing of ecosystem services is needed for a sustainable urban future. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 162, 112418 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

37. Rugani, B. et al. Towards integrating the ecosystem services cascade framework within the life cycle assessment (LCA) causeeffect methodology. Sci. Total Environ. 690, 12841298 (2019).

    Article Google Scholar

38. Sala, S. in Partnerships for the Goals (eds. Leal Filho, W. et al.) 709721 (Springer, 2019); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71067-9_33-1.

39. SanyMengual, E. & Sala, S. Life cycle assessment support to environmental ambitions of EU policies and the Sustainable Development Goals. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 18, 12211232 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

40. Vera, I. et al. Land use for bioenergy: synergies and trade-offs between Sustainable Development Goals. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 161, 112409 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

41. Sala, S. & Castellani, V. The consumer footprint: monitoring Sustainable Development Goal 12 with process-based life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 240, 118050 (2019).

    Article Google Scholar

42. Dorber, M., Arvesen, A., Gernaat, D. & Verones, F. Controlling biodiversity impacts of future global hydropower reservoirs by strategic site selection. Sci. Rep. 10, 21777 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

43. Frischknecht, R. koinventare von Energiesystemen Vol. 3. https://www.psi.ch/sites/default/files/import/ta/PublicationTab/Frischknecht_1996.pdf (1996).

44. Wernet, G. et al. The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 12181230 (2016).

    Article Google Scholar

45. Oyekale, J. & Emagbetere, E. A review of conventional and exergetic life cycle assessments of organic Rankine cycle plants exploiting various low-temperature energy resources. Heliyon 8, e09833 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

46. Jungbluth, N., Bauer, C., Dones, R. & Frischknecht, R. Life cycle assessment for emerging technologies: case studies for photovoltaic and wind power. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 10, 2434 (2005).

    Article Google Scholar

47. Gener, E., Torkamani, S., Miller, I., Wu, T. W. & OSullivan, F. Sustainable energy system analysis modeling environment: analyzing life cycle emissions of the energy transition. Appl. Energy 277, 115550 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

48. Brockway, P. E., Owen, A., Brand-Correa, L. I. & Hardt, L. Estimation of global final-stage energy-return-on-investment for fossil fuels with comparison to renewable energy sources. Nat. Energy 4, 612621 (2019).

    Article Google Scholar

49. Pehl, M. et al. Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling. Nat. Energy 2, 939945 (2017).

    Article Google Scholar

50. Almeida, R. M. et al. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions of Amazon hydropower with strategic dam planning. Nat. Commun. 10, 4281 (2019).

    Article Google Scholar

51. Oberschelp, C., Pfister, S., Raptis, C. E. & Hellweg, S. Global emission hotspots of coal power generation. Nat. Sustain. 2, 113121 (2019).

    Article Google Scholar

52. Bosmans, J. H. C., Dammeier, L. C. & Huijbregts, M. A. J. Greenhouse gas footprints of utility-scale photovoltaic facilities at the global scale. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 094056 (2021).

    Article Google Scholar

53. Hertwich, E. G. et al. Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 112, 62776282 (2015).

    Article Google Scholar

54. Alonso, E. et al. Evaluating rare earth element availability: a case with revolutionary demand from clean technologies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 34063414 (2012).

    Article Google Scholar

55. de Koning, A. et al. Metal supply constraints for a low-carbon economy? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 129, 202208 (2018).

    Article Google Scholar

56. van der Meide, M., Harpprecht, C., Northey, S., Yang, Y. & Steubing, B. Effects of the energy transition on environmental impacts of cobalt supply: a prospective life cycle assessment study on future supply of cobalt. J. Ind. Ecol. 26, 16311645 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

57. Calvo, G. & Valero, A. Strategic mineral resources: availability and future estimations for the renewable energy sector. Environ. Dev. 41, 100640 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

58. Ali, S. H. et al. Mineral supply for sustainable development requires resource governance. Nature 543, 367372 (2017).

    Article Google Scholar

59. Gibon, T., Hertwich, E. G., Arvesen, A., Singh, B. & Verones, F. Health benefits, ecological threats of low-carbon electricity. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 034023 (2017).

