It might come as a surprise, but nearly everything has a negative impact on the environment. This isn't a joke; every product you purchase, wear, or consume carries an environmental cost. Whether it’s wood sourced from trees that have been cut down, the energy used to transport the fruits in your kitchen, or even the water you use, each element has an associated environmental toll. While these impacts may seem minor compared to what we typically label as "harmful," distinguishing between them is essential. It's insufficient to categorize items as simply <i>good</i> or <i>bad</i> for the environment—systematic analysis is needed to evaluate how various products and processes measure up.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a field within environmental science that seeks to address these inquiries. What is the environmental cost of a given product? Does it offer any advantages? What is the duration of these effects? These are complex questions that hold significant importance, as consumer choices and public policies often hinge on this kind of analysis.

Conversations about climate change and environmentalism can become overly simplistic, framing environmental impact in binary terms. Many discuss whether items are “good” or “bad” for the environment without considering the broader context.

For instance, Michael Moore's recent documentary, <i>Planet of the Humans</i>, claims that solar panels are detrimental to the environment due to the materials required for their production. While it's true that the production of solar panels entails resource use and greenhouse gas emissions, this holds true for nearly everything we use.

When the environmental impact of solar energy is compared to other power generation methods, the results are strikingly different. A review of contemporary solar cells suggests they produce around 40–200 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt of electricity, while coal-fired plants generate approximately 750–1750 grams. Solar energy may not be entirely carbon-free, but it is significantly less harmful compared to traditional energy sources.

Grasping the principles of LCA is crucial for engaging in discussions about environmental issues and climate change. Unfortunately, climate education tends to be underemphasized in the United States, leading to misconceptions about LCA science. This article serves as an introductory guide and a foundation for thinking like an environmental scientist.

LCA, as the name indicates, evaluates the complete life span of a product. This involves the extraction of raw materials, their processing into final products, consumer usage, disposal, and transportation throughout these stages. This comprehensive analysis is often referred to as a "cradle to grave" assessment. Capturing <i>all</i> costs associated with a product is vital, as the most significant impacts may be found in unexpected areas.

Consider the case of bioethanol derived from corn. At first glance, it’s unclear how ethanol could reduce carbon dioxide emissions, as both bioethanol and conventional gasoline release CO2 when burned. The atmosphere does not differentiate between the origin of greenhouse gases, whether from an oil reserve in Texas or a corn cob in Iowa. However, in the case of bioethanol, the CO2 emitted at the end of its life cycle is balanced by the CO2 absorbed during the growth of corn. This cyclical absorption and emission could make ethanol carbon-neutral, right?

Not quite. To fully understand bioethanol’s environmental impact, we also need to factor in the energy-intensive processing required for its production, which adds to the overall environmental cost. The debate surrounding bioethanol is contentious among scientists and activists, as its benefits over gasoline can vary based on how the calculations are performed, particularly concerning land use changes.

This highlights a critical lesson of LCA: the boundaries you set around your analysis matter. Not every LCA can capture all aspects of the life cycle fully, but it's important to be cautious of environmental claims that overlook any steps in the cradle-to-grave process. Many companies use vague language to downplay the environmental repercussions of their practices.

Today, there are countless “green” products available, ranging from biodegradable packaging to sustainable beef. If you are environmentally conscious, you might wonder about the actual efficacy of these products. Many items boast sustainability or recyclability on their labels, often accompanied by earthy packaging, leading you to question whether you’ve paid extra for something that is no better than its alternatives.

While there is no foolproof method to ascertain if a product is genuinely “green,” examining the processing involved is a useful starting point. Although biodegradable and “naturally sourced” materials sound appealing, the primary environmental impact often arises from the processes required to turn raw materials into finished products.

Bioplastics serve as a cautionary example. Initially, the idea of creating plastics from biomaterials instead of petroleum sparked excitement among researchers and environmentalists. Ideally, these bioplastics would supplant conventional plastics with sustainable alternatives. Unfortunately, studies consistently show that bioplastics can have a greater greenhouse gas footprint than traditional plastic bags. The majority of this carbon dioxide emission originates from the processing of raw materials used to produce the plastic.

