Acta Christmas Tree Lca Final Report by Pe International

FinalReport
ComparativeLifeCycleAssessmentofan ArtificialChristmasTreeand aNaturalChristmasTree

for
AmericanChristmasTreeAssociation
WestHollywood,California by
PEAmericas
Boston,MA November2010
Contacts: SusanFredholmMurphy LauraMar SabineDeimling TorstenRehl MarcBinder NunodaSilva
PEAmericas 344BoylstonStreet Boston,MA02116,USA Phone +1[617]2474477 Fax +1[617]2362033 Email s.murphy@peinternational.com l.mar@peinternational.com n.daSilva@peinternational.com Internet www.peamericas.com
TABLEOFCONTENTS
1 PROJECT CONTEXT AND STUDY GOALS .................................................................................. 7 2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................................. 8 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 DEFINITION OF PRODUCT SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 8
2.1.1 2.1.2 Artificial Tree ....................................................................................................................... 8 Natural Tree ........................................................................................................................ 8
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION OVERVIEW .......................................................................................... 9 FUNCTIONAL UNIT.................................................................................................................. 9 STUDY BOUNDARIES ............................................................................................................ 10

2.4.1 2.4.2
SELECTION OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES ............................................................... 12

2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.2.1 2.5.2.2 2.5.2.3 2.5.3 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.6.4 2.6.5 2.6.6 2.6.7 2.6.8 2.6.9 2.6.10 2.6.11 Included Impact Categories .............................................................................................. 12 Common Excluded Impact Categories.............................................................................. 13 Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) ..................................................................................... 13 Toxicity.............................................................................................................................. 13 Fossil Fuel Depletion ........................................................................................................ 14 Normalization, Grouping and Weighting ........................................................................... 14 Artificial Tree Production ................................................................................................... 14 Natural Tree Cultivation .................................................................................................... 15 Transportation ................................................................................................................... 15 End-of-Life ........................................................................................................................ 16 Fuels and Energy Upstream Data .................................................................................. 16 Raw and process materials............................................................................................... 16 Co-product and By-product Allocation .............................................................................. 17 Emissions to Air, Water and Soil ....................................................................................... 18 Cut-off Criteria .................................................................................................................. 19 Data Quality ...................................................................................................................... 19 Exceptions ........................................................................................................................ 20
Technology Coverage ....................................................................................................... 11 Geographic & Time Coverage .......................................................................................... 11
2.6
DATA COLLECTION............................................................................................................... 14
2.7 2.8 2.9 3.1
SOFTWARE AND DATABASE .................................................................................................. 21 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 21 CRITICAL REVIEW ................................................................................................................ 21 ARTIFICIAL TREE.................................................................................................................. 24
3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 Manufacturing ................................................................................................................... 24 Finished Tree to Home ..................................................................................................... 30 Use Phase ........................................................................................................................ 30 Disposal (End-of-Life) ....................................................................................................... 30 Transport of Artificial Tree................................................................................................. 30 Tree Cultivation ................................................................................................................. 32 Cultivation Boundary Conditions ....................................................................................... 32 Seeds to Young Trees ...................................................................................................... 34 Mowing ............................................................................................................................. 35 Fertilization ....................................................................................................................... 36 Pesticide Treatment .......................................................................................................... 36 Post harvest treatment at farm .......................................................................................... 39 Baling ................................................................................................................................ 39 Carbon Uptake and Emissions During Cultivation ............................................................ 40 Finished Tree to Home ..................................................................................................... 40 Use Phase ........................................................................................................................ 41
3 LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY (LCI) ...................................................................................................23
3.2
NATURAL TREE.................................................................................................................... 31
3.2.1 3.2.1.1 3.2.1.2 3.2.1.3 3.2.1.4 3.2.1.5 3.2.1.6 3.2.1.7 3.2.1.8 3.2.2 3.2.3
PE Americas
Final Report: November 2010
3.2.4 3.2.4.1 3.2.4.2 3.2.4.3 3.2.5
End-of-Life ........................................................................................................................ 42 US Landfill Boundary Conditions ...................................................................................... 44 US Incineration Boundary Conditions ............................................................................... 45 US Composting Boundary Conditions .............................................................................. 45 Transport of Natural Tree.................................................................................................. 46
4 RESULT ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 48 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................. 48 END-OF-LIFE CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................... 48 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 49 PRIMARY ENERGY DEMAND FROM NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCES ......................................... 50
4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.3 4.6.1 4.6.2 4.6.3 4.7.1 4.7.2 4.7.3 4.8.1 4.8.2 4.8.3 4.9.1 4.9.2 End-of-Life Scenario A. 100% Landfill .............................................................................. 52 End-of-Life Scenario B. 100% Incineration ....................................................................... 52 End-of-Life Scenario C. 100% Compost ........................................................................... 52 End-of-Life Scenario A. 100% Landfill .............................................................................. 55 End-of-Life Scenario B. 100% Incineration ....................................................................... 55 End-of-Life Scenario C. 100% Compost ........................................................................... 55 End-of-Life Scenario A. 100% Landfill .............................................................................. 58 End-of-Life Scenario B. 100% Incineration ....................................................................... 58 End-of-Life Scenario C. 100% Compost ........................................................................... 58 End-of-Life Scenario A. 100% Landfill .............................................................................. 60 End-of-Life Scenario B. 100% Incineration ....................................................................... 60 End-of-Life Scenario C. 100% Compost ........................................................................... 61 End-of-Life Scenario A. 100% Landfill .............................................................................. 63 End-of-Life Scenario B. 100% Incineration ....................................................................... 63 End-of-Life Scenario C. 100% Compost ........................................................................... 64 Artificial Tree Manufacture ................................................................................................ 64 Natural Tree Cultivation .................................................................................................... 66
4.5
GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL (GWP)/ CARBON FOOTPRINT ................................................. 53
4.6
AIR ACIDIFICATION POTENTIAL (ACID RAIN POTENTIAL) ......................................................... 56
4.7
EUTROPHICATION POTENTIAL ............................................................................................... 58
4.8
SMOG POTENTIAL ................................................................................................................ 61
4.9
TREE MANUFACTURE & CULTIVATION ................................................................................... 64
4.10 TREE TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................................... 67 4.11 TREE STAND ....................................................................................................................... 70 4.12 TREE LIGHTS ....................................................................................................................... 72 4.13 TREES IN CONTEXT.............................................................................................................. 74 5 SENSITIVITY AND BREAK EVEN ANALYSIS............................................................................. 75 5.1 TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................................... 75
5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 End-of-Life A: 100% Landfill ............................................................................................. 75 End-of-Life B: 100% Incineration ...................................................................................... 77 End-of-Life C: 100% Compost .......................................................................................... 79 Summary of Break-Even Analysis .................................................................................... 81 4.10.1 Artificial Tree Transportation ............................................................................................. 67 4.10.2 Natural Tree Transportation .............................................................................................. 69
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 83 6.1 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 83

6.1.1 6.1.2 6.1.3 Artificial Tree ..................................................................................................................... 83 Natural Tree ...................................................................................................................... 84 Artificial Tree vs. Natural Tree .......................................................................................... 85
6.2
RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 85
7 APPENDIX - CRITICAL REVIEW REPORT.................................................................................. 87 8 APPENDIX - REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 90 9 APPENDIX - DESCRIPTION OF AGRARIAN MODEL ................................................................ 96 10 APPENDIX - LCIA DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................................. 98 PE Americas 2 Final Report: November 2010
10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5
PRIMARY ENERGY DEMAND ................................................................................................. 98 ACIDIFICATION POTENTIAL ................................................................................................... 98 EUTROPHICATION POTENTIAL ............................................................................................. 100 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL ........................................................................................... 102 PHOTOCHEMICAL SMOG CREATION POTENTIAL ................................................................... 103
11 ABOUT PE AMERICAS............................................................................................................... 107
PE Americas
LISTOFFIGURES
FIGURE 1: PROCESS FLOW FOR ARTIFICIAL TREE (LEFT) AND NATURAL TREE (RIGHT) ................................ 23 FIGURE 2: ARTIFICIAL TREE PRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 25 FIGURE 3: PRODUCTION OF ARTIFICIAL TREE COMPONENTS ..................................................................... 27 FIGURE 4: PRODUCTION OF BRANCHES .................................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 5: PRODUCTION OF TREE STAND AND TOP INSERT ....................................................................... 28 FIGURE 6: PRODUCTION OF TREE POLE ................................................................................................... 28 FIGURE 7: PRODUCTION OF METAL HINGE ................................................................................................ 29 FIGURE 8: PRODUCTION OF METAL FASTENER.......................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 9: PACKAGING OF ARTIFICIAL TREE .............................................................................................. 29 FIGURE 10: SYSTEM BOUNDARIES OF NATURAL TREE CULTIVATION .......................................................... 34 FIGURE 11: TIME BOUNDARIES AND SPECIFICATION OF NATURAL TREE CULTIVATION ................................. 35 FIGURE 12: PRE AND POST HARVEST TREATMENT AT FARM AND RETAILER DURING PRODUCTION PHASE ... 40 FIGURE 13: SYSTEM BOUNDARIES FOR END-OF-LIFE PHASE ..................................................................... 44 FIGURE 14: PED (NON-RENEWABLE) OF ARTIFICIAL VS. NATURAL CHRISTMAS TREE BY LIFE CYCLE STAGE ..................................................................................................................................................... 51 FIGURE 15: GWP OF ARTIFICIAL VS. NATURAL TREE BY LIFE CYCLE STAGE .............................................. 54 FIGURE 16: AP OF ARTIFICIAL VS. NATURAL CHRISTMAS TREE BY LIFE CYCLE STAGE................................ 57 FIGURE 17: EP OF ARTIFICIAL VS. NATURAL TREE BY LIFE CYCLE STAGE .................................................. 60 FIGURE 18: SMOG AIR OF ARTIFICIAL VS. NATURAL TREE BY LIFE CYCLE STAGE ....................................... 63 FIGURE 19: BREAKDOWN OF IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH ARTIFICIAL TREE PRODUCTION ........................... 65 FIGURE 20: BREAKDOWN OF IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCTION OF BRANCHES ............................... 65 FIGURE 21: BREAKDOWN OF IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL TREE CULTIVATION ............................. 66 FIGURE 22: TRANSPORTATION OF ARTIFICIAL TREE FROM FACTORY TO POINT OF USE ............................... 69 FIGURE 23: TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL TREE FROM FARM TO POINT OF USE ...................................... 70 FIGURE 24: COMPARISON OF CHRISTMAS TREE LIGHT ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION WITH UNLIT TREE LIFE CYCLES ......................................................................................................................................... 73 FIGURE 25: SENSITIVITY OF CONSUMER CAR DISTANCE, BREAK-EVEN YEARS (A) ..................................... 76 FIGURE 26: SENSITIVITY OF CONSUMER CAR DISTANCE, BREAK-EVEN YEARS (B) ..................................... 78 FIGURE 27: SENSITIVITY OF CONSUMER CAR DISTANCE, BREAK-EVEN YEARS (C) ..................................... 80 FIGURE 28: BREAK-EVEN NUMBER OF YEARS TO KEEP AN ARTIFICIAL TREE .............................................. 82
PE Americas
LISTOFTABLES
TABLE 1: TREE SYSTEM BOUNDARY INCLUSIONS AND EXCLUSIONS ........................................................ 11 TABLE 2: LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES, INDICATORS OF CONTRIBUTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, UNITS OF MEASURE, & BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS ........................................................................ 12 TABLE 3: US TRUCK SPECIFICATIONS ...................................................................................................... 16 TABLE 4: BY-PRODUCTS AND THEIR CONSIDERATION IN THIS STUDY .......................................................... 17 TABLE 5: RAW MATERIALS FOR ARTIFICIAL TREE ...................................................................................... 26 TABLE 6: ARTIFICIAL TREE TRANSPORTATION DISTANCES ......................................................................... 31 TABLE 7: INPUT PARAMETERS FOR MODELING OF SEEDLING PRODUCTION IN THE NURSERY....................... 36 TABLE 8: INPUT PARAMETER FOR MODELING OF NATURAL TREE PRODUCTION IN PLANTATION ................... 38 TABLE 9: INPUT PARAMETER FOR MODELING OF USE PHASE OF NATURAL CHRISTMAS TREE...................... 42 TABLE 10: NATURAL TREE COMPOSITION ................................................................................................. 43 TABLE 11: ASSUMPTIONS FOR END-OF-LIFE PHASE .................................................................................. 44 TABLE 12: US LANDFILL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 45 TABLE 13: US INCINERATION BOUNDARY CONDITIONS .............................................................................. 45 TABLE 14: US COMPOSTING BOUNDARY CONDITIONS .............................................................................. 46 TABLE 15: ASSUMPTIONS FOR NATURAL TREE TRANSPORT DISTANCES .................................................... 47 TABLE 16: LIFE CYCLE IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL TREES USED FOR ONE YEAR PRIOR TO DISPOSAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 49 TABLE 17: PED (NON-RENEWABLE) OF ARTIFICIAL VS. NATURAL CHRISTMAS TREE BY LIFE CYCLE STAGE. 51 TABLE 18: GWP OF ARTIFICIAL VS. NATURAL CHRISTMAS TREE BY LIFE CYCLE STAGES............................ 53 TABLE 19: AP OF ARTIFICIAL VS. NATURAL CHRISTMAS TREE BY LIFE CYCLE STAGE ................................. 57 TABLE 20: EP OF ARTIFICIAL VS. NATURAL CHRISTMAS TREE BY LIFE CYCLE STAGE ................................. 59 TABLE 21: SMOG AIR OF ARTIFICIAL VS. NATURAL CHRISTMAS TREE BY LIFE CYCLE STAGE ....................... 62 TABLE 22: IMPACT OF BALING CHRISTMAS TREE ....................................................................................... 67 TABLE 23: COMPARISON OF THE NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL TREE STANDS ................................................. 71 TABLE 24: TREE STAND AS FRACTION OF OVERALL TREE LIFE CYCLE ....................................................... 72 TABLE 25: GWP IMPACTS COMPARED TO US PER CAPITA EMISSIONS ...................................................... 74 TABLE 26: GWP SENSITIVITY OF CONSUMER CAR DISTANCE, BREAK EVEN YEARS (A) .............................. 77 TABLE 27: GWP SENSITIVITY OF CONSUMER CAR DISTANCE, BREAK EVEN YEARS (B) .............................. 79 TABLE 28: GWP SENSITIVITY OF CONSUMER CAR DISTANCE, BREAK-EVEN YEARS (C) ............................. 81
PE Americas
ABBREVIATIONS
a AP C CO2 CH4 d dm EoL EP EPA equiv. fm GaBi G&S GWP h H+ ha Hu IPCC ISO K2O kg kWh LCA LCI LCIA m MJ mol N N2O NH3 NO3 NOx OPP P2O5 PEA PED POCP SI SOx Tbsp. TRACI u US Year(365days) AcidificationPotential Carbon(molarmass12u) Carbondioxide(Cx16/12) Methane(Cx44/12) Day(24hours) Drymatter(waterfree) EndofLife EutrophicationPotential EnvironmentalProtectionAgency Equivalent Freshmatter(e.g.40%watercontent) GanzheitlichenBilanzierung(Germanforholisticbalancing) GoalandScope GlobalWarmingPotential Hour(1/24thday) Hydrogenion Hectare,10000m2 LowerHeatingValue(MJ) IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange InternationalOrganizationforStandardization PotassiumOxide(Kxfactor1.205) Kilogram,1000g(SIunitofmass) Kilowatthour(kW*h) LifeCycleAssessment LifeCycleInventory LifeCycleImpactAssessment Meter MegaJoule,energyunit(3.6xkWh) mole;anSIunitapproximatelyequalto6.022x1023atoms nitrogen(atomic,molarmass=14u) Nitrousdioxide(Nx44/14) Ammonia(Nx17/14) Nitrate (Nx62/14) Nitrogenoxides OrientedPolypropylene Phosphatepentoxide(Pxfactor2.291) PEAmericas PrimaryEnergyDemand Photochemicaloxidantcreationpotential InternationalSystemofUnits Sulfurdioxides Tablespoon(unitofvolume) ToolfortheReductionandAssessmentofChemicalandotherenvironmentalimpacts UnifiedAtomicMassUnit(1u=1,660,538,782x1027kg) UnitedStatesofAmerica
6 Final Report: November 2010
PE Americas
1 PROJECTCONTEXTANDSTUDYGOALS
TheAmericanChristmasTreeAssociation(ACTA)isinterestedinunderstandingthecradle tograveenvironmentalimpactsofartificialandnaturalChristmastreesthataresoldand usedintheUnitedStates.Toaccomplishthis,theAmericanChristmasTreeAssociationhas engaged PE Americas (PEA) to conduct a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) that compares the most common artificial tree and the most common natural tree across a range of environmental impacts. PEA is an independent consultancy with extensive experience in conductingLCAstudiesandfacilitatingcriticalstakeholderreviewprocesses. TheACTAisanindustryassociationwithmanymembersoftheartificialtreeindustry.This comparativestudyisexpectedtobereleasedtothepublicbytheACTAtorefutemythsand misconceptionsabouttherelativedifferenceinenvironmentalimpactbyrealandartificial trees. The findings of the study are intended to be used as a basis for educated external communication and marketing aimed at the American Christmas tree consumer. As required by the ISO 14040series standards, for the public dissemination of comparative LCAsathirdpartycriticalreviewpanelhasbeenaskedtoverifytheLCAresults. ThegoalofthisLCAistounderstandtheenvironmentalimpactsofboththemostcommon artificialChristmastreeandthemostcommonnaturalChristmastree,andtoanalyzehow their environmental impacts compare. To enable this comparison, a cradletograve LCA was conducted of the most commonly sold artificial and the most commonly sold natural ChristmastreeintheUnitedStates. Understanding that there are a wide range of Christmas tree products available (for both naturalandartificialtrees),thestudygoaldoesnotincludethecomparisonofeveryspecies of natural tree to every model of artificial tree available on the market. It also does not comparetheaverageartificialtreetotheaveragenaturaltree.Rather,thetwoproductsare chosenbecausetheyarethemostcommonartificialandnaturalChristmastreepurchased intheUnitedStates. NotethatthetwoChristmastreesmodeledinthisstudyarenotcomparableinappearance or physical properties (weight, fullness, character). It is understood that the consumers decisiontopurchaseanartificialtreeoranaturaltreeisbasedprimarilyonfactorssuchas tradition,convenience,maintenance,andgeography.Becauseofthis,andbecausethereis already a division between artificial and natural tree owners, it is not expected that consumers will compare a similar looking artificial and natural trees. Rather, data shows whichtreesaremostcommonamongthenaturaltreeconstituencyandtheartificialtree constituency.
PE Americas
2 SCOPEOFTHESTUDY
Thefollowingsectiondescribesthegeneralscopeoftheprojecttoachievethestatedgoals. Thisincludestheidentificationofthespecificproductsthatwereassessed,thesupporting product systems, the boundaries of the study, the allocation procedures, and the cutoff criteriaused.
2.1 DefinitionofProductSystems
ThisLifeCycleAssessment(LCA)evaluatesthecompletelifecycleenvironmentalimpactsof thefollowingtwoproductsystems,whichrepresentthemostcommonartificialandnatural ChristmastreepurchasedintheUnitedStates.
2.1.1
ArtificialTree
The most commonly purchased artificial tree is manufactured at a large facility in China. Primary plant data for the manufacturing of this tree were collected in 2009. After manufacturing,thetreeisshippedtotheUSandisdistributedbyamajorbigboxretailer. Theartificialtreeincludingthetreestandismadeofmetalandplasticparts,is6.5fttall, andweighs5.1kg(11.2lb)outofthebox. AccordingUSA TRADE 2009,over10millionartificialtreeshavebeenimportedtotheUnited Stateseachyearfortheyears20052008.AccordingtheACTA,ofthis10million,4million are6.5fttrees,and2million(orroughly20%)ofthetreessoldintheUSarethesameSKU asthetreemodeledinthisstudy.Therefore,thisstudymodelstheenvironmentalimpact of the most common artificial tree, which represents approximately 20% of the US artificialtreemarket. Similar models to this artificial tree are sold at other major big box retailers making this artificialtreeextremelyrepresentative.
2.1.2
NaturalTree
ThemostcommonlypurchasednaturaltreeisaFraserfir(NIX 2010).Thistreeismodeled usingliteratureandindustrydatafora6.5ftChristmastreecultivatedonwholesalenatural treefarms,anddistributedtotheconsumerthroughlargeretailers.Thenaturaltreehasa drymassof6kg,andatotalmassof15kgwithawatercontentof60%.Theaccompanying treestandis10%metaland90%plastic.Therefore,thisstudymodelstheenvironmental impact of an Americangrown Fraser fir, the most common natural tree grown in the UnitedStates.
PE Americas
2.2 SystemDescriptionOverview
The environmental indicators analyzed in this study include: Primary Energy Demand, GlobalWarmingPotential,Eutrophication,AcidificationandSmog.Environmentalindicators arecalculatedfortheartificialtreeandcomparedtothenaturaltreeforthreescenarios: 1year: Assuming the artificial tree is only used for one year, the comparative natural tree scenario is the use of one natural tree. This scenario includes the production of 1/10th of a natural tree stand, assuming the tree stand will last ten years. The artificial tree stand is assumed to have a lifetime equal to that of the artificialtreeinallscenarios. 5year: Assuming the artificial tree is used for five years before disposal, the comparativenaturaltreescenarioisthepurchaseofanewnaturaltreeeveryyear for five years or in total, five natural trees over five years. This scenario includes 5/10thofanaturaltreestand,assumingthetreestandwilllasttenyears. 10year: Assuming the artificial tree is used for ten years before disposal, the comparativescenarioisthepurchaseofanewnaturaltreeeveryyearfortenyears orintotal,tennaturaltreesovertenyears.Thisscenarioincludesonenaturaltree stand,assumingthetreestandwilllasttenyears.
Notethatfortheartificialtree,thetreestandisincludedintheproduct,andisassumedto havealifetimeequaltothatoftheartificialtree.Forcomparisonpurposes,thenaturaltree model includes a Christmas tree stand that is purchased separately by the user. It is assumed that the natural tree stand will last for 10 years. Therefore the impacts of the naturaltreestandareallocatedbasedonthenumberofyearstheartificialtreeiskept.For instance, in the 1year scenario, 1/10th of the tree stand impact is included in the overall naturaltreelifecycle.Adetailedbreakdownofimpactsissummarizedinthisreportforthe artificialtreeandforthe1yearscenarioforthenaturaltree.The5yearand10yearnatural tree scenarios are scaled from the 1year baseline, such that relative impacts will be consistent between the three natural tree scenarios. Additionally, sensitivity analyses are performedbyvaryingkeyparameterstotesttheirsignificancetothemodel.
2.3 FunctionalUnit
Allimpactswererelatedtothefunctionalunit,whichisdisplayingoneunlit,undecorated Christmastreewithtreestandinthehomeduringoneholidayseason. Although the most common artificial tree sold is a prelit tree, the material and impacts associated with the lights have been removed from the study boundaries. It is assumed that the lighting and decorations on each tree would be equivalent, and are therefore excludedfromthestudy.
PE Americas
2.4 StudyBoundaries
This study includes the cradletograve environmental impacts of producing and using a Christmastreeinthehomeduringoneholidayseason. Fortheartificialtreethesystemboundaryincludes: Cradletogatematerialenvironmentalimpacts; TheproductionoftheartificialtreewithtreestandinChina; TransportationofthetreeandstandtoaUSretailer,andsubsequentlyacustomers home;and Disposalofthetreeandallpackaging. Forthenaturaltree,thesystemboundaryincludes: Cradletogatematerialenvironmentalimpacts; Cultivationincludinginitialgrowthofthetreeinanursery,transplantoftheseedling tothefield,harvestingthefullsizetree,andpostharvesttreatmentofthetree; Transportationfromthefarmtoretailer,andsubsequentlytoacustomershome; Usephasewatering; Disposalofthetreeandallpackaging;and Cradletograveimpactsofanaturaltreestand. Both tree models include all impacts associated with the upstream production of all materialsandenergyused. Foreground datasets used in this assessment do not account for production and maintenanceofinfrastructure(streets,buildingsandmachinery).Thatmeansthatimpacts associated with building and maintaining infrastructure were excluded. In other words, mechanicalprocessingonfarmsaccountsforfuelusebutnotproductionormaintenanceof the tractor. Odor, biodiversity aspects, noise and human activities are also excluded from thesystemanalysis. Additionally,overheadwarehouseandretailimpactsareexcludedfromthisstudy.Theonly impactincludedattheretaileristhedisposalofshipmentpackaging. Table1summarizeswhatisincludedandexcludedinthisstudy.
PE Americas
10
Table1:TreeSystemBoundaryInclusionsandExclusions
Inclusions Production/Cultivationofrawmaterials Energyproduction Processingofmaterials Operationofprimaryproduction equipment Transportofrawmaterialsandfinished products Packagingofproducts EndofLifetreatmentforallmaterials Exclusions Constructionofcapitalequipment Maintenanceandoperationofsupport equipment HumanLabor Manufactureandtransportofpackaging materialsnotassociatedwithfinalproduct Internaltransportationofmaterialswithin productionfacilities Overheadheatingandlightingof manufacturingfacilities,warehouses,and retailstores.
Additional details describing the modeled contents of each stage in the life cycle are includedinSection3:LifeCycleInventory(LCI).
2.4.1
TechnologyCoverage
Themostrecentlyavailabledatawereusedtomodelboththeartificialtreeandthenatural tree.Theartificialtreewasmodeledusingdatacollectedduringthe2009seasonproduction runofthe mostcommonlypurchasedartificialtreeintheUSmarket,producedatoneof the largest Chinese artificial tree factories. The natural tree was modeled using published literature describing the production of a Fraser fir, the most commonly sold natural tree. Forupstreamrawmaterialproduction,fuelsandpower,averageindustryorUSnationalor regionalmixprofilesfromtheGaBidatabases2006forlifecycleengineeringdatabasewere utilized. Additional details on the datasets used to represent each of these upstream processesareprovidedinChapter3.
2.4.2
Geographic&TimeCoverage
Formanufacturingoftheartificialtree,theelectricitygridmixandfueldatasetsusedinthe modelrepresentChineseboundaryconditions.FortheUSdistribution,use,anddisposalof artificial trees, all background datasets chosen are based on US boundary conditions. For the natural tree, all background datasets are based on US boundary conditions with cultivationofthetreeonanaturaltreefarm. ThisstudyevaluatesChristmastreesusedintheUnitedStatesintheyears20032009.The artificial trees are modeled using primary data collected in 2009. Data describing natural tree production in 2009 was not available at the time of this study; therefore the most recentpublisheddataavailable(20032008)wereusedinthismodel.
PE Americas
11
2.5 SelectionofImpactAssessmentCategories
The US EPA TRACI (Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other Environmental Impacts) impact assessment methodology was chosen because the geographical coverage of this study is the United States, and the TRACI methodology was developed specifically for US environmental conditions. Since TRACI does not include an indexfortheconsumptionofrenewableorfossilenergysources,PrimaryEnergyDemandis included as an additional environmental indicator. Specifically this study looks at Primary Energyfromnonrenewableresources,asthisismoreimportantenvironmentallythantotal PrimaryEnergyDemand.NotethatPrimaryEnergyDemandisnotanenvironmentalimpact categorybutisincludedinthissectionasitisalsoasumvalueindicatingthetotalamount ofenergyextractedfromearthorbasedonrenewableresources.
2.5.1
IncludedImpactCategories
Use of fossil energy sources and Global Warming Potential are included in the study because of their growing importance to the global environmental and political/economic realm. Acidification, Eutrophication, Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential/ Smog are included because they reflect the environmental impact of regulated and additional emissions of interest by industry and the public, e.g. SO2, NOX, CO, and hydrocarbons. These categories have been used as key indicators to determine the environmental performanceofthedifferenttrees.Ashortdescriptionofeachimpactcategoryisshownin Table2. Table2:Lifecycleimpactassessmentcategories,indicatorsofcontributionto environmentalissues,unitsofmeasure,&briefdescriptions
ImpactCategory (issue) EnergyUse Indicator Primary Energy Demand,non renewable (PED) Description Ameasureofthetotal amountofnonrenewable primaryenergyextracted fromtheearth.PEDis expressedinenergydemand fromnonrenewable resources(e.g.petroleum, naturalgas,etc.).Efficiencies inenergyconversion(e.g. power,heat,steam,etc.)are takenintoaccount. Unit MJ Reference Anoperationalguideto theISOstandards(Guine etal.)Centrefor Milieukunde(CML), Leiden2001.
PE Americas
12
ImpactCategory (issue) ClimateChange
Indicator Global Warming Potential (GWP)
Description
Unit
Reference IntergovernmentalPanel onClimateChange(IPCC). ClimateChange2001:The ScientificBasis. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniversity Press,2001. Bareetal.,TRACI:the ToolfortheReduction andAssessmentof ChemicalandOther EnvironmentalImpacts JIE,MITPress,2002.
Ameasureofgreenhousegas kgCO2 equivalent emissions,suchasCO2and methane.Theseemissions arecausinganincreaseinthe absorptionofradiation emittedbytheearth, magnifyingthenatural greenhouseeffect. kg Nitrogen equivalent
Eutrophication
Eutrophication Ameasureofemissionsthat Potential causeeutrophyingeffectsto theenvironment.The eutrophicationpotentialisa stoichiometricprocedure, whichidentifiesthe equivalencebetweenNand Pforbothterrestrialand aquaticsystems Acidification Potential Ameasureofemissionsthat causeacidifyingeffectsto theenvironment.The acidificationpotentialis assignedbyrelatingthe existingS,N,andhalogen atomstothemolecular weight. Ameasureofemissionsof precursorsthatcontributeto lowlevelsmog,producedby thereactionofnitrogen oxidesandVOCsunderthe influenceofUVlight.
Acidification
molH+ equivalent
Bareetal.,TRACI:the ToolfortheReduction andAssessmentof ChemicalandOther EnvironmentalImpacts JIE,MITPress,2002.
Smog
Photo chemical Oxidant Potential (POCP)
kgNOx equivalent
Bareetal.,TRACI:the ToolfortheReduction andAssessmentof ChemicalandOther EnvironmentalImpacts JIE,MITPress,2002.
2.5.2
CommonExcludedImpactCategories
Thefollowingimpactcategoriesarenotincludedinthisstudy. 2.5.2.1 OzoneDepletionPotential(ODP) ODP has not been selected as it is only relevant once cooling fluid is consumed in a high quantity.Asthisisnotthecaseineithermanufacturingprocess,ODPhasnotbeenincluded inthereport. 2.5.2.2 Toxicity In 2004 a group of environmental leaders released a report, the Apeldoorn Declaration (Ligthart et al 2004), describing the shortcomings of toxicity and hazard characterization
PE Americas
13
withinLCA.Asperthisdeclaration,itisthepositionofthisstudythateventhoughLCIAcan use models and methodologies developed for Risk Assessments, LCA is designed to compare different products and systems and not to predict the maximal risks associated withsinglesubstances.Humanandecotoxicologyresultsarebestsuitedtocaseandsite specificstudiesthataccuratelymodeldispersionpathways,rates,andreceptorconditions. Asaresultofthisdeclaration,theLCIAcategoriesofhumanhealthtoxicity(cancerandnon cancer)andecologicaltoxicitywerenotincludedinthestudy. 2.5.2.3 FossilFuelDepletion ThisimpactcategorywillnotbeincludedaspartofthisstudyasthenonrenewablePrimary Energy Demand (PED) indicator will succinctly communicate the impact of fossil fuel depletion through nonrenewable energy consumption. In addition, the endpoint methodology is not readily understood by a variety of audiences, technical and non technicalalike.
2.5.3
Normalization,GroupingandWeighting
Additional optional Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) steps include normalization, grouping and weighting. Due to uncertainties associated with the incongruence between thenormalizationboundaryassociatedwithreadilyavailabledatasetsandtheboundaryof impact 1 ,normalizationwasnotincludedaspartofthisstudy.Further,duetothesubjective nature of grouping impact categories and/or applying valuebased weights, the impact resultsthatareincludedarecommunicatedindisaggregatedform.
2.6 DataCollection
In modeling a product system, it helps to consider the foreground system and the backgroundsystemseparately.Fortheforegroundsystem,primarydatafromtheartificial tree manufacturing plant in China and published literature describing natural tree production in the United States was collected. For all background data (production of materials,energycarriers,services,etc.)theGaBidatabases2006wereused.Inmodeling, theproductflowsoftheforegroundsystemareconnectedtothebackgrounddatasetsof therespectiveproducts.Indoingso,thequantitiesofthebackgrounddatasetsarescaledto theamountrequiredbytheforegroundsystem.
2.6.1
ArtificialTreeProduction
Data for the production and transportation of an artificial tree were collected for a manufacturingfacilityinChina.Atthisplant,Christmastreesandstandsareproducedinthe summer and then shipped to the US for distribution and sale during the winter holiday season.ThisplantisoneofthelargestChineseartificialtreemanufacturers.Productionline data was collected from equipment dedicated to tree production by an ACTA member
1
Forexampleinpracticethenormalizationboundaryistypicallyageographicalboundarythatisdetermined byapoliticalboundary,suchasacountry.However,incongruenceoccursassomeimpactcategoriesexpress potential impacts outside the political boundary (GWP), as well as greatly exceed the boundary of impact (AcidificationPotential). PE Americas 14 Final Report: November 2010
duringthe2009summerproductionseason.Datawascollectedforaspecificartificialtree modelthatisthemostcommonartificialtreesoldintheUnitedStates.
2.6.2
NaturalTreeCultivation
USimpactsfromagriculturalproductiondependuponlocalconditionssuchasclimate,soil type,fertility,indigenouspestsandalsoonavailabletechnology(degreeofmechanization, use of fertilizers and pesticides, etc.). The data used for modeling a Fraser fir, the most commonly sold natural Christmas tree, were collected from literature, international electronic databases, and personal interviews. Mean values were derived from data comparisons.AnoverviewofthemainliteratureusedisgiveninSections3and 3.2.Data were calculated using the Agrarian Model within the LCA software GaBi 4 of PE International, which calculates environmental impacts of crop products by considering all relevant inputs and outputs. For more details on the Agrarian Model refer to Section 9: AppendixDescriptionofAgrarianModel.
2.6.3
Transportation
The GaBi database for transportation vehicles and fuels were used to model the transportationassociatedwithboththeartificialandnaturaltree.USaveragefuelswere used for all transportation within the US. Chinese fuels were used for all transportation withinChinaandoriginatingfromChina.ThetransportoftheartificialtreefromChinawas modeledusingaglobaltruck(factorytoport)andcontainership(ChineseporttoUSport). All truck transportation within the United States was modeled using the GaBi 4 US truck transportation datasets. In accordance with the US CENSUS BUREAU 2002, Vehicle Inventory andUseSurveyresults:

