Carbon footprint of particleboard: a comparison between ISO/TS 14067, GHG Protocol, PAS 2050 and Climate Declaration

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Garcia, Rita
Data de Publicação: 2014
Outros Autores: Freire, Fausto
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10316/27168
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.073
Resumo: This article aims to assess: i) the carbon footprint (CF) of particleboard produced in Portugal, and ii) the influence of different methodological issues in the particleboard CF calculation by comparing four CF methodologies (ISO/TS 14067; GHG Protocol Product Standard; PAS 2050; Climate Declaration). A life-cycle model was developed for particleboard (functional unit: 1 m3). Both cradle-to-gate and cradle-to-grave (end-of-life scenarios: incineration and landfill) assessments were performed. Six methods to assess delayed emissions were analyzed. The main methodological differences between the CF methodologies are the treatment of biogenic CO2, multifunctionality, and unit process exclusions (e.g. capital goods). A wide range of CFs was calculated: −939 to 188 kg CO2 eq/m3 (cradle-to-gate); 107 to 201 kg CO2 eq/m3 (cradle-to-grave; incineration) and −692 to 433 kg CO2 eq/m3 (cradle-to-grave; landfill). The inclusion (negative CF) or exclusion (positive CF) of biogenic carbon storage in the reported CF dominated the differences in results and the ranking of end-of-life scenarios strongly depended on that assumption. ISO/TS 14067, the GHG Protocol and PAS 2050 explicitly include both emissions and removals of biogenic CO2 in the CF calculation. On the other hand, the Climate Declaration does not account for biogenic CO2 or carbon storage, which may bias the comparison with competing products that do not store biogenic carbon (e.g. fossil-based materials). The CF of particleboard was also very sensitive to the different approaches to deal with multifunctionality in the incineration process by the various CF methodologies. Moreover, although not mandatory, delayed emission accounting significantly affected the results for the incineration scenario. Capital goods accounted for 12–20% of the CF. Future guidelines for wood-based panels, such as Product Category Rules, should, therefore, require that carbon storage is assessed and reported, accounting of waste-to-energy burdens is harmonized and capital goods are included.
id RCAP_f20e8794e6c2eef762e6eb4a785a6afd
oai_identifier_str oai:estudogeral.uc.pt:10316/27168
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Carbon footprint of particleboard: a comparison between ISO/TS 14067, GHG Protocol, PAS 2050 and Climate DeclarationBiogenic CO2Carbon storageDelayed emissionsMultifunctionalityWood-based panelsThis article aims to assess: i) the carbon footprint (CF) of particleboard produced in Portugal, and ii) the influence of different methodological issues in the particleboard CF calculation by comparing four CF methodologies (ISO/TS 14067; GHG Protocol Product Standard; PAS 2050; Climate Declaration). A life-cycle model was developed for particleboard (functional unit: 1 m3). Both cradle-to-gate and cradle-to-grave (end-of-life scenarios: incineration and landfill) assessments were performed. Six methods to assess delayed emissions were analyzed. The main methodological differences between the CF methodologies are the treatment of biogenic CO2, multifunctionality, and unit process exclusions (e.g. capital goods). A wide range of CFs was calculated: −939 to 188 kg CO2 eq/m3 (cradle-to-gate); 107 to 201 kg CO2 eq/m3 (cradle-to-grave; incineration) and −692 to 433 kg CO2 eq/m3 (cradle-to-grave; landfill). The inclusion (negative CF) or exclusion (positive CF) of biogenic carbon storage in the reported CF dominated the differences in results and the ranking of end-of-life scenarios strongly depended on that assumption. ISO/TS 14067, the GHG Protocol and PAS 2050 explicitly include both emissions and removals of biogenic CO2 in the CF calculation. On the other hand, the Climate Declaration does not account for biogenic CO2 or carbon storage, which may bias the comparison with competing products that do not store biogenic carbon (e.g. fossil-based materials). The CF of particleboard was also very sensitive to the different approaches to deal with multifunctionality in the incineration process by the various CF methodologies. Moreover, although not mandatory, delayed emission accounting significantly affected the results for the incineration scenario. Capital goods accounted for 12–20% of the CF. Future guidelines for wood-based panels, such as Product Category Rules, should, therefore, require that carbon storage is assessed and reported, accounting of waste-to-energy burdens is harmonized and capital goods are included.Elsevier2014-03-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://hdl.handle.net/10316/27168http://hdl.handle.net/10316/27168https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.073engGARCIA, Rita; FREIRE, Fausto - Carbon footprint of particleboard: a comparison between ISO/TS 14067, GHG Protocol, PAS 2050 and Climate Declaration. "Journal of Cleaner Production". ISSN 0959-6526. Vol. 66 (2014) p. 199-2090959-6526http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652613008494Garcia, RitaFreire, Faustoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2020-05-29T09:42:33Zoai:estudogeral.uc.pt:10316/27168Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T20:58:36.008557Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Carbon footprint of particleboard: a comparison between ISO/TS 14067, GHG Protocol, PAS 2050 and Climate Declaration
