1. MINNESOTA SUSTAINABILITY
PRACTITIONERS ROUNDTABLE
May 14, 2014

2. Agenda
11:30 Introductions and lunch
11:40 Welcome from Eliza Clark, Andersen
Corporation
11:50 LCA Overview, Dr. Tim Smith, NorthStar
Initiative for Sustainable Enterprise
12:30 Group discussion on LCA facilitated by Jill
Kolling, Paydirt
1:20 Upcoming events; group announcements
1:30 Optional tour
2:00 Adjourn

3. Mission
¨ To advance sustainable practices within large
organizations in Minnesota.

4. Objectives
¨ Facilitate candid dialogue centered
on advanced sustainability topics
¨ Provide a forum for sharing
resources and best practices
¨ Identify opportunities for new
solutions or collaborations
¨ Build connections between
sustainability practitioners

5. Format and Boundaries
¨ Quarterly event for sharing success stories and
facilitating large group discussions in a confidential
setting
¨ Invite-only
¨ One representative per organization; additional
participants dependent on topic
¨ Members should have decision making ability for
sustainability and an enterprise focus
¨ Charter members may preclude competitors from
joining
¨ Members are expected to attend and actively
participate, or send a substitute when needed

6. 2014 Roundtable Dates
¨ February 12 - Target
¨ May 14 – Science Museum of Minnesota
¨ September 17 – U of MN Landscape Arboretum
¨ November 12 - KPMG

7. Andersen – Science Museum Partnership
¨ Kitty Andersen Youth Science Center (KAYSC):
empowering youth to change the world through
science
¨ Engages over 100 youth annually in grades 7-12 in
out-of-school-time science programming
¨ In 1996, several Andersen Related Foundations made
a combined endowment contribution to KAYSC in Kitty
Andersen’s honor to support general operating funds.
Source: http://www.smm.org/kaysc/supporters
• 75% of
participants
are from low-
income
families
• 60% are girls
• 90% are
youth of color

8. Science House:
¨ Resource Center for Educators, where Minnesota's science teachers gain
access to the best in hands-on classroom science materials
¨ Designed to operate as a zero-emissions building (ZEB)
¨ Since energy monitoring began in February 2004, Science House has been
producing more energy than it uses on an annual basis
¨ Andersen Corporation contributed windows, doors and Fibrex™ material for
the exterior deck and interior ceiling
Source: http://www.smm.org/sciencehouse/about
Andersen - Science Museum Partnership

9. Raw
Material
Extrac.on
Intermediate
Material
Manufacture
Use
Recycling
End
of
Life
Finished
Product
Manufacture
Transporta.on
&
logis.cs/retail
Andersen’s Lifecycle Approach
9

10. Andersen’s LCA Experience
¨ Conducted two LCAs in 2010:
¨ Renewal by Andersen Double-Hung
¨ 100 Series
¨ Recently purchased GaBi LCA
software
¨ Participating in the development
of the Product Category Rule
(PCR) for windows
¨ Once PCR is approved, we will
have the ability to publish
Environmental Product
Declarations (EPDs)
Renewal by Andersen Double-Hung

11. environment.umn.edu/nise
Introduc)on
to
Life
Cycle
Assessment
Timothy
M.
Smith
Director
&
Associate
Professor
NorthStar
Ini.a.ve
(NiSE)
Bioproducts
&
Biosystems
Eng.
612-­‐624-­‐2648
.msmith@umn.edu

12. WHICH IS MORE SUSTAINABLE?
• most
commonly
made
from
co;on
(fossil-­‐fuel-­‐
intensive)
• co;on
growers
use
more
than
10
percent
of
the
world's
pes)cides
and
nearly
25
percent
of
the
world's
insec)cides
• most
are
woven
outside
the
U.S.
where
labor
is
less
costly
• Increased
fossil
fuels
in
transporta)on
• %#*&!,
forgot
it
again…
• made
of
polyethylene,
a
petroleum-­‐based
resource
• consumes
40%
less
energy
to
produce
than
paper.
• generates
80%
less
solid
waste
than
paper
bags
• can
take
1,000
years
to
decompose
• fewer
than
5%
of
plas)c
bags
are
recycled
• 60
to
80
percent
of
ocean
debris
is
plas)c
-­‐
poisoning
or
strangling
marine
life
• made
from
a
renewable
resource
(trees)
• hold
twice
the
contents
of
most
plas)c
bags
• takes
about
a
month
to
decompose
•
21%
of
paper
bags
are
currently
recycled