Seedlings(assumedtobesimilartograins)aretransportedinadumptruck; Wood and agriculture products (including cultivation intermediary steps) are transportedusingaUSflatbedorplatformtruck,howeverthefinishedtreesproduct aretransportedfromfarmtoretailerusingapole,logging,pulpwood,orpinetruck; FertilizersaretransportedusingaUSliquidorgastankertruck; WastesaretransportedusingaUSdumptruck;and Raw materials and artificial tree products are transported using a basic enclosed trailer.
Thevehicletypes,fuelusage,andemissionsforeachtruckmodelweredevelopedusinga GaBimodelbasedonthemostrecentUSCensusBureauVehicleInventoryandUseSurvey (2002)andUSEPAemissionsstandardsforheavytrucksin2007.The2002VIUSsurveyis the most current available data describing truck transportation fuel consumption and utilization ratios in the US, and the 2007 EPA emissions standards are considered by this studys authors to be the most appropriate data available for describing current US truck emissions.
PE Americas 15 Final Report: November 2010
For each modeled truck, the utilization ratio can be varied. The utilization ratio can be thoughtofeitherasthepercentageofmileswhilecarryingthemaximumcargoload,orthe percentageofthemaximumcargoloadwhichisbeingcarriedduringanaveragemile.The threetrucksusedinthismodelareasfollows: Table3:USTruckSpecifications
TruckType Pole,logging, pulpwood,orpipe Basicenclosedtrailer DumpTruck MaxCargo (lbs) 50,000 45,000 52,000 Milesper Gallon 5.25 6.06 5.64 Utilization Ratio 57% 78% 54%
The combination of cargo capacity and utilization ratio determines how much cargo is carried on the truck. For example, given that each natural tree weighs 15 kg, the model thereforeassumesthat861treesarecarriedoneachloggingtruck:(50,000lbx1kg/2.2lb) x0.57/15kg. Thetransportationbyconsumersinapassengercarofthetreefromaretailstoretotheir homeismodeledinGaBi4accordingtotheUSDepartmentofEnergyGREETmodelofUS caremissions.
2.6.4
EndofLife
Materialspecific(PVC,steel,pinetree,etc)GaBi4USlandfill,incinerationandcomposting datasetsareusedthroughoutthemodel.Thelandfillprocessesareusedforthedisposalof allwastesonthenaturaltreefarm,packagingwastesforbothtreesbyboththeretailerand enduser, and final disposal of both Christmas trees. The EndofLife treatment of the naturaltreeincludesincinerationandcompostinginadditiontothelandfillprocess.Credits forelectricityrecoveryfromlandfillmethaneemissionsandincinerationareincludedinthis model. PVC and steel artificial treeproduction waste streams in China are assumed to be recycled. More details on the EndofLife model are presented in Section 3.1.4 (for the artificialtree)and3.2.4(forthenaturaltree).
2.6.5
FuelsandEnergyUpstreamData
Nationalandregionalaveragesforfuelinputsandelectricitygridmixeswereobtainedfrom theGaBidatabases2006.ForactivitiesoccurringinChina,thefuelandenergymodelswere basedonChineseboundaryconditions.ForallactivitiesoccurringwithintheUnitedStates, nationalaverageelectricityandfueldatasetswerechosen.
2.6.6
Rawandprocessmaterials
LCIdataforallupstreamrawandprocessmaterialswereobtainedfromtheGaBidatabases 2006.
PE Americas
16
2.6.7
CoproductandByproductAllocation
A process, subsystem or system may produce coproducts in excess of the specified functionalunit.Suchcoproductsleavethesystemtobeusedinothersystemsyetshould carry a portion of the burden of their production system. In some cases materials leaving the system are considered free of burden. To allocate burden in a meaningful way between coproducts, several procedures are possible (e.g. allocation by mass, market value, heating value, etc.). Whenever allocation was necessary, the method was chosen basedupontheoriginalintentoftheprocessinneedofallocation.Forinstance,inthecase ofminingpreciousmetalswherethedesiredobject(e.g.gold)isonlyasmallfractionofthe totalmassofproductsproduced(e.g.gravel),itisillogicaltoallocatetheburdensofmining based upon mass. However, for transportation processes where the amount of cargo carriedpertripisdeterminedbyweightlimits,massallocationisappropriate. Inthisstudy,noallocationwasnecessaryforthemanufacturingprocessesassociatedwith the production of the trees as the artificial tree data were collected during the tree producingseasonfromequipmentdedicatedtotreeproduction.Allrecyclinganddisposal ofscrapmaterialsassociatedwiththeartificialtreeproductionisincludedinthemodel. Thebyproductsofthenaturaltreethatwereproducedinthesystem(stemwood,cutting, rootsystemandpruning)werealsoincludedinsidethesystemboundariesandassumedto be disposed in a landfill. In later stages of the life cycle, some byproducts occur (e.g. organicmaterial).Inthesecasesallocationisavoidedbysystemexpansion.Anoverviewof thebyproductsandthesubstitutedproductisgiveninTable4. Table4:ByproductsandtheirConsiderationinthisStudy
Productandpointofformation Assumptions NaturalTree SubstitutedProcess
EoLofNaturalChristmasTree (Incineration)
BurnedatIncinerator
Beneficiationofpowerfrom averagepowergridmixUS Beneficiationofsteamfrom USsteamfromnaturalgas
EoLofNaturalChristmasTree (Landfill) EoLofNaturalTreePackaging (plasticfilmforseedlings,seedling pot,stringforbaling,steeland plastictreestand) EoLofNaturalChristmasTreeStand
DisposalinLandfill MethaneObtainedfrom LandfillBody MethaneCombustion
Beneficiationofpowerfrom averagepowergridmixUS
PE Americas
17
Productandpointofformation EoLofArtificialTreePackaging (paperslipandplasticshrinkwrap forshipping,cardboardboxfor retail) EoLofArtificialTree
Assumptions ArtificialTree DisposalinLandfill MethaneObtainedfrom LandfillBody MethaneCombustion
SubstitutedProcess
Beneficiationofpowerfrom averagepowergridmixUS
Allocationofupstreamdata(energyandmaterials): For all refinery products, allocation by mass and net calorific value is applied. The manufacturing route ofevery refinery product is modeledand so theeffort of the production of these products is calculated specifically. Two allocation rules are applied:Therawmaterial(crudeoil)consumptionoftherespectivestages,whichis necessaryfortheproductionofaproductoranintermediateproduct,isallocatedby energy (mass of the product * calorific value of the product). The energy consumption (thermal energy, steam, electricity) of a process, e.g. atmospheric distillation,beingrequiredbyaproductoraintermediateproduct,arechargedon theproductaccordingtotheshareofthethroughputofthestage(massallocation). Materials and chemicals needed during manufacturing are modeled using the allocationrulemostsuitablefortherespectiveproduct.Forfurtherinformationona specificproductseehttp://documentation.gabisoftware.com/.
Emissionsassociatedwiththetruckandrailtransportationofcansandupstreamcanparts areallocatedacrossthevehiclescargobymass.
2.6.8
EmissionstoAir,WaterandSoil
Emissions data associated with the production of the artificial trees were determined by primary technical contacts familiar with specific plant operations, and literature for the natural trees. Data for all upstream materials and electricity and energy carriers will be obtainedfromtheGaBidatabases2006. Emissions associated with transportation were determined by modeling the modes of transportation and distances most likely to occur for each tree. Energy use and the associatedemissionswerecalculatedusingpreconfiguredtransportationmodelsfromthe GaBidatabases2006. Noemissionsareexpectedduringtheusestageofeithertree. EndofLife emissions were determined by the percentage of trees sent to landfill vs. incinerationorcomposting.
2.6.9
CutoffCriteria
The cutoff criteria applied in this study for including or excluding materials, energy and emissionsdataisasfollows: Mass If a flow is less than 2% of the cumulative mass of the model it may be excluded,providingitsenvironmentalrelevanceisnotaconcern. EnergyIfaflowislessthan2%ofthecumulativeenergyofthemodelitmaybe excluded,providingitsenvironmentalrelevanceisnotaconcern. Environmental relevance If a flow meets the above criteria for exclusion, yet is thought to potentially have a significant environmental impact, it will be included. Materialflowswhichleavethesystem(emissions)andwhoseenvironmentalimpact is greater than 2% of the whole impact of an impact category that has been consideredintheassessmentmustbecovered.Thisjudgmentwillbedonebasedon experienceanddocumentedasnecessary.
The sum of the excluded material flows must not exceed 5% of mass, energy or environmentalrelevance. The small quantities of chemical additives used with PVC during the artificial tree manufacturingprocessareexcludedgiventhesecriteria.
2.6.10 DataQuality
Data quality is judged by its precision (measured, calculated or estimated), completeness (e.g. are there unreported emissions?), consistency (degree of uniformity of the methodology applied on a study serving as a data source) and representativeness (geographical,timeperiod,technology).Tocovertheserequirementsandtoensurereliable results,firsthandindustrydataincombinationwithconsistent,upstreamLCAinformation from the GaBidatabases 2006 were used. This upstream information from the GaBi databases 2006 is widely distributed and used with the GaBi4 Software. These datasets have been used in LCAmodels worldwide for several years in industrial and scientific applications for internal as well as critically reviewed studies. In the process of providing thesedatasetstheyhavebeencrosscheckedwithotherdatabasesandvaluesfromindustry andscience. Precisionandcompleteness Precision:Detaileddataweremeasuredduringtheproductionoftopsellingartificial Christmas trees in 2009. The natural tree model is built upon the latest published literature describing Fraser fir production. The precision of each upstream dataset used is documented within the GaBi 4 software and available online at http://documentation.gabisoftware.com/.
PE Americas
19
Completeness: All relevant, individual flows are considered and modeled for each process.
Consistencyandreproducibility Consistency:Toensureconsistencyonlyprimarydataofthesamelevelofdetailand upstreamdatafromtheGaBidatabases2006areused.Whilebuildingupthemodel crosschecksconcerningtheplausibilityofmassandenergyflowsarecontinuously conducted. The provided primary data were checked by PE Americas. No inconsistencywasfound. Reproducibility:ThestudyresultsarereproduciblebyPEAmericasandtheArtificial Christmas Tree Association (ACTA) as the ACTA provided the details necessary to model the primary technology used in this study, and the models are stored in an internallyavailabledatabase.Fortheexternalaudiencereproducibilityislimitedto thedetailssharedinthisreportduetotheconfidentialnatureoftheartificialtree data.
Representativeness Timerelatedcoverage:Theartificialtreeproductionisbasedupon2009data.The natural tree production and all upstream datasets are based upon data from the years20022009baseduponavailability. Geographical coverage: The geographical coverage is the United States, with production of artificial trees in China. The natural tree model is based upon the growthofFraserfirtrees,butmayberepresentativeofthegrowthofothernatural ChristmastreesintheUnitedStatesaswell. Technological coverage: The most common processes for current production of bothnaturalandartificialtreeswereusedinthisstudy.
Uncertainty UncertaintyquantificationinLCAhastwodimensions:uncertaintyonflowlevel,and uncertaintyonprocesslevel,thelatterofwhichismorerelevant.Theuncertaintyat the process level is about appropriateness of the dataset for the intended application and representativeness of data sets in the systems life cycle. The quantificationoftheoveralluncertainty(numberorfigure)isnotcurrentlypossible in a reliable, scientifically defendable, and reproducible manner. Databases that quantifyuncertaintybasethefiguresonamixtureofsemiquantitativeapproaches andguesswork;thereliabilityofsuchuncertaintyfiguresisverylow.
2.6.11 Exceptions
Therearenoexceptionstothestatedscopeofthisstudy.
2.7 SoftwareandDatabase
The LCA model was created using the GaBi 4 software system for life cycle engineering, developed by PE International GmbH. The GaBi databases 2006 provides the Life Cycle Inventory data for several of the raw and process materials obtained from the upstream system.
2.8 AnalysisofResults
TheresultsoftheLCIandLCIAareinterpretedwithregardstothegoalandpurposeofthe project.Theinterpretationaddressesthefollowingtopics: Identification of significant findings, such as the primary materials and processes contributing to the overall results, and the potential contribution of emissions for mainimpactcategoriesinthecontextofthewholelifecycle. Evaluationofcompleteness,sensitivity,andconsistency,toconfirmtheinclusionor exclusionofdatafromthesystemboundariesaswellasthecutoffcriteriaanddata qualitychecksaredescribedinSection3and3.2. Conclusions,limitationsandrecommendationsincludingstatingtheappropriateness ofthedefinitionsofthesystemfunctions,thefunctionalunitandsystemboundary.
2.9 CriticalReview
The applicable ISO standards require a critical review in cases where a comparative assertionisbeingmadeandcommunicatedpublicly.Theprimarygoalsofacriticalreview aretoprovideanindependentevaluationoftheLCAstudyandtoprovideinputtothestudy proponentsonhowtoimprovethequalityandtransparencyofthestudy.Thebenefitsof employingacriticalreviewarethefollowing: To provide precise instructions in the numerous situations where documented approachesdescribedinappropriatereferencematerialsweredeficientofdetail; Identification and assurance that the most significant inputs and outputs of the systemstudiedareidentified;and Assure that the data collected, the models developed, and the sensitivity analyses performedareofsufficientquality,bothqualitativelyandquantitatively,toensure thatthesystemassessedistrulyrepresentedandsupportstheclaimsmade.
If applicable, the peer review panel can serve to comment on suggested priorities for improvementpotential.
PE Americas
21
Thepeerreviewpanelcommitteeconsistsofthefollowingexperts: HScottMatthews,Chair(CarnegieMellonUniversity) MikeLevy(AmericanChemistryCouncil) EricHinesley(NorthCarolinaStateUniversity)
PE Americas
22
3 LIFECYCLEINVENTORY(LCI)
The life cycle of the artificial and the natural Christmas tree were modeled in GaBi 4. Separatemodelsweredevelopedfortheartificialandnaturaltreeduetothedifferencesin production. Thelifecycleoftheartificialtreeandnaturaltreearedividedintofourcomparablephases (Figure1): 1. Manufacturing/Cultivation; 2. FinishedTreetoHome; 3. UsePhase 2 ;and 4. EndofLife.
Manufacturing
Cultivation
FinishedTreeto Home
FinishedTreeto Home
UsePhase
UsePhase
EndofLife
EndofLife
Figure1:ProcessFlowforArtificialTree(left)andNaturalTree(right)
Lightsanddecorationsareexcludedfromtheusephase;refertoSection2.3:FunctionalUnit. 23 Final Report: November 2010
PE Americas
3.1 ArtificialTree
The artificial tree process flow (Figure 2) is characterized below and detailed in the followingsections. 1. Manufacturing:Themanufacturingphaseincludescradletogatemanufacturing includingrawmaterials,productionofthecomponents,treeassemblyand packaging(shelfandshipment)inChina;and 2. FinishedTreetoHome:Thefinishedtreetohomephaseincludesatransportation phaseanddisposalofpackagingattheretailer: Transportation: transportation includes transportation of the artificialtree totheconsumershomeviaaretailstore.Thisincludestrucktransportation ofthepackagedtreefromtheChinesefactorytotheChineseport,shipment fromtheChineseporttotheUSport,truckingfromtheUSporttotheUS retail store, and personal car use between the retail store and the consumershome. Packaging disposal: Packaging disposal includes unpacking and disposal of theshipmentpackaging(recycledpaperslipandpolypropyleneshrinkwrap) attheretailer. 3. Use Phase: The use phase for the artificial tree models disposal of the tree shelf packaging(cardboardbox)inalandfill. 4. EndofLife (EoL): The EoL model consists of transport and disposal of the artificial treeatamunicipallandfill.
3.1.1
Manufacturing
Artificial trees are manufactured from three main components: polyvinylchloride (PVC) resin, polypropylene (PP) resin and steel sheets. The production involves a series of processesincludingmoldingandcuttingoftheplastic,andassemblyofthepartssuchasthe branches, and packaging. Additional steps include rolling, cutting, stamping, and pressing thesteeltomaketheartificialtreepoleandhinges.ProcessstepsaresummarizedFigure3. Thebillofmaterialsfortheartificialtree,includingtherawmaterialsource,issummarized inTable5. Artificialtreepackagingincludesshipmentpackaging(recycledpaperslipandpolypropylene shrinkwrap)andshelfpackaging(cardboardbox).
PE Americas
24
Wire
PVC Resin
PVC Film Production (Calendar machines)
Cut
Tip Assembly
Branch Assembly
Tree Assembly
Packaging
Injection Molding
Finished Tree Stand
Finished Product
Finished Tree Top Insert
PP Resin
PP Yarn
Roll/Cut
Powder Coat
Finished Tree Pole Finished Metal Hinge
Steel Sheet
Stamp Press
Powder Coat Finished Metal Fastener
Stamp Press
Figure2:ArtificialTreeProduction YellowBoxesrepresentcradletogatematerialinputs,blueboxesrepresentprocesses,and greenboxesrepresentproductsoftheblueprocesses.
PE Americas
25
Table5:RawMaterialsforArtificialTree
Material Amount(kg) PVCResinforTips 1.684 PVCStabilizerWINSTAB 0.0203 PVCProcessingAid(P201) 0.0318 PVCImpactModifier(M51) 0.0978 PVCLubricantWinnox(G876) 0.0094 PVCLubricantWinnox(SG16) 0.0125 SiO2(HO5) 0.0272 StearicAcid(SA1801) 0.0069 PVCResinforTreeTopInsert 0.014 PVCResinforStand 0.41 PPYarn 0.277 SteelTreeTipWires 0.99 SteelTreeBranches 0.723 SteelTreePole 0.55 SteelHinges 0.293 SteelFasteners 0.046 Packaging(42"x7"x10.5") 1.2 Tape 0.03 *Japan:46.9%,US:28.9%,Taiwan:24.2% SourceofMaterials Japan,US,Taiwan Taiwan Taiwan Taiwan Taiwan China(Guandong) China(Guandong) China(Guandong) Japan,US,Taiwan Japan,US,Taiwan Taiwan China(Tianjin,HeBei) China(Tianjin,HeBei) China(Guandong) China(Guandong) China(Guandong) China(Guandong) China(Guandong)
Production of five separate components are modeled and then assembled for final tree production.Thefivecomponents,summarizedinFigure3,are: Productionofbranches; Productionoftreestandandtopinsert; Productionoftreepole; Productionofmetalhinge;and Productionofmetalfastener.
Schematicsdetailingtheprocessstepsinvolvedinproducingeachofthefivecomponents areshowninFigure4throughFigure8.
PE Americas
26
Figure3:ProductionofArtificialTreeComponents
PVCResin
CutPVC Electricity
SteelWire
TipAssembly
PolypropyleneYarn
BranchAssembly
PlasticTreeBranch
Waste
Figure4:ProductionofBranches
PE Americas
27
PVCResin
InjectionMolding
Electricity
PlasticTree Stand
PlasticTreeTop Insert
Waste
Figure5:ProductionofTreeStandandTopInsert
SteelWire
RollCutProcess
Electricity
EpoxyResin
PowderCoating
NaturalGas
TreePole
Wastewater
PlasticWaste
Figure6:ProductionofTreePole
PE Americas
28
SteelWire
StampPress
Electricity
EpoxyResin
PowderCoating
NaturalGas
MetalHinge
Wastewater
PlasticWaste
Figure7:ProductionofMetalHinge
SteelWire
StampPress
Electricity
MetalFastener
MetalWaste
Figure8:ProductionofMetalFastener
The artificial tree is packaged in corrugate board after the production process and before thetreeisshippedfromChinatotheUS.ThemodeledpackagingisshowninFigure9.
CorrugatedBoard Packaging AssembledTree
Packaged ArtificialTree
Figure9:PackagingofArtificialTree
PE Americas
29
3.1.2
FinishedTreetoHome
ThefinishedtreeistransportedbytruckfromChinesefactorytoChineseport,bycontainer shiptoUSport,andagainbytruckintotheUSretailer.Attheretailershipmentpackaging isremovedandlandfilled.Fromtheretailer,theconsumerdrivestheChristmastreehome inapersonalvehicle. Notethattheoperationoftheretailstoreisoutofscopeofthisanalysis.Althoughsome artificialtreesmaygounsoldattheendoftheyear,itisassumedthatexcessstockwillbe soldatdiscountedratesonpostseasonsales.Iftherearedamagedorreturneditemsthat cannot be resold, the impact of the artificial tree increases. In other words, if 10% of artificial trees go unsold, the artificial tree impacts upstream of the retailer will also be increasedby10%.Themodel,however,assumesanequivalent0%lossrateforboththe artificialandnaturaltrees.
3.1.3
UsePhase
At the final customer, the tree is assembled and shelf packaging waste (artificial tree cardboardbox)isdiscarded.Becausethetreeisundecoratedanddoesnotrequirewater, besideslandfillingofpackaging,thereisnoimpactassociatedwiththeuseoftheartificial tree. Lights and decorations are excluded from the use phase; refer to Section 2.3: FunctionalUnit.
3.1.4
Disposal(EndofLife)
Althoughthemajorityoftheartificialtreematerialsarerecyclable,givenlackofcustomer awareness of this fact, and a lack of infrastructure that would allow artificial trees to be recycled in much of the US, a worstcase scenario is modeled in which it is assumed that 100%oftheartificialtreesarelandfilledupondisposal.
3.1.5
TransportofArtificialTree
The GaBi database for transportation vehicles was used to model the transportation associatedoftheartificialtree.FortransportationmodelingdetailsrefertoSection2.6.3. The transportation distances during production and shipping of the artificial tree are well known and provided by ACTA. However, the distances associated with transport from storage to the retailer, from the retailer to the customer, and from the customer to the landfillareundefinedandcasespecific.Forinstance,acustomerinaruralmountainregion may have a different transportation profile than a customer in a coastal more densely populated region of the United States. Based on 2007 transportation data for the United States Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS 2008), miscellaneous durable goods for merchantwholesalerstravel881milespershipment;thisdistanceisusedtoapproximate thetrucktransportfromstoragetoretailer.Thetransportfrompointofwastedisposalto EndofLife treatment (landfill, composting, incineration, recycling) is assumed to be 20 miles, consistent with the default values used in EPAs WARM Model (EPA 2009B).It is assumedthattheroundtripdistancetraveledfromtheendcustomertoretaileris5miles. ThisisconsistentwithasurveydonebytheAmericanChristmasTreeAssociationthatfound
approximately40%ofconsumersdrivelessthan5milesroundtriptopurchasetheirtrees. Additionally, the US Federal Highway Administration's National Household Travel Survey statesthattheaveragedistancedrivenforanytypeofshoppingis6.7miles(USDOE 2001). However, because this distance may vary significantly by consumer, a sensitivity analysis wascompletedasdetailedinSection5:SensitivityandBreakEvenAnalysis. TransportationdistancesaresummarizedinTable6. Table6:ArtificialTreeTransportationDistances
FromTo FactoryHarbor ChinaUS HarborStorage StorageRetailer RetailerCustomer EndofLife TransportationArtificialTree VehicleType Truck2026ttotalcap./17.3t payload Shipping(water) Trucktrailer,basicenclosedup to4500lbpayload(8b) Trucktrailer,basicenclosedup to4500lbpayload(8b) Car TruckDumptruck Distance(oneway) 81mi(130km) 7471mi(12,023km) 15.5mi(25km) 881mi(1,418km) 2.5mi(4km) 20mi(32km)
3.2 NaturalTree
The natural tree process flow (Figure 10) is characterized below and detailed in the followingsections. 1. Cultivation:TheCultivationphaseofthenaturaltreeincludesgrowthofa6.5fttree on a natural tree farm, including applying polypropylene string for transport to retailer. This phase of the life cycle also includes the cradletogate impacts of a natural tree stand (made of steel and ABS plastic) to be consistent with the boundariesoftheartificialtreelifecycle. 2. FinishedTreetoHome:Thefinishedtreetohomephaseincludesatransportation phaseanddisposalofpackagingattheretailer: Transportation:transportationincludestrucktransportationofthenaturaltreefrom thefarmtotheretailstore,andpersonalcarusebetweentheretailstoreandthe consumershome. Packaging disposal: Packaging disposal includes unpacking and disposal of the polypropylenestringappliedatthefarmfortransportandtakenoffattheretailer fordisplay.
3. UsePhase:Theusephaseforthenaturaltreeincludeswateringofthenaturaltree.
4. EndofLife (EoL): The EoL consists of transport and disposal of the natural tree. Disposalscenariosareexaminedfortreesthatare100%landfilled,100%incinerated and100%composted.
3.2.1
TreeCultivation
Thenaturaltreecultivationphaseofthelifecycleincludesthefarmingactivitiesthattake placewithintheboundaryofanaturaltreefarmandincludes: Plantingoftheseed; Cultivation(02years)oftheseed; Operation of a greenhouse including peat production and thermal energy consumption(naturalgas); Onfarmtransportandpackaging(ABSplasticfortheyoungseed); Cultivation(34years)ofthetree; Transplant of the seedling to the field including on farm transport and packaging (Polyethylenefilm) Plantingoftheseedinthefieldincludingdieselconsumption; Cultivation(411years)ofthenaturaltree; Plantationcare(motorsawoperation); Harvestingthefullsizetree;and Packagingofthenaturaltreeinpolypropylenestringforshipmenttotheretailer. To be consistent with the artificial tree life cycle, the natural tree cultivation phase also includesmanufacturingofanaturaltreeChristmasstand. NotethatcultivationpracticesofChristmastreesintheUnitedStatescanvarysignificantly andthatimpactsfromagriculturalproductiondependonlocalconditionssuchasclimate, soil type, fertility, indigenous pests and also on available technology (degree of mechanization,useoffertilizersandpesticides,etc.).ClimacticconditionsforNorthCarolina were modeled and data used for modeling were collected from literature, international electronicdatabases,andpersonalinterviews. 3.2.1.1 CultivationBoundaryConditions The cultivation phase (agrarian system) is the main component of the natural Christmas tree life cycle. In this study relevant input materials for the cultivation process itself (commercial fertilizer including lime, organic fertilizer, pesticides, seeds including their
production,andtransport)areintegratedinthemodelascradletogatedatasets.ThisLCA includes fuel consumption and air emissions that are related to the use of farming equipment during cultivation. The provision of cultivated products including harvests (output) is integrated up to the edge of field or plantation. All relevant processes taking placeontheareaundercultivationwithemissionsintoairandgroundwater(lowerlimitof rooted soil zone) are considered. Heavy metals remaining in the soil are modeled as emissionstosoilandintegrationoferosivelossofNorgandCorgaswellasothernutrientsare includedinthemodel. Fromseedtoharvest,thelifespanofatypicalChristmastreewasassumedtobe11years (4yearsinanurseryfollowedby7yearsinthefield).Thegrowinglifespanwasmodeled usingtheinformationfromPeregrim2009.There,thegrowingtimeinanurseryisgivento be2+2years.SystemboundariesfornaturaltreecultivationareshowninFigure10.
PE Americas
33
System boundary cultivation Rain water, N depositions, soil conditions, erosion, biodiversity, temperature, e.g. Sowing, transplanting Irrigation
water
Plantation Layout, site preparation, land clearing Nursery 4 years