    Article Google Scholar

60. Luderer, G. et al. Environmental co-benefits and adverse side-effects of alternative power sector decarbonization strategies. Nat. Commun. 10, 5229 (2019).

    Article Google Scholar

61. Harpprecht, C., van Oers, L., Northey, S. A., Yang, Y. & Steubing, B. Environmental impacts of key metals supply and low-carbon technologies are likely to decrease in the future. J. Ind. Ecol. 25, 15431559 (2021).

    Article Google Scholar

62. Cherubini, F. et al. Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 53, 434447 (2009).

    Article Google Scholar

63. Dorber, M., May, R. & Verones, F. Modeling net land occupation of hydropower reservoirs in Norway for use in life cycle assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 23752384 (2018).

    Article Google Scholar

64. Schomberg, A. C., Bringezu, S., Flrke, M. & Biederbick, H. Spatially explicit life cycle assessments reveal hotspots of environmental impacts from renewable electricity generation. Commun. Earth Environ. 3, 197 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

65. Jordaan, S. M., Combs, C. & Guenther, E. Life cycle assessment of electricity generation: a systematic review of spatiotemporal methods. Adv. Appl. Energy 3, 100058 (2021).

    Article Google Scholar

66. May, R., Middel, H., Stokke, B. G., Jackson, C. & Verones, F. Global life-cycle impacts of onshore wind-power plants on bird richness. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 8, 100080 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

67. Bernardino, J. et al. Bird collisions with power lines: state of the art and priority areas for research. Biol. Conserv. 222, 113 (2018).

    Article Google Scholar

68. Richardson, M. L. et al. A review of the impact of pipelines and power lines on biodiversity and strategies for mitigation. Biodivers. Conserv. 26, 18011815 (2017).

    Article Google Scholar

69. Daioglou, V., Doelman, J. C., Wicke, B., Faaij, A. & van Vuuren, D. P. Integrated assessment of biomass supply and demand in climate change mitigation scenarios. Glob. Environ. Chang. 54, 88101 (2019).

    Article Google Scholar

70. Fulvio, F. D., Forsell, N., Korosuo, A., Obersteiner, M. & Hellweg, S. Spatially explicit LCA analysis of biodiversity losses due to different bioenergy policies in the European Union. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 15051516 (2019).

    Article Google Scholar

71. Immerzeel, D. J., Verweij, P. A., van der Hilst, F. & Faaij, A. P. C. Biodiversity impacts of bioenergy crop production: a state-of-the-art review. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 6, 183209 (2014).

    Article Google Scholar

72. Gibon, T. et al. A methodology for integrated, multiregional life cycle assessment scenarios under large-scale technological change. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 1121811226 (2015).

    Article Google Scholar

73. Mendoza Beltran, A. et al. When the background matters: using scenarios from integrated assessment models in prospective life cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 24, 6479 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

74. Bergerson, J. A. et al. Life cycle assessment of emerging technologies: evaluation techniques at different stages of market and technical maturity. J. Ind. Ecol. 24, 1125 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

75. van der Giesen, C., Cucurachi, S., Guine, J., Kramer, G. J. & Tukker, A. A critical view on the current application of LCA for new technologies and recommendations for improved practice. J. Clean. Prod. 259, 120904 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

76. Hung, C. R., Ellingsen, L. A. W. & Majeau-Bettez, G. LiSET: a framework for early-stage life cycle screening of emerging technologies. J. Ind. Ecol. 24, 2637 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

77. Wender, B. A. et al. Illustrating anticipatory life cycle assessment for emerging photovoltaic technologies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 1053110538 (2014).

    Article Google Scholar

78. Blanco, H. et al. Life cycle assessment integration into energy system models: an application for Power-to-Methane in the EU. Appl. Energy 259, 114160 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

79. Sacchi, R. et al. Prospective Environmental Impact Assement (PREMISE): a streamlined approach to producing databases for prospective life cycle assessment using integrated assessment models. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 160, 112311 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

80. Arvesen, A., Luderer, G., Pehl, M., Bodirsky, B. L. & Hertwich, E. G. Deriving life cycle assessment coefficients for application in integrated assessment modelling. Environ. Model. Softw. 99, 111125 (2018).