13. WHAT IS GREEN?

14. IMPACT CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PRIUS

15. LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: Quantification of Impacts

16. LCA BASICS:
WHAT GOES IN MUST COME OUT

17. LCA BASICS:
WHAT GOES IN MUST COME OUT
energy
cardboard
metal

18. LCA BASICS:
WHAT GOES IN MUST COME OUT
energy
cardboard
metal
Air
emissions
Solid
Waste

19. IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
Ecosystem
health
Human health
Resource
depletion
Social health
Oth. releases
Products
Coproducts
Emissions
Effluents
Solid wastes
Mat’ls
Energy
Water
Raw Material Acquisition
(Transportation)
Manufacturing
(Transportation)
Use/Reuse/Maintenance
(Transportation)
Recycle/Waste Management
(Transportation)
LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS – STEPS IN THE PROCESS
AND APPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS
INVENTORY ANALYSIS
IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT
Extend product life Reduce energy consumption
Evaluate substitute materials Improve process efficiencies
Improve distribution Improve collection efficiencies
Enhance use/durability Improve waste management
INITIATION
Purpose and
scope
System
boundaries
Data categories
Review
process

20. PAPER CLIP

21. PAPER CLIP LCA RESULTS

22. IMPACT CHARACTERIZATION

23. PAPER CLIP GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL

24. US
ECONOMY-­‐WIDE
WEIGHTED
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
X XXX X X X
Source: Suh 2011; economymap.org
X X

25. Input/Output
Ideal
Process
Bo;om
Up
Hybrid
Top
Down
Hybrid
LCA METHODOLOGIES

26. OUTSIDE-IN HOTSPOT APPROACH:
An Adaptation of Top Down Hybrid
Identify Hotspots: EE-IO
Compare Indicators:
Parameterized P- LCA
Scenario1Scenario2

27. GEMI SUPPLY CHAIN
SUSTAINABILITY TOOL
Objec.ve:
A
simple,
scalable,
open
and
interac.ve
tool
for
procurement
and
supply
chain
managers
to:
1)
guide
priori.es;
2)
measure
performance
of
sourcing
strategies.
Func.onality:
1. Iden.fy
CO2
and
water
use
“hotspots”
of
procurement/
sourcing
poraolios.
2. Quan.fy
“hotspot”
reduc.on
of
alterna.ve
environmental
acribute
scenarios.
3. Simulate
procurement
strategies
to
compare
environmental
performance
vis-­‐à-­‐vis
economic
costs/benefits.