Transport
Fertilizing
pine straw, composted sawdust, hardwood bark, peat moss, organic material
Outplanting
Selecting
Cultivation Groundcover Management. Chemical mowing Selective Harvesting

Motor saw
Hand work Pesticides

Transport
Wood, branches Pruning
Fertiliser Irrigation water
Emissions air, soil, water
Pesticide application Fertilizing Shaping

Shearing, pruning
Tree
Diesel Machines Lubricant
Harvesting
Motor saw
Stump grinding
Figure10:SystemBoundariesofNaturalTreeCultivation 3.2.1.2 SeedstoYoungTrees Seedsareinitiallysown,atasowingrateof100seedspersquaremeter,inaseedbedwhere seedlingsdevelopandgrowfortwoyears.Itwasassumedthattheseedlingsaregrownin so called cold green houses. Energy demand of the houses and the amount of pot soil used for the seedlings are presented in Figure 3. After the seeding bed the seedlings, anywherefrom1530cmtall,aretransplantedintolargertransplantbeds(density200,000 plantsperhectareandaverageweight0.0066kgpersmalltree).Thetransplantsarekeptin the transplant beds again for two years, where they reach a height of 40 50 cm and an average weight of 0.06 kg per tree. From here, the young trees are planted in fields (plantation), where they remain for seven additional years up to a height of 200 cm until harvest(density4,000treesperhectare)(NCDA1996).Thebasicdatausedinthisstudyare presentedinFigure11.
PE Americas
34
According to NCDA 1996 it was assumed that out of the 4,000 transplanted trees 3,500 finished trees could be harvested after seven years of cultivation in the plantation per hectare.Theaverageweightofthetreesafter11yearswasassumedtobe15kgpertree (Konsumo2008,Wahmhoff2008,HINESLEYANDWRIGHT1989).
Figure11:TimeBoundariesandSpecificationofNaturalTreeCultivation Christmastreeplantationsneedyearlycare;annualcareconsistsoftreeshapingwithhand pruners, shearing knives, and gas powered rotary knives. The impact of yearly care was considered according to KUHNS 2004. At the end of the cultivation period, the trees are harvestedmanuallywithmotorsaws.fuelconsumptionforcareandharvestarecalculated byconsideringthespecifictreedensity.Thisdatawasobtainedbypersonalcommunication (STIHL2008).ThemotorsawismodeledusingaStihlprofessionalchainsaw(3.9kW,MS441 type) and operates at 85% load resulting in a diesel consumption of 0.002 gallons of gasolineand3.8x105gallonsoflubricatingoilpertree. 3.2.1.3 Mowing Natural tree farms differ in their plantation management practices. Some farmers mechanicallymowthegrassbetweentheirtreesmanytimesperyear.Otherfarmersuse chemicalrounduptochemicallymowasanalternativetomechanicalmowing.Andsome donotmanagethegrowthbetweentheirtreesatall.Thenaturaltreemodelusedinthis study assumes chemical mowing. This includes the manual application (using backpack sprayers)of26ouncesperacreof41%glyphosphate(HUNDLEYANDOWEN2005).
PE Americas
35
3.2.1.4 Fertilization Nitrogen emissions in agricultural systems often play an important role in the overall balanceofproducts.InLCAstudiesthereareambitiouseffortstogeneratemostaccurate nitrogen emissions data. KUHNS 2004 mentioned that [t]here is nothing that can be consideredastandardfertilizationpracticeintheChristmastreeindustryinPennsylvania. Forthisstudy,thenitrogendemandwascalculatedforaveragesoilandweatherconditions ofthisregion.ThesourcesandvaluesusedforthisstudyaredepictedinTable7andTable 8.ThenutrientdemandwascalculatedaccordingtoBaumgartenetal2000andSpectrum Analytic2009. 3.2.1.5 PesticideTreatment In the GaBi database, datasets of specific pesticides are available and used for this study. BasedonKUHNS2004,applicationratesofherbicideswereused(2.81kg/haofglyphosphate per year). However, Kuhns notes that there is no standard fertilization practice in the Christmas tree industry. Regarding the fungicides, an application rate of 5.53 kg/ha Mancozeb (fungicide) every two years was assumed (KUHNS 2004). For application of pesticides and fertilizer the use of small tractors was assumed in the model. All input parameters used in the modeling of nursery, farm, and treatment of Christmas tree productionarelistedinTable7andTable8. Table7:InputParametersforModelingofSeedlingProductionintheNursery (Year0toYear4)
Nursery:2yearsinseedbed(greenhouse),2yearsintransplantbed(field) Parameter Unit Value Sourceandremarks Nitrogencontentseedlings02 [%ofdm] 1.5 Baumgartenetal2000 years Nitrogencontentseedlings24 [%ofdm] 1.2 Baumgartenetal2000 years Calculatedbasedon Seedssawninseedbed(grown [quantity/ha*2a1] 1,000,000 Matschke2005Matschke overaperiodoftwoyears) 2005 Germinationcapacity [%] 75 BasedonMatschke2005 Weightofoneseedlingafter [kgfm/piece] 0.0066 Brang2008 twoyears Seedlingsplantedintransplant [quantity/ha*2a bed(grownoveraperiodof 200,000 BasedonMatschke2005 1] twoyears) Growthratiotransplantbed [%] 85 Assumption Weightofonetransplantafter [kgfm/piece] 0.06 Assumption seedlingandtransplantphase Assumption:0.1l soil/seed*0,6kg/l(soil Pottingsoil [t/a1] 45 density)*1,000,000 (seeds)*0.75(recyclingrate; 25%recycled) Irrigation(water)seedbed [m/ha*a1] 200 Assumption:0.2l/tree*a1
PE Americas
36
Nursery:2yearsinseedbed(greenhouse),2yearsintransplantbed(field) Parameter Unit Value Sourceandremarks Irrigation(water)transplant [m/ha*a1] 35 Assumption:5l/tree*a1 bed Calculatedbasedon Greenhouseduringseedling EnergieagenturNRW [kWh/ha*a1] 5,000 phase 2009EnergieagenturNRW 2009 Heatdemandgreenhouse Calculatedbasedon duringseedlingphase [kWh/ha*a1] 5,000 EnergieagenturNRW2009 (providedbynaturalgas) EnergieagenturNRW2009 Fertilizerapplication Ammoniasulfatefertilizer(N Calculatedbasedon content21%)(seed [kg/ha*a1] 119/210 Baumgartenetal2000, bed/transplantbed) Matschke2005 Rockphosphatefertilizer(P2O5 Calculatedbasedon content32%)(K2Ocontent [kg/ha*a1] 31/31 Baumgartenetal2000 60%) Matschke2005 Potassiumfertilizer(K2O Calculatedbasedon content60%)(seed [kg/ha*a1] 25/25 Baumgartenetal2000, bed/transplantbed) Matschke2005 Calciumcarbonate(CaCO3 Calculatedbasedon content50%)(seed [kg/ha*a1] 30/30 Baumgartenetal2000 bed/transplantbed) Magnesiasulfatefertilizer Calculatedbasedon (MgOcontent28%)(seed [kg/ha*a1] 9/9 Baumgartenetal2000 bed/transplantbed) Pesticideapplication Herbicide(activeingredient) [kg/ha*a1] 1.36/1.59 Neal1999 (seedbed/transplantbed) Fungicide(activeingredient) [kg/ha*a1] 2.68/3.31 MHCREC2008Neal1999 (seedbed/transplantbed) Insecticide(activeingredient) [kg/ha*a1] Neal1999 (seedbed/transplantbed) Workingoperations CalculatedbasedonKTBL Workingstepsintotal(seed [amount/a] 4.5/8 2006,MHCREC2008KTBL bed/transplantbed)thereof: 2006MHCREC2008 Seed,transplantbed [amount/a] 0/ Matschke2005 preparation Sowing/transplanting [amount/a] manual/ Matschke2005 Fertilizerapplication [amount/a] 2manual/2 Matschke2005 Limeapplication [amount/a] 0/1 Matschke2005 ChemicalMowing [ounces/acre/a] 26 HundleyandOwen2005 GlyphosphateApplication (41%)(manualapplication) Dieselconsumptionforallworkingsteps Dieselconsumption (nursery/plantation) [liter/ha*a1] 0/20.5 CalculatedbasedonKTBL 2006
PE Americas
37
Nursery:2yearsinseedbed(greenhouse),2yearsintransplantbed(field) Unit Value Sourceandremarks Foilsandpots Packagingfoilforoneseedling fortransportfromseedbedto [kg/piece] 0.002 Assumption transplantbed(after2years) Plantpotforonetransplantfor transportfromtransplantbed [kg/piece] 0.125 Assumption toplantation(after4years) Parameter
Table8:InputParameterforModelingofNaturalTreeProductioninPlantation (Year5toYear11) 3
Parameter Treesperhectareplanted Treesperhectareharvestedfrom theplantationintotal Watercontentoftrees Energycontent(Hu) Energycontent(Hu) Carboncontentbiomass Nitrogencontentbiomass Ammoniasulfatefertilizer(N content21%)(seed bed/transplantbed) Rockphosphatefertilizer(P2O5 content32%)(seed bed/transplantbed) Potassiumfertilizer(potassium chloride,potassiumsulfate,or potassiummagnesiumsulfate) (K2Ocontent60%)(seed bed/transplantbed) Calciumcarbonate(CaCO3 content50%)(seed bed/transplantbed) Magnesiasulfatefertilizer(MgO content28%)(seed bed/transplantbed)
3
Plantation:7years Unit [amount] [amount] [%] [MJ/kgdm] [MJ/kgfm] [%dm] [%dm] Fertilizerapplication [kg/ha*a1]
Value 4,000 3,500 40 18.8 10.3 49.7 1.0
Sourceandremarks Calculatedbasedon Matschke2005 CalculatedbasedonNCDA 1996 FNR2000 FNR2000 CalculatedbasedonFNR 2000 FNR2000 FNR2000 Calculatedbasedon Baumgartenetal2000, SpectrumAnalytic2009 Calculatedbasedon Baumgartenetal2000, SpectrumAnalytic2009 Calculatedbasedon Baumgartenetal2000, SpectrumAnalytic2009
191
[kg/ha*a1]
278
[kg/ha*a1]
150
[kgMgO/ha*a1]
90
Calculatedbasedon Baumgartenetal2000 Calculatedbasedon Baumgartenetal2000
[Kg/tree*a1]
27
Ittakes7yearsforatreetogrowinthefield.Thefirstfouryearsseedlingsaregrowninanursery.Therefore thegrowthofthetreeinthefieldoccursduringyears5through11foratotalof7years. 38 Final Report: November 2010
PE Americas
Parameter Herbicide(activeingredient(AI)) Glyphosphate Fungicide(activeingredient(AI)) Mancozeb Insecticide(activeingredient(AI))
Plantation:7years Unit Value Pesticideapplication [kg/ha*a1] [kg/ha*a1] [kg/ha*a1] Workingoperations 2.81 5.53
Sourceandremarks Calculatedbasedon KUHNS2004
Calculatedbasedon KUHNS2004 Calculatedbasedon KUHNS2004

CalculatedbasedonKTBL 2006,MHCREC2008 HundleyandOwen2005 Calculatedbasedon Matschke2005 Calculatedbasedon Matschke2005 Calculatedbasedon Matschke2005 Calculatedbasedon Matschke2005
Workingsteps ChemicalMowingGlyphosphate Application(41%)(manual application) Fertilizing Pesticideapplication
[amount/a] [ounces/acre/a] [amount/a] [amount/a]
6.3 26 2 2
Plowingbeforecultivationperiod [amount/a] 0.14 (onceeverysevenyears) Preplantsitepreparation (grubbing)beforecultivation [amount/a] 0.14 period(onceeverysevenyears) Dieselconsumptionforallworkingsteps Dieselconsumption Packagingstringforonetreefor transportfromfarmtoretail location [liter/ha*a1] Packaging [kg/piece] 0.0025 8.74
Calculated Assumptionoftheweight. Dataset:Polyethylenefoil (PELD)PlasticsEurope
3.2.1.6 Postharvesttreatmentatfarm The natural Christmas tree is further treated in post harvest processing. Pruning, reject, roots and other organic residues are assumed to be left on or nearby the field. A carbon neutraldegradationisassumedforthesecomponents. 3.2.1.7 Baling Ifdesiredbythewholesalebuyer,treesarenextpackagedusingabalingmachineorby usingasimpleconethattreesarepulledthroughtoconstrictthemfortying.Manylarge retailstorespurchasetheirtreesindividuallybaledandthereforetheprocessofbalingtrees withpolypropylenestringwasincludedinthemodel.Theimpactofthepolypropylene string(compatiblewithbalingmachines)isincludedinthisstudy.Foranaturaltree, approximately0.0086kgofpolypropylenestringisusedpertree(BTFWHOLESALE).The baledtreeisnowreadyfortransporttotheretailer(asdetailedinSection3.2.2:Finished TreetoHome).Aschematicofthesystemboundariesforthepreandpostharvest treatmentisshowninFigure12.
Diesel
Transport
Hand work
Care, Cleaning
Pruning for disposal
Hand work Energy Diesel, Electricity
Emissions to air, soil, water Shaking

