MINNESOTA SUSTAINABILITY PRACTITIONERS ROUNDTABLE

May 14, 2014

Agenda

11:30 Introductions and lunch 11:40 Welcome from Eliza Clark, Andersen

Corporation 11:50 LCA Overview, Dr. Tim Smith, NorthStar

Initiative for Sustainable Enterprise 12:30 Group discussion on LCA facilitated by Jill

Kolling, Paydirt 1:20 Upcoming events; group announcements 1:30 Optional tour 2:00 Adjourn

Mission

¨  To advance sustainable practices within large organizations in Minnesota.

Objectives

¨  Facilitate candid dialogue centered on advanced sustainability topics

¨  Provide a forum for sharing resources and best practices

¨  Identify opportunities for new solutions or collaborations

¨  Build connections between sustainability practitioners

Format and Boundaries

¨  Quarterly event for sharing success stories and facilitating large group discussions in a confidential setting

¨  Invite-only ¨  One representative per organization; additional

participants dependent on topic ¨  Members should have decision making ability for

sustainability and an enterprise focus ¨  Charter members may preclude competitors from

joining ¨  Members are expected to attend and actively

participate, or send a substitute when needed

2014 Roundtable Dates

¨  February 12 - Target ¨  May 14 – Science Museum of Minnesota ¨  September 17 – U of MN Landscape Arboretum ¨  November 12 - KPMG

Andersen – Science Museum Partnership

¨  Kitty Andersen Youth Science Center (KAYSC): empowering youth to change the world through science

¨  Engages over 100 youth annually in grades 7-12 in out-of-school-time science programming

¨  In 1996, several Andersen Related Foundations made a combined endowment contribution to KAYSC in Kitty Andersen’s honor to support general operating funds.

Source: http://www.smm.org/kaysc/supporters

•  75% of participants are from low-income families

•  60% are girls •  90% are

youth of color

Science House: ¨ Resource Center for Educators, where Minnesota's science teachers gain access to the best in hands-on classroom science materials

¨ Designed to operate as a zero-emissions building (ZEB)

¨ Since energy monitoring began in February 2004, Science House has been producing more energy than it uses on an annual basis

¨ Andersen Corporation contributed windows, doors and Fibrex™ material for the exterior deck and interior ceiling

Source: http://www.smm.org/sciencehouse/about

Andersen - Science Museum Partnership

Raw  Material  Extrac.on   Intermediate  Material  Manufacture  

Use  

Recycling  

End  of  Life  

Finished  Product  Manufacture  

Transporta.on  &  logis.cs/retail  

Andersen’s Lifecycle Approach 9

Andersen’s LCA Experience

¨  Conducted two LCAs in 2010: ¨  Renewal by Andersen Double-Hung

¨  100 Series

¨  Recently purchased GaBi LCA software

¨  Participating in the development of the Product Category Rule (PCR) for windows

¨  Once PCR is approved, we will have the ability to publish Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs)

Renewal by Andersen Double-Hung

environment.umn.edu/nise

Introduc)on  to  Life  Cycle  Assessment    Timothy  M.  Smith  Director  &  Associate  Professor  NorthStar  Ini.a.ve  (NiSE)  Bioproducts  &  Biosystems  Eng.  612-­‐624-­‐2648  .msmith@umn.edu  

WHICH IS MORE SUSTAINABLE?

•  most  commonly  made  from  co;on  (fossil-­‐fuel-­‐intensive)  

•  co;on  growers  use  more  than  10  percent  of  the  world's  pes)cides  and  nearly  25  percent  of  the  world's  insec)cides  

•  most  are  woven  outside  the  U.S.  where  labor  is  less  costly  

•  Increased  fossil  fuels  in  transporta)on  

•  %#*&!,  forgot  it  again…  

•  made  of  polyethylene,  a  petroleum-­‐based  resource    

•  consumes  40%  less  energy  to  produce  than  paper.  

•  generates  80%  less  solid  waste  than  paper  bags    

•  can  take  1,000  years  to  decompose  

•  fewer  than  5%  of  plas)c  bags  are  recycled  

•  60  to  80  percent  of  ocean  debris  is  plas)c  -­‐  poisoning  or  strangling  marine  life  

•  made  from  a  renewable  resource  (trees)  

•  hold  twice  the  contents  of  most  plas)c  bags  

•  takes  about  a  month  to  decompose  

•   21%  of  paper  bags  are  currently  recycled  

WHAT IS GREEN?

