The Product Carbon Footprint of EU beet sugar (Part I)

2012 ◽  
pp. 169-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingo Klenk ◽  
Birgit Landquist ◽  
Oscar Ruiz de Imana
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Environmental Sustainability ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Cane Sugar ◽  
Average Case ◽  
Methodological Choices ◽  
Land Use Efficiency ◽  
Beet Sugar ◽  
The Eu

The calculations made to obtain the PCF of EU white sugar from sugar beet have revealed that the results are extremely sensitive to methodological choices and this article provides some recommendations in that regard. A comparison of EU beet sugar with two examples of raw cane sugar imported and refined in the EU, showed that the PCF range for EU refined cane sugar is on average similar, if not higher (642–760 kg CO2eq/t sugar) than the total methodological PCF range for the EU beet sugar average case (242–771 kg CO2eq/t sugar). A review of the published literature revealed, on the one hand, that land use change emissions for cane sugar can be very significant but are rarely taken into account, and on the other hand, that overseas transport and refining adds a significant amount of emissions to the PCF of raw cane sugar imported into the EU. An overall land use efficiency comparison between cane and beet production systems also concluded that significantly more land (51%) is required by cane systems to produce an equivalent set of products (sugar and co-products) with an equivalent amount of GHG emissions. Finally, the limitations of PCFs as a tool to evaluate the overall environmental sustainability of EU beet sugar were also analysed

scholarly journals Beneficial land-use change in Europe: deployment scenarios for multifunctional riparian buffers and windbreaks

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oskar Englund ◽  
Pål Börjesson ◽  
Blas Mola-Yudego ◽  
Göran Berndes ◽  
Ioannis Dimitriou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Biomass Production ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Riparian Buffers ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
Land Use Impacts ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The land sector needs to increase biomass production to meet multiple demands while reducing negative land use impacts and transitioning from being a source to being a sink of carbon. The new Common Agricultural Policy of the EU (CAP) steers towards a more needs-based, targeted approach to addressing multiple environmental and climatic objectives, in coherence with other EU policies. In relation to this, new schemes are developed to offer farmers direct payments to adapt practices beneficial for climate, water, soil, air and biodiversity. Multifunctional biomass production systems have potential to reduce environmental impacts from agriculture while maintaining or increasing biomass production for the bioeconomy across Europe. Here, we present the first attempt to model the deployment of two such systems, riparian buffers and windbreaks, across >81.000 landscapes in Europe (EU27 + UK), aiming to quantify the resulting ecosystem services and environmental benefits, considering three deployment scenarios with different incentives for implementation. We found that these multifunctional biomass production systems can reduce N emissions to water and soil loss by wind erosion, respectively, down to a “low” impact level all over Europe, while simultaneously providing substantial environmental co-benefits, using less than 1% of the area under annual crops in the EU. The GHG emissions savings of utilizing the biomass produced in these systems for replacing fossil alternatives, combined with the increases in soil organic carbon, correspond to 1-1,4% of total GHG emissions in EU28. The introduction of “eco-schemes” in the new CAP may resolve some of the main barriers to implementation of large-scale multifunctional biomass production systems. Increasing the knowledge of these opportunities among all EU member states, before designing and introducing country-specific Eco-scheme options in the new CAP, is critical.

Excellent environmental performance of beet sugar production in the Netherlands

2020 ◽  
pp. 161-165
Author(s):  
Bertram de Crom ◽  
Jasper Scholten ◽  
Janjoris van Diepen
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Water Consumption ◽  
Environmental Performance ◽  
Cane Sugar ◽  
Sugar Production ◽  
Beet Sugar ◽  
Glucose Syrup

To get more insight in the environmental performance of the Suiker Unie beet sugar, Blonk Consultants performed a comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study on beet sugar, cane sugar and glucose syrup. The system boundaries of the sugar life cycle are set from cradle to regional storage at the Dutch market. For this study 8 different scenarios were evaluated. The first scenario is the actual sugar production at Suiker Unie. Scenario 2 until 7 are different cane sugar scenarios (different countries of origin, surplus electricity production and pre-harvest burning of leaves are considered). Scenario 8 concerns the glucose syrup scenario. An important factor in the environmental impact of 1kg of sugar is the sugar yield per ha. Total sugar yield per ha differs from 9t/ha sugar for sugarcane to 15t/ha sugar for sugar beet (in 2017). Main conclusion is that the production of beet sugar at Suiker Unie has in general a lower impact on climate change, fine particulate matter, land use and water consumption, compared to cane sugar production (in Brazil and India) and glucose syrup. The impact of cane sugar production on climate change and water consumption is highly dependent on the country of origin, especially when land use change is taken into account. The environmental impact of sugar production is highly dependent on the co-production of bioenergy, both for beet and cane sugar.

