Life Cycle Assessment and Judgement

Weidema B (2014) Has ISO 14040/44 failed its role as a standard for life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 18(3):324–326 Sala S, Reale F, Cristobal-Garcia J, Marelli L, Pant R (2016) Life cycle assessment for the impact assessment of policies. European Commission, Ispra Wender BA, Foley RW, Hottle TA, Sadowski J, Prado-Lopez V, Eisenberg DA, Laurin L, Seager TP (2014) Anticipatory life-cycle assessment for responsible research and innovation. J Responsible Innov 1(2):200–207 Stranddorf HK, Hoffmann L, Schmidt A (2005) LCA technical report: impact categories, normalization and weighting in LCA. Update on selected EDIP97-data. FORCE Technology–Dk–TEKNIK. https://lca-center.dk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/LCA-technical-report-impact-categories-normalisation-and-weighting-in-LCA.pdf. Accessed Nov 2020 Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, De Koning A, Van Oers L, Sleeswijk AW, Suh S, do de Haes HAU, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment. An Operational Guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht European Commission (2019) The development of the PEF and OEF methods. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/dev_methods.htm. Accessed Nov 2020 Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(6):324 Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira M, Zijp M, Hollander A, van Zelm R (2017) ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(2):138–147 Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (1995) The eco-indicator 95. PRé Consultants, Amersfoort Dreyer LC, Niemann AL, Hauschild MZ (2003) Comparison of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and eco-indicator 99. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(4):191–200 Benedikter R, Kühne K, Benedikter A, Atzeni G (2016) “Keep it in the ground.” The Paris agreement and the renewal of the energy economy: toward an alternative future for globalized resource policy. Challenge 59(3):205–222 Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK, Pease WS (2000) A theoretical foundation for life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 4(1):13–28 Read R, O'Riordan T (2017) The precautionary principle under fire. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 59(5):4–15 John S (2010) In defence of bad science and irrational policies: an alternative account of the precautionary principle. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 13(1):3–18 Laurent A, Hauschild MZ (2015) Normalisation. In: Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts MA (eds) Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 271–300 Caney S (2014) Climate change, intergenerational equity, and the social discount rate. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 13(4):320–342 Broome J (2017) Weighing goods: equality, uncertainty and time. John Wiley & Sons, Oxford Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, Tokgoz S, Hayes D, Yu T-H (2008) Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319 (5867):1238–1240 Curran MA (2017) Overview of goal and scope definition in life cycle assessment. In: Curran M (ed) Goal and scope definition in life cycle assessment. LCA compendium – the complete world of life cycle assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–62 Suh S, Yang Y (2014). On the uncanny capabilities of consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(6):1179–1184 Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind Ecol 18(1):73–83 Consequential-LCA (2015) Why and when? https://consequential-lca.org/clca/why-and-when/. Accessed Nov 2020 Weidema BP, Pizzol M, Schmidt J, Thoma G (2018) Attributional or consequential life cycle assessment: a matter of social responsibility. J Clean Prod 174:305–314 Baitz M (2017) Attributional life cycle assessment. In: Curran M (ed) Goal and scope definition in life cycle assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 123–143 Hall MR (2015) A transdisciplinary review of the role of economics in life cycle sustainability assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(12):1625–1639 Steen B (2006) Describing values in relation to choices in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(4):277–283 Schmidt W-P, Sullivan J (2002) The value debate: weighting of life cycle assessments in a global context: global diversity exists and has to be valued. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(4): Art. 250 Hofstetter P (2002) The value debate: ecodesign in a global context are there differences in global values and do they matter. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(2): Art 62 Pizzol M, Laurent A, Sala S, Weidema B, Verones F, Koffler C (2017) Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(6):853–866 Shrader-Frechette KS (1991) Risk and rationality: philosophical foundations for populist reforms. University of California Press, Berkeley Hofstetter P, Baumgartner T, Scholz RW (2000) Modelling the valuesphere and the ecosphere: integrating the decision makers’ perspectives into LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(3): Art. 161 Thorstensen E, Forsberg E-M (2016) Social life cycle assessment as a resource for responsible research and innovation. J Responsible Innov 3(1):50–72 Matthews NE, Stamford L, Shapira P (2019) Aligning sustainability assessment with responsible research and innovation: towards a framework for constructive sustainability assessment. Sustain Prod Consum 20: 58–73 Collingridge D (1980) The social control of technology. St. Martin’s Press, New York Yudkowsky E (2011) Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks. In: Bostrom N, Cirkovic MM (eds) Global catastrophic risks. Oxford University Press, Oxford Ord T (2020) The precipice: existential risk and the future of humanity. Bloomsbury, New York Windsor R, Cinelli M, Coles SR (2018) Comparison of tools for the sustainability assessment of nanomaterials. Curr Opin Green Sustain Chem 12:69–75