IMPACT CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PRIUS

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: Quantification of Impacts

LCA BASICS: WHAT GOES IN MUST COME OUT

LCA BASICS: WHAT GOES IN MUST COME OUT

energy  

cardboard  

metal  

LCA BASICS: WHAT GOES IN MUST COME OUT

energy  

cardboard  

metal  

Air  emissions  

Solid  Waste  

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Ecosystem health

Human health

Resource depletion

Social health

Oth. releases

Products Coproducts

Emissions Effluents Solid wastes

Mat’ls Energy Water

Raw Material Acquisition

(Transportation)

Manufacturing (Transportation)

Use/Reuse/Maintenance (Transportation)

Recycle/Waste Management (Transportation)

LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS – STEPS IN THE PROCESS AND APPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS

INVENTORY ANALYSIS

IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT

Extend product life Reduce energy consumption Evaluate substitute materials Improve process efficiencies Improve distribution Improve collection efficiencies Enhance use/durability Improve waste management

INITIATION

Purpose and scope

System boundaries

Data categories

Review process

PAPER CLIP

PAPER CLIP LCA RESULTS

IMPACT CHARACTERIZATION

PAPER CLIP GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL

US  ECONOMY-­‐WIDE  WEIGHTED  ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACTS  

X X X X X X X

Source: Suh 2011; economymap.org

X X

Input/Output  

Ideal  

Process  

Bo;om  Up  Hybrid   Top  Down  Hybrid    

LCA METHODOLOGIES

OUTSIDE-IN HOTSPOT APPROACH: An Adaptation of Top Down Hybrid

Identify Hotspots: EE-IO

Compare Indicators: Parameterized P- LCA

Sce

nario

1

Sce

nario

2

GEMI SUPPLY CHAIN SUSTAINABILITY TOOL

Objec.ve:  A  simple,  scalable,  open  and  interac.ve  tool  for  procurement  and  supply  chain  managers  to:  1)  guide  priori.es;  2)  measure  performance  of  sourcing  strategies.    Func.onality:    1. Iden.fy  CO2  and  water  use  “hotspots”  of  procurement/sourcing  poraolios.  2. Quan.fy  “hotspot”  reduc.on  of  alterna.ve  environmental  acribute  scenarios.  3. Simulate  procurement  strategies  to  compare  environmental  performance  vis-­‐à-­‐vis  economic  costs/benefits.    

Impact'Category' Source' Virgin&fiber&

produc/on&Power&genera/on&

and&supply&Paper&and&

paperboard&mills&Paperboard&container&

manufacturing& End&of&Life&

Global'Warming'Poten7al'

EIO:LCA1' **& 42%& 32%& 5%& *&PE'Americas'and'Five'Winds'Interna7onal.'(2009).'Life%Cycle%Assessment%of%U.S.%Industry7Average%Corrugated%Product.' A46%& **& 54%& 17%& 22%&

Ross,'S.,'&'Evans,'D.'(2002).'Use'of'Life'Cycle'Assessment'in'Environmental'Management.'Environmental%Management,'29,'132:142.' 4%***& 83%&

Water'Deple7on'

EIO:LCA2' **& 30%& 37%& 0.43%& *&Kirwan,'M.'J.'(2013).'Handbook%of%Paper%and%Paperboard%Packaging%Technology'(2nd'Edi7on'ed.).'Chichester,'West'Sussex,'United'Kingdom:'Wiley:Blackwell.' **& **& Blue&water& Blue&water& Blue&

water&

Hotspots: the life cycle stages and inputs that have CO2 and H2O impacts larger than 10% of the life cycle impacts

1.  Carnegie Mellon University. (2002). Results for paperboard container manufacturing, global warming potential. Retrieved September 9, 2013, from Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment - Carnegie Mellon University: http://www.eiolca.net/cgi-bin/dft/use.pl

2.  Carnegie Mellon University. (2002). Results for paperboard container manufacturing, water withdrawals. Retrieved September 9, 2013, from Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment - Carnegie Mellon University: http://www.eiolca.net/cgi-bin/dft/use.pl

* Not included in the EIO-LCA system boundary ** Not found in the source *** Net impacts offset by carbon sequestration in virgin fiber production

Sustainable Supply Chain Data Summary– Containerboard Packaging

Baseline Assumptions: U.S. and European average industrial practices

Hotspot system boundary

Raw&material&extrac/on& Transporta/on& Manufacturing& Distribu/on& Retail& Use& End&of&Life&