Resource use and environmental impacts from Australian export lamb production: a life cycle assessment

2016 ◽  
Vol 56 (7) ◽  
pp. 1070 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. G. Wiedemann ◽  
M.-J. Yan ◽  
C. M. Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Fresh Water ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Water Consumption ◽  
Energy Demand ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Arable Land ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Land Occupation ◽  
Fossil Fuel Energy

This study conducted a life cycle assessment (LCA) investigating energy, land occupation, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fresh water consumption and stress-weighted water use from production of export lamb in the major production regions of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The study used data from regional datasets and case study farms, and applied new methods for assessing water use using detailed farm water balances and water stress weighting. Land occupation was assessed with reference to the proportion of arable and non-arable land and allocation of liveweight (LW) and greasy wool was handled using a protein mass method. Fossil fuel energy demand ranged from 2.5 to 7.0 MJ/kg LW, fresh water consumption from 58.1 to 238.9 L/kg LW, stress-weighted water use from 2.9 to 137.8 L H2O-e/kg LW and crop land occupation from 0.2 to 2.0 m2/kg LW. Fossil fuel energy demand was dominated by on-farm energy demand, and differed between regions and datasets in response to production intensity and the use of purchased inputs such as fertiliser. Regional fresh water consumption was dominated by irrigation water use and losses from farm water supply, with smaller contributions from livestock drinking water. GHG emissions ranged from 6.1 to 7.3 kg CO2-e/kg LW and additional removals or emissions from land use (due to cultivation and fertilisation) and direct land-use change (due to deforestation over previous 20 years) were found to be modest, contributing between –1.6 and 0.3 kg CO2-e/kg LW for different scenarios assessing soil carbon flux. Excluding land use and direct land-use change, enteric CH4 contributed 83–89% of emissions, suggesting that emissions intensity can be reduced by focussing on flock production efficiency. Resource use and emissions were similar for export lamb production in the major production states of Australia, and GHG emissions were similar to other major global lamb producers. The results show impacts from lamb production on competitive resources to be low, as lamb production systems predominantly utilised non-arable land unsuited to alternative food production systems that rely on crop production, and water from regions with low water stress.

The Product Carbon Footprint of EU beet sugar (Part II)

2012 ◽  
pp. 213-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingo Klenk ◽  
Birgit Landquist ◽  
Oscar Ruiz de Imaña
Keyword(s):  
Water Treatment ◽  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Organic Fertilizer ◽  
Arable Land ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Mineral Fertilizer ◽  
Field Work ◽  
Beet Sugar ◽  
Laughing Gas ◽  
The Eu

With regard to farming operations, all N-fertilizer was assumed to be in the form of mineral fertilizer, as there is no publicly available figure known for the average use of organic fertilizer (e.g. manure) in sugar beet cultivation in Europe. All the basic inputs to sugar beet cultivation were included, that is, seed, fertilisers, pesticides and diesel consumption for field work. Nitrous oxide, soil emissions (N2O, commonly known as laughing gas) from farming were included according to Biograce (i.e. 2.7% of applied N is emitted as N2O). Transport of sugar beet and adherent soil was also accounted for, and it was assumed that all transports are by 40-t truck. The emissions related to the return of empty trucks delivering beet to the factories were also accounted for in the Biograce data. GHG emissions linked to LUC (land use change, direct or indirect) were estimated to be negligible because all land used to grow beet, at least in the EU, is already arable land. With regard to factories, very small inputs were excluded. Specifically, most process chemicals used in sugar production such as NaOH or HCl for pH correction or antifoaming agents were assumed not to be significant for the overall result because they were used only in small quantities. However, as limestone is a processing aid used in larger amounts (approx. 2% per tonne of beet processed), it therefore was included.7 For surplus steam, which some factories co-produce, substitutes were difficult to establish, because they depend on the local situation. Since the resulting GHG credit for surplus steam was expected to be small as an EU average, no GHG credit for surplus steam was calculated. Potential emissions from water treatment systems were, on the other hand, not taken into account because there is insufficient data available about the different types of water treatment systems in operation in EU beet sugar factories. The emission factors of the process inputs used in the calculations are listed in Table 9.

