From: This message was originally sent by Geoff F Brent Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:17 PM To: methods@lcacenter.org Subject: RE: Method Development - Limitations of Consequentia LCA ### Resend of e-mail that CC'd the list and was rejected by the mail-list ### The mail-list must be placed in the "To:" line ### This debate has been excellent and a great use of this type of forum. It has been a privilege to see the arguments and thoughts of the leading thinkers in this field, all at the click of a mouse. Thanks to Bo, Tomas, Patrick and others, especially the conference organisers. As a relative newcomer to this field I humbly offer my views which I hope may be fairly objective, or at least without too many prejudices: If the purpose of LCA is to inform good decisions based on the effects to the environment, then LCA must strive to model, as best it can, the ultimate effects in a consequential mode. If it fails to do that, then the LCA results are not adressing the question it was commisioned for, namely "what are the ultimate effects of this decision- is it good or bad for the environment?" Despite all good intentions, or wishing to give credit to "good" , or "intrinsically cleaner" technologies, the LCA will be failing if the decision produces a result that worsens, or fails to improve, the environment when it is actually implemented. Of course, as has been pointed out, the model needs to be sophisticated enough to predict the real and full consequences, and this is the major limitation we all face. It seems to me that all attributional LCA's have made attempts to model the world as it currently is, with the hope/assumption that the related world conditions and processes will remain fairly constant after any decisions based on the LCA are implemented, thus the LCA is reasonably accurate. Attributional LCA's are probably well suited to situations where related (input and receiving) processes, conditions and markets remain fairly constant despite decisions taken on the "advice" of the LCA. Clearly, more sophisticated dynamic or forecasting models are required for consequential modelling where decisions will substantially alter the status quo of related processes. Decision makers will need to be reassured that the basis of the LCA, whether attributional or consequential, meets the real decision need. In summary, I agree wholeheartedly that we must strive to be "consequentialists", albeit with uncertainties. Regards, Geoff Brent. (University of Sydney) "Rita Schenck" on 23/05/2002 03:37:57 To: "Tim Grant" , "<" cc: (bcc: Geoff F Brent/AU/EXP/ORICA) Subject: RE: Method Development - Limitations of Consequentia LCA Tim, I thank you for brining this discussion back to the issue of stakeholders-- and providing information to decision makers. I admit to being somewhat disconcerted with the ongoing discussion that appears to want to drive decisions by assigning blame or credit either to past or future efforts by the choice of LCA methodology. The best use of LCA is to provide transparent information to the decision maker-- whether purchaser, policy maker or business decision maker. Then let them make their own decisions. Choosing an LCA methodology to drive the decision maker in one direction or another strikes me as a very dangerous idea. Rita Schenck Institute for Environmental Research and Education P.O. Box 2449 17917 Vashon Hwy SW Vashon, WA 98070 206-463-7430 206-279-1570 (f) http://www.iere.org -----Original Message----- From: Tim Grant Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 7:25 AM To: < Subject: Re: Method Development - Limitations of Consequentia LCA Dear Tomas, Bo and Patrick and otehrs followng this thread Having watch this debate over the last two days, my main observation is the complexity of the debate and how is a real applied LCA, you manage to "sell" the appropriate methdology - We have trouble selling LCA at all above just greenhouse assessments. However in a recent study in Australia we have stakeholders in an LCA asking for consequential LCA as they were unhappy with the emissions being allocated to their fuel (ethanol) from the sugar industry in a attributional LCA approach. But in the building industry, there is strong support for recycled content in everything from steel through to plastics and concrete. The consequential LCA approach would suggest this suppport was misplaced, but this is not a welcome message. - also some materias are on the border between supply limited and demand limited in recycled material - and may shift back and forth. My main point here really is that the decision on the methodology should involve the stakeholders and would be undertaken with condideration of the sector, the aims of the LCA, and maybe dare I say it consideration to the simplicity in the modellling and subsequent communication and verification of the results - these assumptions will generally need to become more explicit. regards Tim Grant ============================================ Tim Grant, BAppSci, MEng Program Manager- Life Cycle Assessment Centre for Design at RMIT GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia Ph: 61 (0)3 9925 3490 Fax: 61 (0)3 9639 3412 Mobile: 0408 104 977 URL: http://www.cfd.rmit.edu.au ============================================ ********************************************************************** This message is intended solely for the individual(s) and entity(s) addressed. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. The use, copying or distribution of this message or any information it contains, by anyone other than the addressee, is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify postmaster@orica.com . The mailbox address from which this message has been sent is for business mail only. Mail sent to it may be subject to security scanning and delivery on non-business messages sent to this address may not occur. Thank you. **********************************************************************