Life&Cycle&Stage& Parameter& Dataset& Unit&Baseline&Inventory&Amount&

Source&Corrugated'Board' Paperboard'

Forest'Produc7on'

(70%'from'SE,'30%'from'PNW)'

Diesel' US:'Diesel,'combusted'in'industrial'equipment2' m3/m3'so^wood'

2.57e:3'

USCLCI'2012;'Kramer'2009'

Gasoline' US:'Gasoline,'combusted'in'equipment2' 2.26e:5'

Seedlings' US:'Seedlings,'at'greenhouse2' pcs/m3'so^wood' 5.27'

Nitrogen' US:'Nitrogen'fer7lizer,'produc7on'mix,'at'plant2'

kg/m3'so^wood'

4.99e:1'

Phosphorus' US:'Phosphorous'fer7lizer,'produc7on'mix,'at'plant2' 8.58e:2'

Lubricants' US:'Dummy_Lubricants,'unspecified,'at'plant2' 3.69e:2'

Carbon'Dioxide' Carbon'dioxide'[Renewable'resources]2' 9.42e2'

Transport' Transport,'combina7on'truck,'avg.'fuel'mix' Kgkm/m3'so^wood' 1.2e5'

Manufacturing:'Container:board'Conver7ng'plant'

Kra^liner'

Manufacturing'Containerboard'Mill' Kg/kg'nsp'

4.76e:1' 7.22e:1'PE'2009;'EPA'2012'

Testliner' 2.56e:1' 3.89e:1'Wellenstoff' 1.32e:1' 0'

Semi:Chemical' 2.45e:1' 0'

LPG' US:'liquefied'petroleum'gas,'combusted'in'industrial'boiler3' m3/kg'nsp' 1.17e:6'

PE'2009'

Natural'Gas' RNA:'Natural'gas,'combusted'in'industrial'equipment3' 2.87e:2'Water' RER:'Tap'water,'at'user1.5'

kg/kg'nsp'

3.12e:1'Starch' US:'Starch'(polyglucose)4' 1.18e:2'

Adhesives' US:'Polyvinyl'alcohol'(from'vinyl'acetate)'(PVAL)4' 7.94e:4'Ink' RER:'Prin7ng'colour,'offset,'47.5%'solvent,'at'plant1' 8.47e:4'

Borax' US:'Sodium'borates,'at'plant1' 3.11e:4'Sodium'Carbonate' US:'Soda,'powder,'at'plant3' 7.86e:4'

Coa7ngs' RER:'Coa7ng'powder,'at'plant1' 7.05e:4'

Wax' US:'Wax/Paraffins'at'refinery4' 4.74e:3'Electricity'(purchased)' US:'electricity,'medium'voltage,'at'grid1'

MJ/kg'nsp'

4.24e:1'

Diesel' GLO:'diesel,'burned'in'building'machine1' 3.63e:2'

Heavy'fuel'oil' RER:'Heavy'fuel'oil,'burned'in'industrial'furnace,'1'MW,'non:modula7ng1' 4.63e:1'

Light'Fuel'Oil' RER:'heat,'light'fuel'oil,'at'industrial'furnace'1'MW1' 2.81e:1'

Landfill' CH:'disposal,'municipal'solid'waste,'22.9%'water,'to'sanitary'landfill1'

kg/kg'nsp'

3.73e:3'

Incinera7on' CH:'disposal,'municipal'solid'waste,'22%'water,'to'municipal'incinera7on1' 6.23e:5'

Hazardous'Waste'Incinera7on'

CH:'disposal,'hazardous'waste,'25%'water,'to'hazardous'waste'incinera7on1' 1.55e:6'

Baseline assumptions: 65% virgin (kraft and semi-chemical fluting), 35% recycled (testliner and wellenstoff),

1: EcoInvent 1.5: Modified EcoInvent (accounts for US electricity production)

2: USLCI 3: USLCI/PE

4: PE nsp = net saleable product (including folded box and glue)

DOCUMENTATION: Hotspots, Baselines, Scenarios

COMPARING REDUCTION SCENARIOS

2.  Provide  quan.ta.ve  “hotspot”  reduc.on  indices  for  environmental  acribute  scenarios  -­‐  connec.ng  market  signals  to  like  cycle  assessment-­‐based  informa.on;    

