Life  Cycle  (Cradle to Grave)  Analysis



There are many facets to the life and death of any given entity: (1) mining resources or recycling waste products, construction, operation, maintenance, disposal; (2) the labor and capital needed at each step; (3) the impacts transferred to the general public (externalities); (4) the impacts transferred to poor minority communities (environmental justice); and (5)  the impacts transferred to the world (climate change).

Obviously one can go too far and examine an impact that contributes to 0.000001 percent to a product. But often the opposite occurs.

Assuming that perhaps half of the carbon in the soil-vegetation-atmosphere cycle is found in soil, a third in the atmosphere and a fifth in vegetation, assuming further that of the carbon in the atmosphere over 70 percent came from the soil and 20 percent from industrial processes, then the growing of crops for biofuel must consider tilling methods, as well as what was displaced to grow the crop.

Focusing only on plants to atmosphere flows ignores the vast majority of flows and most of the carbon. Ignoring the destruction of rainforests to grow mono-cropped palm oil using unsustainable farming methods is not ''carbon-neutral''.

There are many terms used for measuring the true impacts from a process: Green Labels * Environmental Footprints * Material Flows Analysis * Life Cycle Analysis * Life Cycle Inventory * Life Cycle Assessment * Cradle to Grave Analysis * Eco-Balancing

Regardless of the term used, the concept is important. It was thought at one time that greater inputs went into operating a building that building it. This is not usually correct.

For transportation, the amount of inputs used to make vehicles, and make the roads the vehicles drive on, should be considered in addition to what comes out of the tail-pipe.

Most hydrogen comes from fossil fuels. Most US ethanol is made from natural gas or coal. Often advocates of these non-green, non-renewable ''alternative fuels'' will point to studies that limited the analysis to some artificially favorable component.

Relying on non-peer-reviewed studies with artificial boundaries or limits backed up by slick public relations teams may be profitable, but will not fool Mother Nature. We are facing a climate nightmare.

Another scam deals with co-products. For example, if growing soy beans for either soy meal or soy oil is not profitable, but producing both soy meal and soy oil is profitable, which agricultural process should the negative impacts  be assigned to. Most biofuel analysis assume that the total greenhouse gas emissions from growing the plant should be assigned to the soy meal component.  That is, the analysis assumes the product is meal and the by-product or waste-product is the soy oil.

This is simply a continuation of the electric utilities argument: we are using the waste component of oil. Someone else is using the main product and are fully responsible for all the harmful byproducts.

This process of designation waste material as fuel is very old. The oil pumped from the ground has to many heavy molecules and not enough light molecules. Using a 90-year old process called cracking, large molecules are broken down to increase the number of lighter molecules to match the demand within the area. In North America, the most desired (highest demanded) product is gasoline. In Hawai`i, the most desired product  is jet fuel. This demand is reflected in greenhouse gas emissions: In the US airplanes account for about 1-2% of greenhouse gas emissions, in Hawai`i they account for 20% of greenhouse gas emissions.

After the natural gas, gasoline and diesel is removed, the remaining heavy fuel oil is often used by power plants.  Although the heavy fuel could be further cracked or exported, utilities state that they are just using the waste product.

Often studies look at inputs and outputs grown under the most ideal conditions, not the average conditions. PR spokespersons show off the most advanced power plant, zero-emission vehicle, or the state-of-the art ferry, not the average. Studies indicate what could be produced. We have a car that could run on alternative fuels. Furthermore, often these numbers are further skewed. Vehicles that can but do not run on alternative fuels are assumed to run on alternative fuel anyway, in order to make rosy statements that lack substance.

In choosing our energy future, we must choose the option that is best for our self-reliance, for our security, for our community, for our planet.