Needles, branches for disposal
Hand work Material Plastic
Baling
Figure12:PreandPostHarvestTreatmentatFarmandRetailerduringProductionPhase 3.2.1.8 CarbonUptakeandEmissionsDuringCultivation FieldemissionsofNH3,NOx,N2,NO3,CH4,andN2Ogasesfromorganicandmineralfertilizer degradation can be significant and have been assessed based on the methodology developedbyBOUWMANNETAL.1996,BRENTRUPETAL.2000,andIPCC2006. Carbonuptakebythecrop(removingCO2fromtheatmosphere)isassessedtounderstand the carbon losses during post harvest and further processing. The carbon uptake is calculated by assuming a dry matter content of the whole tree of 40%, and the carbon contentofdrymatteris49.7%.Aftermultiplyingthedrymassbythecarboncontent,itis multipliedbythemolecularweightofcarbondioxidetoobtainthetotalamountofcarbon takenawayfromthefield.Thecarbonlossesassociatedwithlandusechanges(e.g.forest clearancetoproduceagriculturalland)havenotbeenaccountedforinthisstudy,norhave thecarbonwhichisstoredinsoilandlitterbeenaccountedfor. Itwasassumedthatnitrateandphosphatelevelsinthesoilareabletostorethenutrients applied to field, so after accounting for nutrient uptake by crop and gaseous losses to atmospheresomepartsoftheremaininginputsarestoredinthesoilforthenextcultivation phases. Impactsassociatedwithatmosphericdepositionofnutrientsplaysanimportantroleineco systemsandwereconsideredinthisassessment.
3.2.2
FinishedTreetoHome
Treesaretransportedbytrucktoretailers,wheretheyareunpacked,andsortedaccording tospecies,height,andquality.Inallcases,shipmentpackagingmaterialsthatareremoved
at the retailer are assumed to be disposed of at a landfill. From the retailer, the tree is assumedtobepurchasedbyaconsumerutilizingacartobringthetreetohis/herhome. Notethatoperationoftheretailstoreisoutofthescopeofthisanalysis.Althoughitislikely that some natural trees will go unsold at the end of the year, there is no documentation referring to the quantity of natural trees that go unsold. Therefore, as with the artificial tree model, it is assumed that there is a 0% loss rate of natural trees. This conservative assumptionimpliesthatretailerseitherperfectlypredictconsumerdemandorelserunout oftreesbeforeChristmas,giventhatshoppersdonotbuynaturaltreesafterChristmas.If there is a loss rate, the amount of trees needed for each tree sold increases, and consequentlythenaturaltreeenvironmentalimpactswillincrease.Inotherwords,witha 10% loss rate of natural trees, the impacts upstream of the retailer will be increased by 10%. Additionally,someretailersoffertobaletreesfortransporttotheconsumershome.Ifthe trees are rebailed at the retailer for transport home, assuming the same polypropylene bailerstringusedatthefarm,thesameimpactsassociatedwiththisstepduringcultivation (refertoSection4.9.2),shouldbeaddedtothisphaseaswell.Somenaturaltreesarenever baled,somearebaledeitherenroutetotheretailerortotheconsumer,butnotboth,and somearebaledforbothtransportationphases.Assuch,thenaturaltreemodelusedhere assumesasinglebalingstep,andaccountsforthisinthecultivationphaseonly.
3.2.3
UsePhase
Duringtheusephase,thecustomerfixesthetreeinatreestand.Thetreestandismodeled tohavealifetimeof10years,anaverageweightof2.04kg(FKF2008,typeCyncoC144) consisting of 90% plastic and 10% metal (mainly screws). During the use phase (18 days assumed), it was estimated that the tree will take up 1.5 gallons of water in the first 24 hours,and 3.5quartsadayafterthat(HINESLEY AND CHASTAGNER 2002). Overtheentireuse phase, based on this estimate, a total of 62 liters of water is consumed; the water is assumedtoevaporatetoair.Asummaryofinputparametersduringtheusephaseisfound inTable9. Notethattheuseoflightsandornamentsareexcludedfromthisstudy.
PE Americas
41
Table9:InputParameterforModelingofUsePhaseofNaturalChristmasTree
Parameter Lifespantreestand Weighttreestand Ratioplasticoftotaltree stand Ratiometaloftotaltree stand Unit [a] [kg] [%weight] [%weight] Value 10 2.04 90 10 Source Assumption BasedonFKF 2008 AcrylnitrilButadienStyrolgranulate mix(ABS)PEGabidatabase Sheetsteel0,75mmBVZ(0,03mm;1s) PEGaBidatabase
3.2.4
EndofLife
Allintermediatewastesatthefarm(organics),packagingwastes(string),andproductwaste (tree stand) are assumed to be transported to a municipal landfill by a dump truck and disposed of. All landfill processes in the model are material specific and include energy recoveryfrommethaneproduction. The EndofLife treatment (landfill, incineration, compost, etc.) of the average American naturaltreeisnotwelldocumented.Althoughitissuspectedthatmosttreesarecollected through municipal programs, at the time of this study there was no definitive literature available on this topic. The choice of EndofLife treatment for each natural tree affects how much of the carbon is sequestered during the trees cultivation is rereleased to the environment. As a result, the choice of EndofLife treatment for the natural tree has a significant impact on the comparison between artificial and natural trees. For instance, incinerationreleasesmostofthestoredcarbonduringtheburningprocess.Conversely,US landfillsreleaseonly33%ofthecarboninput(EPA2006);therestremainssequesteredin the landfill for more than 100 years (the time horizon of GWP for this study). Municipal compostingreleasesapproximately50%ofthecarboninputasCO2andCH4whiletheother 50%remainssequesteredinthebiomass. Becauseofthewiderangeofimpacts,threeEndofLifescenariosareconsidered: A. 100%LandfillingofNaturalTree B. 100%IncinerationofNaturalTree C. 100%CompostingoftheNaturalTree TheEndofLifemodelfornaturaltreedisposalisbasedonthechemicalcompositionofa naturaltree.Itwasassumedthatthetreeitselflosestenpercentofitswetmassduringthe endoflife phase; this reduction in mass is due to loss of water through evaporation, particularly when the tree dehydrates after it is taken outside for disposal. The water content of the naturally dehydrated tree when disposed is 54%. The US landfill, US incineration,andUSmunicipalcompostingprocessmodelswereadjustedtomatchthistree
composition. The composition of the natural tree is based on the Phyllis database (ECN 2009) data for the average composition of untreated wood of fir/pine/spruce trees includingthetreeswood,barkandneedles.AllEndofLifemodelsreflectthiscomposition summarizedinTable10. Table10:NaturalTreeComposition
VariableDescription DensityofWaste WaterContent DryFraction CarbonContentoftheDryWaste OxygenContentoftheDryWaste HydrogenContentoftheDryWaste NitrogenContentoftheDryWaste PotassiumContentoftheDryWaste SodiumContentoftheDryWaste SulfurContentoftheDryWaste ChlorineContentoftheDryWaste 830 0.54 0.46 0.526 0.406 0.0611 0.0094 0.001991 0.000357 0.0003 0.00006 ValueUsed [kg/m3] range: 8001200, default1050 [frac]watercontentofwaste [frac]drymatterofwaste [kg/kg]Ccontentofwaste [kg/kg]Ocontentofwaste [kg/kg]Hcontentofwaste [kg/kg]Ncontentofwaste [kg/kg]Kcontentofwaste [kg/kg]Nacontentofwaste [kg/kg]Scontentofwaste [kg/kg]Clcontentofwaste
It was estimated that transportation by dump truck to the municipal landfill, incinerator, and composting facility is 20 miles (EPA 2009B). EndofLife system boundaries are illustratedinFigure13.EnergycreditsfromEndofLifedisposalprocesseswereconsidered andaredescribedinTable11.
PE Americas
43
Diesel
Transport
Dump Truck
Landfilling
Combustion Incineration plant
Composting Municipal
Methane
Emissions to air soil, water
Power/ steam
Combustion
Power credit from US power grid mix
Power credit from US power grid mix
Steam credit from natural gas combustion
Figure13:SystemBoundariesforEndofLifePhase
Table11:AssumptionsforEndofLifePhase
Scenario Parameter A TreesdepositedinlandfillElectricityproductionbymethane combustioninacombustionplanttreatedasareplacementof electricitysuppliedbyUSpowermix. TreesdepositedinmunicipalwasteincinerationplantElectricity andsteamproductionbywastecombustiontreatedasa replacementofelectricitysuppliedbyUSpowermixandsteam producedbynaturalgascombustion. Treesdepositedinmunicipalcompostnoenergycreditsare received. Value 100%
100%
100%
3.2.4.1 USLandfillBoundaryConditions Forthe100%landfillscenario,theUSlandfillmodelwasadjustedtoreflectthedisposalofa naturalChristmastree.AdjustmentsaremadebasedontheEPA2006document;thekey landfillparametersaresummarizedinTable12.
PE Americas
44
Table12:USLandfillBoundaryConditions
VariableDescription ValueUsed
PeriodofLandfillOperation FractionofCarbonSequesteredin100yearperiod Optimization factor, considering real conditions to optimalconditions(default=0,7,ideal=1) Systemrelatedgasintakeratio,default=0,8(range01) Shareoflandfillgastoflare Shareoflandfillgastousage
100 [years] 0.77 [fraction] 0.7 [fraction] 0.9 [fraction] 0.28 [fraction] 0.31 [fraction]
3.2.4.2 USIncinerationBoundaryConditions Forthe100%incinerationscenario,theUSIncinerationmodelwasadjustedtoreflectthe naturalChristmastree. The incineration model calculates waste energy capture through generation of electricity andsteamwith15%lossesinthegenerator.Whenproduced,electricityandsteamarefirst usedtomeetinternalneedsattheincinerator,andtheremainingenergyisreturnedtothe market (2.875 MJ steam/kg waste; 0.227 MJ electricity/kg waste). In the United States, 62.7%ofwasteincinerationiswastetoenergy(WTE),19.6%isWTEwithcogeneration,and 17.7%producesonlysteam(EIA 1997).Thereforeenergycreditisreceivedat82.3%ofthe plants,andsteamcreditisreceivedat37.3%oftheplants.Orinotherwords,82.3%ofthe electricity produced at incineration receives energy credit, and 37.3% of the steam produced by incineration receives energy credit. The key incineration parameters are summarizedinTable12. Table13:USIncinerationBoundaryConditions
GeneratorEfficiency SteamEnergyProduced ElectricEnergyProduced SteamEnergyCredit(%) ElectricEnergyCredit(%) SteamEnergyCredit ElectricEnergyCredit
0.85 [fraction,0.8to1] 2.875 [MJ/kgwaste] 0.227 [MJ/kgwaste] 37.3 [%] 82.3 [%] 1.072 [MJ/kgwaste] 0.187 [MJ/kgwaste]
3.2.4.3 USCompostingBoundaryConditions For the 100% composting scenario, the US composting model was adjusted to reflect the naturalChristmastree.ThekeycompostingparametersaresummarizedinTable14.
PE Americas
45
Table14:USCompostingBoundaryConditions
Fraction of C Sequestered During Composting NitrogenLoss MethaneCarbonDioxideRatio
0.5 [fraction] 0.005 [kg/kg] nitrogen losses perkgNinput [fraction]ratioofCH4to 0.1 CO2
3.2.5
TransportofNaturalTree
All truck transportation within the United States was modeled using the GaBi 4 US truck transportationdatasets.FortransportmodelingdetailsrefertoSection2.6.3. Thetransportationdistancesduringthenaturaltreelifecyclearenotwellknownbutare basedoneducatedassumptionsanddefaultvalues.Basedon2007transportationdatafor theUnitedStatesBureauofTransportationStatistics(BTS 2008),farmproductrawmaterial for merchant wholesalers travel 130 miles per shipment; this distance is used to approximate the truck transport from farm to retailer. The transport from point of waste disposal to EndofLife treatment (landfill) is assumed to be 20 miles, consistent with the defaultvaluesusedinEPAsWARMModel(EPA2009B). It is assumed that the round trip distance traveled from the end customer to retailer is 5 miles.ThisisconsistentwithasurveydonebytheAmericanChristmasTreeAssociationthat foundapproximately40%ofconsumersdrivelessthan5milesroundtriptopurchasetheir trees. Additionally, the US Federal Highway Administration's National Household Travel Surveystatesthattheaveragedistancedrivenforanytypeofshoppingis6.7miles(USDOE 2001). However, because this distance may vary significantly by consumer, a sensitivity analysiswascompletedasdetailedinSection5:SensitivityandBreakEvenAnalysis. ThetransportationdistancesusedinthenaturaltreemodelaresummarizedinTable15.
PE Americas
46
Table15:AssumptionsforNaturalTreeTransportDistances
FromTo Seedproductionareatonursery Seedbedtotransplantbed Nurserytoplantation Plantationtofarm Farmtoretailer Endcustomertoretailerandbackhome Wasteproductstolandfill NaturalTreetoLandfill NaturalTreetoMunicipalIncinerator NaturalTreetoMunicipalCompost Unit [mi] [mi] [mi] [mi] [mi] [mi] [mi] [mi] [mi] [mi] Value 60 15 15 2 130 5 20 20 20 20
PE Americas
47
4 RESULTANALYSIS
Environmentalindicatorsarecalculatedfortheartificialtreeandcomparedtothenatural treeforthreescenarios: 1year: Assuming the artificial tree is only used for one year, the comparative naturaltreescenarioistheuseofonenaturaltreeforoneyear. 5year: Assuming the artificial tree is used for five years before disposal, the comparativenaturaltreescenarioisthepurchaseofanewnaturaltreeeveryyear forfiveyears,orintotal,fivenaturaltreesoverfiveyears. 10year: Assuming the artificial tree is used for ten years before disposal, the comparativescenarioisthepurchaseofanewnaturaltreeeveryyearfortenyears, orintotal,tennaturaltreesovertenyears.
The environmental metrics analyzed in this study include: Primary Energy Demand from NonRenewable Resources, and the US EPA TRACI indicators: Global Warming Potential, EutrophicationPotential,AcidificationPotentialandSmogPotential. A breakdown of results by life cycle stage for each impact category is summarized in this reportfortheartificialtreeandforthe1yearscenarioofthenaturaltree.The5yearand 10year natural tree scenarios are scaled from the 1year baseline, such that relative impactswillbeconsistentbetweenthethreenaturaltreescenariosThisisbecauseinthe caseofthenaturaltreeafulltreelifecycleisrequiredeachyear,whereasfortheartificial tree,onlytheusephaseisrepeated,andtheusephaseofthistreehasnoenvironmental impacts.ResultsarepresentedinSections4.4through4.8. Additionally,theimpactsoftheartificialandnaturaltreearedescribedindetailinSections 0and4.10.Inparticular,tobetterunderstandtheirsignificantcontributionstotheoverall productenvironmentalburden,theimpactsforthetreemanufacturing/cultivationandthe transportationofboththeartificialtreeandthenaturaltreearedetailed.
4.1 GeneralConsiderations
WhencomparingtheartificialtreetothenaturaltreeduringtheFinishedTreetoHome phase, it should be remembered that this phase includes the disposal of secondary packagingattheretaillocation,andnotsimplytransportation.Theusephasealsocontains the disposal of packaging by the user for both trees, as well as water consumption and disposalofthetreestandforthenaturaltree.EndofLiferepresentstheassociatedlandfill, incinerationandcompositingofeachtreeuponitsdisposal.
4.2 EndOfLifeConsiderations
IntheabsenceofdataregardingthenaturalChristmastreestypicalEndofLifepathwayin theUnitedStates,theLCIresultsarepresentedforthreeNaturalTreeEndofLifescenarios:
PE Americas
48
A. 100%Landfill; B. 100%Incineration;and C. 100%Compost. Inthecaseofbiomassproductssuchasfirtrees,thechoiceofEndofLifeisimportant.The natural tree EndofLife scenario chosen impacts the overall life cycle results significantly. The magnitude of the impact varies across environmental impact categories. Further, the significanceofEndofLifetotheoverallLCAresultsvaries.Thisisbecausethedegradation of the biomass and resulting release or sequestration of stored carbon and nitrogen vary significantly between a landfill, incineration plant and composting facility. Additionally, energy credits are given for burning of landfill gasses and generation of electricity and steam at the incineration plant, further complicating the results. In each of the following sections,discussionisprovidedexplainingtheresultsforallthreeEndofLifescenariosfor eachparticularenvironmentalimpactcategory.
4.3 SummaryofResults
AsummaryofresultsisfoundinTable16;thetablesshowsthattheoverallimpactofone artificialtreeusedforonlyoneyearisalwaysgreaterthantheoverallimpactofonenatural treeusedforoneyear,irrespectiveoftheEndofLifescenario.Insomecases,thenatural treelifecycleoverallisaglobalwarmingoreutrophicationsink(highlightedingreywithin Table 16). In this table Full LCA refers to the fact that the impacts associated with cultivation/manufacturing,transportation,useandendoflifetreatmentareincluded.Inthe following sections, the breakdown of results by impact category and life cycle stage are detailed. 4 Table16:Lifecycleimpactofartificialandnaturaltreesusedforoneyearpriortodisposal
ImpactCategory Units ArtificialTree FullLCA 305.21 6.15 4.62E03 18.58 6.16E05 Landfill 93.35 0.94 3.97E03 3.13 1.15E05 NaturalTreeFullLCA Incineration Composting 50.61 1.09 1.68E03 5.12 1.86E05 67.70 0.75 2.18E03 4.68 8.48E06
PrimaryEnergy Demand(PED)Non MJ Renewable AcidificationPotential molH+Equiv. (AP) Eutrophication kgNEquiv. Potential(EP) GlobalWarming kgCO2Equiv. Potential(GWP) SmogPotential kgNOxEquiv.
PE Americas
4.4 PrimaryEnergyDemandfromNonRenewableResources
Primary energy demand (PED) is a measure of the total amount of primary energy associated with the product. This is a measure of both the feedstock energy within the product (energy which would be released upon combustion) plus all other energy used during theproductlifecycle. PED can be expressed in energy demandfrom nonrenewable resources(e.g.petroleum,naturalgas,etc.)andenergydemandfromrenewableresources (e.g. hydropower, wind energy, solar, etc.). Efficiencies in energy conversion (e.g. power, heat, steam, etc.) are taken into account. From an environmental standpoint, the energy demand for nonrenewable resources is more important than the total primary energy demandwhichincludesrenewableresources.Thereforethefollowinggraphsareprovided to show the details of the primary energy demand specifically associated with non renewableresources.Thevaluespresentedrepresentthenetcaloricvalue. The main difference between the PED (renewable and nonrenewable) and PED (non renewable only) is that the cultivation of the natural tree uses a lot of renewable energy fromthesun,whereastheartificialtreemanufacturingonlyusestherenewableenergythat ispartoftheChinesegridmix.Becausetherenewableenergyfromthesunisnotalimited source,hereweonlyconsiderthenonrenewableenergydemandforboththeartificialand thenaturaltreeproducts. A comparison of the total primary energy demand (nonrenewable) of the natural vs. artificial Christmas tree is shown in Table 17 and Figure 14. Details specific to choice of naturaltreeEndofLifescenariosaredetailedinthefollowingsubsections. ThenonrenewablePEDfortheartificialtreeisprimarilyassociatedwiththemanufacturing phase (77%), with noticeable contributions during the life cycle phase: Finished Tree to Home(18%).TheUseandEndofLife(disposalinalandfill)contribute0.5%and4.5%ofthe PEDimpact,respectively.TheimpactsaredetailedfurtherinSections4.9.1and4.10.1. The nonrenewable PED for the natural tree is primarily associated with the manufacturing/cultivation phase. Cultivation accounts for between 30% and 60% of the PEDimpactandFinishedTreetoHomeimpactsrangefrom49%to72%ofthePEDimpact, dependingon the EndofLife scenario. The impacts aredetailed further inSections 4.9.2 and4.10.2.
PE Americas
50
Table17:PED(NonRenewable)ofArtificialvs.NaturalChristmasTreebyLifeCycleStage
PrimaryEnergyDemand,NonRenewable(MJ) Manufactu Finished Endof Total ring/ Treeto Use 5 Life Cultivation Home 305 234 56 2 14 93 30 36 1 26 51 30 36 1 16 68 30 36 1 1 467 149 181 4 132 253 149 181 4 81 338 149 181 4 4 934 297 363 9 265 506 297 363 9 163 677 297 363 9 8
NaturalTreeScenarios
1200
ArtificialTree Landfill NaturalTree1 Incineration year Composting Landfill NaturalTree5 Incineration year Composting Landfill NaturalTree Incineration 10year Composting
1 year 5 year10 year

1000 934
EndofLife Use FinishedTreetoHome

677
PrimaryEnergyDemand,NonRenewable(MJ)
800
600 467 400 305 253 200 93 338
506
Manufacturing/ Cultivation Total
51
68
Composting
Composting
Incineration
Incineration
200
400
Figure14:PED(NonRenewable)ofArtificialvs.NaturalChristmasTreebyLifeCycleStage
PE Americas
ArtificialTree
Incineration
Composting
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
4.4.1
EndofLifeScenarioA.100%Landfill
Theartificialtree,usedforonlyoneyear,whencomparedtoanaturaltreethatislandfilled, requires roughly 3 times the nonrenewable PED (Table 17). However, when an artificial treeiskeptforfiveyears,thenonrenewablePEDimpactofanaturaltreepurchasedevery yearisapproximately1.5timesgreater(Figure14).In10years,thenonrenewablePEDofa naturaltreeis3timesgreaterthanthatofasinglereusedartificialtree. The PED impact of landfilling the natural tree is associated with the energy (thermal and electric, 56%) required to operate the landfill and the surface sealing process (26%). The PEDcreditreceivedforproducingelectricityfromlandfillgasoffsetsapproximately19%of thelandfillPED.TheoverallPEDforlandfillatEndofLifeispositiveandcontributesroughly 28%oftheoveralllifecycleofthenaturaltree;althoughthereisenergycreditreceivedfor the capture and burning of landfill gas, this energy credit does not exceed the PED associatedwithlandfillingthenaturaltree.
4.4.2
EndofLifeScenarioB.100%Incineration
The artificial tree, used for only one year, when compared to a natural tree that is incinerated,requiresroughly6timesthenonrenewablePED(Table17).Whenanartificial tree is kept for ten years, the nonrenewable PED impact of the natural tree purchased everyyearisroughly3timestheimpactofasinglereusedartificialtree(Figure14). ThePEDforincinerationisnegativebecausetheamountofenergycreditreceived(inthe formofelectricityandsteam)forthecombustionoftheChristmastreeisgreaterthanthe energy required to run the municipal incinerator. The PED required to operate the incinerator is attributed to energy (71%) and ammonia (19%). The PED credit from steam andelectricitygenerationis3.6timesgreaterthanthePEDrequiredtooperatethefacility. In other words, the energy credit outweighs the impacts from incineration of the natural tree at EndofLife. However, the energy credit is not large enough to offset the natural treesPEDimpactsacrossitslifecycle.
4.4.3
EndofLifeScenarioC.100%Compost
The artificial tree, used for only one year, when compared to a natural tree that is composted,requiresroughly4.5timesthenonrenewablePED(Table17).However,in10 years,thenonrenewablePEDofanaturaltreeismorethandoublethatofasinglereused artificialtree(Figure14). There is no PED credit given for composting; the composting process is primarily passive andthereforethemagnitudeofEndofLifeimpactissmall.TheoverallPEDimpactfromthe EndofLife phase is attributed primarily to transport to the composting facility (78%) and dieselusedduringcomposting(22%).
PE Americas
52
4.5 GlobalWarmingPotential(GWP)/CarbonFootprint
GWPisameasureofgreenhousegasemissions,suchasCO2andmethane.Theseemissions arecausinganincreaseintheabsorptionofradiationemittedbytheearth,magnifyingthe naturalgreenhouseeffect. The mechanism of the greenhouse effect can be observed on a small scale, as the name suggests, in a greenhouse. These effects are also occurring on a global scale. Shortwave radiationfromthesuncomesintocontactwiththeearth'ssurfaceandispartiallyabsorbed (leadingtodirectwarming)andpartiallyreflectedasinfraredradiation.Thereflectedpartis absorbed by socalled greenhouse gases in the troposphere and is reradiated in all directions,includingbacktoearth.Thisresultsinawarmingeffectattheearth'ssurface. In addition to the natural mechanism, the greenhouse effect is enhanced by human activities. Greenhouse gases that are considered to be caused, or increased, anthropogenically include carbon dioxide, methane and CFCs. A weighted sum of these greenhousegasemissionsisusedtocalculateglobalwarmingpotential,alsoreferredtoasa carbonfootprint. A comparison of the total Global Warming Potential (GWP) or Carbon Footprint of the natural vs. artificial Christmas tree is shown in Table 18 and Figure 15. Details specific to choiceofnaturaltreeEndofLifescenariosaredetailedinthefollowingsubsections. Table18:GWPofArtificialvs.NaturalChristmasTreebyLifeCycleStages
GlobalWarmingPotential,GWP(kgCO2equiv.) Manufactu Finished Endof Total ring/ Treeto Use 6 Life Cultivation Home 18.58 12.51 4.22 0.88 0.98 3.13 9.13 2.68 0.06 3.26 5.12 9.13 2.68 0.06 11.51 4.68 9.13 2.68 0.06 11.07 15.64 45.65 13.39 0.32 16.31 25.59 45.65 13.39 0.32 57.53 23.41 45.65 13.39 0.32 55.35 31.27 51.18 46.82 91.30 91.30 91.30 26.79 26.79 26.79 0.63 0.63 0.63 32.61 115.06 110.70
ArtificialTree Landfill NaturalTree Incineration 1year Composting Landfill NaturalTree Incineration 5year Composting Landfill NaturalTree Incineration 10year Composting
PE Americas
200

