Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Livestock
Livestock & Forage
Methane
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="white_stuffed" data-source="post: 7724528" data-attributes="member: 1751"><p>This is an extract from the Levasseur et al report. I can use the logic here to push for sensitivity analysis in the Poore and Nemecek report. </p><p></p><p>594 we believe that this increased transparency about the hidden value judgements in LCA is critical to </p><p>595 ensure that an LCA actually serves the intended purpose.</p><p></p><p>600.... if they simply continue to rely on a ‘preferred’ metric, independently of its meaning and end user goals, this could lead to perverse outcomes. </p><p></p><p></p><p>601 For example, imagine a consumer keen to support the rapid reduction of CO2 emissions, consistent </p><p>602 with the finding by the IPCC that CO2 emissions have to drop to zero before 2100 to limit </p><p>603 warming to 2°C. </p><p></p><p>Faced with the choice of whether to purchase product A or product B, the </p><p>604 consumer will rely on the reported carbon footprint. But product A might have a very large CH4</p><p>605 component while product B may release almost exclusively CO2. </p><p></p><p>Product A may have a larger </p><p>606 carbon footprint in the metric that practitioners have decided to use, and the consumer would </p><p>607 therefore purchase product B, even though this results in greater CO2 emissions that lead to long term climate change.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="white_stuffed, post: 7724528, member: 1751"] This is an extract from the Levasseur et al report. I can use the logic here to push for sensitivity analysis in the Poore and Nemecek report. 594 we believe that this increased transparency about the hidden value judgements in LCA is critical to 595 ensure that an LCA actually serves the intended purpose. 600.... if they simply continue to rely on a ‘preferred’ metric, independently of its meaning and end user goals, this could lead to perverse outcomes. 601 For example, imagine a consumer keen to support the rapid reduction of CO2 emissions, consistent 602 with the finding by the IPCC that CO2 emissions have to drop to zero before 2100 to limit 603 warming to 2°C. Faced with the choice of whether to purchase product A or product B, the 604 consumer will rely on the reported carbon footprint. But product A might have a very large CH4 605 component while product B may release almost exclusively CO2. Product A may have a larger 606 carbon footprint in the metric that practitioners have decided to use, and the consumer would 607 therefore purchase product B, even though this results in greater CO2 emissions that lead to long term climate change. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Livestock
Livestock & Forage
Methane
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top