Novel research accounts for future impacts of greenhouse gas emissions

Novel research accounts for future impacts of greenhouse gas emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions from processes such as electricity generation and distribution will cause increased damage to society in future years. Credit: Colorado State University

Sustainability researchers and scientists conduct Life Cycle Assessments to understand the environmental impact of new products, initiating an opportunity to evaluate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions outputs. Until now, those assessments largely focused on today's greenhouse gas impacts. Now, mechanical engineering Ph.D. candidate Evan Sproul, former student Jay Barlow, and Associate Professor Jason Quinn have developed a new LCA method, allowing them to assess how the impact of greenhouse gas emissions change in the future.

Sproul, Barlow, and Quinn are the first to fill this gap in sustainability modeling, and were recently acknowledged by publication in Environmental Science & Technology. By accounting for time in their new LCA method, the team can to assess impacts of greenhouse gas emissions over the next 30 years, determining that 1 kg of carbon has a higher in the future than the present day, due to changes in atmospheric composition and economic considerations.

"Just like economic assessments use the time value of money, it's important that life cycle modeling adhere to the same time law so we can understand how emissions will impact our planet in the future," said Quinn.

This new LCA method could potentially transform the sustainability industry, allowing the field to stay ahead of the curve in predicting how emissions will impact our world and, as a result, develop the best technology to address it. "What we are doing is changing the way people think about carbon accounting. It has the potential to do the same thing the microbrewery industry did to the beer world or organic did to the food world," said Quinn.

Explore further

Reducing greenhouse gases while balancing demand for meat

More information: Evan Sproul et al. Time Value of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Life Cycle Assessment and Techno-Economic Analysis, Environmental Science & Technology (2019). DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b00514
Citation: Novel research accounts for future impacts of greenhouse gas emissions (2019, May 24) retrieved 23 October 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

May 25, 2019

"The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a lobby group in the United Kingdom whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[3][4] While their position is that the science of global warming or climate change is "not yet settled," the GWPF claims that its membership comes from a broad spectrum ranging from "the IPCC position through agnosticism to outright scepticism."[1] The GWPF as well as some of its prominent members have been characterized as promoting climate change denial.[5][6]"

[ https://en.wikipe...undation ]

Politicized science fact denial source, why would anyone read it when the article was about science? If it is criticism, it will come out in peer review.

Blocked for inane trolling.

May 25, 2019
Politicized science fact denial source;


May 26, 2019
Wikipedia is a great source for undisputed facts. However, Wikipedia is not a reliable source regarding anything contentious because its editorial process generally picks one side without a fair report of any other views. Global Warming is one of those one-sided presentations in Wikipedia.

What is politicized is that no one who professes to believe in AGW is advocating banning private jets and capping all old and new oil drilling sites that are leaking methane (a much more greenhouse gas). What that shows is that rich folks like Al Gore know that AGW is a croc of bankster crap. Their goal is to get you to believe you should tighten your belt and bear the loss of goods and services resulting from peak oil. The goal is to match falling supply with falling demand, so that price controls can hold oil cheap without shortages, benefiting consumer/banking nations at the expense of supplier nations. The goal is to make those decisions outside any meaningful, informed democratic process.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more