Publications
Efficiency and sustainability indicators for papermaking from virgin pulp—An emergy-based case study Journal Article
Corcelli, F.; Ripa, M.; Ulgiati, S.
In: Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 131 , pp. 313–328, 2018, ISSN: 09213449.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Ecosystem services, Emergy, Environmental accounting, Papermaking, Sustainability indicators
@article{Corcelli2018,
title = {Efficiency and sustainability indicators for papermaking from virgin pulp\textemdashAn emergy-based case study},
author = {F. Corcelli and M. Ripa and S. Ulgiati},
url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921344917304196},
doi = {10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.11.028},
issn = {09213449},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-04-01},
journal = {Resources, Conservation and Recycling},
volume = {131},
pages = {313--328},
publisher = {Elsevier},
abstract = {The pulp and paper sector is the fourth-largest industrial sector worldwide in terms of energy use, accounting for approximately 6% of the total industrial energy consumption and contributing to 2% of direct carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced by industries. The definition of the environmental profile of this industrial sector is crucial, due to the high market demand of paper and the increasing concern for the environmental costs of the whole papermaking process. A sustainability perspective should rely on a wider and holistic viewpoint, properly including all direct and indirect interactions with the environment. To this purpose, the Emergy (spelled with “m”) Accounting method (EMA) is very appropriate for the evaluation of the efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of the papermaking process under different perspectives (resource quality, fossil energy and material consumption, environmental and human-driven support). Several studies concerning environmental impacts, eco-efficiency, and cleaner technologies in the pulp and paper sector have already been carried out, but none of them addressed resource quality and resource generation costs from a supply-side point of view. This study aims to fill this gap in the literature by highlighting the direct and indirect contribution in terms of natural capital and ecosystem services to the pulp and paper production process. By means of EMA performance indices, this paper aims to assess the environmental sustainability associated to the production of pulp and paper, so as to identify those process steps that entail the highest environmental costs and require improvements. Three forest management scenarios − based on Spruce/Pine, Eucalyptus and Poplar production for raw material supply − were evaluated to assess the sustainability and the efficiency of each species. Moreover, the marginal costs of achieving higher energy and material efficiency are investigated, with a special focus placed on the identification of the effects of energy input flows on additional demand for environmental services. The research results show that the largest supply-side environmental costs are generated by the industrial processing activities, due to high energy, water and chemicals consumption. Only a minor role is played by forestry activities that supply the raw feedstock, although forestry management practices certainly affect both the final productivity and the energy balance, through the amount and use efficiency of the farm inputs. Additionally, among the three forest systems under study, Spruce/Pine forest management displays the most sustainable option for paper production because, basing on the emergy indices, it presents the best sustainable contribution to both the economy and the environment of the investigated region. In conclusion, the application of EMA approach allowed a more comprehensive assessment of forestry and industrial operations, contributing to assist decision makers in implementing the best environmental management of papermaking process.},
keywords = {Ecosystem services, Emergy, Environmental accounting, Papermaking, Sustainability indicators},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The pulp and paper sector is the fourth-largest industrial sector worldwide in terms of energy use, accounting for approximately 6% of the total industrial energy consumption and contributing to 2% of direct carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced by industries. The definition of the environmental profile of this industrial sector is crucial, due to the high market demand of paper and the increasing concern for the environmental costs of the whole papermaking process. A sustainability perspective should rely on a wider and holistic viewpoint, properly including all direct and indirect interactions with the environment. To this purpose, the Emergy (spelled with “m”) Accounting method (EMA) is very appropriate for the evaluation of the efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of the papermaking process under different perspectives (resource quality, fossil energy and material consumption, environmental and human-driven support). Several studies concerning environmental impacts, eco-efficiency, and cleaner technologies in the pulp and paper sector have already been carried out, but none of them addressed resource quality and resource generation costs from a supply-side point of view. This study aims to fill this gap in the literature by highlighting the direct and indirect contribution in terms of natural capital and ecosystem services to the pulp and paper production process. By means of EMA performance indices, this paper aims to assess the environmental sustainability associated to the production of pulp and paper, so as to identify those process steps that entail the highest environmental costs and require improvements. Three forest management scenarios − based on Spruce/Pine, Eucalyptus and Poplar production for raw material supply − were evaluated to assess the sustainability and the efficiency of each species. Moreover, the marginal costs of achieving higher energy and material efficiency are investigated, with a special focus placed on the identification of the effects of energy input flows on additional demand for environmental services. The research results show that the largest supply-side environmental costs are generated by the industrial processing activities, due to high energy, water and chemicals consumption. Only a minor role is played by forestry activities that supply the raw feedstock, although forestry management practices certainly affect both the final productivity and the energy balance, through the amount and use efficiency of the farm inputs. Additionally, among the three forest systems under study, Spruce/Pine forest management displays the most sustainable option for paper production because, basing on the emergy indices, it presents the best sustainable contribution to both the economy and the environment of the investigated region. In conclusion, the application of EMA approach allowed a more comprehensive assessment of forestry and industrial operations, contributing to assist decision makers in implementing the best environmental management of papermaking process.