    Article Google Scholar

81. Kermeli, K. et al. Improving material projections in integrated assessment models: the use of a stock-based versus a flow-based approach for the iron and steel industry. Energy 239, 122434 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

82. Lueddeckens, S., Saling, P. & Guenther, E. Temporal issues in life cycle assessment a systematic review. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25, 13851401 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

83. Semere, T. & Slater, F. M. Ground flora, small mammal and bird species diversity in miscanthus (Miscanthusgiganteus) and reed canary-grass (Phalaris arundinacea) fields. Biomass Bioenergy 31, 2029 (2007).

    Article Google Scholar

84. Semere, T. & Slater, F. M. Invertebrate populations in miscanthus (Miscanthusgiganteus) and reed canary-grass (Phalaris arundinacea) fields. Biomass Bioenergy 31, 3039 (2007).

    Article Google Scholar

85. Gasparatos, A., Doll, C. N. H., Esteban, M., Ahmed, A. & Olang, T. A. Renewable energy and biodiversity: implications for transitioning to a green economy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 70, 161184 (2017).

    Article Google Scholar

86. Cabernard, L. & Pfister, S. Hotspots of mining-related biodiversity loss in global supply chains and the potential for reduction through renewable electricity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 56, 1635716368 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

87. Kirchherr, J., Reike, D. & Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 221232 (2017).

    Article Google Scholar

88. Blum, N. U., Haupt, M. & Bening, C. R. Why circular doesnt always mean sustainable. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 162, 105042 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

89. Harris, S., Martin, M. & Diener, D. Circularity for circularitys sake? Scoping review of assessment methods for environmental performance in the circular economy. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 26, 172186 (2021).

    Article Google Scholar

90. Brunner, P. H. & Rechberger, H. Practical handbook of material flow analysis. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 9, 337338 (2004).

    Article Google Scholar

91. Graedel, T. E. & Allenby, B. R. Industrial Ecology (Prentice Hall, 2003).

92. Wiprchtiger, M., Rapp, M., Hellweg, S., Shinde, R. & Haupt, M. Turning trash into treasure: an approach to the environmental assessment of waste prevention and its application to clothing and furniture in Switzerland. J. Ind. Ecol. 26, 13891405 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

93. Schaubroeck, T., Gibon, T., Igos, E. & Benetto, E. Sustainability assessment of circular economy over time: modelling of finite and variable loops & impact distribution among related products. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 168, 105319 (2021).

    Article Google Scholar

94. Potting, J., Hekkert, M., Worrell, E. & Hanemaaijer, A. Circular Economy: Measuring Innovation in the Product Chain Policy Report. https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/pbl-2016-circular-economy-measuring-innovation-in-product-chains-2544.pdf (2017).

95. Bocken, N. M. P., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C. & van der Grinten, B. Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 33, 308320 (2016).

    Google Scholar

96. Brndstrm, J. & Saidani, M. Comparison between circularity metrics and LCA: a case study on circular economy strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 371, 133537 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

97. Haupt, M. & Hellweg, S. Measuring the environmental sustainability of a circular economy. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 12, 100005 (2019).

    Article Google Scholar

98. Nessi, S., Rigamonti, L. & Grosso, M. Discussion on methods to include prevention activities in waste management LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 13581373 (2013).

    Article Google Scholar

99. Lessard, J. M., Habert, G., Tagnit-Hamou, A. & Amor, B. Tracking the environmental consequences of circular economy over space and time: the case of close- and open-loop recovery of postconsumer glass. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 1152111532 (2021).

    Article Google Scholar

100. Bckin, D., Willskytt, S., Andr, H., Tillman, A. M. & Ljunggren Sderman, M. How product characteristics can guide measures for resource efficiency A synthesis of assessment studies. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 154, 104582 (2020).

     Article Google Scholar

101. van Stijn, A., Malabi Eberhardt, L. C., Wouterszoon Jansen, B. & Meijer, A. A circular economy life cycle assessment (CE-LCA) model for building components. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 174, 105683 (2021).