This doesn't imply that every “green” product is merely a marketing ploy; bioplastics can indeed be beneficial in specific contexts. However, it is crucial to scrutinize claims regarding production methods whenever possible. Additionally, reducing consumption and waste often yields more significant environmental benefits than opting for a “green” alternative.

While "cradle to grave" analysis is useful, there are instances where it's necessary to look even further back. Land is a vital resource, and its usage carries environmental consequences. Agricultural land and pastures are not naturally occurring, so a thorough environmental assessment must consider the costs associated with deforestation or grassland clearing.

Beef production exemplifies this issue. Approximately 26% of non-ice-covered land is allocated for animal agriculture, with beef occupying a significant portion of that area. Land designated for cattle grazing could have instead been allowed to regenerate into forests or grasslands, aiding in greenhouse gas absorption and providing wildlife habitat. Thus, accurately assessing the environmental impact of beef requires considering this land-use substitution.

Vox has an excellent video that illustrates this concept:

Agriculture is a primary category that necessitates tracking land use changes, but it is not the only one. Biofuels from crops such as canola, sugarcane, or corn also impose substantial land-use costs. Land use analysis must also take into account the distinctions between various land types—constructing solar panels in the desert is a smart move, while clearing old-growth forests for a solar farm is ill-advised.

As you can see, the situation is intricate. Numerous elements influence the completion of an LCA. However, one might expect that after this extensive effort, LCA would provide straightforward answers regarding environmental superiority, right?

The short answer is: not quite. While an LCA can compare two products based on a specific type of impact, it cannot be used to evaluate different types of environmental impacts against one another. In practical terms, an LCA can answer “Does A or B produce more greenhouse gases?” but cannot determine whether “Is A better than B across all environmental impacts?” Some have attempted to create unified LCA scores that encompass all environmental dimensions, but these efforts are contentious. Ultimately, experts, policymakers, and consumers must evaluate the costs and benefits independently rather than relying on a single definitive number.

Lightbulbs serve as an interesting example of trade-offs. Starting in the 1990s, there was a push to transition from incandescent to fluorescent lights. Incandescent bulbs are known for their inefficiency, as they waste much of their electricity as heat. Fluorescent bulbs, on the other hand, have their drawbacks, including the presence of small amounts of toxic mercury. While the quantity is not hazardous within a household, concerns have been raised about mercury accumulation in landfills. Ultimately, most consumers opted for the switch due to lower electricity costs, but the trade-offs between the two products were not immediately clear.

This leads us to another dimension of trade-offs: financial considerations. While it is feasible to estimate the costs associated with achieving a specific reduction in environmental impact, the final decision regarding whether the expense is justified rests with the public and policymakers, which is unfortunate.

This might come off as an argument for environmental resignation—where everything is harmful to the environment, and it's impossible to determine what’s better or worse. However, LCA suggests the opposite: it <i>is</i> possible to assess the environmental impact of various products, but it demands effort and thorough analysis. Anyone who dismisses the issue with “Who can say?” either lacks an understanding of environmental science or is trying to mislead you.

Although life cycle assessment might seem intimidating, its core principles are quite straightforward. You don't need to be a mathematical genius or a hard-core scientist to apply this reasoning in your discussions or purchasing habits. To begin, here are some practical questions to help you analyze an environmental claim:

• What materials are incorporated in the product?
• How are these materials sourced? Are they renewable?
• How does the processing compare to competing products?
• Is there excessive packaging or other forms of unnecessary waste?
• What are the environmental effects of the product during its use?
• How much land is required to produce this item?
• Are there multiple types of environmental impacts that should be evaluated?
• Are there benefits or offsets that should be taken into account?
• What will happen to this product at the end of its life? Will it pose hazards in a landfill?

While this may seem like a lot to consider for every purchase, often you only need to pose a few of these questions to gain a clearer understanding. By applying the lens of life cycle assessment to products, you can critically evaluate environmental claims more effectively. This is particularly crucial in an era rife with misinformation and exploitation. Environmental advocates must not only scrutinize misleading messaging but also champion best practices and sound policies. LCA is essential for navigating this discourse.

Contact the author: twitter, email.