Results of “hotspot” reduction potential by attribute scenarios for cereal and fruit juice categories (UMN 2013)

Recycled'Paperboard'(Primary)'

100%'Plastic'

Cereal'Bag'(no'box)''

100%'Bioenergy'(thermal)'

5%'

10%'

15%'

20%'

25%'

30%'

35%'

0%'

5%'

10%'

15%'

20%'

25%'

Grain'Farming'Manufacturing'

Packaging'

Life'Cycle'Stage'Hotspots'

30%'!'Electrical'EfJiciency'

30%'!'Thermal''EfJiciency'

Recycled'Paperboard'(primary)'

40%'

PLA'cereal'bag'

Recycled'Cardboard'(secondary)'

30%'!'Thermal'EfJiciency'

Best'Scenario'~39%'reduction'

Worst'Scenario'~7%'addition'

End'of'Life'

PLA'cereal'bag'

Baseline''(no'environmental'

attributes'implemented)'

65%'of'total'impact'

Total'GHG'Hotspot'Reduction'Potential''for'Wheat'Cereal'and'Orange'Juice:''Best'Scenario'vs.'Worst'Scenario'

~21%'reduction'

30%'

45%'

50%'

55%'

60%'

65%'

Orange'Farming'

Retail'(Refrigeration)'

Wheat'Cereal' Orange'Juice'

69%'of'total'impact'

70%'

75%'

80%'

85%'

90%'

100%'Wind'electricity'

Organic'

5%'Refrigerant'Leakage'

Worst'Scenario'~12%'reduction'

Best'Scenario'~91%'reduction'

Precision'Farming'

30%'!'energy'efJiciency'(electricity)'

5%'Refrigerant'Leakage'

50%'Wind'electricity'

~56%'reduction'

100%'Wind'electricity'

Organic'

Cumu

lative'%'reduction'in'total'

hotsp

ot'im

pact'contribution

'Cumu

lative'%'addition

'in'total''

hotsp

ot'im

pact'contribution

'

5%#

10%#

15%#

20%#

25%#

30%#

35%#

0%#

5%#

10%#

15%#

20%#

25%#

Grain#Farming#Manufacturing#Packaging#

Cumu

lative#%#reduction#in#total#

hotsp

ot#impact#contribution

#

Life#Cycle#Stage#Hotspots#

40%#

End#of#Life#

Baseline##(no#environmental#

attributes#implemented)#

Cumu

lative#%#addition

#in#total##

hotsp

ot#impact#contribution

#

65%#of#total#impact#

Total#GHG#Hotspot#Reduction#Potential##for#Wheat#Cereal#and#Orange#Juice:##Best#Scenario#vs.#Worst#Scenario#

30%#

45%#

50%#

55%#

60%#

65%#

Orange#Farming#Retail#(Refrigeration)#

Wheat#Cereal# Orange#Juice#

69%#of#total#impact#

70%#

75%#

80%#

85%#

90%#

100%#Wind#electricity#

Organic#

Best#Scenario#~91%#reduction#30%#!#

energy#efViciency#(electricity)#

5%#Refrigerant#Leakage#GHG  

Scenario  Analysis  

(Cereal  &  Fruit  Juice)  

5%#

10%#

15%#

20%#

25%#

30%#

35%#

0%#

5%#

10%#

15%#

20%#

25%#

Grain#Farming#Manufacturing#Packaging#

Life#Cycle#Stage#Hotspots#

40%#

End#of#Life#

Baseline##(no#environmental#

attributes#implemented)#

65%#of#total#impact#

Total#GHG#Hotspot#Reduction#Potential##for#Wheat#Cereal#and#Orange#Juice:##Best#Scenario#vs.#Worst#Scenario#

30%#

45%#

50%#

55%#

60%#

65%#

Orange#Farming#Retail#(Refrigeration)#

Wheat#Cereal# Orange#Juice#

69%#of#total#impact#

70%#

75%#

80%#

85%#

90%#

100%#Wind#electricity#

Organic#

5%#Refrigerant#Leakage#

Worst#Scenario#~12%#reduction#

Best#Scenario#~91%#reduction#

Precision#Farming#

30%#!#energy#efViciency#(electricity)#

5%#Refrigerant#Leakage#

Cumu

lative#%#reduction#in#total#

hotsp

ot#impact#contribution

#Cumu

lative#%#addition

#in#total##

hotsp

ot#impact#contribution

#

GHG  Scenario  Analysis  

(Cereal  &  Fruit  Juice)  