150 51.2 46.8
EndofLife Use FinishedTreetoHome
GlobalWarmingPotential(kgCO2eq)
100 25.6 50 18.6 3.1 0 5.1 4.7 23.4 31.3
Manufacturing/ Cultivation Total
15.6
Composting
Composting
Incineration
Incineration
50
100
150
As discussed in Section 4.2, the various EndofLife options release varying amounts of storedcarboninthenaturaltree.Whatisnotreleasedremainssequestered.Intuitively,the more carbon that remains sequestered at the EndofLife, the lesser the overall global warmingpotentialofthenaturaltree. AsseeninFigure15,because77%ofcarboninputintoaUSlandfillremainssequesteredin thelandfillformorethan100years(EPA2006)the100%landfilloptionhasthelowestGWP burden for the natural tree. Additionally, the landfill option gets an energy credit from energy produced from the captured landfill gases (59% of total landfill gases). The incineration process releases most of the stored carbon in the biomass during burning; however, the energy credit from produced steam and electricity is significant offsetting someoftheGWPburden.The100%compostingoptionreleases50%ofthestoredcarbon asCO2(96%bymass)andCH4(4%bymass).Therestofthecarbonisstoredinthecompost and will be decomposed during the following years in the soil. Composting has similar impactstotheincinerationEndofLifeoption.
PE Americas
ArtificialTree
Figure15:GWPofArtificialvs.NaturalTreebyLifeCycleStage
54
Incineration
Composting
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
4.5.1
TheGWPimpactofanaturaltreethatislandfilledisalwaysnegative;thereforefromaGWP perspective, a natural tree that is landfilled is always environmentally preferable to an artificialtree(Table18). During cultivation, the natural tree sequesters carbon and stores it in the trees biomass. Whenthetreeislandfilled,only23%ofthestoredcarbonisreleased;theremaining77%is sequesteredinthelandfillformorethan100years(EPA 2006).Inadditiontothereleaseof storedcarbon,thereissomepositiveGWPimpactoflandfillingthenaturaltreeassociated with the energy (thermal and electric, 31%) required to operate the landfill, and various landfillprocesses:surfacesealing(15%),wastedisposal(14%),landfillbody(14%),landfill gasflare(12%),andlandfillgasCHP(10%).AGWPcreditisreceivedforproducingelectricity fromlandfillgas,whichoffsetsapproximately11%oftheGWPemissions.Inthiscase,the GWP impact from EndofLife, Use, and Finished Tree to Home life cycle phases are not greaterthantheGWPbenefitofgrowingthenaturaltree.Therefore,theoveralllifecycleof thelandfillednaturaltreehasanetnegativeGWPimpact.
4.5.2
The artificial tree, used for only one year, when compared to a natural tree that is incinerated,resultsinroughly3.6timesmoreGWP(Table18).However,whenanartificial tree is kept for five years, the GWP impact of a natural tree purchased every year is approximately1.4timesgreater(Figure15).In10years,theGWPofanaturaltreeis2.8 timesthatofasinglereusedartificialtree. TheGWPimpactofincineratingthenaturaltreeissignificanttotheoverallGWPimpactof theincineratednaturaltree.TheGWPforincinerationisattributedtotheemissionsfrom the boiler (95%). The GWP credit received for producing electricity and steam offsets roughly14%oftheGWPemissions. AlthoughthereisaGWPcreditreceivedforoffsettingsteamandelectricitygeneratedusing fossil fuels, the credit is not greater than the GWP impact of burning the tree at the incinerator. Therefore the incineration EndofLife contributes to the overall GWP of the tree. In this case, the GWP impact from EndofLife, Use, and Finished Tree to Home life cyclephasesaregreaterthantheGWPbenefitofgrowingthenaturaltree.Thereforethe overalllifecycleoftheincineratednaturaltreecontributestoGWP.
4.5.3
The artificial tree, used for only one year, when compared to a natural tree that is composted, results in roughly 4 times more GWP (Table 18). However, when an artificial treeiskeptforfiveyears,thenonrenewablePEDimpactofanaturaltreepurchasedevery yearisapproximately1.3timesgreater(Figure15).In10years,thenonrenewablePEDofa naturaltreeis2.5timesthatofasinglereusedartificialtree.
PE Americas
55
The GWP associated with EndofLife is a result of the degradation of the biomass during composting. There is no energy credit for composting. In this case, the GWP impact from EndofLife, Use, and Finished Tree to Home life cycle phases are greater than the GWP benefit of growing the natural tree. Therefore the overall life cycle of the composted naturaltreecontributestoGWP.
4.6 AirAcidificationPotential(AcidRainPotential)
Air acidification potential is a measure of emissions that cause acidifying effects to the environment. The acidification potential is assigned by relating the existing S, N, and halogenatomstothemolecularweight. Theacidificationofsoilsandwatersoccurspredominantlythroughthetransformationofair pollutantsintoacids.ThisleadstoadecreaseinthepHvalueofrainwaterandfogfrom5.6 to 4 and below. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide and their respective acids (H2SO4 and HNO3)producerelevantcontributions.Thisdamagesecosystems,wherebyforestdiebackis themostwellknownimpact.Acidificationhasdirectandindirectdamagingeffects(suchas nutrientsbeingwashedoutofsoilsoranincreasedsolubilityofmetalsintosoils).Buildings andbuildingmaterialscanbedamaged.Examplesincludemetalsandnaturalstoneswhich arecorrodedordisintegratedatanincreasedrate.Whenanalyzingacidification,itshould beconsideredthatalthoughitisaglobalproblem,theregionaleffectsofacidificationcan vary. Acomparisonofthetotalacidificationpotential(AP)ofthenaturalvs.artificialChristmas treeisshowninTable19andFigure16.DetailsspecifictochoiceofnaturaltreeEndofLife scenariosaredetailedinthefollowingsubsections. The AP for the artificial tree is primarily associated with the manufacturing phase (62%), withnoticeablecontributionsduringthelifecyclephase:FinishedTreetoHome(36%).The UsephasehasanegligibleAPimpactandEndofLife(disposalinalandfill)contributes2% ofthePEDimpact.TheimpactsaredetailedfurtherinSections4.9.1and4.10.1. TheAPforthenaturaltreeisprimarilyassociatedwiththemanufacturing/cultivationphase. Cultivationaccountsforbetween32%and59%ofthePEDimpact.FinishedTreetoHome PED impacts rangefrom18%to 26%,dependingontheEndofLifescenariochosen. The impactsaredetailedfurtherinSections4.9.2and4.10.2.
PE Americas
56
Table19:APofArtificialvs.NaturalChristmasTreebyLifeCycleStage
ArtificialTree Landfill NaturalTree Incineration 1year Composting Landfill NaturalTree Incineration 5year Composting Landfill NaturalTree Incineration 10year Composting Total 6.15 0.94 1.09 0.75 4.70 5.43 3.73 9.39 10.86 7.46 Manufactu ring/ Cultivation 3.82 0.51 0.51 0.51 2.53 2.53 2.53 5.05 5.05 5.05 Finished Treeto Home 2.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.91 1.91 1.91 Use 7 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.09 Endof Life 0.14 0.23 0.38 0.04 1.17 1.90 0.20 2.35 3.81 0.41
Natural TreeScenarios
14
1 year5 year10 year
EndofLife Use FinishedTreeto Home Manufacturing/ Cultivation Total
AcidificationPotential,molH+eq
12 10 8 6.15 6 4 2 0 0.94 1.09 0.75 5.43 4.70 3.73 9.39
10.86
7.46
Composting
Composting
Incineration
Incineration
Figure16:APofArtificialvs.NaturalChristmasTreebyLifeCycleStage
PE Americas
ArtificialTree
Incineration
Composting
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
4.6.1
Theartificialtree,usedforonlyoneyear,whencomparedtoanaturaltreethatislandfilled, resultsinroughly6.5timesmoreAP(Table19).However,whenanartificialtreeiskeptfor tenyears,theAPimpactofanaturaltreepurchasedeveryyearisapproximately1.5times greater(Figure16). Theacidificationimpactoflandfillingthenaturaltreeis25%oftheoverallAPimpactofthe landfillednaturaltree.TheAPforlandfillingisassociatedwiththesurfacesealingprocess (37%) and the energy (thermal andelectric, 37%) required to operate the landfill. The AP creditreceivedforproducingelectricityfromlandfillgasoffsetsapproximately36%ofthe APemissions.
4.6.2
The artificial tree, used for only one year, when compared to a natural tree that is incinerated,resultsinroughly5.6timesmoreAP(Table19).In10years,theAPofanatural treeis1.8timesthatofasinglereusedartificialtree(Figure16). Theacidificationimpactofincineratingthenaturaltreeis35%oftheoverallAPimpactof the incinerated natural tree. 89% of the AC impact is attributed to emissions from the boiler.TheAPcreditreceivedforproducingelectricityandsteamoffsetsroughly40%ofthe APemissions.
4.6.3
The artificial tree, used for only one year, when compared to a natural tree that is composted,resultsinroughly8timesmoreAP(Table19).In10years,theAPofanatural treeis1.2timesthatofasinglereusedartificialtree(Figure16). Theacidificationimpactofcompostingthenaturaltreeissmall,andonlycontributes5.5% oftheoverallAPimpactofthecompostednaturaltree.
4.7 EutrophicationPotential
Excessive nutrient input into water and land from substances such as phosphorus and nitrogenfromagriculture,combustionprocessesandeffluents. Eutrophicationiscausedbyexcessivenutrientinputs,andcanbeaquaticorterrestrial.Air pollutants,wastewaterandfertilizationinagricultureallcontributetoeutrophication.The result in water is an accelerated algae growth, which in turn, prevents sunlight from reaching the lower depths. This leads to a decrease in photosynthesis and less oxygen production.Inaddition,oxygenisneededforthedecompositionofdeadalgae.Botheffects cause a decreased oxygen concentration in the water, which can eventually lead to fish dyingandtoanaerobicdecomposition(decompositionintheabsenceofoxygen).Hydrogen sulfide and methane are thereby produced. This can lead to the destruction of the eco system. On eutrophied soils, an increased susceptibility of plants to diseases and pests is oftenobserved,asisadegradationofplantstability.Iftheeutrophicationlevelexceedsthe
amounts of nitrogen necessary for a maximum harvest, it can lead to an enrichment of nitrate. This can cause, by means of leaching, increased nitrate content in groundwater. Nitrate also ends up in drinking water and can cause methemoglobinemia or blue baby syndrome. AcomparisonofthetotalEutrophicationPotential(EP)ofthenaturalvs.artificialChristmas treeisshowninTable20andFigure17.DetailsspecifictochoiceofnaturaltreeEndofLife scenariosaredetailedinthefollowingsubsections. The EP for the artificial tree is primarily associated with the manufacturing phase (61%), withnoticeablecontributionsduringthelifecyclephase:FinishedTreetoHome(28%).The Use phase and EndofLife (disposal in a landfill) contribute 9% and 2% of the ED impact, respectively.TheimpactsaredetailedfurtherinSections4.9.1and4.10.1. ThecultivationphaseofthenaturalChristmastreehasanegativeeutrophicationpotential. This is because during cultivation, the tree absorbs nitrogen and acts as a nitrogen sink (similar to how the growth of the tree is a carbon sink). The impacts associated with the other three life cycle stages contribute to eutrophication potential; however, the contributions from Finished Tree to Home and Use phases are relatively small. As is discussedbelow,theoverallEPofthenaturaltreedependsheavilyonwhethertheendof lifehasasmallorlargeEPpotential.TheimpactsaredetailedfurtherinSections4.9.2and 4.10.2. Table20:EPofArtificialvs.NaturalChristmasTreebyLifeCycleStage
EutrophicationPotential,EP(kgNequiv.) Manufactur Finished ing/ Treeto Use 8 Cultivation Home 2.84E03 1.30E03 4.10E04 2.37E03 1.38E04 5.19E06 2.37E03 1.38E04 5.19E06 2.37E03 1.38E04 5.19E06 1.18E02 6.89E04 2.60E05 1.18E02 6.89E04 2.60E05 1.18E02 6.89E04 2.60E05 2.37E02 2.37E02 2.37E02 1.38E03 1.38E03 1.38E03 5.19E05 5.19E05 5.19E05
ArtificialTree Landfill Incineration Composting Landfill Incineration Composting Landfill Incineration Composting
Total 4.62E03 3.97E03 1.68E03 2.18E03 1.99E02 8.38E03 1.09E02 3.97E02 1.68E02 2.18E02
EndofLife 7.88E05 6.19E03 5.47E04 4.82E05 3.10E02 2.74E03 2.41E04 6.19E02 5.47E03 4.82E04
NaturalTree 1year NaturalTree 5year NaturalTree 10year
PE Americas
7.E02

6.E02 5.E02
EndofLife Use FinishedTreetoHome Manufacturing/ Cultivation Total
EutrophicationPotential(kgNeq)
4.E02 3.E02 2.E02 1.E02 0.E+00
Composting
Composting
Incineration
Incineration
1.E02 2.E02 3.E02
4.7.1
Theartificialtree,usedforonlyoneyear,whencomparedtoanaturaltreethatislandfilled, resultsinroughly1.6timesmoreEP(Table20).However,whenanartificialtreeiskeptfor fiveortenyears,theEPimpactofanaturaltreepurchasedeveryyearisapproximately4.3 and8.6timesgreater,respectively(Figure17). Thehigheutrophicationfromthelandfillisprimarilyduetohighammoniaflowsintofresh water from the leachate treatment at the landfill. The EP credit received for producing electricityfromlandfillgasissmall,<1%oftheEPthatresultsfromthelandfillprocess.The eutrophication at end of life is greater than the EP credit (from nitrogen uptake) during cultivation.ThereforethelandfillednaturaltreehasanimpactassociatedwithEP.
4.7.2
TheEPfromincinerationisassociatedwiththeboilerstackemissions(89%).TheEPcredit receivedforproducingelectricityandsteamoffsetsroughly12%oftheEPemissions. When the natural tree is incinerated, the contributions to EP from the Finished Tree to Home,UseandEndofLifephasesislessthantheEPabsorbedfromcultivatingthenatural
ArtificialTree
Figure17:EPofArtificialvs.NaturalTreebyLifeCycleStage
Incineration
Composting
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
tree. In other words, the overall EP life cycle is negative, and for a natural tree that is incineratedunderthestatedconditions,thereisapointwheretheartificialtreewillhavea smallerEPimpact.
4.7.3
When the natural tree is composted, the contributions to EP from the Finished Tree to Home,UseandEndofLifephasesislessthantheEPabsorbedfromcultivatingthenatural tree. In other words, the overall EP life cycle is negative, and for a natural tree that is compostedunderthestatedconditions,thereispointwheretheartificialtreewillhavea smallerEPimpact.
4.8 SmogPotential
A measure of emissions of precursors that contribute to low level smog, produced by the reactionofnitrogenoxidesandvolatileorganiccompounds(VOCs)undertheinfluenceofUV light. Despiteplayingaprotectiveroleinthestratosphere,atgroundlevel,ozoneisclassifiedasa damaging trace gas. Photochemical ozone production in the troposphere, also known as summer smog, is suspected to damage vegetation and material. High concentrations of ozonearetoxictohumans.Radiationfromthesunandthepresenceofnitrogenoxidesand hydrocarbons incur complex chemical reactions, producing aggressive reaction products, oneofwhichisozone.Nitrogenoxides(NOx)alonedonotcausehighozoneconcentration levels. Hydrocarbon emissions occur from incomplete combustion, in conjunction with gasoline (storage,turnover,refuelingetc.)orfromsolvents.Highconcentrationsofozonearisewhen thetemperatureishigh,humidityislow,whenairisrelativelystaticandwhentherearehigh concentrations of hydrocarbons. Today it is assumed that the existence of NOx and CO reducestheaccumulatedozonetoNO2,CO2andO2.Thismeansthathighconcentrationsof ozonedonotoftenoccurnearhydrocarbonemissionsources.Higherozoneconcentrations morecommonlyariseinareasofcleanair,suchasforests,wherethereislessNOxandCO. Whenanalyzing,itsimportanttorememberthattheactualozoneconcentrationisstrongly influencedbytheweatherandotherlocalconditions. Acomparisonofthetotalsmogpotentialofthenaturalvs.artificialChristmastreeisshown inTable21andFigure18.DetailsspecifictochoiceofnaturaltreeEndofLifescenariosare detailedinthefollowingsubsections. The smog potential for the artificial tree is primarily associated with the manufacturing phase (51%) and during Finished Tree to Home (45.5%). The Use phase and EndofLife (disposal in a landfill) contributes 1% and 2.5% of the smog potential, respectively. The impactsaredetailedfurtherinSections4.9.1and4.10.1.
PE Americas
61
The smog potential for the natural tree is primarily associated with the manufacturing/cultivation phase and with the EndofLife. Cultivation accounts for between 30% and 62% of the smog potential, whereas Finished Tree to Home smog potential ranges from 11% to 25%, depending on the EndofLife scenario chosen. The impactsaredetailedfurtherinSections4.9.2and4.10.2. Table21:SmogAirofArtificialvs.NaturalChristmasTreebyLifeCycleStage
SmogPotential(kgNOxequiv.) ArtificialTree Landfill NaturalTree Incineration 1year Composting Landfill NaturalTree Incineration 5year Composting Landfill NaturalTree Incineration 10year Composting Total 6.16E05 1.15E05 1.86E05 8.48E06 5.77E05 9.31E05 4.24E05 1.15E04 1.86E04 8.48E05 Manufacturing /Cultivation 3.15E05 5.35E06 5.35E06 5.35E06 2.68E05 2.68E05 2.68E05 5.35E05 5.35E05 5.35E05 Finished Treeto Home 2.80E05 2.12E06 2.12E06 2.12E06 1.06E05 1.06E05 1.06E05 2.12E05 2.12E05 2.12E05 Use 9 5.53E07 9.74E08 9.74E08 9.74E08 4.87E07 4.87E07 4.87E07 9.74E07 9.74E07 9.74E07 Endof Life 1.54E06 3.96E06 1.11E05 9.06E07 1.98E05 5.53E05 4.53E06 3.96E05 1.11E04 9.06E06
PE Americas
2.E04 2.E04 2.E04
SmogPotential(kgNOxeq)
1.E04 1.E04 1.E04 8.E05 6.E05 4.E05 2.E05 0.E+00
EndofLife Use FinishedTreetoHome Manufacturing/ Cultivation
Composting
Composting
Incineration
Incineration
Figure18:SmogAirofArtificialvs.NaturalTreebyLifeCycleStage
4.8.1
Theartificialtree,usedforonlyoneyear,whencomparedtoanaturaltreethatislandfilled, resultsinroughly5.4timesmoresmog(Table21).However,whenanartificialtreeiskept fortenyears,thesmogimpactofanaturaltreepurchasedeveryyearisapproximately1.9 timesgreater(Figure18). The smog potential associated with landfilling the natural tree is 34% of the overall smog potentialofthelandfillednaturaltree.Thesmogforlandfillingisassociatedwiththeenergy (thermal and electric, 36%) required to operate the landfill, the surface sealing process (21%), the compactor (14%) and the CHP plant (13%). The smog credit received for producingelectricityfromlandfillgasoffsetsapproximately16%ofthesmogemissionsat thelandfill.
4.8.2
Theartificialtree,usedforonlyoneyear,whencomparedtoanaturaltreethatislandfilled, resultsinroughly3.3timesmoresmog(Table21).However,whenanartificialtreeiskept
PE Americas
ArtificialTree
63
Incineration
Composting
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
fortenyears,thesmogimpactofanaturaltreepurchasedeveryyearisapproximately3.0 timesgreater(Figure18). The smog potential associated with incineration of the natural tree is 59% of the overall smog potential of the burned natural tree. The smog from incineration is primarily from emissions at the boiler stack (94% of emissions). The smog credit received for producing electricityandsteamoffsetsapproximately20%ofthesmogemissionsattheincinerator.
4.8.3
The artificial tree, used for only one year, when compared to a natural tree that is composted, results in roughly 7.3 times more smog (Table 21). In 10 years, the AP of a naturaltreeis1.4timesthatofasinglereusedartificialtree(Figure18).Thesmogimpactof compostingissmallinmagnitude;landfillingandincineratingresultin4timesand12times moresmogemissionsatEndofLife,respectively.
4.9 TreeManufacture&Cultivation
AsshowninSections4.4through4.8,themostsignificantenvironmentalimpact(acrossall categories)isassociatedwiththemanufactureoftheartificialtreeandthecultivationofthe naturaltree.
4.9.1
ArtificialTreeManufacture
Theartificialtreeproduction(Figure2)hasseveralcomponentsincludingpackagingandthe production of the branches, metal fastener, metal hinge, tree pole, tree stand and top insert. As is shown in Figure 19, the largest impact from artificial tree production is the production of branches (between 44% and 70% of the total production impact). The packaging step also contributes, particularly to the EP (27%) and the nonrenewable PED (10%). Note the packaging step has a negative GWP because the best available FEFCO datasetsforcardboardandrecycledpaper(usedinthetreepackaging)haveaGWPcredit fromitsproduction.Inotherwords,thisdatashowsagreatercarbonsequestrationinthe production of trees than carbon emissions during cardboard and paper production. Productionofthetreepole,themetalhingeandthetreestandandtopinsertallcontribute approximately6%to13%acrosstheimpactcategories. The environmental burden from the production of branches (Figure 20) is primarily attributed to the use of PVC granulate which contributes 43% to 67% of the total impact across the impact categories. The use of steel wire also significantly contributes to the environmental burden (28% to 41% across impact categories). Power and thermal energy usedattheproductionplantinChinahasmoderatetosmallcontributions;thepowergrid carries between 4% and 18% of the total environmental burden, and the thermal energy fromnaturalgascarrieslessthan2.5%acrossallimpactcategories.
PE Americas
64
ArtificialTreeProduction
100% Branches 80% Packaging
PercentofImpact
60%
MetalFastener MetalHinge TreePole TreeStandandTop Insert
40%
20%
0%
20%
PrimaryEnergy Demand(PED) NonRenewable Acidification Potential(AP) Eutrophication GlobalWarming SmogPotential Potential(EP) Potential(GWP)
Figure19:BreakdownofImpactsAssociatedwithArtificialTreeProduction
ProductionofBranches
100% 90% 80% 70% TotalPVCGranulate SteelWire(China) PowerGrid(China) ThermalEnergy(China,NG)
PercentofImpact
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

PrimaryEnergy Acidification Eutrophication Demand(PED) Potential(AP) Potential(EP) NonRenewable Global Warming Potential (GWP) SmogPotential
Figure20:BreakdownofImpactsAssociatedwithProductionofBranches
PE Americas
65
4.9.2
NaturalTreeCultivation
Like the artificial tree, the primaryburden of the natural tree lies with the cultivation life cycle stage, which includes onfarm activities such as cultivation, planting, maintenance, transportandpackagingaswellasthemanufactureofthenaturaltreestand.Asshownin Figure21,theenvironmentalburdenisprimarilyassociatedwiththeagriculturalprocesses on the farm. The packaging and onfarm transport, contribute minimally to the overall impactofthecultivationlifecyclestageforthenaturaltree. Note that the burden lies with cultivation for primary energy demand, acidification potentialandsmogpotential.However,unliketheartificialtree,theproductionofanatural treehasenvironmentalbenefits.Duringcultivation,carbondioxideisabsorbedfromtheair and nitrogen is absorbed from the soil resulting in a net benefit associated with global warmingpotentialandeutrophicationpotential,respectively.Thus,thereisanetnegative contributionforthesetwoimpactcategoriesduringcultivation. During the natural tree manufacturing/cultivation, 56% of the PED is associated with the treestandand42%isassociatedwiththeagriculturalprocesses.Ofthe42%impactfrom agricultural processes, 85% is from the cultivation of the tree from years 4 to 11. Of the 56%impactfromthetreestand,96%isassociatedwiththeplasticpart.
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% MJ 20% molH+Equiv. kgNEquiv. kgCO2Equiv. kgNOxEquiv. Smog Potential 1.AgriculturalProcesses(Cultivation, Planting,PlantationCare,Harvest) 2.OnFarmTransport 3.PackagingincludingWaste 4.1yearofa10 yearTreeStand
Primary Acidification Eutrophication Global Energy Potential(AP) Potential(EP) Warming 40% Demand(PED) Potential Non (GWP) Renewable 60% 80% 100%
Figure21:BreakdownofImpactsAssociatedwithNaturalTreeCultivation
PE Americas
66
As mentioned in Sections 3.2.1.7 and 3.2.2, baling of the natural tree with polypropylene string is modeled to occur at the farm for transport to the retailer, but not from finished treetohome.Theimpactofbalinga15kgnaturaltreeisshowninTable22.Ifthetreeis baledasecondtimeattheretailerfortransporthometheseburdenscanbeaddedtothe overalllifecycleimpact.Theimpactofthebalingstepislessthan1.5%oftheoverallnatural treelifecycleacrossallimpactcategoriesandforallEndofLifescenarios. Table22:ImpactofBalingChristmasTree
ImpactCategory PrimaryEnergyDemand(PED)NonRenewable AcidificationPotential(AP) EutrophicationPotential(EP) GlobalWarmingPotential(GWP) SmogPotential Units MJ molH+Equiv. kgNEquiv. kgCO2Equiv. kgNOxEquiv. BalingTree 0.653 0.00347 1.98E06 0.0190 3.22E08
4.10 TreeTransportation
AsshowninSections4.4through4.8,thetransportationduringthelifecyclestagefinished treetohomeisalsoasignificantcontributortotheoverallenvironmentalburdenfromthe artificialandnaturalChristmastree.AsshowninFigure22andFigure23,thecartransport dominatestheoveralltransportationimpact.Tobetterunderstandthisimpact,asensitivity analysiswascompletedandisdetailedinSection5.
4.10.1 ArtificialTreeTransportation
TransportingthefinishedartificialtreefromChinatoahomeintheUSrequiresfoursteps: (1) truck transport from the factory in China to the port in China; (2) ship transport from ChinatotheUS;(3)trucktransportfromtheUSporttotheUSretailer;and(4)individual cartransportfromtheretailertohome. For the artificial tree (Figure 22), the car transport (despite the short travel distances comparedtoearliertruckandshiptransportationsteps)carriesthemajorityofthePrimary Energy Demand and Global Warming Potential burden. This is because transportation of bulkitemsintrucksandshipsisefficient;thetransportationburdenofoneindividualtree whenbeingtransportedamongmanyissmall.Conversely,cartransportationisinefficient andtheburdenofthecartransportisallocatedentirelytothetreebeingtransported.This assumesthattheindividualbuyinganartificialtreerequirestraveling5miles(roundtrip)in anaverageAmericancarforthesolepurposeofbuyingthetree.Inotherwords,thistripis notcombinedwithdailygroceryshoppingorothererrandsthatcouldotherwisesharethe burden. Conversely, for the impact categories of acidification potential, eutrophication potential, andsmogpotential,thetransportationburdenresideswiththeshippingofthetreesfrom
China to the US (approximately 12,000 km). Acidification potential is high for shipping because of the use of heavy fuel oil, which has a higher sulfur content than gasoline and resultsinmuchgreaterSOxemissions.AcidificationPotential,EutrophicationPotential,and SmogPotentialaredrivenbythehigherNOxfromshipping.IncreasedNOxemissionsduring combustionarerelatedtoengineefficiencyandthelackofstringentregulationsonthese emissions.Itshouldalsoberememberedthatacidification,eutrophication,andsmogaffect thelocalenvironmentalinwhichtheyarereleased.Theshipemissionsarereleasedover theocean,whereasthecaremissionsoccurinpopulatedareas. Additionally, because cargo ships travel carrying large quantities of goods, in this case many Christmas trees, only a small portion of the cargo ship impact is allocated to each individual Christmas tree. Conversely, the primary energy demand and emissions (mostly carbon dioxide and methane) fromcar transport are 100% allocated to the purchase of a Christmastree.ThiscreatesthehighcontributiontoGWPandPEDfortheUScar. Note that the distance traveled by truck from US port to retailer varies depending upon wherewithintheUStheconsumerresides;howeverthisimpactremainsasmallpercentage oftheoveralltransportationimpacts,evenforlargertraveldistances.
PE Americas
68
ArtificialTreeTransportation
100% 90% 80% 70% Car,Retailerto Home,2.5mileseach way Truck,Portto Retailer,15.5milesto Warehouse+881 milestoRetailer Ship,ChinatoUS, 7471miles
PercentofImpact
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% MJ molH+Equiv. kgNEquiv. kgCO2Equiv. kgNOxEquiv. Smog Potential
Truck,Factoryto Port,81miles
Acidification Eutrophication Global Primary Potential(AP) Potential(EP) Warming Energy Potential Demand(PED) Non (GWP)
Figure22:TransportationofArtificialTreefromFactorytoPointofUse
4.10.2 NaturalTreeTransportation
BecausethenaturaltreeisgrownintheUnitedStates,thetransportationfromthegrown treetoanindividualshomeforuseonlyhastwosteps:(1)trucktransportfromthefarmto theretailer,and(2)individualcartransportfromtheretailertohome. Across all impact categories the car transportdominates (even for local travelconditions) withover90%ofthetotalimpactacrossallcategories(Figure23).
PE Americas
69
NaturalTreeTransportation
100% 90% 80% 70% Car,RetailertoHome, 2.5mileseachway
PercentofImpact
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% MJ molH+Equiv. kgNEquiv. kgCO2Equiv. kgNOxEquiv. Smog Potential
PoleLoggingTruck, FarmtoRetailer,130 miles
Primary Acidification Eutrophication Global Energy Potential(AP) Potential(EP) Warming Demand(PED) Potential Non (GWP) Renewable
Figure23:TransportationofNaturalTreefromFarmtoPointofUse
4.11 TreeStand
Thetreestandfortheartificialtreeispartoftheartificialtreemanufactureandassembly process.TheartificialtreestandismadeofinjectedmoldedPVCandweighs0.41kg.The tree stand contributes 6% to 10% of the environmental impacts of the artificial tree manufacturing and packaging phase. Since the tree stand is included in the product, it is assumedtohavealifetimeequaltothatoftheartificialtree. Thenaturaltreestandismadeseparatelyfromthecultivationofthetree.Thetreestandis modeledtohavealifetimeof10years,anaverageweightof2.04kg(FKF2008,typeCynco C144) consisting of 90% plastic and 10% metal (mainly screws). Note that the cultivation/manufacturing life cycle includes the agricultural processes and the manufacturing of the tree stand. Refer to Figure 21 for the breakdown of the tree stand relativetothecultivationofthenaturaltree.)
PE Americas
70
Whencomparingthetreestands,acomparisonismadeforthefirstyear,andimpactsfor thefullartificialtreestandarecomparedtoimpactsassociatedwith1/10thofthenatural treestand. Table23:ComparisonoftheNaturalandArtificialTreeStands

