Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate‐Change Mitigation Benefits Misleads Policy Makers

415 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

On the uncanny capabilities of consequential LCA (2014, methodology): “Plevin et al. (2014) adopt yet another simple and clean dichotomy in LCA: there are two different frameworks for performing LCA: attributional and consequential.”
Two sides of the same coin: consequential life cycle assessment based on the attributional framework (2016, methodology): “The reason I single out corn ethanol is that biofuels have played a key role in the debate between ALCA and CLCA (McManus and Taylor, 2015; Plevin et al., 2014), and corn ethanol is arguably the most contentious part of the discourse as reflected in multiple debates (Anex and Lifset, 2009; Babcock,…”
Attributional and consequential LCA in the ILCD handbook (2016, background): “…Manchester M13 9PL, UK 3 KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden 4 Aalborg University, Skibbrogade 5, 9000 Aalborg, Denmark 5 Ecoinnovazione, Via Guido Rossa 26, 35020 Ponte San Nicolò, Italy Dale and Kim 2014; Hertwich 2014; Plevin et al. 2014a, b, c; Suh and Yang 2014).”