scholarly journals Intensification pathways for beef and dairy cattle production systems: Impacts on GHG emissions, land occupation and land use change

2017 ◽  
Vol 240 ◽  
pp. 135-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah J. Gerssen-Gondelach ◽  
Rachel B.G. Lauwerijssen ◽  
Petr Havlík ◽  
Mario Herrero ◽  
Hugo Valin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Land Use Change ◽  
Dairy Cattle ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Cattle Production ◽  
Land Occupation

scholarly journals Environmental sustainability of biofuels: a review

2020 ◽  
Vol 476 (2243) ◽  
pp. 20200351
Author(s):  
Harish K. Jeswani ◽  
Andrew Chilvers ◽  
Adisa Azapagic
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Environmental Sustainability ◽  
Fossil Fuels ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Biodiversity Loss ◽  
Low Carbon ◽  
Environmental Consequences ◽  
Methodological Choices

Biofuels are being promoted as a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels as they could help to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the related climate change impact from transport. However, there are also concerns that their wider deployment could lead to unintended environmental consequences. Numerous life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have considered the climate change and other environmental impacts of biofuels. However, their findings are often conflicting, with a wide variation in the estimates. Thus, the aim of this paper is to review and analyse the latest available evidence to provide a greater clarity and understanding of the environmental impacts of different liquid biofuels. It is evident from the review that the outcomes of LCA studies are highly situational and dependent on many factors, including the type of feedstock, production routes, data variations and methodological choices. Despite this, the existing evidence suggests that, if no land-use change (LUC) is involved, first-generation biofuels can—on average—have lower GHG emissions than fossil fuels, but the reductions for most feedstocks are insufficient to meet the GHG savings required by the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED). However, second-generation biofuels have, in general, a greater potential to reduce the emissions, provided there is no LUC. Third-generation biofuels do not represent a feasible option at present state of development as their GHG emissions are higher than those from fossil fuels. As also discussed in the paper, several studies show that reductions in GHG emissions from biofuels are achieved at the expense of other impacts, such as acidification, eutrophication, water footprint and biodiversity loss. The paper also investigates the key methodological aspects and sources of uncertainty in the LCA of biofuels and provides recommendations to address these issues.

scholarly journals THE CONTRIBUTION OF ROMANIA TO CLIMATE CHANGE – THE EFFECTS OF ACCOUNTING THE GHG EMISSIONS FROM LAND USE, LAND-USE CHANGE AND FORESTRY (LULUCF)

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-20
Author(s):  
Ramona Ionela Zgavarogea ◽  
Mihaela Iordache ◽  
Andreea Maria Iordache ◽  
Marius Constantinescu ◽  
Felicia Bucura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
National Level ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Positive Trend ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Mk Test ◽  
Increasing Trend ◽  
The Eu

This study aimed to analyze Romanian (RO) involvement in the LULUCF sector by considering the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) good practice guidance (GPG). Trends were assessed using the Mann-Kendall (MK) test for trend estimation to determine the total greenhouse gas (GHG) (GHGCO₂-eq.) emissions/ removals. The results emphasized the increasing average annual levels of emissions/removals in both the EU-28 and RO when the subperiods from 1990-2005 and 2005-2017 were analyzed. Kendall’s analysis of GHG removal showed a positive trend in Romanian GHG removals, and no trend was observed for the EU-28. In comparison, the emissions indicated an increasing trend for RO and a decreasing trend for the EU-28. The GHGCO₂-eq. generated by the LULUCF sector decreased to an average annual rate of 0.5% per year in the EU-28. In Romania, these emissions increased by approximately 0.2% per year on average. Between 1990 and 2017, the CO2 total absorption increased to 0.9% per year. The methane absorption also increased by 11.7% per year, and no significant increasing trend was observed for methane. The dynamics of GHGCO₂-eq. emissions/removals in RO and LULUCF sectors showed that settlement had decreased in wetlands, and settlement of other land areas had increased. Assessing GHG gas emissions is essential for allowing each sector to promote specific strategies, policies and action plans. This will improve the national-level monitoring of the LULUCF sector and make this information more accessible to decision makers by raising awareness of the Romanian position within the EU-28

Environmental impact of insect rearing.