28. Impact'
Category'
Source'
Virgin&fiber&
produc/on&
Power&genera/on&
and&supply&
Paper&and&
paperboard&mills&
Paperboard&container&
manufacturing&
End&of&Life&
Global'
Warming'
Poten7al'
EIO:LCA1' **& 42%& 32%& 5%& *&
PE'Americas'and'Five'Winds'Interna7onal.'(2009).'Life%Cycle%Assessment%of%U.S.%
Industry7Average%Corrugated%Product.' A46%& **& 54%& 17%& 22%&
Ross,'S.,'&'Evans,'D.'(2002).'Use'of'Life'Cycle'Assessment'in'Environmental'
Management.'Environmental%Management,'29,'132:142.'
4%***& 83%&
Water'
Deple7on'
EIO:LCA2' **& 30%& 37%& 0.43%& *&
Kirwan,'M.'J.'(2013).'Handbook%of%Paper%and%Paperboard%Packaging%Technology'
(2nd'Edi7on'ed.).'Chichester,'West'Sussex,'United'Kingdom:'Wiley:Blackwell.'
**& **& Blue&water& Blue&water&
Blue&
water&
Hotspots: the life cycle stages and inputs that have CO2 and H2O impacts larger than 10% of the life cycle impacts
1. Carnegie Mellon University. (2002). Results for paperboard container manufacturing, global warming potential. Retrieved September 9, 2013, from Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment -
Carnegie Mellon University: http://www.eiolca.net/cgi-bin/dft/use.pl
2. Carnegie Mellon University. (2002). Results for paperboard container manufacturing, water withdrawals. Retrieved September 9, 2013, from Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment - Carnegie
Mellon University: http://www.eiolca.net/cgi-bin/dft/use.pl
* Not included in the EIO-LCA system boundary
** Not found in the source
*** Net impacts offset by carbon sequestration in virgin fiber production
Sustainable Supply Chain Data Summary– Containerboard Packaging
Baseline Assumptions: U.S. and European average industrial practices
Hotspot system boundary
Raw&material&
extrac/on&
Transporta/on& Manufacturing& Distribu/on& Retail& Use& End&of&Life&
Life&Cycle&Stage& Parameter& Dataset& Unit&
Baseline&Inventory&Amount&
Source&Corrugated'
Board'
Paperboard'
Forest'
Produc7on'
(70%'from'SE,'
30%'from'PNW)'
Diesel' US:'Diesel,'combusted'in'industrial'equipment2' m3/m3'
so^wood'
2.57e:3'
USCLCI'2012;'
Kramer'2009'
Gasoline' US:'Gasoline,'combusted'in'equipment2' 2.26e:5'
Seedlings' US:'Seedlings,'at'greenhouse2'
pcs/m3'
so^wood'
5.27'
Nitrogen' US:'Nitrogen'fer7lizer,'produc7on'mix,'at'plant2'
kg/m3'
so^wood'
4.99e:1'
Phosphorus' US:'Phosphorous'fer7lizer,'produc7on'mix,'at'plant2' 8.58e:2'
Lubricants' US:'Dummy_Lubricants,'unspecified,'at'plant2' 3.69e:2'
Carbon'Dioxide' Carbon'dioxide'[Renewable'resources]2' 9.42e2'
Transport' Transport,'combina7on'truck,'avg.'fuel'mix'
Kgkm/m3'
so^wood'
1.2e5'
Manufacturing:'
Container:board'
Conver7ng'plant'
Kra^liner'
Manufacturing'Containerboard'Mill' Kg/kg'nsp'
4.76e:1' 7.22e:1'
PE'2009;'
EPA'2012'
Testliner' 2.56e:1' 3.89e:1'
Wellenstoff' 1.32e:1' 0'
Semi:Chemical' 2.45e:1' 0'
LPG'
US:'liquefied'petroleum'gas,'combusted'in'industrial'
boiler3' m3/kg'nsp'
1.17e:6'
PE'2009'
Natural'Gas' RNA:'Natural'gas,'combusted'in'industrial'equipment3' 2.87e:2'
Water' RER:'Tap'water,'at'user1.5'
kg/kg'nsp'
3.12e:1'
Starch' US:'Starch'(polyglucose)4' 1.18e:2'
Adhesives' US:'Polyvinyl'alcohol'(from'vinyl'acetate)'(PVAL)4' 7.94e:4'
Ink' RER:'Prin7ng'colour,'offset,'47.5%'solvent,'at'plant1' 8.47e:4'
Borax' US:'Sodium'borates,'at'plant1' 3.11e:4'
Sodium'Carbonate' US:'Soda,'powder,'at'plant3' 7.86e:4'
Coa7ngs' RER:'Coa7ng'powder,'at'plant1' 7.05e:4'
Wax' US:'Wax/Paraffins'at'refinery4' 4.74e:3'
Electricity'
(purchased)'
US:'electricity,'medium'voltage,'at'grid1'
MJ/kg'nsp'
4.24e:1'
Diesel' GLO:'diesel,'burned'in'building'machine1' 3.63e:2'
Heavy'fuel'oil'
RER:'Heavy'fuel'oil,'burned'in'industrial'furnace,'1'MW,'
non:modula7ng1'
4.63e:1'
Light'Fuel'Oil' RER:'heat,'light'fuel'oil,'at'industrial'furnace'1'MW1' 2.81e:1'
Landfill'
CH:'disposal,'municipal'solid'waste,'22.9%'water,'to'
sanitary'landfill1'
kg/kg'nsp'
3.73e:3'
Incinera7on'
CH:'disposal,'municipal'solid'waste,'22%'water,'to'
municipal'incinera7on1'
6.23e:5'
Hazardous'Waste'
Incinera7on'
CH:'disposal,'hazardous'waste,'25%'water,'to'
hazardous'waste'incinera7on1'
1.55e:6'
Baseline assumptions: 65% virgin (kraft and semi-chemical fluting), 35% recycled (testliner and wellenstoff),
1: EcoInvent
1.5: Modified EcoInvent (accounts for US electricity production)
2: USLCI
3: USLCI/PE
4: PE
nsp = net saleable product (including folded box and glue)
DOCUMENTATION: Hotspots, Baselines, Scenarios

