Climatic Change

, Volume 115, Issue 3–4, pp 759–776 | Cite as

Assessing temporary carbon sequestration and storage projects through land use, land-use change and forestry: comparison of dynamic life cycle assessment with ton-year approaches

  • Annie Levasseur
  • Pascal Lesage
  • Manuele Margni
  • Miguel Brandão
  • Réjean Samson


In order to properly assess the climate impact of temporary carbon sequestration and storage projects through land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), it is important to consider their temporal aspect. Dynamic life cycle assessment (dynamic LCA) was developed to account for time while assessing the potential impact of life cycle greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. In this paper, the dynamic LCA approach is applied to a temporary carbon sequestration project through afforestation, and the results are compared with those of the two principal ton-year approaches: the Moura-Costa and the Lashof methods. The dynamic LCA covers different scenarios, which are distinguished by the assumptions regarding what happens at the end of the sequestration period. In order to ascertain the degree of compensation of an emission through a LULUCF project, the ratio of the cumulative impact of the project to the cumulative impact of a baseline GHG emission is calculated over time. This ratio tends to 1 when assuming that, after the end of the sequestration project period, the forest is maintained indefinitely. Conversely, the ratio tends to much lower values in scenarios where part of the carbon is released back to the atmosphere due to e.g. fire or forest exploitation. The comparison of dynamic LCA with the ton-year approaches shows that it is a more flexible approach as it allows the consideration of every life cycle stage of the project and it gives decision makers the opportunity to test the sensitivity of the results to the choice of different time horizons.


Life Cycle Assessment Fire Scenario Baseline Emission Afforestation Project Sequestration Project 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors acknowledge Jean-François Boucher, Simon Gaboury, Achille-Benjamin Laurent, Claude Villeneuve and Jean-Robert Wells form Université du Québec à Chicoutimi for their advice and the industrial partners of the International Chair in Life Cycle Assessment (a research unit of CIRAIG) for their financial support: Alcan, Arcelor-Mittal, Bell Canada, Cascades, Eco-Entreprises-Québec/Recyc-Québec, Groupe EDF/GDF-SUEZ, Hydro-Québec, Johnson&Johnson, Mouvement des caisses Desjardins, RONA, Total and Veolia Environnement.

Supplementary material

10584_2012_473_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (34 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 34 kb)