5%#

10%#

15%#

20%#

25%#

30%#

35%#

0%#

5%#

10%#

15%#

20%#

25%#

Grain#Farming#Manufacturing#Packaging#

Life#Cycle#Stage#Hotspots#

40%#

End#of#Life#

Baseline##(no#environmental#

attributes#implemented)#

65%#of#total#impact#

Total#GHG#Hotspot#Reduction#Potential##for#Wheat#Cereal#and#Orange#Juice:##Best#Scenario#vs.#Worst#Scenario#

30%#

45%#

50%#

55%#

60%#

65%#

Orange#Farming#Retail#(Refrigeration)#

Wheat#Cereal# Orange#Juice#

69%#of#total#impact#

70%#

75%#

80%#

85%#

90%#

100%#Wind#electricity#

Organic#

5%#Refrigerant#Leakage#

Worst#Scenario#~12%#reduction#

Best#Scenario#~91%#reduction#

Precision#Farming#

30%#!#energy#efViciency#(electricity)#

5%#Refrigerant#Leakage#

50%#Wind#electricity#

~56%#reduction#

Cumu

lative#%#reduction#in#total#

hotsp

ot#impact#contribution

#Cumu

lative#%#addition

#in#total##

hotsp

ot#impact#contribution

#

GHG  Scenario  Analysis  

(Cereal  &  Fruit  Juice)  

100%$Bioenergy$(thermal)$

5%$

10%$

15%$

20%$

25%$

30%$

35%$

0%$

5%$

10%$

15%$

20%$

25%$

Grain$Farming$Manufacturing$

Packaging$

Life$Cycle$Stage$Hotspots$

30%$!$Electrical$EfFiciency$

30%$!$Thermal$$EfFiciency$

Recycled$Paperboard$(primary)$

40%$

PLA$cereal$bag$

Recycled$Cardboard$(secondary)$ Best$Scenario$

~39%$reduction$

End$of$Life$

PLA$cereal$bag$

Baseline$$(no$environmental$

attributes$implemented)$

65%$of$total$impact$

Total$GHG$Hotspot$Reduction$Potential$$for$Wheat$Cereal$and$Orange$Juice:$$Best$Scenario$vs.$Worst$Scenario$

30%$

45%$

50%$

55%$

60%$

65%$

Orange$Farming$

Retail$(Refrigeration)$

Wheat$Cereal$ Orange$Juice$

69%$of$total$impact$

70%$

75%$

80%$

85%$

90%$

100%$Wind$electricity$

Organic$

5%$Refrigerant$Leakage$

Worst$Scenario$~12%$reduction$

Best$Scenario$~91%$reduction$

Precision$Farming$

30%$!$energy$efFiciency$(electricity)$

5%$Refrigerant$Leakage$

50%$Wind$electricity$

~56%$reduction$

100%$Wind$electricity$

Cumulative$%$reduction$in$total$

hotspot$impact$contribution$

Cumulative$%$addition$in$total$$

hotspot$impact$contribution$

GHG  Scenario  Analysis  

(Cereal  &  Fruit  Juice)  

100%$Plastic$

Cereal$Bag$(no$box)$$

100%$Bioenergy$(thermal)$

5%$

10%$

15%$

20%$

25%$

30%$

35%$

0%$

5%$

10%$

15%$

20%$

25%$

Grain$Farming$Manufacturing$

Packaging$

Life$Cycle$Stage$Hotspots$

30%$!$Electrical$EfHiciency$

30%$!$Thermal$$EfHiciency$

Recycled$Paperboard$(primary)$

40%$

PLA$cereal$bag$

Recycled$Cardboard$(secondary)$

30%$!$Thermal$EfHiciency$

Best$Scenario$~39%$reduction$

Worst$Scenario$~7%$addition$

End$of$Life$

PLA$cereal$bag$

Baseline$$(no$environmental$

attributes$implemented)$

65%$of$total$impact$

Total$GHG$Hotspot$Reduction$Potential$$for$Wheat$Cereal$and$Orange$Juice:$$Best$Scenario$vs.$Worst$Scenario$