29. COMPARING REDUCTION SCENARIOS
2. Provide
quan.ta.ve
“hotspot”
reduc.on
indices
for
environmental
acribute
scenarios
-­‐
connec.ng
market
signals
to
like
cycle
assessment-­‐
based
informa.on;
Results of “hotspot” reduction potential by attribute
scenarios for cereal and fruit juice categories (UMN 2013)
Recycled'
Paperboard'
(Primary)'
100%'
Plastic'
Cereal'Bag'
(no'box)''
100%'
Bioenergy'
(thermal)'
5%'
10%'
15%'
20%'
25%'
30%'
35%'
0%'
5%'
10%'
15%'
20%'
25%'
Grain'
Farming'
Manufacturing'
Packaging'
Life'Cycle'Stage'Hotspots'
30%'!'
Electrical'
EfJiciency'
30%'!'
Thermal''
EfJiciency'
Recycled'
Paperboard'
(primary)'
40%'
PLA'
cereal'
bag'
Recycled'
Cardboard'
(secondary)'
30%'!'
Thermal'
EfJiciency'
Best'Scenario'
~39%'reduction'
Worst'Scenario'
~7%'addition'
End'of'Life'
PLA'
cereal'
bag'
Baseline''
(no'environmental'
attributes'implemented)'
65%'of'total'
impact'
Total'GHG'Hotspot'Reduction'Potential'
'for'Wheat'Cereal'and'Orange'Juice:''
Best'Scenario'vs.'Worst'Scenario'
~21%'
reduction'
30%'
45%'
50%'
55%'
60%'
65%'
Orange'Farming'
Retail'
(Refrigeration)'
Wheat'Cereal' Orange'Juice'
69%'of'total'
impact'
70%'
75%'
80%'
85%'
90%'
100%'Wind'
electricity'
Organic'
5%'
Refrigerant'
Leakage'
Worst'Scenario'
~12%'reduction'
Best'Scenario'
~91%'reduction'
Precision'
Farming'
30%'!'
energy'
efJiciency'
(electricity)'
5%'
Refrigerant'
Leakage'
50%'Wind'
electricity'
~56%'
reduction'
100%'Wind'
electricity'
Organic'
Cumulative'%'reduction'in'total'
hotspot'impact'contribution'
Cumulative'%'addition'in'total''
hotspot'impact'contribution'

30. 5%#
10%#
15%#
20%#
25%#
30%#
35%#
0%#
5%#
10%#
15%#
20%#
25%#
Grain#
Farming#
Manufacturing#
Packaging#
Cumulative#%#reduction#in#total#
hotspot#impact#contribution#
Life#Cycle#Stage#Hotspots#
40%#
End#of#Life#
Baseline##
(no#environmental#
attributes#implemented)#
Cumulative#%#addition#in#total##
hotspot#impact#contribution#
65%#of#total#
impact#
30%#
45%#
50%#
55%#
60%#
65%#
Orange#Farming#
Retail#
(Refrigeration)#
Wheat#Cereal# Orange#Juice#
69%#of#total#
impact#
70%#
75%#
80%#
85%#
90%#
100%#Wind#
electricity#
Organic#
Best#Scenario#
~91%#reduction#30%#!#
energy#
efViciency#
(electricity)#
5%#
Refrigerant#
Leakage#
GHG
Scenario
Analysis
(Cereal
&
Fruit
Juice)

31. 5%#
10%#
15%#
20%#
25%#
30%#
35%#
0%#
5%#
10%#
15%#
20%#
25%#
Grain#
Farming#
Manufacturing#
Packaging#
Life#Cycle#Stage#Hotspots#
40%#
End#of#Life#
Baseline##
(no#environmental#
attributes#implemented)#
65%#of#total#
impact#
30%#
45%#
50%#
55%#
60%#
65%#
Orange#Farming#
Retail#
(Refrigeration)#
Wheat#Cereal# Orange#Juice#
69%#of#total#
impact#
70%#
75%#
80%#
85%#
90%#
100%#Wind#
electricity#
Organic#
5%#
Refrigerant#
Leakage#
Worst#Scenario#
~12%#reduction#
Best#Scenario#
~91%#reduction#
Precision#
Farming#
30%#!#
energy#
efViciency#
(electricity)#
5%#
Refrigerant#
Leakage#
Cumulative#%#reduction#in#total#
hotspot#impact#contribution#
Cumulative#%#addition#in#total##
hotspot#impact#contribution#
GHG
Scenario
Analysis
(Cereal
&
Fruit
Juice)