     Article Google Scholar

102. Bjrnbet, M. M. & Vildsen, S. S. Life cycle assessment to ensure sustainability of circular business models in manufacturing. Sustain. 13, 11014 (2021).

     Article Google Scholar

103. Froemelt, A., Buffat, R. & Hellweg, S. Machine learning based modeling of households: a regionalized bottomup approach to investigate consumptioninduced environmental impacts. J. Ind. Ecol. 24, 639652 (2020).

     Article Google Scholar

104. Zink, T. & Geyer, R. Circular economy rebound. J. Ind. Ecol. 21, 593602 (2017).

     Article Google Scholar

105. Proske, M. How to address obsolescence in LCA studies perspectives on product use-time for a smartphone case study. J. Clean. Prod. 376, 134283 (2022).

     Article Google Scholar

106. Modaresi, R., Pauliuk, S., Lvik, A. N. & Mller, D. B. Global carbon benefits of material substitution in passenger cars until 2050 and the impact on the steel and aluminum industries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 1077610784 (2014).

     Article Google Scholar

107. Laurent, A. et al. Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems Part I: Lessons learned and perspectives. Waste Manag. 34, 573588 (2014).

     Article Google Scholar

108. Diener, D. L. & Tillman, A.-M. Component end-of-life management: exploring opportunities and related benefits of remanufacturing and functional recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 102, 8093 (2015).

     Article Google Scholar

109. Tanguay, X., Essoua Essoua, G. G. & Amor, B. Attributional and consequential life cycle assessments in a circular economy with integration of a quality indicator: a case study of cascading wood products. J. Ind. Ecol. 25, 14621473 (2021).

     Article Google Scholar

110. Klotz, M., Haupt, M. & Hellweg, S. Limited utilization options for secondary plastics may restrict their circularity. Waste Manag. 141, 251270 (2022).

     Article Google Scholar

111. Pivnenko, K., Eriksson, E. & Astrup, T. F. Waste paper for recycling: overview and identification of potentially critical substances. Waste Manag. 45, 134142 (2015).

     Article Google Scholar

112. Pivnenko, K., Laner, D. & Astrup, T. F. Material cycles and chemicals: dynamic material flow analysis of contaminants in paper recycling. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 1230212311 (2016).

     Article Google Scholar

113. Jolliet, O., Ernstoff, A. S., Csiszar, S. A. & Fantke, P. Defining product intake fraction to quantify and compare exposure to consumer products. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 89248931 (2015).

     Article Google Scholar

114. Caldeira, C. et al. Safe and Sustainable by Design Chemicals and Materials: Framework for the Definition of Criteria and Evaluation Procedure for Chemicals and Materials. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC128591 (Publications Office of the European Union, 2022).

115. Wang, Z. & Hellweg, S. First steps toward sustainable circular uses of chemicals: advancing the assessment and management paradigm. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 9, 69396951 (2021).

     Article Google Scholar

116. Guine, J. B., Heijungs, R., Vijver, M. G., Peijnenburg, W. J. G. M. & Villalba Mendez, G. The meaning of life cycles: lessons from and for safe by design studies. Green Chem. 24, 77877800 (2022).

     Article Google Scholar

117. Fantke, P., Huang, L., Overcash, M., Griffing, E. & Jolliet, O. Life cycle based alternatives assessment (LCAA) for chemical substitution. Green Chem. 22, 60086024 (2020).

     Article Google Scholar

118. Stegmann, P., Daioglou, V., Londo, M. & Junginger, M. The plastics integrated assessment model (PLAIA): assessing emission mitigation pathways and circular economy strategies for the plastics sector. MethodsX 9, 101666 (2022).

     Article Google Scholar

119. Zheng, J. & Suh, S. Strategies to reduce the global carbon footprint of plastics. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 374378 (2019).

     Article Google Scholar

120. Bachmann, M. et al. Towards circular plastics within planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01054-9 (2023).

     Article Google Scholar

121. Stegmann, P., Daioglou, V., Londo, M., van Vuuren, D. P. & Junginger, M. Plastic futures and their CO₂ emissions. Nature 612, 272276 (2022).

     Article Google Scholar

122. Beretta, C., Stucki, M. & Hellweg, S. Environmental impacts and hotspots of food losses: value chain analysis of Swiss food consumption. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 1116511173 (2017).

     Article Google Scholar

123. Hglmeier, K., Steubing, B., Weber-Blaschke, G. & Richter, K. LCA-based optimization of wood utilization under special consideration of a cascading use of wood. J. Environ. Manage. 152, 158170 (2015).

     Article Google Scholar

124. Suter, F., Steubing, B. & Hellweg, S. Life cycle impacts and benefits of wood along the value chain: the case of Switzerland. J. Ind. Ecol. 21, 874886 (2017).

     Article Google Scholar

125. Wiprchtiger, M. et al. Combining industrial ecology tools to assess potential greenhouse gas reductions of a circular economy: method development and application to Switzerland. J. Ind. Ecol. 27, 254271 (2023).

     Article Google Scholar

126. Ofstad, S., Westly, L. & Bratelli, T. Symposium: Sustainable Consumption (Ministry of the Environment Norway, 1994).

127. Max-Neef, M. A., Elizalde, A. & Hopenhayn, M. Human Scale Development: Conception, Application and Further Reflections (Apex, 1991).

128. Vita, G., Hertwich, E. G., Stadler, K. & Wood, R. Connecting global emissions to fundamental human needs and their satisfaction. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 014002 (2019).

     Article Google Scholar

129. Hoekstra, A. Y. & Wiedmann, T. O. Humanitys unsustainable environmental footprint. Science 344, 11141117 (2014).

     Article Google Scholar

130. ONeill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., Lamb, W. F. & Steinberger, J. K. A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain. 1, 8895 (2018).

     Article Google Scholar

131. Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyer, L. T. & Steinberger, J. K. Scientists warning on affluence. Nat. Commun. 11, 3107 (2020).

     Article Google Scholar

132. Otto, I. M., Kim, K. M., Dubrovsky, N. & Lucht, W. Shift the focus from the super-poor to the super-rich. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 8284 (2019).

     Article Google Scholar

133. Bruckner, B., Hubacek, K., Shan, Y., Zhong, H. & Feng, K. Impacts of poverty alleviation on national and global carbon emissions. Nat. Sustain. 5, 311320 (2022).

     Article Google Scholar

134. Schaubroeck, T. & Rugani, B. A revision of what life cycle sustainability assessment should entail: towards modeling the net impact on human well-being. J. Ind. Ecol. 21, 14641477 (2017).

     Article Google Scholar

135. Hertwich, E. G. Life cycle approaches to sustainable consumption: a critical review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39, 46734684 (2005).

     Article Google Scholar

136. Schanes, K., Giljum, S. & Hertwich, E. Low carbon lifestyles: a framework to structure consumption strategies and options to reduce carbon footprints. J. Clean. Prod. 139, 10331043 (2016).

     Article Google Scholar

137. Tukker, A. & Jansen, B. Environmental impacts of products: a detailed review of studies. J. Ind. Ecol. 10, 159182 (2006).

     Article Google Scholar

138. Ivanova, D. et al. Environmental impact assessment of household consumption. J. Ind. Ecol. 20, 526536 (2016).

     Article Google Scholar

139. Tukker, A., Cohen, M. J., Hubacek, K. & Mont, O. The impacts of household consumption and options for change. J. Ind. Ecol. 14, 1330 (2010).

     Article Google Scholar

140. Iraldo, F., Griesshammer, R. & Kahlenborn, W. The future of ecolabels. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25, 833839 (2020).

     Article Google Scholar

141. Sala, S., Amadei, A. M., Beylot, A. & Ardente, F. The evolution of life cycle assessment in European policies over three decades. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 26, 22952314 (2021).

     Article Google Scholar

142. Polizzi di Sorrentino, E., Woelbert, E. & Sala, S. Consumers and their behavior: state of the art in behavioral science supporting use phase modeling in LCA and ecodesign. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 237251 (2016).

     Article Google Scholar

143. Pohl, J., Frick, V., Finkbeiner, M. & Santarius, T. Assessing the environmental performance of ICT-based services: does user behaviour make all the difference? Sustain. Prod. Consum. 31, 828838 (2022).