2021 ◽  
pp. 53-59
Author(s):  
Dennis G. A. B. Oonincx
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Fossil Fuel ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Climate Control ◽  
Life Cycle Assessments ◽  
Insect Rearing ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This chapter discusses the environmental impact of insect rearing. Direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from insects used as feed or food are discussed and data from life cycle assessments (LCAs) on commercially farmed insects are discussed per species. The relevance of the utilized feed on the environmental impact of insects and their derived products, including suggestions to lower this impact are also discussed. It is concluded that land use associated with insect production generally seems low, compared to conventional feed and food products. The EU (expressed as fossil fuel depletion) of insect production is often high compared to conventional products. To a large extent this is because several LCAs have been conducted for systems in temperate climates, which require extensive climate control.

scholarly journals The Role of Forests in Climate Change Mitigation: The EU Context

2021 ◽  
pp. 507-520
Author(s):  
Matteo Vizzarri ◽  
Roberto Pilli ◽  
Anu Korosuo ◽  
Ludovico Frate ◽  
Giacomo Grassi
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Carbon Sink ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Forest Growth ◽  
Carbon Accumulation ◽  
Reference Level ◽  
Forest Sector ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Carbon Neutrality ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe European Union (EU) aims at reaching carbon neutrality by 2050. Within the land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) sector, forestry will contribute to this target with CO2 sink, harvested wood products (HWP), and use of wood for material or energy substitution. Despite the fact that the forest sink currently offsets about 9% of the total EU GHG emissions, evaluating its future mitigation potential is challenging because of the complex interactions between human and natural impacts on forest growth and carbon accumulation. The Regulation (EU) 2018/841 has improved robustness, accuracy, and credibility of the accounting of GHG emissions and removals in the LULUCF sector. For the forest sector, the accounting is based on the Forest Reference Level (FRL), i.e., a projected country-specific value of GHG emissions and removals against which the actual GHG emissions and removals will be compared. The resulting difference will count toward the EU GHG target for the period 2021–2030. Here, we provide an overview of the contribution of forests and HWP to the EU carbon sink for the period 2021–2025 (proposed FRLs) and focus on the contribution of mountain forests to the EU carbon sink, through exploring co-benefits and adverse side effects between climate regulation and other ecosystem services.

LCA of EU beet sugar. Part I: Conducting a LCA of sugar production in the European Union

2015 ◽  
pp. 492-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andy Spoerri ◽  
Thomas Kaegi
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Environmental Sustainability ◽  
Sugar Production ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Hotspot Analysis ◽  
Iso 14040 ◽  
Processing Data ◽  
Beet Sugar ◽  
The Eu

With this study, CEFS provides an insider view, on what the significant environmental impacts of beet sugar production in the EU are & the method best suited for allocating specific impacts to the products of sugar beet processing. Data on sugar beet cultivation, transport and processing used were collected from 11 sugar companies and 18 countries (years 2008–2013). The obtained data were found to cover approximately 90% of EU beet sugar production (CEFS Sugar Statistics, 2013). A hotspot analysis was run over 15 environmental impacts via the testing of 4 different LCIA methodologies (ILCD, ReCiPe, Eco-scarcity and Impact 2002+). In order to derive methodological recommendations for the appropriate allocation method, the consultant performed a sensitivity analysis on the 11 products comparing 6 allocation methods and substitution according to in ISO 14040. The hotspot analysis showed that sugar beet cultivation phase had the largest share of total environmental impacts. Energy allocation was chosen as the appropriate methodology as it covered the entire product range of beet sugar production, carbonation lime being the only exception. The study was representative for the factory but it could not capture the variability of the cultivation scenarios in Europe. Moreover LCAs focus only on environmental sustainability and therefore cannot be recommended as trustworthy indicators of overall sustainability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document