32. 5%#
10%#
15%#
20%#
25%#
30%#
35%#
0%#
5%#
10%#
15%#
20%#
25%#
Grain#
Farming#
Manufacturing#
Packaging#
Life#Cycle#Stage#Hotspots#
40%#
End#of#Life#
Baseline##
(no#environmental#
attributes#implemented)#
65%#of#total#
impact#
30%#
45%#
50%#
55%#
60%#
65%#
Orange#Farming#
Retail#
(Refrigeration)#
Wheat#Cereal# Orange#Juice#
69%#of#total#
impact#
70%#
75%#
80%#
85%#
90%#
100%#Wind#
electricity#
Organic#
5%#
Refrigerant#
Leakage#
Worst#Scenario#
~12%#reduction#
Best#Scenario#
~91%#reduction#
Precision#
Farming#
30%#!#
energy#
efViciency#
(electricity)#
5%#
Refrigerant#
Leakage#
50%#Wind#
electricity#
~56%#
reduction#
Cumulative#%#reduction#in#total#
hotspot#impact#contribution#
Cumulative#%#addition#in#total##
hotspot#impact#contribution#
GHG
Scenario
Analysis
(Cereal
&
Fruit
Juice)

33. 100%$
Bioenergy$
(thermal)$
5%$
10%$
15%$
20%$
25%$
30%$
35%$
0%$
5%$
10%$
15%$
20%$
25%$
Grain$
Farming$
Manufacturing$
Packaging$
Life$Cycle$Stage$Hotspots$
30%$!$
Electrical$
EfFiciency$
30%$!$
Thermal$$
EfFiciency$
Recycled$
Paperboard$
(primary)$
40%$
PLA$
cereal$
bag$
Recycled$
Cardboard$
(secondary)$ Best$Scenario$
~39%$reduction$
End$of$Life$
PLA$
cereal$
bag$
Baseline$$
(no$environmental$
attributes$implemented)$
65%$of$total$
impact$
30%$
45%$
50%$
55%$
60%$
65%$
Orange$Farming$
Retail$
(Refrigeration)$
Wheat$Cereal$ Orange$Juice$
69%$of$total$
impact$
70%$
75%$
80%$
85%$
90%$
100%$Wind$
electricity$
Organic$
5%$
Refrigerant$
Leakage$
Worst$Scenario$
~12%$reduction$
Best$Scenario$
~91%$reduction$
Precision$
Farming$
30%$!$
energy$
efFiciency$
(electricity)$
5%$
Refrigerant$
Leakage$
50%$Wind$
electricity$
~56%$
reduction$
100%$Wind$
electricity$
Cumulative$%$reduction$in$total$
hotspot$impact$contribution$
Cumulative$%$addition$in$total$$
hotspot$impact$contribution$
GHG
Scenario
Analysis
(Cereal
&
Fruit
Juice)

34. 100%$
Plastic$
Cereal$Bag$
(no$box)$$
100%$
Bioenergy$
(thermal)$
5%$
10%$
15%$
20%$
25%$
30%$
35%$
0%$
5%$
10%$
15%$
20%$
25%$
Grain$
Farming$
Manufacturing$
Packaging$
Life$Cycle$Stage$Hotspots$
30%$!$
Electrical$
EfHiciency$
30%$!$
Thermal$$
EfHiciency$
Recycled$
Paperboard$
(primary)$
40%$
PLA$
cereal$
bag$
Recycled$
Cardboard$
(secondary)$
30%$!$
Thermal$
EfHiciency$
Best$Scenario$
~39%$reduction$
Worst$Scenario$
~7%$addition$
End$of$Life$
PLA$
cereal$
bag$
Baseline$$
(no$environmental$
attributes$implemented)$
65%$of$total$
impact$
30%$
45%$
50%$
55%$
60%$
65%$
Orange$Farming$
Retail$
(Refrigeration)$
Wheat$Cereal$ Orange$Juice$
69%$of$total$
impact$
70%$
75%$
80%$
85%$
90%$
100%$Wind$
electricity$
Organic$
5%$
Refrigerant$
Leakage$
Worst$Scenario$
~12%$reduction$
Best$Scenario$
~91%$reduction$
Precision$
Farming$
30%$!$
energy$
efHiciency$
(electricity)$
5%$
Refrigerant$
Leakage$
50%$Wind$
electricity$
~56%$
reduction$
100%$Wind$
electricity$
Organic$
Cumulative$%$reduction$in$total$
hotspot$impact$contribution$
Cumulative$%$addition$in$total$$
hotspot$impact$contribution$
GHG
Scenario
Analysis
(Cereal
&
Fruit
Juice)