     Article Google Scholar

144. Shahmohammadi, S., Steinmann, Z., King, H., Hendrickx, H. & Huijbregts, M. A. J. The influence of consumer behavior on energy, greenhouse gas, and water footprints of showering. J. Ind. Ecol. 23, 11861195 (2019).

     Article Google Scholar

145. Walzberg, J., Dandres, T., Merveille, N., Cheriet, M. & Samson, R. Assessing behavioural change with agent-based life cycle assessment: application to smart homes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 111, 365376 (2019).

     Article Google Scholar

146. Querini, F. & Benetto, E. Combining agent-based modeling and life cycle assessment for the evaluation of mobility policies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 19391939 (2017).

     Article Google Scholar

147. Girod, B., van Vuuren, D. P. & Hertwich, E. G. Climate policy through changing consumption choices: options and obstacles for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Glob. Environ. Chang. 25, 515 (2014).

     Article Google Scholar

148. Ivanova, D. et al. Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 093001 (2020).

     Article Google Scholar

149. Song, L., Cai, H. & Zhu, T. Large-scale microanalysis of U.S. household food carbon footprints and reduction potentials. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 1532315332 (2021).

     Article Google Scholar

150. Walker, C., Gibney, E. R. & Hellweg, S. Comparison of environmental impact and nutritional quality among a european sample population findings from the Food4Me study. Sci. Rep. 8, 2330 (2018).

     Article Google Scholar

151. Walker, C., Pfister, S. & Hellweg, S. Methodology and optimization tool for a personalized low environmental impact and healthful diet specific to country and season. J. Ind. Ecol. 25, 11471160 (2021).

     Article Google Scholar

152. Druckman, A., Chitnis, M., Sorrell, S. & Jackson, T. Missing carbon reductions? Exploring rebound and backfire effects in UK households. Energy Policy 39, 35723581 (2011).

     Article Google Scholar

153. Girod, B., de Haan, P. & Scholz, R. W. Consumption-as-usual instead of ceteris paribus assumption for demand. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16, 311 (2011).

     Article Google Scholar

154. Chitnis, M., Sorrell, S., Druckman, A., Firth, S. K. & Jackson, T. Who rebounds most? Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for different UK socioeconomic groups. Ecol. Econ. 106, 1232 (2014).

     Article Google Scholar

155. Sorrell, S., Gatersleben, B. & Druckman, A. The limits of energy sufficiency: a review of the evidence for rebound effects and negative spillovers from behavioural change. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 64, 101439 (2020).

     Article Google Scholar

156. Baiocchi, G., Feng, K., Hubacek, K. & Walters, C. Carbon footprint of American lifestyles: a geodemographic segmentation approach. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 064018 (2022).

     Article Google Scholar

157. Walker, C., Gibney, E. R., Mathers, J. C. & Hellweg, S. Comparing environmental and personal health impacts of individual food choices. Sci. Total Environ. 685, 609620 (2019).

     Article Google Scholar

158. Stylianou, K. S., Fulgoni, V. L. & Jolliet, O. Small targeted dietary changes can yield substantial gains for human health and the environment. Nat. Food 2, 616627 (2021).

     Article Google Scholar

159. Vita, G. et al. Happier with less? Members of European environmental grassroots initiatives reconcile lower carbon footprints with higher life satisfaction and income increases. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 60, 101329 (2020).

     Article Google Scholar

160. Fanning, A. L., ONeill, D. W., Hickel, J. & Roux, N. The social shortfall and ecological overshoot of nations. Nat. Sustain. 5, 2636 (2021).

     Article Google Scholar

161. Popescu, I. S., Hitaj, C. & Benetto, E. Measuring the sustainability of investment funds: a critical review of methods and frameworks in sustainable finance. J. Clean. Prod. 314, 128016 (2021).

     Article Google Scholar

162. Hertwich, E. G. & Wood, R. The growing importance of scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions from industry. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 104013 (2018).

     Article Google Scholar

163. Zhang, Z. et al. Embodied carbon emissions in the supply chains of multinational enterprises. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 10961101 (2020).