NaturalTree Stand* 16.57 0.09 2.30E04 0.70 1.88E06 ArtificialTree ArtificialTree Stand/Natural Stand TreeStand 22.07 0.29 1.76E04 1.07 2.32E06 1.33 3.31 0.76 1.53 1.24
ImpactCategory
Units
PrimaryEnergy MJ Demand(PED)Non AcidificationPotential molH+Equiv. (AP) Eutrophication kgNEquiv. Potential(EP) GlobalWarming kgCO2Equiv. Potential(GWP) SmogPotential kgNOxEquiv.
*1yearof10yeartreestand
Table24summarizesthepercentofimpactattributedtothetreestand.Whentheoverall lifecycleisnegative,novalueisshownbutacharacterizationofthetreestandsimpactis summarizedinthefollowingtext. Theartificialtreestandcontributesbetween4%and8%oftheoverallartificialtree lifecycleimpacts. Forthelandfillednaturaltree,treestandimpacts(excludingGWP)rangefrom6%to 18%.TheoverallGWPimpactsofthelandfillednaturaltreearenegative;thesumof the life cycle GWP sources is 7.1 kg CO2eq and of the sources, the tree stand contributes10%. Fortheincineratednaturaltree,treestandimpacts(excludingEP)rangefrom8%to 33%.TheoverallEPimpactsoftheincineratednaturaltreearenegative;thesumof the life cycle EP sources is 1.1E3 kg Nequiv. and of the sources, the tree stand contributes22%. Forthecompostednaturaltree,treestandimpacts(excludingEP)rangefrom24% to40%.TheoverallEPimpactsofthecompostednaturaltreearenegative;thesum of the life cycle EP sources is 4.2E4 kg Nequiv. and of the sources, the tree stand contributes55%.
PE Americas
71
NotethattheAPfortheartificialtreestandisnearly3timesgreaterthantheAPforthe natural tree stand. The difference in AP is related to the difference in the environmental burden of the various raw materials and the quantities of each material used for the differenttreestands.Additionally,theartificialtreestandisproducedinChinawherethe gridelectricityisprimarilyfromcoal,whichhasahighAPburden.Conversely,thenatural treestandismodeledwithUSsystemboundarieswheretheelectricitygridiscleanerand hasalowerAPimpact. Table24:TreeStandasFractionofOverallTreeLifeCycle
ImpactCategory Units ArtificialTree (%ofATLife Cycle) 7.5% 4.9% 3.9% 6.0% 3.9% 16.3% NaturalTreeStand(%ofNTLifeCycle) Landfill 17.7% 9.3% 5.8% 13.7% 10.1% 23.8% 28.4% Incineration 32.7% 8.1% Composting 33.8% 40.3%
PrimaryEnergy MJ Demand(PED)Non AcidificationPotential molH+Equiv. (AP) Eutrophication kgNEquiv. Potential(EP) GlobalWarming kgCO2Equiv. Potential(GWP) SmogPotential kgNOxEquiv.
Novalueisshownabovewhentheoveralllifecyclevalueisnegative.
Notethatthelifespanofthemetalstandforthenaturaltreeisindependentofthenatural treeandcouldlastlongerthantenyears.Theannualizedimpactsforthenaturaltreestand wouldsubsequentlybesmallerthelongerthetreestandsarekept.
4.12 TreeLights
This study compares unlit trees; tree lights (manufacturing, use and endoflife) were excluded from this life cycle study because, like ornaments and other decorations, they wereassumedtobecomparablebetweentheartificialandthenaturaltree.However,the electricity consumption of Christmas tree lights is estimated here to enable the reader to getafeelingfortherelativeimpactsofatreelifecyclecomparedtothatoftheelectricity consumedbyChristmastreelights. Astringof50incandescentChristmaslightsuses25Watts(BRAIN2000).Thisequatesto0.29 MJPEDnonrenewableassuming3.25kWPEDperkWelectricintheUS.Duringthe18days thetreeisused,assumingthelightsarelitfor4hoursperdayandthatthereareonaverage 400lightspertree,theuseoftheChristmastreelightsresultsinapproximately170MJof nonrenewablePED. Astringof50smallLEDChristmaslightsuses4Watts(adaptedfromPHILIPS2006)underthe same conditions would use 27 MJ of nonrenewable PED or 1/6th of the PED consumed burningincandescentlights.
Figure 24 shows the primary energy demand of one year of electricity consumption by either LED or incandescent lights together with the full life cycle impacts of either the naturalorartificialChristmastree.TheartificialChristmastreeimpactsareshownforatree whichiskeptfor1year,5years,or10yearsbeforedisposal.Thenaturaltreeisshownfor oneyearusefollowedbyeitherlandfill,incineration,orcompostingatendoflife.
ComparisonofElectricityConsumedbyLightsandtheTreeLifeCycles for1ChristmasSeason
PrimaryEnergyDemand(PED),nonrenwable[MJ]
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
LED
Incadecent
1yearLife
5yearLife
10yearLife
Landfill
Incineration Composting NaturalTreeLCA
Useof400TreeLights
ArtificialTreeLCA
Figure24:ComparisonofChristmasTreeLightElectricityConsumptionwithUnlitTreeLife Cycles Inthecontextoftheoveralltreelifecycle(refertoTable16): For the artificial tree, incandescent and LED lights equate to 55% and 9% of the overallartificialtreePEDimpact,respectively. Forthelandfillednaturaltree,LEDlightsequateto29%oftheoverallnaturaltree PEDimpact.Ifincandescentlightsareused,thePEDimpactofthelightsis1.8times theimpactofthenaturaltreelifecycle. Fortheincineratednaturaltree,LEDlightsequateto53%oftheoverallnaturaltree PEDimpact.Ifincandescentlightsareused,thePEDimpactofthelightsis3.3times theimpactofthenaturaltreelifecycle.
PE Americas
73
Forthecompostednaturaltree,LEDlightsequateto40%oftheoverallnaturaltree impact.Ifincandescentlightsareused,thePEDimpactofthelightsis2.5timesthe impactofthenaturaltreelifecycle. Overall,theimpactoftheuseofChristmastreelightsissignificantwhencomparedtothe lifecycleofeitheranaturalorartificialtreeandthereisasignificantPEDbenefitassociated tousingLEDlightsoverincandescentlights.PleasenotethatthechoiceofChristmaslights hasnoeffectontheabsolutedifferencebetweenanartificialornaturaltreelifecycle,butit will affect a relative (percentage) comparison as the inclusion of lights increases the total impactsofbothtrees.
4.13 TreesinContext
AccordingtotheUnionofConcernedScientists(UCS2006),theaverageAmericansshareof carbon dioxide emissions is 19.78 tons per year (17,950 kg CO2 equivalent per capita per year). This equates to approximately 49 kg CO2 equivalent per capita per day. When consideringthelifecycleimpactofpurchasinganaturalChristmastree,asseeninTable25, the impact of the natural tree is less than 15% of the average Americans daily GWP emissions.Fortheartificialtree,assumingworstcasescenario(thetreeisonlykeptforone year)thetreesimpactislessthan40%oftheaverageAmericansdailyGWPemissions. Table25:GWPImpactsComparedtoUSPerCapitaEmissions
LifeCycleImpacts NaturalTree Landfill* Incineration Composting 7.1 14.5% 5.1 10.4% 4.7 9.5% 1/10
ArtificialTree GWP[kgCO2 Equiv.] %ofimpact 18.6 37.8%
FractionofDaily 3/8 1/7 1/9 Emissions *GWPSourcesOnly(thelifecycleofthelandfillednaturaltreeisnegative)
Note that Christmas trees are used on an annual basis and therefore the use of the Christmastreecanbeconsideredinthecontextofanindividualsannualcarbonfootprint. The impact of the tree life cycle, for all scenarios, is less than 0.1% of a persons annual carbon footprint and therefore is negligible within the context of the average Americans lifestyle.
PE Americas
74
5 SENSITIVITYANDBREAKEVENANALYSIS
5.1 Transportation
Giventheimportanceoftransportationtotheresultsofthisstudy,sensitivityanalyseswere runtoexaminetheinfluenceofthechosentransportationdistances.Formostoftheabove mentioned environmental indicators, the use of a personal car had the most significant effectofallthetransportationsegments.Thecarimpactsaremodeledassumingtheonly reasonfordrivingthecaristopurchaseaChristmastree.Iftheconsumerpurchasesother goods,orrunsothererrandsaspartofthesametrip,theimpactsassociatedwiththecar shouldbedividedamongthemultiplepurposesofthetrip.Thefollowingsectionsshowthe number of years an artificial tree needs to be kept in order to have equivalent environmental impacts of a natural tree bought each yearfor the same number of years. ThisbreakevensensitivityisrunforallEndofLifescenarios.
5.1.1
EndofLifeA:100%Landfill
Figure 25 shows the number of years an artificial tree needs to be kept in order to have equivalentenvironmentalimpactsofanaturaltreeboughteachyearforthesamenumber ofyears.Thisisreferredtothebreakeven.Inthisfigure,itisassumedthattheconsumer would drive the same distance to purchase either a natural or artificial tree. For primary energy demand, acidification potential, eutrophication potential and smog potential the shorterthedistancetraveledtopurchaseatree,thelongeranartificialtreemustbekept. However, eutrophication potential is hardly dependent on the distance driven for the landfilled natural tree. The benefits of using an artificial tree instead of a natural tree accumulate faster where the consumer would need to travel long distances each year to acquire a new natural tree. As a reminder, the default distance assumed in the results presented earlier was 2.5 miles each way (5 miles round trip). For a 2.5 oneway trip purchase,thebreakevendistancevariesbetween1and7yearsdependingontheimpact categoryofinterest. Initially,globalwarmingpotential(GWP)forthelandfillednaturaltreeisnegative,inother words the life cycle of a landfilled natural tree that is a GWP sink. Therefore, the more naturaltreespurchased,thegreatertheenvironmentalglobalwarmingbenefit(themore negativeGWPbecomes).However,withincreasedtransporttopickupthenaturaltree,the overall landfilled natural tree life cycled becomes less negative. When car transport becomes greater than 5 miles (oneway), the overall life cycle of the natural tree is no longernegative,andthereisapositiveGWPcontribution.Iftransportislessthan5miles, themorenaturaltreespurchased,thegreatertheenvironmentalGWObenefit(themore negative GWP becomes). For car transport greater than 5 miles, the more natural trees purchased the greater the contribution to GWP. Therefore, a breakeven distance can be calculatedfordistancesgreaterthan5miles.
PE Americas
75
EnvironmentalImpact Artificialvs.Landfilled NaturalChristmasTree

12
Breakeven YearstoKeepanArtificialTree
10 8 6 4 2 0 2 0 4 6 8 OneWayDistancetoPickUpChristmasTree(mi) 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25
GlobalWarming Potential(GWP) Eutrophication Potential(EP) Acidification Potential(AP) SmogPotential
PrimaryEnergy Demand(PED) NonRenewable
Figure25:SensitivityofConsumerCarDistance,BreakEvenYears(A) Assumingthesameonewaydistanceforartificialandnaturaltreesandroundtriptransport occurs.NaturaltreelandfilledatEndofLife. Table 26 expands upon the analysis of Global Warming Potential from Figure 25 by presentingthenumberofyearstobreakevenwhenthedistancetheconsumertravelsto purchaseanartificialtreeisdifferentfromthatforanaturaltree.Hereitcanbeseenthat when the distance driven to purchase the natural tree is short (but greater than 5 miles) and the distance driven to purchase an artificial tree is long, the breakeven number of yearstokeepanartificialtreeisatthehighestextreme.Shortdistanceforanartificialtree coupled with a long distance for a natural tree provides the opposite extreme; the break evennumberofyearstokeeptheartificialtreesmall.However,whenthedistancetraveled forthenaturaltreeislessthanorequalto5miles,thereisnobreakevenpoint.Forthebase case, no GWP breakeven point exists, and the natural tree is always has less GWP comparedtotheartificialtreel.
PE Americas
76
Table26:GWPSensitivityofConsumerCarDistance,BreakEvenYears(A) Assumingthedifferentonewaydistanceforartificialandnaturaltreesandroundtrip transportoccurs.NaturaltreelandfilledatEndofLife.

Numberofyearsonemustreuseanartificialtreeinorderforittohaveanequivalentcarbon footprinttoayearlynaturaltree OneWayDistancebyCartoPurchaseanArtificialTree[miles] 0 1.25 2.5 3.75 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 0 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.3 4.7 5.1 5.5 6.0 6.4 6.8 1.25 3.8 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.9 5.4 6.0 6.5 7.1 7.6 8.1 8.7 2.5 5.2 5.6 5.9 6.3 6.7 7.4 8.2 8.9 9.7 10.4 11.2 11.9 3.75 8.3 8.9 9.5 10.1 10.7 11.9 13.1 14.3 15.5 16.7 17.9 19.1 OneWay 5 20.6 22.1 23.6 25.1 26.6 29.5 32.5 35.5 38.5 41.4 44.4 47.4 Distance 6.25 42.6 45.7 48.8 51.8 54.9 61.1 67.2 73.4 79.5 85.7 91.8 98.0 byCarto 7.5 10.5 11.2 12.0 12.7 13.5 15.0 16.5 18.0 19.5 21.1 22.6 24.1 Purchase 10 6.0 6.4 6.8 7.3 7.7 8.6 9.4 10.3 11.1 12.0 12.9 13.7 aNatural 12.5 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.1 5.4 6.0 6.6 7.2 7.8 8.4 9.0 9.6 Tree 15 3.2 3.4 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.6 5.1 5.5 6.0 6.5 6.9 7.4 [miles] 17.5 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.2 5.6 6.0 20 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.5 3.8 4.1 4.4 4.7 5.0 22.5 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.1 4.4 25 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.4 3.6 3.8
25 7.3 9.2 12.7 20.3 50.3 104.1 25.6 14.6 10.2 7.8 6.4 5.4 4.6 4.1
5.1.2
EndofLifeB:100%Incineration
Figure 26 shows the number of years an artificial tree needs to be kept in order to have equivalentenvironmentalimpactsofanaturaltreeboughteachyearforthesamenumber ofyears.Thisisreferredtothebreakeven.Inthisfigure,itisassumedthattheconsumer would drive the same distance to purchase either a natural or artificial tree. For primary energy demand, acidification potential, global warming potential and smog potential the shorterthedistancetraveledtopurchaseatree,thelongeranartificialtreemustbekept. The benefits of using an artificial tree instead of a natural tree accumulate much faster wheretheconsumerwouldneedtotravellongdistanceseachyeartoacquireanewnatural tree.Asareminder,thedefaultdistanceassumedintheresultspresentedearlierwas2.5 miles each way (5 miles round trip). For a 2.5 oneway trip purchase, the breakeven distancevariesbetween3and7yearsdependingontheimpactcategoryofinterest. Eutrophicationpotentialfortheincineratednaturaltreeisnegative;inotherwordsthelife cycle of a natural tree that is incinerated is an eutrophication sink. Therefore, the more natural trees purchased, the greater the environmental eutrophication benefit (the more negativeeutrophicationbecomes).Thereisnobreakevendistanceforeutrophication;the incineratednaturaltreeoptionalwayshaslessEPthananartificialtree.
PE Americas
77
EnvironmentalImpact Artificialvs.IncineratedNaturalChristmasTree
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25 PrimaryEnergyDemand (PED) NonRenewable MJ AcidificationPotential (AP)molH+Equiv. Eutrophication Potential(EP)kgN Equiv. GlobalWarming Potential(GWP)kg CO2Equiv. SmogPotentialkgNOx Equiv.
OneWayTripDistancetoPickUpChristmasTree(mi)
Figure26:SensitivityofConsumerCarDistance,BreakEvenYears(B) Assumingthesameonewaydistanceforartificialandnaturaltreesandroundtriptransport occurs.NaturaltreeincineratedatEndofLife. Table 27 expands upon the analysis of Global Warming Potential from Figure 26 by presentingthenumberofyearstobreakevenwhenthedistancetheconsumertravelsto purchaseanartificialtreeisdifferentfromthatforanaturaltree.Hereitcanbeseenthat whenthedistancedriventopurchasethenaturaltreeisshort,andthedistancedrivento purchaseanartificialtreeislong,thebreakevennumberofyearstokeepanartificialtree isatthehighestextreme.Ashortdistanceforanartificialtreecoupledwithalongdistance foranaturaltreeprovidestheoppositeextreme;thebreakevennumberofyearstokeep the artificial tree small. For the base case, for GWP, the breakeven point is when an artificial tree is kept for more than 3.6 years (effectively, when the 4th natural Christmas treeispurchased).
Table27:GWPSensitivityofConsumerCarDistance,BreakEvenYears(B) Assumingthedifferentonewaydistanceforartificialandnaturaltreesandroundtrip transportoccurs.NaturaltreeincineratedatEndofLife.

25 14.3 10.0 7.8 6.3 5.3 4.6 4.1 3.6 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.2
5.1.3
EndofLifeC:100%Compost
Figure 27 shows the number of years an artificial tree needs to be kept in order to have equivalentenvironmentalimpactsofanaturaltreeboughteachyearforthesamenumber of years. This is referred to the breakeven point. In this figure, it is assumed that the consumerwoulddrivethesamedistancetopurchaseeitheranaturalorartificialtree.For primary energy demand, acidification potential, global warming potential and smog potentialtheshorterthedistancetraveledtopurchaseatree,thelongeranartificialtree mustbekept.Thebenefitsofusinganartificialtreeinsteadofanaturaltreeaccumulate muchfasterwheretheconsumerwouldneedtotravellongdistanceseachyeartoacquirea new natural tree. As a reminder, the default distance assumed in the results presented earlier was2.5 miles each way (5miles round trip). For a 5 mile round trip purchase, the breakeven distance varies between 4 and 8 years depending on the impact category of interest. Eutrophicationpotentialforthecompostednaturaltreeisnegative,inotherwordsthelife cycle of a natural tree that is composted is an eutrophication sink. Therefore, the more natural trees purchased, the greater the environmental eutrophication benefit (the more negativeeutrophicationbecomes).Thereisnobreakevendistanceforeutrophication;the compostednaturaltreeoptionisalwayshaslessEPthananartificialtree.
EnvironmentalImpact Artificialvs.CompostedNaturalChristmasTree
12
10 8 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25
PrimaryEnergy Demand(PED) Non RenewableMJ AcidificationPotential (AP)molH+Equiv.
Eutrophication Potential(EP)kgN Equiv. GlobalWarming Potential(GWP)kg CO2Equiv. SmogPotentialkg NOxEquiv.
OneWayDistancetoPickUpChristmasTree(mi)
Figure27:SensitivityofConsumerCarDistance,BreakEvenYears(C) Assumingthesameonewaydistanceforartificialandnaturaltreesandroundtriptransport occurs.NaturaltreecompostedatEndofLife. Table 28 expands upon the analysis of Global Warming Potential from Figure 27 by presentingthenumberofyearstobreakevenwhenthedistancetheconsumertravelsto purchaseanartificialtreeisdifferentfromthatforanaturaltree.Hereitcanbeseenthat whenthedistancedriventopurchasethenaturaltreeisshort,andthedistancedrivento purchaseanartificialtreeislong,thebreakevennumberofyearstokeepanartificialtree isatthehighestextreme.Ashortdistanceforanartificialtreecoupledwithalongdistance foranaturaltreeprovidestheoppositeextreme;thebreakevennumberofyearstokeep the artificial tree small. For the base case, for GWP, the breakeven point is when an artificialtreeiskeptformorethan4years.
PE Americas
80
Table28:GWPSensitivityofConsumerCarDistance,BreakEvenYears(C) Assumingthedifferentonewaydistanceforartificialandnaturaltreesandroundtrip transportoccurs.NaturaltreecompostedatEndofLife.

