Abiotic Raw-Materials in Life Cycle Impact Assessments: An Emerging Consensus across Disciplines
by
Johannes A. Drielsma 1,*, Ruth Allington 2,†, Thomas Brady 3,†, Jeroen Guinée 4,†
, Jane Hammarstrom 5,†, Torsten Hummen 6,†, Andrea Russell-Vaccari 7,†, Laura Schneider 8,†, Guido Sonnemann 9,† and Pär Weihed 10,†
Johannes A. Drielsma 1,*, Ruth Allington 2,†, Thomas Brady 3,†, Jeroen Guinée 4,†, Jane Hammarstrom 5,†, Torsten Hummen 6,†, Andrea Russell-Vaccari 7,†, Laura Schneider 8,†, Guido Sonnemann 9,† and Pär Weihed 10,†
1
European Association of Mining Industries, Metal Ores and Industrial Minerals (Euromines), Avenue de Broqueville/Broquevillelaan 12, Brussels 1150, Belgium
2
Committee for Mineral Reserves International Reporting Standards (CRIRSCO), c/o Pan-European Reserves & Resources Reporting Committee (PERC), c/o EFG Office, Service Géologique de Belgique, Rue Jenner 13, Brussels 1000, Belgium
3
Newmont Mining, 6363 South Fiddler’s Green Circle Suite 800, Greenwood Village, CO 80111, USA
4
Institute of Environmental Sciences CML, Leiden University, Einsteinweg 2, Leiden 2333 CC, The Netherlands
5
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 954 National Center, Reston, VA 20192, USA
6
Competence Center Sustainability and Infrastructure Systems, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Breslauer Straße 48, Karlsruhe 76139, Germany
7
Align Consulting, 1134 Cross Creek Ct., Sheridan, WY 82801, USA
8
econsense—Forum for Sustainable Development of German Business, Oberwallstraße 24, Berlin 10117, Germany
9
The Life Cycle Group CyVi Institut des Sciences Moléculaires (ISM), Université de Bordeaux 1—UMR 5255 CNRS, 351 Cours de la libération—Bât A12, TALENCE cedex 33 405, France
10
Lulea Technical University, Luleå 971 87, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Academic Editors: Mario Schmidt and Benjamin C. McLellan
Resources 2016, 5(1), 12; https://doi.org/10.3390/resources5010012
Received: 15 December 2015 / Revised: 5 February 2016 / Accepted: 16 February 2016 / Published: 26 February 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Consideration of Abiotic Natural Resources in Life Cycle Assessments)
This paper captures some of the emerging consensus points that came out of the workshop “Mineral Resources in Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Mapping the path forward”, held at the Natural History Museum London on 14 October 2015: that current practices rely in many instances on obsolete data, often confuse resource depletion with impacts on resource availability, which can therefore provide inconsistent decision support and lead to misguided claims about environmental performance. Participants agreed it would be helpful to clarify which models estimate depletion and which estimate availability, so that results can be correctly reported in the most appropriate framework. Most participants suggested that resource availability will be more meaningfully addressed within a comprehensive Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment framework rather than limited to an environmental Life Cycle Assessment or Footprint. Presentations from each of the authors are available for download [1].
View Full-Text
Keywords:
abiotic natural resources; Life Cycle Assessment; minerals; mining; ore grades; reserves; resource availability; resource scarcity; safeguard subject; raw-materials
▼
Show Figures
Figure 1
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited
MDPI and ACS Style
Drielsma, J.A.; Allington, R.; Brady, T.; Guinée, J.; Hammarstrom, J.; Hummen, T.; Russell-Vaccari, A.; Schneider, L.; Sonnemann, G.; Weihed, P. Abiotic Raw-Materials in Life Cycle Impact Assessments: An Emerging Consensus across Disciplines. Resources 2016, 5, 12.
Show more citation formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