35. Recycled'
Paperboard'
(Primary)'
100%'
Plastic'
Cereal'Bag'
(no'box)''
100%'
Bioenergy'
(thermal)'
5%'
10%'
15%'
20%'
25%'
30%'
35%'
0%'
5%'
10%'
15%'
20%'
25%'
Grain'
Farming'
Manufacturing'
Packaging'
Life'Cycle'Stage'Hotspots'
30%'!'
Electrical'
EfJiciency'
30%'!'
Thermal''
EfJiciency'
Recycled'
Paperboard'
(primary)'
40%'
PLA'
cereal'
bag'
Recycled'
Cardboard'
(secondary)'
30%'!'
Thermal'
EfJiciency'
Best'Scenario'
~39%'reduction'
Worst'Scenario'
~7%'addition'
End'of'Life'
PLA'
cereal'
bag'
Baseline''
(no'environmental'
attributes'implemented)'
65%'of'total'
impact'
~21%'
reduction'
30%'
45%'
50%'
55%'
60%'
65%'
Orange'Farming'
Retail'
(Refrigeration)'
Wheat'Cereal' Orange'Juice'
69%'of'total'
impact'
70%'
75%'
80%'
85%'
90%'
100%'Wind'
electricity'
Organic'
5%'
Refrigerant'
Leakage'
Worst'Scenario'
~12%'reduction'
Best'Scenario'
~91%'reduction'
Precision'
Farming'
30%'!'
energy'
efJiciency'
(electricity)'
5%'
Refrigerant'
Leakage'
50%'Wind'
electricity'
~56%'
reduction'
100%'Wind'
electricity'
Organic'
Cumulative'%'reduction'in'total'
hotspot'impact'contribution'
Cumulative'%'addition'in'total''
hotspot'impact'contribution'
GHG
Scenario
Analysis
(Cereal
&
Fruit
Juice)

36. ASSESS ECONOMIC COSTS OF REDUCTIONS
3. Allow
managers
to
quickly
simulate
procurement
scenarios
to
compare
environmental
performance
vis-­‐à-­‐vis
economic
costs/
benefits.
Illustrative example; simulation results will be
dependent upon scenario reduction estimates
and user-specified information (price/kg, volume
purchased, alternative spending strategies, etc.)
Jones&et&al&(2008).&Consumer4Oriented&Life&Cycle&Assessment&of&Food,&Goods,&and&Services&
Variability)
Within)a)
Sector)
Subs3tutability)
between)
Sector)Spend)
•
•
Switching from all-pork to a 50/50
pork/chicken sourced sausage:
• Estimated CO2e reduction of 350-850
gCO2e /$(2007)
• @ $100,000 spend: 35,000-85,000
kgCO2e; ≈ 7-17 cars/year
• @ 6.5% price/kg discount: Switch
saves ≈ $.13/kgCO2e reduction.

37. PROCUREMENT PORTFOLIO DECISION
PROBLEMS
• Given
a
targeted
CO2
reduc.on
target,
what
alloca.on
of
purchases
minimizes
total
costs?
• Given
a
targeted
budget
(increase/decrease),
what
alloca.on
of
purchases
maximizes
total
CO2
reduc.ons?

38. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
• LCA
isn’t
perfect
– Costly,
sensi.ve
to
data
assump.ons
and
boundary
condi.ons,
etc.
• LCA
doesn’t
solve
problems
– Omen
surfaces
more
ques.ons
than
answers
– Informa.on
provided
is
uncertain
• LCA
is
necessary
if
decision
requires
a
quan.fica.on
of
impacts
across
process
stages.
• LCA
is
an
approach
not
an
absolute
truth

39. THANK YOU!
Contact Info:
Dr. Timothy Smith – timsmith@umn.edu