Footprints to nowhere Journal Article
Giampietro, Mario; Saltelli, Andrea
In: Ecological Indicators, 46 , pp. 610–621, 2014, ISSN: 1470160X.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Ecological economics, Ecological footprint, Post-normal science, Science for governance, Sustainability indicators, Sustainable Development
@article{Giampietro2014a,
title = {Footprints to nowhere},
author = {Mario Giampietro and Andrea Saltelli},
url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1470160X14000387},
doi = {10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.01.030},
issn = {1470160X},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-11-01},
journal = {Ecological Indicators},
volume = {46},
pages = {610--621},
abstract = {Crisp numbers make it to the headlines. However, it is unlikely that a single crisp number can capture a complex issue, such as the analysis of the sustainability of human progress both at the local and the global scale. This paper tackles this standard epistemological predicament in relation to a media-friendly model of man's impact on Nature: the Ecological Footprint (EF). The claim made by the proponents of this analytical tool is that EF makes it possible to check “how much is taken” by the economic process versus “how much could be taken” according to ecological processes. In this paper we argue that the ecological footprint assessment \textendash purportedly useful as an argument against the idea of perpetual growth \textendash is fraught with internal contradictions. Our critical appraisal is based on the lack of correspondence between the semantics \textendash the claim about what the EF accounting does \textendash and the syntax \textendash the EF protocol of accounting that should deliver the purported output. We critically examine the various assumptions used in the approach, showing that the EF is in contradiction with its stated purposes and would lead to paradoxes if its prescriptions were used for policy making. We also contend that the laboriousness of EF computation protocols contrasts with its ultimate fragility. In fact the estimate of carbon footprint due to energy production is what determines the assessment of the planet's deficit of virtual land. We show that this estimate cannot be defended in light of the assumptions and simplifications used for its construction. Our conclusion is that the EF does not serve a meaningful discussion on the modeling of sustainability, and that the same media-friendly narrative about the Earth Overshot day is in the end reassuring and complacent when considering other aspects on man's pressure on the planet and its ecosystems.},
keywords = {Ecological economics, Ecological footprint, Post-normal science, Science for governance, Sustainability indicators, Sustainable Development},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Crisp numbers make it to the headlines. However, it is unlikely that a single crisp number can capture a complex issue, such as the analysis of the sustainability of human progress both at the local and the global scale. This paper tackles this standard epistemological predicament in relation to a media-friendly model of man's impact on Nature: the Ecological Footprint (EF). The claim made by the proponents of this analytical tool is that EF makes it possible to check “how much is taken” by the economic process versus “how much could be taken” according to ecological processes. In this paper we argue that the ecological footprint assessment – purportedly useful as an argument against the idea of perpetual growth – is fraught with internal contradictions. Our critical appraisal is based on the lack of correspondence between the semantics – the claim about what the EF accounting does – and the syntax – the EF protocol of accounting that should deliver the purported output. We critically examine the various assumptions used in the approach, showing that the EF is in contradiction with its stated purposes and would lead to paradoxes if its prescriptions were used for policy making. We also contend that the laboriousness of EF computation protocols contrasts with its ultimate fragility. In fact the estimate of carbon footprint due to energy production is what determines the assessment of the planet's deficit of virtual land. We show that this estimate cannot be defended in light of the assumptions and simplifications used for its construction. Our conclusion is that the EF does not serve a meaningful discussion on the modeling of sustainability, and that the same media-friendly narrative about the Earth Overshot day is in the end reassuring and complacent when considering other aspects on man's pressure on the planet and its ecosystems.
AGAUR Grant ID 2017 SGR 230 / Copyright © 2023