     Article Google Scholar

164. Popescu, I.-S., Gibon, T., Hitaj, C., Rubin, M. & Benetto, E. Are SRI funds financing carbon emissions? An input-output life cycle assessment of investment funds. SSRN Electron. J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4047292 (2022).

     Article Google Scholar

165. Gibon, T., Popescu, I. ., Hitaj, C., Petucco, C. & Benetto, E. Shades of green: life cycle assessment of renewable energy projects financed through green bonds. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 104045 (2020).

     Article Google Scholar

166. Koellner, T., Suh, S., Weber, O., Moser, C. & Scholz, R. W. Environmental impacts of conventional and sustainable investment funds compared using inputoutput life-cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 11, 4160 (2007).

     Article Google Scholar

167. Ritchie, J. & Dowlatabadi, H. Understanding the shadow impacts of investment and divestment decisions: adapting economic inputoutput models to calculate biophysical factors of financial returns. Ecol. Econ. 106, 132140 (2014).

     Article Google Scholar

168. Hickel, J. et al. Degrowth can work heres how science can help. Nature 612, 400403 (2022).

     Article Google Scholar

169. Marquardt, S. G. et al. Identifying regional drivers of future land-based biodiversity footprints. Glob. Environ. Chang. 69, 102304 (2021).

     Article Google Scholar

170. Leclre, D. et al. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585, 551556 (2020).

     Article Google Scholar

171. Millward-Hopkins, J., Steinberger, J. K., Rao, N. D. & Oswald, Y. Providing decent living with minimum energy: a global scenario. Glob. Environ. Chang. 65, 102168 (2020).

     Article Google Scholar

172. Pauliuk, S. Critical appraisal of the circular economy standard BS 8001:2017 and a dashboard of quantitative system indicators for its implementation in organizations. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 129, 8192 (2018).

     Article Google Scholar

173. Klotz, M., Haupt, M. & Hellweg, S. Potentials and limits of mechanical plastic recycling. J. Ind. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13393 (2023).

     Article Google Scholar

174. Steinmann, Z. J. N., Schipper, A. M., Hauck, M. & Huijbregts, M. A. J. How many environmental impact indicators are needed in the evaluation of product life cycles? Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 39133919 (2016).

     Article Google Scholar

175. Cabernard, L. & Pfister, S. A highly resolved MRIO database for analyzing environmental footprints and green economy progress. Sci. Total Environ. 755, 142587 (2021).

     Article Google Scholar

176. Lee, A. W. L. et al. Life cycle assessment of single-use surgical and embedded filtration layer (EFL) reusable face mask. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 170, 105580 (2021).

     Article Google Scholar

177. de Oliveira, C. T., Dantas, T. E. T. & Soares, S. R. Nano and micro level circular economy indicators: assisting decision-makers in circularity assessments. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 26, 455468 (2021).

     Article Google Scholar

178. Froemelt, A., Drrenmatt, D. J. & Hellweg, S. Using data mining to assess environmental impacts of household consumption behaviors. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 84678478 (2018).

     Article Google Scholar

179. Guine, J. B. et al. Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 9096 (2011).

     Article Google Scholar

180. Heijungs, R. & Suh, S. The Computational Structure of Life Cycle Assessment (Springer, 2002).

181. Guine, J. B., Cucurachi, S., Henriksson, P. J. G. & Heijungs, R. Digesting the alphabet soup of LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23, 15071511 (2018).

     Article Google Scholar

182. Brander, M., Burritt, R. L. & Christ, K. L. Coupling attributional and consequential life cycle assessment: a matter of social responsibility. J. Clean. Prod. 215, 514521 (2019).

     Article Google Scholar

183. Weidema, B. P., Pizzol, M., Schmidt, J. & Thoma, G. Attributional or consequential life cycle assessment: a matter of social responsibility. J. Clean. Prod. 174, 305314 (2018).

     Article Google Scholar

184. Sonnemann, G., Vigon, B., Valdivia, S. & Rack, M. Global Guidance Principles for Life Cycle Assessment Databases (UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, 2011).

185. Schaubroeck, T. et al. Attributional & consequential life cycle assessment: definitions, conceptual characteristics and modelling restrictions. Sustain 13, 7386 (2021).

     Article Google Scholar