25 16.9 11.3 8.5 6.8 5.7 4.8 4.2 3.6 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.3
5.1.4
SummaryofBreakEvenAnalysis
By normalizing the total life cycle impacts for each natural tree EoL option to that of the artificialtree,thenumberofyearsanartificialtreemustbereusedbeforeithasequivalent impactstothenaturaltreecanbecalculated.ThesevaluesarepresentedinFigure28for the base case when individual car transport distance for tree purchase is 2.5 miles each way. Because the natural tree provides an environmental benefit in terms of Global Warming Potential when landfilled, and Eutrophication Potential when composted or incinerated,thereisnonumberofyearsonecankeepanartificialtreeinordertomatch thenaturaltreeimpactsinthesecases.Thetermbreakevendoesntmakesenseinthese casessonovalueisshowninFigure28.Forallotherscenarios,theartificialtreehasless impact provided it is kept and reused for a minimum between 2 and 9 years, depending upontheenvironmentalindicatorchosen.
PE Americas
81
9.00 8.00
BreakEvenPoint YearstoKeepanArtificialTree
7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Whencompared toaNaturalTree (Landfill) 3.27 6.55 1.16 3.63 5.35 3.31 3.97 7.27 Whencompared toaNaturalTree (Compost) 6.03 5.66 Whencompared toaNaturalTree (Incineration) 4.51 8.25
PrimaryEnergyDemand (net,Nonrenewable,MJ) AcidificationPotential (molH+eq) EutrophicationPotential (kgNeq) GlobalWarmingPotential (kgCO2eq) SmogPotential (kgNOxeq)
Figure28:BreakEvenNumberofYearstoKeepanArtificialTree AlandfillednaturaltreehaslessGWPthananartificialtree.Inaddition,acompostedor incineratednaturaltreehaslessEPthananartificialtree.
PE Americas
82
6 CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS
The following major conclusions and recommendations are presented as a result of the above Life Cycle Assessments comparing the most commonly purchased artificial tree manufacturedatalargefacilityinChinatothemostcommonlypurchasednaturaltree,a Fraser fir. Each tree represents approximately 20% of the US artificial and natural tree market,respectively. Understanding that there are a wide range of Christmas tree products available (for both naturalandartificialtrees),thestudygoaldoesnotincludethecomparisonofeveryspecies of natural tree to every model of artificial tree available on the market. It also does not comparetheaverageartificialtreetotheaveragenaturaltree.Rather,thetwoproductsare chosenbecausetheyarethemostcommonartificialandnaturalChristmastreepurchased intheUnitedStates.Therefore,theconclusionsdrawnfromthisstudyarespecifictothe modeled natural and artificial tree systems assessed using the previously defined scope andmodelingmethodologies.Alternativechoicesinthescopeoftheassessmentorthelife cyclemethodologiesappliedmayyielddifferentresults. Forexample,includingtheproductionanduseoflightsandothertreedecorationsinthis studywouldlessentherelative(percentage)differenceinenvironmentalimpactsbetween thetwotreetypes;theabsolutedifferencewillalwaysremainthesame 10 .Itshouldalsobe notedthatotherenvironmentalhealthandsafetyconcernssuchastoxicity,noise,andland use are worthy of consideration, but not addressed in this report due to the lack of appropriateLCAbasedNorthAmericanmethodologies.
6.1 Conclusions
The study looked at a range of environmental impacts: global warming potential (carbon footprint), primary energy demand, acidification potential, eutrophication potential, and smogpotential.ThefollowingconclusionsaredrawnfromthisLCAandsensitivityanalysis.
6.1.1
ArtificialTree
The overall life cycle global warming potential (carbon footprint) for the most common unlit artificial tree across its lifetime is 18.6 kg CO2 equivalent. Likewise, the primary energy demand is 305 MJ, acidification potential is 6.15 mol H+ equivalent,eutrophicationpotentialis4.62E03kgNequivalent,andsmogpotential is6.16E05kgNOxequivalent. Themostsignificantenvironmentalimpact(acrossallcategories)isassociatedwith themanufacturinglifecyclestage(5177%);
FormostcommonlypurchasedartificialChristmastree,thisstudyfoundthat:
10
Thisassumesthelightsandothertreedecorationsarethesameforbothanartificialandanaturaltree. 83 Final Report: November 2010
PE Americas
Withinthemanufacturingprocess,themajorityoftheburdenisassociatedwiththe production of the tree branches (raw material impacts and process energy) (44 71%); Followingtheproductionoftrees,thetransportationofthetreefromthepointof purchasetotheconsumershomeisthenextmostenvironmentallysignificantstage ofthetreeslifecycle(1846%); Use and EndofLife phase impacts for the unlit tree are small across all impact categories (011% combined) when compared to the manufacturing and finished treetohomelifecyclestages; The longer the consumer keeps an artificial tree, the less significant the annual environmentalimpactassociatedwiththelifecycleoftheartificialtree;and The electricity consumption during use of 400 incandescent Christmas tree lights duringoneChristmasseasonis55%oftheoverallPrimaryEnergyDemandimpactof the unlit artificial tree studied, assuming the worstcase scenario that the artificial treeisusedonlyoneyear.Forartificialtreeskept5and10yearsrespectively,the PEDforusingincandescentlightsis2.8timesand5.5timesthatoftheartificialtree lifecycle(refertoSection4.12).
6.1.2
NaturalTree
The overall impacts of the natural tree are significantly influenced by the chosen EndofLife treatment. Each EndofLife treatment rereleases and sequesters varying amounts of carbon dioxide that was initially taken up into the biomass duringtreegrowth(refertoSections3.2.4.1,3.2.4.2,and3.2.4.3); The overall life cycle global warming potential (carbon footprint) for the most commonunlitnaturaltreeacrossitslifetimethereforerangesbetween3.13kgCO2 equivalent (if landfilled) and 5.12 kg CO2 equivalent (if incinerated). Likewise, the EoLdependentrangeofotherimpactsforthenaturaltreelifecycleacrosstheother impacts evaluated is 50.693.4 MJ primary energy demand, 0.941.09 mol H+ equivalentacidificationpotential,0.002180.00397kgNequivalenteutrophication potential,and1.15E058.48E06kgNOxequivalentsmogpotential. The natural tree cultivation phase is a nitrogen and carbon sink, therefore a net benefitforeutrophicationpotentialandglobalwarmingpotential(carbonfootprint), respectively. This is because during tree growth, the natural tree absorbs nitrogen fromthesoilandcarbondioxidefromtheair; The downstream life cycle phases determine if the overall life cycle of the natural treeisanitrogenorcarbonsink,orconversely,anitrogenorcarbonsource;
ForthemostcommonlypurchasednaturalChristmastree,thisstudyfoundthat:
PE Americas
The tree stand is a significant contributor to the overall impact of thenatural tree life cycle with impacts ranging from 3% to 41% depending on the impact category andEndofLifedisposaloption(refertoTable23);
ThetransportdistancetraveledtopurchasetheannualChristmastreeisasignificant factorinthetreesoveralllifecycle;and
The life cycle Primary Energy Demand impact of the natural tree is 1.5 3.5 times less(basedontheEndofLifescenario)thantheuseof400incandescentChristmas treelightsduringoneChristmasseason.
6.1.3
ArtificialTreevs.NaturalTree
Whencomparingthemostcommonlypurchasedartificialtothemostcommonlypurchased naturalChristmastree,thisstudyfoundthat: Thebreakevenyearstokeepanartificialtree,suchthattheimpactsarecomparable to the natural tree purchased annually, is dependent on the EndofLife option for thenaturaltreeandtheenvironmentalimpactcategoryinvestigated; Thebreakevennumberofyearstokeepanartificialtreeislessthan9yearsforall EndofLife scenarios and impact categories, except for global warming potential whencomparingagainstlandfillednaturaltrees,andeutrophicationpotentialwhen comparing against composted or incinerated natural trees as the natural tree is alwayspreferredforthesecriteria.); Ifthenaturaltreeisincineratedorcomposted,thenaturaltreealwayshasasmaller eutrophicationpotentialthantheartificialtree; Ifthenaturaltreeislandfilled,thenaturaltreealwayshasasmallerglobalwarming potential than the artificial tree for the baseline scenario (2.5 mile oneway car transport).Inotherwords,thereisnobreakevendistanceforthelandfillednatural tree; ThebreakevennumberofyearsforGlobalWarmingPotentialis3.6and4.0years for an incinerated andcomposted natural tree, respectively. In other words, if the artificial tree is kept more than 4 years, the Global Warming Potential associated withtheartificialtreeislessthananaturaltreepurchasedeveryyearformorethan 4years;and The impact of the tree life cycle, for all scenarios, is less than 0.1% of a persons annualcarbonfootprintandthereforeisnegligiblewithinthecontextoftheaverage Americanslifestyle.
6.2 Recommendations
BasedonthefindingsofthisLCAandsensitivityanalysisitisrecommendedthat:
PE Americas
85
Consumers who purchase artificial trees should keep the tree for several years or donatetheiroldtreeswhentheywanttoupgradetoanewermodel. Becausethedifferencesinenvironmentalimpactbetweennaturalandartificialtrees are heavily influenced by consumer car transportation, environmentallyconscious consumers should focus on minimizing car travel rather than choosing their tree typebaseduponitsproductionmethod. o Consumersshouldcarpool,combineerrandsintofewertrips,andotherwise attempt to minimize unnecessary car travel. Carpooling is highly recommended to reduce environmental impact when driving to pick up a naturaltreeatadistantlocation. o Mailorder/delivery of natural or artificial Christmas trees can replace inefficientcarusagewithefficienttruckandrailtransportation.
Next steps could consider if there is an environmental benefit for individuals who purchasenaturaltreestoreusetheirtreematerialasmulchorinotherapplications after the holiday season in order to gain additional benefit from pastseason Christmastreesbeforetheirultimatedisposalanddecomposition. ConsumerswhowishtocelebratetheholidayswithaChristmastreeshoulddo so knowingthattheoverallenvironmentalimpactsofbothnaturalandartificialtrees are extremely small when compared to other daily activities such as driving a car. Neither natural nor artificial Christmas tree purchases constitute a significant environmentalimpactwithinmostAmericanlifestyles.
PE Americas
86
7 APPENDIXCRITICALREVIEWREPORT
Peer Review Committee Summary Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of an Artificial Christmas Tree and a Natural Christmas Tree Performed by PE Americas for the American Christmas Tree Association Peer Review Committee 11 : H Scott Matthews, Chair (Carnegie Mellon University) Mike Levy (American Chemistry Council, Plastics Division) Eric Hinesley (North Carolina State University) Background The committee was delivered a copy of this report (as well as a draft press release for the client) on September 28, 2010. This document summarizes the individual and collective comments of the committee about this Life Cycle Assessment. The report primarily focuses its review comments into the following categories, as detailed below. Is the methodology consistent with ISO 14040/14044? Are the objectives, scope, and boundaries of the study clearly identified? Are the assumptions used clearly identified and reasonable? Are the sources of data clearly identified and representative? Is the report complete, consistent, and transparent? Are the conclusions appropriate based on the data and analysis?
Overview The committee finds the submitted report to be of high quality in terms of documentation and modeling. All areas that were problematic in previous drafts seem to be updated. It is ready for public release. The Peer Review Committees comments were also aimed to ensure the press release for public use is consistent with the findings in the full report. We have thus made several final recommendations to ensure that PE Americas work is adequately represented.
Members of the committee were not engaged or contracted as official representatives of their organizations and acted as independent expert peer reviewers.
11
Methodology and Goal/Scope Comments Is the methodology consistent with ISO 14040/14044? The committee finds that the study is consistent with the ISO LCA standard. While there are minor issues, as noted below, it adequately represents a cradle to grave comparative assessment of two product systems. Are the objectives, scope, and boundaries of the study clearly identified? The committee finds that these issues are clearly identified. Within this overall issue we have considered whether the goal and scope unambiguously state the following: Reasons for carrying out the study Intended application and audience of the study
ACTA is an industry group comprised of artificial tree manufacturers. It is expected that the study will be released and marketed to the public (and be part of a press release and presumably an information campaign). Whether the results will be used in comparative assertions intended to be disclosed to the public The study presumes to support comparative assertions intended for public release, and is written as such, and has engaged an external review panel. The committee also assessed whether the goal and scope clearly describe: The function and system boundaries of the product systems to be compared
The function and system boundaries are explicit. A comparison such as this one that is rooted in tradition and personal preferences is difficult. However the study notes this limitation and capably makes a comparison of tress that are not otherwise equal. It instead compares the most popular of each type. The functional unit and allocation procedures to be used
The functional unit (using one of each tree type for one year and associated 1, 5, 10 year comparisons) is explicit in the study. Likewise the allocation methods have been sufficiently detailed. The LCIA methodology and types of impacts to be analyzed
The Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) method, TRACI, is sufficiently documented. The rationale behind the impact measures chosen is clearly stated.
PE Americas
88
The data quality requirements
The data quality requirements are explicitly provided, as is a discussion on uncertainty. The values choices, and limitations of the study
There are no issues associated with values choices given the limited LCIA effort done. There are significant limitations to this study, and they are carefully discussed. Study Assumption and Conclusion Comments The committee assessed how the study has been conducted and reported, using the following categories. Are the assumptions used clearly identified and reasonable? The committee finds that the report has been well written and that the assumptions are reasonable. As noted above, the report openly says that it is impossible to compare completely identical natural and artificial trees. While this is a tough assumption to make, the committee agrees it is appropriate and possibly the only option to do such an analysis. Similarly, the end of life (EOL) phase considers all options. Are the sources of data clearly identified and representative? The committee finds that data sources have been very well and clearly identified. Ideally, the manufacturing data for artificial trees would come from multiple plants to identify potential variability. However since the plant studied is the major source for the type of artificial tree modeled, the data is appropriate and relevant. Likewise since the natural tree studied is produced in various locations with different agricultural practices, it is hard to gather appropriate data and build models. We feel the authors have done a credible job at mixing available data sources and maintaining a representative model. Is the report complete, consistent, and transparent? The report is complete, consistent and transparent. We are pleased to see several sections adding important context to the choice of a tree, and that even the press release mentions these factors. Are the conclusions appropriate based on the data and analysis? The conclusions are appropriate.
PE Americas
89
8 APPENDIXREFERENCES
ALSCHERETAL 2001 ARTIFICIALTREES 2006 Alscher,G.etal.(2001).AnbauvonWeihnachtsbaumkulturen.(Growing ChristmasTrees).LandwirtschaftskammerRheinland(RhinelandChamber ofAgriculture),Bonn.Mrz2001. ArtificialTrees.2006.PreLitArtificialChristmasTreesTopChristmas DecorationTrendsthisShoppingSeason.RedWoodCity,CA.Retrievedon Aug.4,2009fromhttp://www.artificialtrees.com/artificialchristmastree trends.php
BaumgartenA.,FrstA.,KellerG.,MutschF.,RaithF.,SchusterK.(2000). BAUMGARTENET EmpfehlungenfrdiesachgerechteDngungvonChristbaumkulturen AL2000 (RecommendationsfortheproperfertilizationofChristmastreecrops). PreparedforBFW(Bundesforschungs)theFederalResearchandTraining CenterforForest,SnowandLandscapeResearch.Vienna,Austria. Retrievedfrom:http://btw.ac.at/300/1275.html BOUWMANNET Bouwmann,A.F.(1996).Directemissionofnitrousoxidefromagricultural soils.NutrientCyclinginAgroecosystems,Issue1,5370. AL.1996 Brain,Marshall.(2000).ChristmasMiniLights.Retrieved12/16/2009from: http://christmas.howstuffworks.com/decorations/christmaslights1.htm Brang,P.,VonFelten,S.(2005):Fichtenverjngung:istdieTageszeitder BRANG2008 Besonnungwichtig?(Spruceregeneration:isthedaytimeoftanning important?)Forest.20(13).Retrievedfrom: http://www.waldwissen.net/themen/waldbau/waldverjuengung/wsl_ficht enverjuengung_besonnung_DE Brentrup,F.etal.(2000).Methodstoestimateonfieldnitrogenemissions BRENTRUPETAL. fromcropproductionasaninputtoLCAstudiesintheAgriculturalSector. 2000 TheInternationalJournalofLifeCycleAssessment5(6),349357. BTFWHOLESALE BTFWholesale.(n.d.).NettingandBalers.Retrieved12/16/09from: http://www.btfwholesale.com/NETTING.htm BRAIN2000 BTS2008
BureauofTransportationStatistics(BTS).(2008).2007CommodityFlowSurvey UnitedStates(Preliminary).Table5.Retrieved12/15/09from: http://www.bts.gov/publications/commodity_flow_survey/preliminary_tables_d ecember_2008/index.html
CARINO2007
COMPO2008
DISCOVERLIFE
CarinoNurseries(2007).Notsurewhatthedifferenceisbetweenseedling &transplant,andplug?Website: http://www.carinonurseries.com/seedtrandiffer.htm COMPOGmbH&Co.KG:WeihnachtsbumeundSchnittreisig.(Christmas treesandbrushwood).Website:http://www.compo profi.de/kulturen/3321.php Discoverlife.org(ThePolistesFoundation).(2009).Abiesfraseri(Pursh) Poir.Fraserfir;Pinusfraseri.Website:

