Gasoline components

An Example Where the Interpretation is Critical: the Case of MTBE

When added to gasoline, MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) can:
• reduce ozone emissions by 15%
• reduce benzene emissions by 50%
• reduce carbon monoxide emissions by 11%
• but, MTBE is toxic to humans
Should we use MTBE?

Despite its potential benefits on air quality when added to gasoline, MTBE has some properties that can cause health problems. MTBE is much more soluble in water than most other components of gasoline. If it gets in the ground, it can travel faster and farther through groundwater. This makes it more likely to contaminate public water systems and private drinking water wells if gasoline is spilled on the ground or leaks out of underground storage tanks. Even fairly small amounts of MTBE in water can give it an unpleasant taste and odor, making the water undrinkable. MTBE also does not break down (biodegrade) easily. As a result, it is harder to clean up once contamination occurs.

Its use has declined in the United States in response to environmental and health concerns. In Europe and Asia is still being used.

Cradle to Cradle certified products

Val, han passat gairebé dos anys des de la darrera entrada. Però avui he llegit un article que val molt la pena. I ha estat llegir-lo i pensar: vés a mirar si el teu blog sobre LCA encara funciona. I si funciona, doncs enllaça-hi aquest article per a què no quedi en l'oblit. Així que aquí teniu:

Are Cradle to Cradle certified products environmentally preferable? Analysis from an LCA approach

. Author links open the author workspace.PereLlorach-Massanaa. Numbers and letters correspond to the affiliation list. Click to expose these in author workspaceb. Numbers and letters correspond to the affiliation list. Click to expose these in author workspaceOpens the author workspaceOpens the author workspace. Author links open the author workspace.RamonFarrenya. Numbers and letters correspond to the affiliation list. Click to expose these in author workspacec. Numbers and letters correspond to the affiliation list. Click to expose these in author workspace. Author links open the author workspace.JordiOliver-Solàa. Numbers and letters correspond to the affiliation list. Click to expose these in author workspacec

Highlights

•

There are many controversies surrounding the concept of Cradle to Cradle and other scientific approaches.

•

Cradle to Cradle requirements do not tackle the environmental aspects of products from a life cycle approach.

•

Cradle to Cradle does not guarantee environmental improvements for products that consume large amounts of energy during use.

•

Cradle to Cradle does not always distinguish environmentally preferable products.

Abstract

The Cradle to Cradle (C2C) certification has gained popularity amongst companies as a way to distinguish more environmentally friendly products. This article analyzes the C2C certification by determining how successful this eco-labeling scheme is in distinguishing environmentally preferable products in order to probe if the certification informs correctly to the consumer about the environmental performance of products. Furthermore, we identify for which product types the C2C certification really results in environmental impact reduction. First a review is done in order to detect the debilities, if any, of C2C. Secondly, the fact that C2C requirements do not tackle environmental aspects of products from a life cycle approach, and concentrates exclusively on raw materials and end of life phases, is further analyzed in depth. To do so, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) already published results for different product categories are used to determine if the life-cycle stages considered under the C2C approach coincide with the most relevant stages in terms of life-cycle environmental impacts. This helps ascertain if and when C2C can be considered an appropriate ecolabel.

It is concluded that for products with high-energy consumption during use, C2C does not guarantee relevant environmental improvements, since it does not account for a substantial part of the product's environmental impact. For these reasons, we argue that C2C is not always an appropriate scheme to distinguish environmentally preferable products.