30%$

45%$

50%$

55%$

60%$

65%$

Orange$Farming$

Retail$(Refrigeration)$

Wheat$Cereal$ Orange$Juice$

69%$of$total$impact$

70%$

75%$

80%$

85%$

90%$

100%$Wind$electricity$

Organic$

5%$Refrigerant$Leakage$

Worst$Scenario$~12%$reduction$

Best$Scenario$~91%$reduction$

Precision$Farming$

30%$!$energy$efHiciency$(electricity)$

5%$Refrigerant$Leakage$

50%$Wind$electricity$

~56%$reduction$

100%$Wind$electricity$

Organic$

Cumulative$%$reduction$in$total$

hotspot$impact$contribution$

Cumulative$%$addition$in$total$$

hotspot$impact$contribution$

GHG  Scenario  Analysis  

(Cereal  &  Fruit  Juice)  

Recycled'Paperboard'(Primary)'

100%'Plastic'

Cereal'Bag'(no'box)''

100%'Bioenergy'(thermal)'

5%'

10%'

15%'

20%'

25%'

30%'

35%'

0%'

5%'

10%'

15%'

20%'

25%'

Grain'Farming'Manufacturing'

Packaging'

Life'Cycle'Stage'Hotspots'

30%'!'Electrical'EfJiciency'

30%'!'Thermal''EfJiciency'

Recycled'Paperboard'(primary)'

40%'

PLA'cereal'bag'

Recycled'Cardboard'(secondary)'

30%'!'Thermal'EfJiciency'

Best'Scenario'~39%'reduction'

Worst'Scenario'~7%'addition'

End'of'Life'

PLA'cereal'bag'

Baseline''(no'environmental'

attributes'implemented)'

65%'of'total'impact'

Total'GHG'Hotspot'Reduction'Potential''for'Wheat'Cereal'and'Orange'Juice:''Best'Scenario'vs.'Worst'Scenario'

~21%'reduction'

30%'

45%'

50%'

55%'

60%'

65%'

Orange'Farming'

Retail'(Refrigeration)'

Wheat'Cereal' Orange'Juice'

69%'of'total'impact'

70%'

75%'

80%'

85%'

90%'

100%'Wind'electricity'

Organic'

5%'Refrigerant'Leakage'

Worst'Scenario'~12%'reduction'

Best'Scenario'~91%'reduction'

Precision'Farming'

30%'!'energy'efJiciency'(electricity)'

5%'Refrigerant'Leakage'

50%'Wind'electricity'

~56%'reduction'

100%'Wind'electricity'

Organic'

Cumulative'%'reduction'in'total'

hotspot'impact'contribution'

Cumulative'%'addition'in'total''

hotspot'impact'contribution'

GHG  Scenario  Analysis  

(Cereal  &  Fruit  Juice)  

ASSESS ECONOMIC COSTS OF REDUCTIONS

3.  Allow  managers  to  quickly  simulate  procurement  scenarios  to  compare  environmental  performance  vis-­‐à-­‐vis  economic  costs/benefits.  

Illustrative example; simulation results will be dependent upon scenario reduction estimates

and user-specified information (price/kg, volume purchased, alternative spending strategies, etc.)

Jones&et&al&(2008).&Consumer4Oriented&Life&Cycle&Assessment&of&Food,&Goods,&and&Services&

Variability)Within)a)Sector)Subs3tutability)

between)Sector)Spend)

• •

Switching from all-pork to a 50/50 pork/chicken sourced sausage: • Estimated CO2e reduction of 350-850 gCO2e /$(2007) • @ $100,000 spend: 35,000-85,000 kgCO2e; ≈ 7-17 cars/year • @ 6.5% price/kg discount: Switch saves ≈ $.13/kgCO2e reduction.

PROCUREMENT PORTFOLIO DECISION PROBLEMS

•  Given  a  targeted  CO2  reduc.on  target,  what  alloca.on  of  purchases  minimizes  total  costs?    

•  Given  a  targeted  budget  (increase/decrease),  what  alloca.on  of  purchases  maximizes  total  CO2  reduc.ons?  

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

•  LCA  isn’t  perfect    – Costly,  sensi.ve  to  data  assump.ons  and  boundary  condi.ons,  etc.  

•  LCA  doesn’t  solve  problems  – Omen  surfaces  more  ques.ons  than  answers  –  Informa.on  provided  is  uncertain  

•  LCA  is  necessary  if  decision  requires  a  quan.fica.on  of  impacts  across  process  stages.  

•  LCA  is  an  approach  not  an  absolute  truth  

THANK YOU! Contact Info: Dr. Timothy Smith – timsmith@umn.edu