PE Americas
2009 ECN2009
http://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20o?search=Abies+fraseri&guide=Trees EnergyresearchCentreoftheNetherlands(ECN).Phyllis:thecomposition ofbiomassandwaste.Version4.13.RetrievedOct.2009from http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis/Multi.asp?Selected=2:8:1121,2:8:1122
ENERGIEAGENTUR EnergieagenturNRW(NRWEnergyAgency).Landesinitiative zukunftsenergienNRW.DerWegzurrationellenEnergienutzungim NRW2009 Gartenbau.(StateInitiativeonFutureEnergiesNRW.Thepathtorational energyuseinhorticulture). Retrievedfrom: http://www.energieagentur.nrw.de/_database/_data/datainfopool/ratio_ energienutz_gartenbau.pdf EnergyInformationAdministration(EIA).1997.RenewableEnergyAnnual EIA1997 1996.Chapter3:MunicipalSolidWasteProfile.Retrievedfrom: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/renewables/060396.pdf EPA2009 U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).(2009).AnOverviewof LandfillGasEnergyintheUnitedStates.LandfillMethaneOutreach Program(LMOP).Retrievedfrom: http://www.epa.gov/outreach/lmop/docs/overview.pdf
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).2009.WAsteReductionModel (WARM).ExcelToolAnalysisInputstab.Retrieved12/16/09from: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html
EPA2009B EPA2007
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).(2007).MunicipalSolidWaste intheUnitedStates:2007FactsandFigures.OfficeofSolidWaste. Retrievedfrom: http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).2006.SolidWaste ManagementandGreenhouseGases:ALifeCycleAssessmentofEmissions andSinks,3rdEdition.Washington,D.C.U.S.EPAOfficeofSolidWaste andEmergencyResponse.Retrievedfrom: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/SWMGHGreport.html FraserKnollFarms(FKF).(2008).ColorantsandTreestands.Retrieved from:http://www.fraserknoll.com/Web%20Page%20%20Colorants.htm andhttp://www.fraserknoll.com/Web%20Page%20 %20Gunnard%20Stands.htm FachagenturnachwachsendeRohstoffe(SpecialistAgencyRenewable Resources,FNR).(2000).LeitfadenBioenergie,PlanungBetriebund WirtschaftlichkeitvonBioenergieanlagen.(Guidebioenergy,business planningandeconomicsofbioenergysystems).Glzow2,Deutschland. GaBi4:SoftwareandDatabasesforLifeCycleAssessmentandLifeCycle Engineering,LBPUniversityofStuttgartandPEInternationalGmbH, LeinfeldenEchterdingen,2006and
EPA2006
FKF2008
FNR2000
GABI4 2006
PE Americas
HINESLEYAND CHASTAGNER 2002
HINESLEYAND WRIGHT1989 HEDEDANMARK 2007
GaBi4datasetdocumentationtotheSoftwareSystemandDatabases LBP,UniversityofStuttgartandPEINTERNATIONALGmbH,Leinfelden Echterdingen,2006Website:http://www.pe product.de/GABI/Docs/documentation/XIIRenewableMaterials.html Hinesley,L.E.andG.A.Chastagner.2002.Christmastreekeepability.In: Gross,KennethC.,ChienYiWang,andMikalSaltveit(eds.).The CommercialStorageofFruits,Vegetables,andFloristandNurseryCrops. DraftrevisionofAgricultureHandbook66onthewebsiteoftheU.S.Dept. ofAgriculture,AgriculturalResearchService,BeltsvilleArea. http//www.ba.ars.usda.gov/hb66/index.html Hinesley,L.E.andR.D.Wright.1989.Biomassandnutrientaccumulationin FraserfirChristmasTrees.HortScience24:280282. HedeDanmark.(2007).LiefermodalittenWeihnachtsbumeund Tannengrn(DeliveryarrangementsofChristmastreesandevergreen). Retrievedfrom: http://www.hededanmark.dk/media/Levering_DE_1Udg_2007.pdf Hollweg,W.(2008).PressesprecherWeihnachtsbumeteureralsim Vorjahr.DieNordmanntanneistdesDeutschenLieblingfrdieFesttage. (Christmastreesmoreexpensivethanlastyear.TheNordmannfiristhe German'sfavoritefortheholidays).Pressemitteilungvom08.12.2008 http://lwk niedersachsen.de/index.cfm/portal/landwirtschaftskammer/nav/711/artic le/11342.html Hundley,D.andJ.Owen.2005.ChristmasTreeProductioninNorth Carolina.CalibratingaBackpackSprayerforChemicalMowing.NCState University.Retrievedfrom: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/xmas/croplife xmas/calibrating_backpack.pdf
HOLLWEG2008
HUNDLEYAND OWEN2005
IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC).(2006).2006IPCC GuidelinesforNationalGreenhouseGasInventories,Preparedbythe NationalGreenhouseGasInventoriesProgramme,EgglestonH.S.,Buendia L.,MiwaK.,NgaraT.andTanabeK.(eds).Published:IGES,Japan. InternationalOrganizationforStandardization(ISO).(2006).ISO14040 ISO14040: EnvironmentalManagementLifeCycleAssessmentPrinciplesand 2006 Framework. InternationalOrganizationforStandardization(ISO).(2006).ISO14044 ISO14044: EnvironmentalManagementLifeCycleAssessmentRequirementsand 2006 Guidelines. Konsumo.(2008).Weihnachtsbaumauch:Christbaum,Tannenbaum. KONSUMO2008 (Christmas).Website: http://www.konsumo.de/informieren/Weihnachtsbaum IPCC2006
KTBLKuratoriumfrTechnikundBauweseninderLandwirtschaft: Energiepflanzen(KTBLBoardforTechnologyandStructuresinAgriculture: Energy).(2006).DatensammlungfrdiePlanungdesEnergiepflanzenbaus (Datacollectionfortheplanningofenergycropcultivation).1stEdition. Darmstadt,Germany. KUCKLICK2004 Kucklick,C.,Schauer,M.(2004).FachinformationenzuWeihnachtsbumen (ProfessionalinformationonChristmastrees).ProductionAlexander MarkusSchauerGmbH.Website:www.weihnachtsbaeume.de Kuhns,L.J.(2004).CropProfileforChristmasTreesinPennsylvania.General KUHNS2004 ProductionInformation.PreparedbyLarryJ.Kuhns,Professorof OrnamentalHorticultureDepartmentofHorticulture,ThePennsylvania StateUniversity. LIGTHARTETAL LigthartT,etal.(2004).DeclarationofApeldoornonLCIAofNonFerro Metals.Apeldoorn,NRetrievedfrom: 2004 http://www.uneptie.org/pc/sustain/reports/lcini/Declarationof Apeldoorn_final.pdf MATSCHKE2005 Matschke,J.,M..(2005).Weihnachtsbume.Wissenswertesberden qualittsgerechtenAnbau(Christmastrees.Interestingfactsabouttheuse ofhighqualitycrops).2ndEdition. ThalackerMEDIABernhardThalacker VerlagGmbH&Co. MAYTREE2007 MayTreeEnterprises,LLC.(2007).ChristmasTreeGrowers.Website: http://www.maytreeenterprises.com/growersfinal.htm MCKINLEY1997 McKinley,C.,R.(1997).GrowingChristmasTreesinNorthCarolina: ChristmasTreeFertility.NorthCarolinaCooperativeExtensionService, NorthCarolinaStateUniversity.Website: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/nreos/forest/xmas/growing/ag95IV.htm MHCREC2008 MountainHorticulturalCropsResearch&ExtensionCenter(MHCREC). (2008).ChristmasTreeProductioninNorthCarolina.NCStateUniversity. Website:http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/xmas/index.html NCDA&CSAgriculturalStatisticsDivision:AgriculturalStatisticsChristmas NCDA1996 Trees.HerbVanderberry,Director.MailingAddress:P.O.Box27767 Raleigh,NC27611.PhysicalAddress:2WestEdentonStreet,RaleighNC 27601.http://www.agr.state.nc.us/stats/crops/christmastrees.html TheNationalChristmasTreeAssociation(NCTA).(2008).MakinganEco NCTA2008 FriendlyChoice:TheEnvironmentalDebateSettled.Website: http://www.christmastree.org/debate.cfm NCCTA2007 NorthCarolinaChristmasTreeAssociation(NCCTA).(2007).Home. Retrieved1/6/10from:http://ncchristmastrees.com/default.php Neal,J.C.:WeedManagementinConiferSeedbedsandTransplantBeds. NEAL1999 WeedManagement DepartmentofHorticulturalScience. http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/hil/hil449.html NeedlefastEvergreens,Inc.(2008).NurseryOperations.Website: NEEDLEFAST KTBL2006
2008 NIX2010
http://www.needlefastevergreens.com/
Nix,Steve.(2010).TopTenChristmasTrees.About.comWebsite: http://forestry.about.com/cs/christmastrees1/a/top10_xmastree.htm PEREGRIM2009 Peregrim,G.,andE.Hinesley.(2009).Effectsofcompostonthegrowthof fraserfirChristmastreesinNorthCarolina.E&AEnvironmental Consultants,Inc.,NorthCarolinaStateUniversity.Retrievedfrom: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/11/10220.pdf Philips. (2006). LED Christmas Lights from Philips: 60 L.E.D. Lights. PHILIPS2006 Retrieved 12/16/2009 from: http://led.linear1.org/ledchristmaslights fromphilips/ SCHAUER2009 MarkusSchauerGmbH.(2009).ChristmasTrees:ProductionLogisticsSales Acessories.Kolpingring1882041Oberhaching.Website: http://www.weihnachtsbaeume.de/zubehoerverpackungwuellner.htm SHATLEYFARMS ShatleyFarms.(2009).Retailandconsumertreecareandsafetytips. Retrievedfrom:http://www.shatleyfarms.com/treecare.pdf 2009 SIDEBOTTOM 2008 Sidebottom,J.R.(2008).CropProfileforChristmasTreesinNorthCarolina (Mountains).GeneralProductionInformation.MountainConiferIPM ExtensionSpecialist,MountainHorticulturalResearchandExtension Center,NorthCarolinaStateUniversity,Prepared:January1999.Revised: November1999;May2003;June2008 SpectrumAnalyticInc.(2009).AGuidetoFertilizingChristmasTrees. Retrievedfrom: http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/rf/A_Guide_to_Fertilizi ng_Christmas_Trees.htm STIHL.(2008).ChainsawproducerinGermany.Personalcommunication. May20,2008.Website:http://www.stihl.de/ UnionofConcernedScientist.2006.EachCountrysShareofCO2 Emissions.Retrieved2/11/10from: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ea chcountrysshareofco2.html USATradeOnline.(2009).StandardReportAnnual.Retrievedfrom: http://www.usatradeonline.gov/ U.S.CensusBureau.(2002).VehicleInventoryandUseSurvey Discontinued.Retrievedfrom: http://www.census.gov/svsd/www/vius/2002.html U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture(USDA).(2007).TheCensusofAgriculture: 12007CensusPublications.Volume1,Chapter2:StateLevelData.Table 36CutChristmasTrees:2007and2002.Retrievedfrom:
SPECTRUM ANALYTIC2009
STIHL2008 UCS2006
USATRADE 2009 USCENSUS BUREAU2002 USDA2007
PE Americas
94
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/index.asp USDA2001 USDOE2001 U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture(USDA).(2001).PlantsDatabase.Website: http://plants.usda.gov U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2001). Transportation Energy Data Book: Chapter 8: Household Vehicles and Characteristics. Table 8.8 Trip Statistics by Trip Purpose, 2001 NHTS. Retrieved October 13, 2009 from: http://cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter8.shtml Wahmhoff,D.(2008).RealTrees:TheEcologicalChoice!QUICKTREE FACTSfromtheNationalChristmasTreeAssociation.Website: http://www.mitrees.com/ Williamson,C.,R.(2002).WhiteGrub(Coleoptera:Scarabaeidae) PopulationDensityinRelationtoRootDamagetoFraserfirSeedlingsin TransplantBeds.DepartmentofEntomology,UniversityofWisconsin. YatesChristmasTreeandLandscaping.(2008).Membership.Website: http://www.yateschristmastrees.com/memberships.htm
WAHMHOFF 2008 WILLIAMSON 2002 YATES2008
PE Americas
95
9 APPENDIXDESCRIPTIONOFAGRARIANMODEL
The agrarian model was developed to address the complexity of assessing the environmental impact of agriculturebased products. Complications arise because clients are often not able to provide agriculture specific processes, reliable agrodatabases for industry are missing, data collection is expensive and the concept of average dataset is difficult to define for most agricultural products. Unlike industrial processes, agrarian systems have no technically determined border to the environment, have a complex and indirect dependence of outputs (harvest, emissions) from the input (fertilizers, location conditions, etc.), vary by climatic region, and vary by soil type (location dependent). Additionally, there are large quantities of farms with a variety of agricultural practices subjecttoannualweathervariation,andvariationinpests,parasites,diseasesandweeds. To address these complications and provide a robust method for estimating the environmental impact of agrarian systems, a model for agrarian and plantation processes wasdevelopedandimplementedintheGaBisoftware. Theagrarianmodel: Canmodeldifferentlocationsworldwidefarmingsystems;itaccountsfor: Variationsinrainfallandtemperature,soil; Chemicalfertilizerandmanureuse; Useofagrochemicals(pesticides,herbicides,fungicides,etc.);and Mechanicaloperations(ploughing,seeding,harvesting,irrigation,etc.).
Coversarangeofenvironmentalissues: Considerslandusechanges(deforestation,slashandburn); Carbonsequestration(thecarbonbalanceisproperlyassessed);and Coversimpactssuchaseutrophication,whichplayamajorroleinagricultural productionsystems.
Themodelistechnicallyrobustandcomprehensive;accountingfor: Allrenewableenergyinthebiomass(particularlyrelevantforcropsgrownfor energy); Emissionsfromerosion,fireclearingandbackgroundemissions(soilemissions thatwouldoccurwhetheracropwasplantedornot);and Thebalanceofnutrienttransferswithincroprotationsandtheuseofcover crops.
PE Americas
96
Themodelalsoaccountsforthenitrogencycle.Thisisthemostcomplexaspectof themodelandaffectsanumberofkeyemissionshavingenvironmentalrelevancein mostLCAstudiesincludingNO3inwaterandN2O,NOandNH3intoair: ManyformsofNinvolved; Nbasedemissionsaffectseveralimportantimpactcategories; SmalldifferencesofinputcanleadtolargevariationsinLCArelevantemissions andoutputs; Importantbalancenumbersareknownonlyimprecisely;and Coupledovermassbalance.
Themodelalsoaccountsfortimedependentfeaturessuchasrainfallandfertilizer applicationduringpartsoftheplantgrowthcycle. Themodelaccountsforstorageofrenewableenergyinthebiomassandcarbon dioxideuptakeinthebiomass: TheproductboundCO2hasdirectlytobeaccountedas100%ontheinputside comparabletoCO2emissionsintoairontheoutputside; TheCO2quantitiesfromrenewablesemittedduringlaterstagesinthelifecycle (e.g.burning,composting,)havetobeaccountedasemissionstoair; Thismeans,overthelifecycleallboundCO2isreleasedasCO2atalaterstage; (However,iflandfilled,thecarbonsequesteredmaynotberereleasedwithin the100yeartimeframeofglobalwarmingpotentialindicators.) Othercarbonemissions(e.g.CH4andCO)duringbiomassproduction,conversion andEndofLifeareconsideredaswell;and Thestorageofrenewableenergy(e.g.sunlight)inagroproductsisconsidered aslowercalorificvalueontheinputside.
PE Americas
97
10 APPENDIXLCIADESCRIPTIONS
Life Cycle Impact categories included in this report were based on Impact categories and methodsappropriateforuseinNorthAmerica.Thecurrentstateofthescienceoflifecycle impactmethodologyconsistsoftheUSEPATRACI(ToolfortheReductionandAssessment of Chemical and other Environmental Impacts) impact assessment methodology. The followingisasummarydescriptionofthemethodsandapplicablereferences. TRACIImpactCategoriesreferencedinthisreport: Acidification Eutrophication GlobalWarming PhotochemicalSmog
Primaryenergydemand(PED)isnotincludedintheTRACImethodologybutisameasured quantity.AdetaileddescriptionPEDandoftheTRACIimpactcategoriesusedinthisreport aredescribedbelow.
10.1 PrimaryEnergyDemand
Primary energy demand (PED) is a measure of the total amount of primary energy associatedwiththeproduct.Thisisameasureofboththefeedstockenergywithinthe product (energy which would be released upon combustion) plus all other energy used duringtheproductlifecycle.PEDcanbeexpressedinenergydemandfromnonrenewable resources(e.g.petroleum,naturalgas,etc.)andenergydemandfromrenewableresources (e.g. hydropower, wind energy, solar, etc.). Efficiencies in energy conversion (e.g. power, heat,steam,etc.)aretakenintoaccount.Fromanenvironmentalstandpoint,theenergy demand for nonrenewable resources is more important than the total primary energy demand which includes renewable resources. The unit system used for PED is MJ (mega joules).
10.2 AcidificationPotential
Acidification refers literally to processes that increase the acidity (hydrogen ion concentration) of water and soil systems. The common mechanism for acidification is deposition of negatively charged ions (anions) that are then removed via leaching, or biochemical processes, leaving excess (positive) hydrogen ion concentrations (H+) in the system. The major acidifying emissions are oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2),aswellasammoniaemissionsthatleadtoammoniumdeposition.Acidraingenerally reduces the alkalinity of lakes; changes in the alkalinity of lakes, related to their acid neutralizingcapacity(ANC)areusedasadiagnosticforfreshwatersystemsanalogoustothe
PE Americas
98
use of H+ budgets in terrestrial watersheds (Schlesinger 1997). Acid deposition also has deleterious(corrosive)effectsonbuildings,monuments,andhistoricalartifacts. Thestressoreffectsforacidificationhavethreestages.Emissionsleadtodeposition(viaa complexsetofatmospherictransportandchemistryprocesses),whichinturncanleadtoa variety of sitedependent ecosystem impacts damages to plant and animal populations (viaacomplexsetofchemicalandecologicalprocesses).Depositionoccursthroughthree routes: wet (rain, snow, sleet, etc.), dry (direct deposition of particles and gasses onto leaves, soil, surface water, etc.) and cloud water deposition (from cloud and fog droplets ontoleaves,soil,etc.). AsdescribedinNorris(2002),theacidificationmodelinTRACImakesuseoftheresultsofan empiricallycalibratedatmosphericchemistryandtransportmodelto estimatetotalNorth AmericanterrestrialdepositionofexpectedH+equivalentsduetoatmosphericemissionsof NOxandSO2,asafunctionoftheemissionslocation. The resulting acidification characterization factors are expressed in H+ mole equivalent depositionperkgemission.Characterizationfactorstakeaccountofexpecteddifferencesin total deposition as a result of the pollutant release location. Factors for acidification are availableforeachUSstate.InmanyLCIAapplicationsthelocationoftheemissionsource will be known with less precision than the state level for processes within the Life Cycle Inventory.Therefore,additionalcharacterizationfactorsweredevelopedforeachoffourUS regions,fortwolargerregionaldivisions(eithereastorwestoftheMississippiriver),and fortheUSasawhole.Foreachoftheselargerregions,thecompositefactorwascreated usinganannualemissionsweightedaverageofitsconstituentstates. As reported in (Norris 2002), regional characterization factors range from roughly 20% of theUSaverageto160%oftheUSaverage,anddeviationfromtheUSaverageisvariable betweenSO2andNOx;thatis,theeffectofsourceregionuponacharacterizationfactors deviation from the national average values varies somewhat between SO2 and NOx. AlthoughthemajorityofacidicdepositioninNorthAmericastemsfromemissionsofNOx (NOandNO2)andSO2(includingSOxasSO2),significantamountsarealsoduetoemissions of ammonia, and traceamounts from emissions of HCl, and HF. TRACIadopts US average characterization factors for these trace emissions, based on their H+ formation potentials perkgemittedinrelationtoSO2. ThebenefitsofthenewTRACImethodforcharacterizationofacidifyingemissions,relative to prior nonregionalized method like Heijungs et al. (1992), are the increased ability for LCIA results to take into account locationbased differences in expected impact. These benefits stem from the fact that the TRACI acidification factors pertain to a focused midpoint within the impact chain total terrestrial deposition for which there is considerable,wellunderstood,andquantifiablevariabilityamongsourceregions. Thereareatleasttwowaysinwhichtheregionalvariabilityindepositionpotentialcanhave an impact on the acidification potential. In the event that the alternatives have their
processes (and thus their emissions) clustered in different regions, the overall deposition potentialsforbothSO2andNOxcanvarybyasmuchasafactorof5ormore(seeNorris 2002). Another possibility is that the alternatives have their processes predominantly clusteredinthesameregions.Ifthisisthecase,thentherelativedepositionpotentialsofa kg of NOx versus SO2 emissions can vary by nearly a factor of two from one region to another. In this instance, using the regionappropriate characterization factors may be importanttotheoverallstudyoutcome. Themodelingstopsatthemidpointinthecauseeffectchain(deposition)becauseintheUS there is no regional database of receiving environment sensitivities (as is available in Europe). Thus, the source regionbased variability in total terrestrial deposition has been captured, but not the receiving regionbased variability in sensitivity or ultimate damage. FutureadvancesoftheTRACIacidificationmethodmayaddressregionalizedtransportand deposition of ammonia emissions, and investigate the potential to account for regional differentiationofreceivingenvironmentsensitivities. UnitsofAcidificationResults:H+molesequivalentdeposition/kgemission References Heijungs, R., J. Guine, G. Huppes, R. Lankreijer, H. Udo de Haes, A. Wegener Sleeswijk,A.Ansems,P.Eggels,R.vanDuin,andH.deGoede.1992.Environmental life cycle assessment of products. Vol. 1, Guide, Vol. 2, Backgrounds. Leiden, The Netherlands:CentreofEnvironmentalScience,LeidenUniversity. Norris,G.2002.Impactcharacterizationinthetoolforthereductionandassessment of chemical and other environmental impacts: Methods for acidification, eutrophication,andozoneformation.JournalofIndustrialEcology6(34):83105. Schlesinger, W. 1997. Biogeochemistry: An analysis of global change. Boston: AcademicPress.
10.3 EutrophicationPotential
The most common impairment of surface waters in the US is eutrophication caused by excessiveinputsofphosphorus(P)andnitrogen(N).Impairedwatersaredefinedasthose thatarenotsuitablefordesignatedusessuchasdrinking,irrigation,byindustry,recreation, orfishing.Eutrophicationisresponsibleforabouthalfoftheimpairedlakearea,60%ofthe impaired rivers in the US, and is also the most widespread pollution problem of US estuaries(Carpenteretal,1998). Eutrophication means fertilization of surface waters by nutrients that were previously scarce. When a previously scarce (limiting) nutrient is added, it leads to proliferation of algae.Thismayleadtoachainoffurtherconsequences,potentiallyincludingfoulodorsor taste,deathorpoisoningoffishorshellfish,reducedbiodiversity,orproductionofchemical compounds toxic to humans, marine mammals, or livestock. The limiting nutrient issue is
keytocharacterizationanalysisofPandNreleaseswithinLCIA.IfequalquantitiesofNand P are released to a freshwater system that is strictly Plimited, then the characterization factorsforthesetwonutrientsshouldaccountforthisfact(e.g.,thecharacterizationfactor forNshouldapproachzerointhisinstance). PriortoutilizationofTRACI,itisimportanttodeterminetheactualemissionsthatwillbe transported into water. As an example, fertilizers are applied to provide nutrition to the vegetationthatcoversthesoilandtherefore,onlytherunoffoffertilizermakesitintothe waterways. The overapplication rate is highly variable and may depend on soil type, vegetation,topography,andeventhetimingoftheapplicationrelativetoweatherevents. The TRACI characterization factors for eutrophication are the product of a nutrient factor and a transport factor. The nutrient factor captures the relative strength of influence on algaegrowthinthephoticzoneofaquaticecosystemsof1kgofNversus1kgofP,when eachisthelimitingnutrient.Thelocationorcontextbasedtransportfactorsvarybetween 1 and zero, and take account of the probability that the release arrives in an aquatic environment(eitherinitiallyorviaairorwatertransport)towhichitisalimitingnutrient. The TRACI characterization method for eutrophication is described in more detail in the companionpaper(Norris2002). Thecharacterizationfactorsestimatetheeutrophicationpotentialofareleaseofchemicals containing N or P to air or water,per kg, relative to 1 kg N discharged directly to surface freshwater. The regional variability in the resulting eutrophication factors shows that the sourcelocationwillinfluencenotonlytherelativestrengthofinfluenceforaunitemission of a given pollutant, but it will also influence the relative strength of influence among pollutants. The benefits of the new TRACI method for characterization of eutrophying emissions, relative to a prior nonregionalized method like Heijungs et al. (1992) are increasedabilityforlifecycleimpactassessmentresultstotakeintoaccounttheexpected influenceoflocationonbothatmosphericandhydrologicnutrienttransport,andthusthe expected influence of release location upon expected nutrient impact. The combined influenceofatmospherictransportanddepositionalongwithhydrologictransportcanlead tototaltransportfactorsdifferingbyafactorof100ormore(Norris2002). As with both acidification and photochemical oxidant formation, TRACI provides characterizationfactorsforninedifferentgroupsofUSstateswhichareknownasCensus Regions, (see, for example, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/maps/us_census.html) for easternandwesternregions,andfortheUSasawhole,forusewhenthelocationofthe releaseisnotmorepreciselyknown.Foreachoftheselargerregions,thecompositefactor wascreatedusinganaverageofthoseforitsconstituentstates. UnitsofEutrophicationResults:Nitrogenequivalents/kgemission References
PE Americas
101
Carpenter, S., N. Caraco, D. Correll, R. Howarth, A. Sharpley, and V. Smith. 1998. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological Applications8(3):559568. Heijungs, R., J. Guine, G. Huppes, R. Lankreijer, H. Udo de Haes, A. Wegener Sleeswijk,A.Ansems,P.Eggels,R.vanDuin,andH.deGoede.1992.Environmental life cycle assessment of products. Vol. 1, Guide, Vol. 2, Backgrounds. Leiden, The Netherlands:CentreofEnvironmentalScience,LeidenUniversity. Norris,G.2002.Impactcharacterizationinthetoolforthereductionandassessment of chemical and other environmental impacts: Methods for acidification, eutrophication,andozoneformation.JournalofIndustrialEcology6(34):83105.
10.4 GlobalWarmingPotential
Global climate change refers to the potential change in the earths climate caused by the buildup of chemicals (i.e. greenhouse gases) that trap heat from the reflected sunlight thatwouldhaveotherwisepassedoutoftheearthsatmosphere.Sincepreindustrialtimes atmosphericconcentrationsofCO2,CH4,andN20haveclimbedbyover30%,145%and15%, respectively. While sinks exist for greenhouse gases (e.g. oceans and land vegetation absorbcarbondioxide),therateofemissionsintheindustrialagehasbeenexceedingthe rateofabsorption. Simulationsbyresearcherswithintheresearchcommunityofglobalwarmingarecurrently being conducted to try to quantify the potential endpoint effects of these exceedences, includingincreaseddroughts,floods,lossofpolaricecaps,sealevelrise,soilmoistureloss, forest loss, change in wind and ocean patterns, changes in agricultural production, decreasedbiodiversityandincreasingoccurrencesofextremeweatherevents. TRACI uses Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) a midpoint metric. The global warming potentials(GWPs)arebasedonrecommendationscontainedwithintheIntergovernmental PanelonClimateChange(IPCC)ThirdAssessmentReport(TAR)(IPCC2001)toadheretothe international agreement by parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange(UNFCCC)(FCCC1996)(EPA2004): The100yeartimehorizonsarerecommendedbytheIPCCandareusedbytheUSforpolicy makingandreporting,(EPA2004)andareadoptedwithinTRACI.Thefinalsum,knownas theGlobalWarmingIndex(GWI),indicatesthepotentialcontributiontoglobalwarming. UnitsofGlobalWarmingPotentialResults:CO2equivalents/kgemission References FrameworkConventiononClimateChange(FCCC).1996.ReporttotheConference of the Parties at its second session, held at Geneva from 8 to 19 July 1996:
Addendum Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its second session.DocumentFCCC/CP/1996/15/Add.1.UnitedNationsFrameworkConvention onClimateChange,Bonn,Germany. IPCC(IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange).2001.Climatechange2000:The scienceofclimatechange.EditedbyIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange:J. T. Houghton, L. G. Meira Filho, B. A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:1990 2002, Annex 6 Additional Information. Document EPA430R04003.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Washington,DC.
10.5 PhotochemicalSmogCreationPotential
Ozone (O3) is a reactive oxidant gas produced naturally in trace amounts in the earths atmosphere. Rates of ozone formation in the troposphere are governed by complex chemical reactions, which are influenced by ambient concentrations of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the mix of OCs, temperature, sunlight, and convective flows. In addition, recent research in the Southern Oxidants Study (e.g., ChameidesandCowling1995)indicatesthatcarbonmonoxide(CO)andmethane(CH4)can playaroleinozoneformation. Thereareover100differenttypesofVOCemittedtotheatmosphere,andtheycandiffer bymorethananorderofmagnitudeintermsoftheirestimatedinfluenceonphotochemical oxidant formation (e.g., [Carter 1994]). Further complicating the issue is the fact that in mostregionsoftheUS,ambientVOCconcentrationsareduelargelytobiologicalsources (trees).Forexample,inurbanandsuburbanregionsoftheUSatmidday,biogenicVOCscan account for a significant fraction (e.g., 1040%) of the total ambient VOC reactivity (NRC 1991).InruralareasoftheeasternUS,biogenicVOCscontributemorethan90%ofthetotal ambientVOCreactivityinnearsurfaceair. Ozoneinthetroposphereleadstodetrimentalimpactsonhumanhealthandecosystems. Themidpointassociatedwithphotochemicaloxidantformationistheformationofozone molecules(O3)inthetroposphere. Conventional smog characterization factors for LCIA have been based on European modeling of the relative reactivities among VOCs, and have neglected NOx entirely. This neglectofNOxisahighlysignificantomission:throughout thepastdecade,numerousUS studieshavefoundspatialandtemporalobservationsofnearsurfaceozoneconcentrations to be strongly correlated with ambient NOx concentrations, and more weakly correlated withanthropogenicVOCemissions(see,forexample,NRC1991,CardelinoandChameides 1995).Anotheromissioninallexistingsmogcharacterizationfactorshasbeenthepotential influenceofemissionlocation.
PE Americas
103
The approach to smog characterization analysis for VOCs and NOx in TRACI has the following components: (1) relative influence of individual VOCs on smog formation; (2) relative influence of NOx concentrations versus average VOC mixture on smog formation; (3)impactofemissions(byreleaselocation)uponconcentrationbystate;and(4)optional methodsforaggregationofeffectsamongreceivingstateseitherbyareaorpopulation weightedarea. TocharacterizetherelativeinfluenceonO3formationamongtheindividualVOCs,Carters latestmaximumincrementalreactivitycalculationsareused(Carter2000).Thesereflectthe estimatedrelativeinfluenceforconditionsunderwhichNOxavailabilityismoderatelyhigh andVOCsareattheirmostinfluentialuponO3formation.FortherelativeinfluenceofNOx emissionsincomparisontothebasereactiveorganicgasmixtureamidrangefactorof2is used,whichisinagreementwithempiricalstudiesonregionalimpactsfortheeasternUS (e.g., Cardelino and Chameides 1995), and is at the middle of a range of modelbased studies(RablandEyre1997,Seppl1997). The influence of NOx emissions upon regional ambient levels has been modeled using source/receptor matrices that relate the quantity of seasonal NOx emissions in a given source region to changes in ambient NOx concentrations in each receiving region across North America. These source/receptor matrices were obtained from simulations of the AdvancedStatisticalTrajectoryRegionalAirPollution(ASTRAP)model(Shannon1991,1992, 1996). Source and receptor regions are the contiguous US states, plus Washington, D.C., plusthe10CanadianProvinces,plusnorthernMexico.Recentempiricalresearch(e.g.,St. John et al. 1998, Kasibhatla et al. 1998) shows that average O3 concentrations exhibit strongandstablecorrelationswithregionalambientNOxconcentrations. TheassumptionwasmadethatVOCemissionimpactsonregionalO3concentrationshave the same spatial distribution as the ambient NOx concentration impacts (i.e., similar regional transport for VOCs and NOx). Finally, the outcome of the source/transport modelingisproportionaltoestimatedO3concentrationimpacts(g/m2)perstate,givenan assumed linear relationship between the change in concentration in NOx (with VOC concentrationsconvertedtoNOxequivalents). Finallythereisthequestionofhowtoaggregatetheeffectsofestimatedchangesinsmog concentration by state. Exposures leading to human health impacts will be related to the product of state level ambient concentrations times state populations, assuming uniform population density within a state, assuming linear relationship between dose and risk of impact.Damagesfromimpactsonforestandagriculturalproductivityarerelatedinpartto the scale of sensitive agricultural and forest output per state. In the present version of TRACI,humanhealthimpactsareaddressed,scalingthestatelevelconcentrationoutcomes bystatepopulationbeforeaggregatingacrossstates.TheTRACImethodforphotochemical oxidantformationisdescribedinmoredetailinthecompanionpaper(Norris2002). UnitsofSmogFormationResults:kgNOxequivalents/kgemission
PE Americas
104
References Cardelino, C. A. and W. L. Chameides. 1995. An observationbased model for analyzingozoneprecursorrelationshipsintheurbanatmosphere.JournaloftheAir andWasteManagementAssociation45:161180. Carter, W. 1994. Development of ozone reactivity scales for volatile organic compounds.JournaloftheAirandWasteManagementAssociation44:881899. Carter, W. 2000. Updated maximum incremental reactivity scale for regulatory applications.Sacramento,CA:CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard. Chameides,W. L. and E. B. Cowling, eds. 1995. The state of the southern oxidants study:Policyrelevantfindingsinozonepollutionresearch1988to1994.Raleigh,NC: NorthCarolinaStateUniversity. Kasibhatala, P., W. L. Chameides, R. D. Saylor, and D.Olerud. 1998. Relationships between regional ozone pollution and emissions of nitrogen oxides in the eastern UnitedStates.JournalofGeophysicalResearch103(D17):2266322669. Norris,G.2002.Impactcharacterizationinthetoolforthereductionandassessment of chemical and other environmental impacts: Methods for acidification, eutrophication,andozoneformation.JournalofIndustrialEcology6(34):83105. NRC(NationalResearchCouncil).1991.Rethinkingtheozoneprobleminurbanand regionalairpollution.Washington,DC:NationalAcademyPress. Rabl, A. and N. Eyre. 1997. An estimate of regional and global O3 damage from precursorNOxandVOCemissions.Unpublishedmanuscript.Paris:EcoledesMines. Seppl,J.1997.Decisionanalysisasatoolforlifecycleimpactassessment.Helsinki: FinnishEnvironmentInstitute. Shannon,J.D.1991.Modeledsulfurdepositiontrendssince1900inNorthAmerica. In Air pollution modeling and its application, Vol. 8, edited by H. van Dop and G. Kallos.NewYork:Plenum. Shannon, J. D. 1992. Regional analysis of S emission deposition trends in North Americafrom1979through1988.InAirpollutionmodelinganditsapplication,Vol. 9,editedbyH.vanDopandG.Kallos.NewYork:Plenum. Shannon, J. D. 1996. Atmospheric pathways module. In Tracking and analysis framework (TAF) model documentation and users guide: An interactive model for integratedassessmentofTitleIVoftheCleanAirActAmendments.ANL/DIS/TM36. Argonne,IL:ArgonneNationalLaboratory.
PE Americas
105
St.John,J.C.,W.Chameides,andR.Saylor.1998.TheroleofanthropogenicNOxand VOC as ozone precursors: A case study from the SOS Nashville/Middle Tennessee ozonestudy.JournalofGeophysicalResearch103(D17):2241522423.
PE Americas
106
11 ABOUTPEAMERICAS
In 2006, after collaborating for more than a decade, two global leaders in sustainability, Five Winds InternationalandPEInternational,joinedforcestoprovidetheAmericanmarketwiththeirunrivaledexpertise inlifecyclethinking.Throughthisjointventure,PEAmericasprovidesauniqueblendoftechnicalacumenand consulting experience, helping global businesses meet the growing demand for excellence in the environmentalperformanceofmaterials,products,servicesandprocesses.
PEAmericasworksdirectlywithclientstoidentifytheirneedsandprovideindividuallytailoredsolutionsinthe followingways:
Consulting
LifeCycleAssessment LifeCycleEngineering CarbonFootprinting EnvironmentalRiskManagement

Software Sales & Support
DesignforEnvironment EnvironmentalCommunications
GaBiSoftwareAnallinonesoftwaretoolformodelingcomplexproductsystemsfromaLifeCycle Perspective. Users can build product models, balance input and output flows, aggregate results, generatecharts/graphs,andevencreateinteractivereportsusingGaBi.GaBiispackagedandsoldto meetabroadrangeofclientneeds;wewillworkwithyoutoidentifythemostsuitablesolutionto meet your firm's software needs. GaBi also has functionality that allows you to quickly and easily createinteractivereports,justlikethisone! SoFiSoftwareTheleadingsoftwareforenterprisewidecorporateenvironmentalmanagement.SoFi has four product lines focusing on Environmental Health & Safety, Corporate Sustainability Management,EmissionsManagement,andBenchmarking.
Database Provision & Data Warehouse
The GaBi database is regularly updated with information derived from industry sources, scientific research, technical literature, and internal patent information, creating a solid foundation for assessing your materials, products, services and processes. The database is typically sold in "professional", "lean", and "extension" packages. We also provide costeffective "dataondemand" forthoserequiringdatanotcontainedinourstandardpackages.
Formoreinformationorquestionspleasecontact:
GeneralInformation 344BoylstonStreet 3rdFloor Boston,MA02116 UnitedStatesofAmerica Phone:+1(617)2474477 NunodaSilva n.dasilva@peinternational.com SoFi 344BoylstonStreet 3rdFloor Boston,MA02116 UnitedStatesofAmerica Phone:+1(617)2474477 MargaretZahller m.zahller@peinternational.com GaBi 344BoylstonStreet 3rdFloor Boston,MA02116 UnitedStatesofAmerica Phone:+1(617)2474477 LiilaWoods l.woods@peinternational.com PeterCanepa p.canepa@peinternational.com
PE Americas
107

Acta Christmas Tree Lca Final Report by Pe International

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acta Christmas Tree Lca Final Report by Pe International

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FinalReport

ComparativeLifeCycleAssessmentofan ArtificialChristmasTreeand aNaturalChristmasTree

Contacts: SusanFredholmMurphy LauraMar SabineDeimling TorstenRehl MarcBinder NunodaSilva

SELECTION OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES ............................................................... 12

Technology Coverage ....................................................................................................... 11 Geographic & Time Coverage .......................................................................................... 11

2.7 2.8 2.9 3.1

3 LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY (LCI) ...................................................................................................23

Final Report: November 2010

3.2.4 3.2.4.1 3.2.4.2 3.2.4.3 3.2.5

GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL (GWP)/ CARBON FOOTPRINT ................................................. 53

AIR ACIDIFICATION POTENTIAL (ACID RAIN POTENTIAL) ......................................................... 56

EUTROPHICATION POTENTIAL ............................................................................................... 58

SMOG POTENTIAL ................................................................................................................ 61

TREE MANUFACTURE & CULTIVATION ................................................................................... 64

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 83 6.1 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 83

10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5

11 ABOUT PE AMERICAS............................................................................................................... 107

Final Report: November 2010

Final Report: November 2010

Final Report: November 2010

Final Report: November 2010

Final Report: November 2010

Final Report: November 2010

Final Report: November 2010

Final Report: November 2010

Final Report: November 2010

ImpactCategory (issue) ClimateChange

Indicator Global Warming Potential (GWP)

Bareetal.,TRACI:the ToolfortheReduction andAssessmentof ChemicalandOther EnvironmentalImpacts JIE,MITPress,2002.

Photo chemical Oxidant Potential (POCP)

Bareetal.,TRACI:the ToolfortheReduction andAssessmentof ChemicalandOther EnvironmentalImpacts JIE,MITPress,2002.

Final Report: November 2010

Nationalandregionalaveragesforfuelinputsandelectricitygridmixeswereobtainedfrom theGaBidatabases2006.ForactivitiesoccurringinChina,thefuelandenergymodelswere basedonChineseboundaryconditions.ForallactivitiesoccurringwithintheUnitedStates, nationalaverageelectricityandfueldatasetswerechosen.

Final Report: November 2010

Beneficiationofpowerfrom averagepowergridmixUS Beneficiationofsteamfrom USsteamfromnaturalgas

EoLofNaturalChristmasTree (Landfill) EoLofNaturalTreePackaging (plasticfilmforseedlings,seedling pot,stringforbaling,steeland plastictreestand) EoLofNaturalChristmasTreeStand

DisposalinLandfill MethaneObtainedfrom LandfillBody MethaneCombustion

Final Report: November 2010

Productandpointofformation EoLofArtificialTreePackaging (paperslipandplasticshrinkwrap forshipping,cardboardboxfor retail) EoLofArtificialTree

Assumptions ArtificialTree DisposalinLandfill MethaneObtainedfrom LandfillBody MethaneCombustion

Final Report: November 2010

Final Report: November 2010

Thepeerreviewpanelcommitteeconsistsofthefollowingexperts: HScottMatthews,Chair(CarnegieMellonUniversity) MikeLevy(AmericanChemistryCouncil) EricHinesley(NorthCarolinaStateUniversity)

Final Report: November 2010

Lightsanddecorationsareexcludedfromtheusephase;refertoSection2.3:FunctionalUnit. 23 Final Report: November 2010

Final Report: November 2010

PVC Film Production (Calendar machines)

Finished Tree Stand

Finished Tree Top Insert

Finished Tree Pole Finished Metal Hinge

Powder Coat Finished Metal Fastener

Figure2:ArtificialTreeProduction YellowBoxesrepresentcradletogatematerialinputs,blueboxesrepresentprocesses,and greenboxesrepresentproductsoftheblueprocesses.

Final Report: November 2010

Final Report: November 2010

Final Report: November 2010

Final Report: November 2010

Final Report: November 2010

Final Report: November 2010

Plantation Layout, site preparation, land clearing Nursery 4 years

Cultivation Groundcover Management. Chemical mowing Selective Harvesting

Hand work Pesticides

Wood, branches Pruning

Fertiliser Irrigation water