title Carbon footprint of particleboard: a comparison between ISO/TS 14067, GHG Protocol, PAS 2050 and Climate Declaration
spellingShingle Carbon footprint of particleboard: a comparison between ISO/TS 14067, GHG Protocol, PAS 2050 and Climate Declaration
Garcia, Rita
Biogenic CO2
Carbon storage
Delayed emissions
Multifunctionality
Wood-based panels
title_short Carbon footprint of particleboard: a comparison between ISO/TS 14067, GHG Protocol, PAS 2050 and Climate Declaration
title_full Carbon footprint of particleboard: a comparison between ISO/TS 14067, GHG Protocol, PAS 2050 and Climate Declaration
title_fullStr Carbon footprint of particleboard: a comparison between ISO/TS 14067, GHG Protocol, PAS 2050 and Climate Declaration
title_full_unstemmed Carbon footprint of particleboard: a comparison between ISO/TS 14067, GHG Protocol, PAS 2050 and Climate Declaration
title_sort Carbon footprint of particleboard: a comparison between ISO/TS 14067, GHG Protocol, PAS 2050 and Climate Declaration
author Garcia, Rita
author_facet Garcia, Rita
Freire, Fausto
author_role author
author2 Freire, Fausto
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Garcia, Rita
Freire, Fausto
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Biogenic CO2
Carbon storage
Delayed emissions
Multifunctionality
Wood-based panels
topic Biogenic CO2
Carbon storage
Delayed emissions
Multifunctionality
Wood-based panels
description This article aims to assess: i) the carbon footprint (CF) of particleboard produced in Portugal, and ii) the influence of different methodological issues in the particleboard CF calculation by comparing four CF methodologies (ISO/TS 14067; GHG Protocol Product Standard; PAS 2050; Climate Declaration). A life-cycle model was developed for particleboard (functional unit: 1 m3). Both cradle-to-gate and cradle-to-grave (end-of-life scenarios: incineration and landfill) assessments were performed. Six methods to assess delayed emissions were analyzed. The main methodological differences between the CF methodologies are the treatment of biogenic CO2, multifunctionality, and unit process exclusions (e.g. capital goods). A wide range of CFs was calculated: −939 to 188 kg CO2 eq/m3 (cradle-to-gate); 107 to 201 kg CO2 eq/m3 (cradle-to-grave; incineration) and −692 to 433 kg CO2 eq/m3 (cradle-to-grave; landfill). The inclusion (negative CF) or exclusion (positive CF) of biogenic carbon storage in the reported CF dominated the differences in results and the ranking of end-of-life scenarios strongly depended on that assumption. ISO/TS 14067, the GHG Protocol and PAS 2050 explicitly include both emissions and removals of biogenic CO2 in the CF calculation. On the other hand, the Climate Declaration does not account for biogenic CO2 or carbon storage, which may bias the comparison with competing products that do not store biogenic carbon (e.g. fossil-based materials). The CF of particleboard was also very sensitive to the different approaches to deal with multifunctionality in the incineration process by the various CF methodologies. Moreover, although not mandatory, delayed emission accounting significantly affected the results for the incineration scenario. Capital goods accounted for 12–20% of the CF. Future guidelines for wood-based panels, such as Product Category Rules, should, therefore, require that carbon storage is assessed and reported, accounting of waste-to-energy burdens is harmonized and capital goods are included.
publishDate 2014
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2014-03-01
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10316/27168
http://hdl.handle.net/10316/27168
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.073
url http://hdl.handle.net/10316/27168
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.073
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv GARCIA, Rita; FREIRE, Fausto - Carbon footprint of particleboard: a comparison between ISO/TS 14067, GHG Protocol, PAS 2050 and Climate Declaration. "Journal of Cleaner Production". ISSN 0959-6526. Vol. 66 (2014) p. 199-209
0959-6526
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652613008494
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1817551235080781824