  1. Amiro BD, Cantin A, Flannigan MD, de Groot WJ (2009) Future emissions from Canadian boreal forest fires. Can J Forest Res 39:383–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreae MO, Merlet P (2001) Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning. Global Biogeochem Cycles 15:955–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bala G, Caldeira K, Wickett M, Phillips TJ, Lobell DB, Delire C, Mirin A (2007) Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:6550–6555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergeron Y, Cyr D, Drever CR, Flannigan M, Gauthier S, Kneeshaw D, Lauzon E, Leduc A, Le Goff H, Lesieur D, Logan K (2006) Past, current, and future fire frequencies in Quebec's commercial forests: implications for the cumulative effects of harvesting and fire on age-class structure and natural disturbance-based management. Can J Forest Res 36:2737–2744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Betts RA (2000) Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo. Nature 408:187–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BSI (2008) PAS 2050:2008 Specification for the assessment of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards Institution, London, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  7. Chomitz KM (1998) The performance and duration issue in carbon offsets based on sequestration. World Bank Development Research Group, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Chomitz KM (2000) Evaluating carbon offsets from forestry and energy projects: How do they compare? World Bank Development Research Group, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. Clift R, Brandão M (2008) Carbon storage and timing of emissions. CES Working Papers, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of SurreyGoogle Scholar
  10. Courchesne A, Bécaert V, Rosenbaum RK, Deschênes L, Samson R (2010) Using the Lashof accounting methodology to assess carbon mitigation projects with life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 14:309–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dobes L, Enting I, Mitchell C (1998) Accounting for carbon sinks: the problem of time. In: Dobes L (ed) Trading greenhouse emissions: some Australian perspectives. Bureau of Transport Economics, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  12. ecoinvent database v2.2. (2010) Accessed 2 August 2010
  13. European Commission – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed Guidance. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  14. Fearnside PM (2002) Time preference in global warming calculations: a proposal for a unified index. Ecol Econ 41:21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fearnside PM, Lashof DA, Moura-Costa P (2000) Accounting for time in mitigating global warming through land-use change and forestry. Mit Adapt Strat Gl Change 5:239–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feng H (2005) The dynamics of carbon sequestration and alternative carbon accounting, with an application to the upper Mississippi River Basin. Ecol Econ 54:23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts R, Fahey DW, Haywood J, Lean J, Lowe DC, Myhre G, Nganga J, Prinn R, Raga G, Schulz M, Van Dorland R (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In: Solomon S, Quin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basic. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 129–234Google Scholar
  18. Gaboury S, Boucher JF, Villeneuve C, Lord D, Gagnon R (2009) Estimating the net carbon balance of boreal open woodland afforestation: a case-study in Québec's closed-crown boreal forest. Forest Ecol Manag 257:483–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. García-Oliva F, Masera OR (2004) Assessment and measurement issues related to soil carbon sequestration in land-use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) projects under the Kyoto protocol. Clim Change 65:347–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Groen T, Nabuurs GJ, Schelhaas MJ (2006) Carbon accounting and cost estimation in forestry projects using CO2FIX v. 3. Clim Change 74:269–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hauschild MZ (2005) Assessing environmental impacts in a life-cycle perspective. Environ Sci Technol 39:81A–88ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) The computational structure of life cycle assessment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  23. Hellweg S, Hofstetter TB, Hungerbühler K (2003) Discounting and the environment - Should current impacts be weighted differently than impacts harming future generations? Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:8–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. IPCC (2000) In: Watson RT, Noble IR, Bolin B, Ravindranath NH, Verardo DJ, Dokken DJ (eds) Land-use, land-use change and forestry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.KGoogle Scholar
  25. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and frameworkGoogle Scholar
  26. Joos F, Prentice IC, Sitch S, Meyer R, Hooss G, Plattner GK, Gerber S, Hasselmann K (2001) Global warming feedbacks on terrestrial carbon uptake under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emission scenarios. Global Biogeochem Cycles 15:891–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kirschbaum MU (2003) Can trees buy time? An assessment of the role of vegetation sinks as part of the global carbon cycle. Clim Change 58:47–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kirschbaum MU (2006) Temporary carbon sequestration cannot prevent climate change. Mit Adapt Strat Gl Change 11:1151–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Korhonen R, Pingoud K, Savolainen I, Matthews R (2002) The role of carbon sequestration and the tonne-year approach in fulfilling the objective of climate convention. Environ Sci Policy 5:429–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lashof D, Hare B (1999) The role of biotic carbon stocks in stabilizing greehouse gas concentrations at safe levels. Environ Sci Policy 2:101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Deschênes L, Samson R (2010) Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. Environ Sci Technol 44:3169–3174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marland G, Fruit K, Sedjo R (2001) Accounting for sequestered carbon: the question of permanence. Environ Sci Policy 4:259–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Menichetti E, Otto M (2009) Energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions of biofuels from a life cycle perspective. In: Howarth RW, Bringezu S (eds) Biofuels: environmental consequences and interactions with changing land use. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, USA, pp 81–109Google Scholar
  34. Micales JA, Skog KE (1997) The decomposition of forest products in landfills. Int Biodeter Biodegr 39:145–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ministère des Ressources naturelles, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec (MRNFP) (2003) Manuel d’aménagement forestier, 4th edn. Gouvernement du Québec, Québec, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  36. Moura-Costa P (2002) Carbon accounting, trading and the temporary nature of carbon storage. The Nature ConservancyGoogle Scholar
  37. Moura-Costa P, Wilson C (2000) An equivalence factor between CO2 avoided emissions and sequestration - description and applications in forestry. Mit Adapt Strat Gl Change 5:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Müller-Wenk R, Brandão M (2010) Climatic impact of land use in LCA - carbon transfers between vegetation/soil and air. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:172–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Munoz I, Campra P, Fernandez-Alba AR (2010) Including CO2-emission equivalence of changes in land surface albedo in life cycle assessment. Methodology and case study on greenhouse agriculture. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:672–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nebel B, Cowell S (2003) Global warming reduction potential of biomass based products: an example of wood products. 13th SETAC Europe Annual Meeting, Hamburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  41. Noble I, Scholes RJ (2001) Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol. Clim Policy 1:5–25Google Scholar
  42. Reijnders L, Huijbregts MA (2009) Climate Effects and Non-greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Transport Biofuel Life Cycles. In: Biofuels for Road Transport: A Seed to Wheel Perspective. Springer, London, UK, pp. 101–127Google Scholar
  43. Schwaiger HP, Bird DN (2010) Integration of albedo effects caused by land use change into the climate balance: should we still account in greenhouse gas units? Forest Ecol Manag 260:278–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shine KP (2009) The global warming potential - the need of an interdisciplinary retrial. Clim Change 96:467–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Taiyab N (2006) Exploring the market for voluntary carbon offsets. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  46. Tipper R, de Jong BH (1998) Quantification and regulation of carbon offsets from forestry: comparison of alternative methodologies, with special reference to Chiapas, Mexico. Commonw Forest Rev 77:219–228Google Scholar
  47. Udo de Haes HA, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild MZ, Hertwich EG, Hofstetter P, Jolliet O, Klöpffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer E, Müller-Wenk R, Olsen SI, Pennington DW, Potting J, Steen B (2002) Life-cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. SETAC Press, Pensacola, USAGoogle Scholar
  48. UNFCCC (2008) Report of the conference of the parties on its third session, held at Kyoto from 1 to 11 December 1997, addendum; FCCC/CP/1997/7/Add.1; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Accessed 9 July 2009
  49. USEPA (2009) Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, USA. Accessed 10 June 2009

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annie Levasseur
    • 1
  • Pascal Lesage
    • 1
  • Manuele Margni
    • 2
  • Miguel Brandão
    • 3
    • 4
  • Réjean Samson
    • 1
  1. 1.CIRAIG, Department of Chemical Engineering, École Polytechnique de MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.CIRAIG, Department of Mathematical and Industrial Engineering, École Polytechnique de MontréalMontréalCanada
  3. 3.Sustainability Assessment Unit, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Joint Research Centre, European CommissionIspra (VA)Italy
  4. 4.International Life Cycle AcademyBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations