<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  	<channel>
    	<title>CE Delft - Voedsel- en materiaalketens</title>
		<copyright>Copyright (c) 2010, CE Delft</copyright>
		<link>http://www.ce.nl/ce/rapporten/114/</link>
        <atom:link href="http://www.ce.nl/index.php?go=home.showRapportenRSS&amp;pagenr=124" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<language>nl</language>
		<description>CE Delft Rich Site Summary</description>
		<webMaster>webmaster@ce.nl (Webmaster)</webMaster>
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[On weighting - A review of LCA weighting methods ]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/on_weighting_-_a_review_of_lca_weighting_methods_/1056</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/on_weighting_-_a_review_of_lca_weighting_methods_/1056</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Product life cycle assessment (LCA) is an attractive tool for making environmentally-informed choices from among product alternatives. The results of an LCA &amp;ndash; the product&amp;rsquo;s &amp;lsquo;environmental profile&amp;rsquo; - is essentially a list of the product&amp;rsquo;s direct or indirect contributions to various kinds of environmental impact, such as climate change, acidification, eutrophication, toxicity, land use and resource depletion. Before a choice can ultimately be made, it is important that the various environmental impacts are made mutually comparable, enabling the impact scores for each product alternative to be translated into a one-figure final score. For this &amp;lsquo;weighting&amp;rsquo; step in LCA a variety of methods have been developed. It is a controversial issue, though, because in this kind of procedure value judgments are by definition inescapable. This report discusses the main LCA weighting methods available and the pros and cons of weighting in the LCA context.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:48:37 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[The environmental impact of the Belgian carpet supply chain ]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_environmental_impact_of_the_belgian_carpet_supply_chain_/1045</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_environmental_impact_of_the_belgian_carpet_supply_chain_/1045</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[At the request of the Public Waste Agency of Flanders (OVAM) a brief study was conducted on the environmental impact of the Belgian carpet supply chain, as part of the project &amp;ldquo;Partnership in the carpet chain to address sustainable resource use&amp;rdquo;. To this end a &amp;lsquo;rough and ready&amp;rsquo; LCA study was carried out to gain insight into three issues:&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;

    The respective impact of various pile materials.
    The impact of various scenarios for waste disposal of the entire carpet, diversified for two frequently used pile materials.
    The relative impact of the various links in the carpet product chain.

The supply chain was modelled with the LCA software package Simapro, using the EcoInvent database and existing LCA studies, supplemented with data from the literature. For the extraction/production of pile materials a range of environmental impacts were assessed, while for the other links the climate impact expressed as cumulative energy demand (CED) was taken as a measure of overall environmental impact.

Some of the main conclusions:

    Raw materials production contributes most to environmental impact. Product maintenance also accounts for a substantial share, but is preferable to no maintenance and premature disposal. Production processes come in the third place.
    High-quality recycling does not always bring climate benefits. This is due to the complexity of the polymer being recycled as well as the complexity of the processing method. Future developments, such as improved recycling techniques and a shift in the overall energy supply to renewable sources may change this picture, however.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 14:51:21 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Environmental impact analysis of food and food losses]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/environmental_impact_analysis_of_food_and_food_losses/1031</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/environmental_impact_analysis_of_food_and_food_losses/1031</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[In the Netherlands&amp;rsquo; Second National Waste Management Programme lifecycle-based management had been adopted as a new strategy. During this second planning period (2009-2015) the strategy is to be elaborated for seven high-priority material flows, with a ballpark figure of 20% being adopted for the reduction in life cycle environmental impact to be achieved by the year 2015. 

One of these material flows is &amp;lsquo;food and food losses&amp;rsquo;. The overall environmental burden associated with food produced for Dutch consumption could be reduced by 15% if there were zero losses at the consumer end of the cycle. This would also mean additional gains of around 1% owing to savings on the associated packaging. For food and food residues the environmental impact of waste processing is negligible (under 1%). All in all, packaging contributes around 12% to environmental burdens. Consumption of animal protein, including losses, is responsible for over 50% of the total impact. 

A reduction of around 10% in aggregate environmental burden between now and 2015 is feasible, about half of this through efficiency improvements in the production phase. The rest of the envisaged reduction will require efforts to encourage behavioural change, to achieve a limited change in protein consumption patterns. This kind of reduction is equivalent to an individual reduction of around 900 car-kilometres per year (a 5% reduction).]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:40:12 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Exploration of an improved methodology for the packaging tax]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/exploration_of_an_improved_methodology_for_the_packaging_tax/920</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/exploration_of_an_improved_methodology_for_the_packaging_tax/920</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The rates employed in the Dutch packaging tax, introduced in 2008, are based on the lifecycle CO2 emissions of the packaging in question. An earlier study had shown that 
CO2 emissions provide a good metric for the overall environmental impact of packaging. The CO2 indices were calculated for the Environment ministry by CE Delft in 2007 in dialogue with the industry. During that study it emerged that particularly with &amp;lsquo;biomaterials&amp;rsquo; like paper and bioplastics, CO2 emissions no longer provide a full approximation of overall environmental performance. Land use and efficient use of biomass also merit inclusion in the methodology.

In the present study CE Delft elaborates and assesses six ways of improving the methodology. These were all discussed extensively with a scientific panel (CML, Ecofys, UU, WUR and CE Delft). The panel came to the unanimous conclusion that a calculation based on greenhouse gas emissions and total energy consumption (fossil and non-fossil) would provide a better as well more practical metric for setting packaging tax rates from 2010 onwards. At the end of 2008 the Environment ministry sent this brief report to Parliament, with a formal proposal to adopt this recommendation.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:30:43 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[A sustainable dairy sector]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/a_sustainable_dairy_sector/850</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/a_sustainable_dairy_sector/850</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The report examines &amp;lsquo;facts and figures&amp;rsquo; concerning climate impacts in the dairy sector. Recent studies point to the relatively large share of meat and dairy products in the total environmental impact of our consumption. The context for dairy as a separate sector is provided by this report. One of the main conclusions of the report is that dairy livestock emissions contribute 1.2% to the total global greenhouse gas emissions.   Methane is the major contributor and while on-farm methane emissions have decreased in Annex-I countries, the share of dairy remains relatively stable as other sectors also reduced emissions. Next to these on-farm dairy emissions, global cradle-to-farm-gate emissions are estimated. Cradle-to-farm gate emissions are 0.8-1.4 kg CO2-eq. per kg milk and in total contribute 3% to total global climate emissions. Enteric fermentation is the main source of climate impact over the life cycle, but reducing these emissions may lead to trade offs if emissions in the production of feed increase. For a better understanding of such life-cycle effects, a more consistent life cycle assessment practice for dairy systems is necessary. Finally, post-farm emissions add 10-20% to cradle-to-farm gate emissions, partly due to product losses and cooled storage in the house. Therefore, consumer options may be effective in lowering climate impacts in the dairy life cycle.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:29:08 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Future Dutch waste policy: priorities and leverage points]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/future_dutch_waste_policy%3A_priorities_and_leverage_points/816</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/future_dutch_waste_policy%3A_priorities_and_leverage_points/816</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The Netherlands’ new National Waste Management Plan is to focus more on the environmental impacts of the entire supply chains of wastes and waste products. In this study this lifecycle environmental impact was assessed for the main categories of waste, from raw materials production all the way through to waste disposal. Besides a series of waste streams traditionally ad-dressed by waste policy, in this lifecycle approach there also emerge streams associated with high energy consumption in the use phase (end-of-life cars and tyres and gas discharge lamps). Other streams scoring high are those with a relatively high environmental impact in the production phase (animal, textile and metals waste), generally independent of the environmental weight-ing method employed. 

On the basis of several different rankings, a number of priority waste streams were identified that merit additional focus in drawing up the new Waste Man-agement Plan. This does not necessarily mean modification of current waste disposal methods, because this study did not consider the cost effectiveness of disposal methods or alternative courses of action. As is to be expected in a lifecycle approach, the scope for government leverage is partly beyond the traditional remit of waste policy. At the same time, though, there are clearly synergies between the waste phase and the rest of the lifecycle, as embodied in ‘design-for-recycling’ and greater focus on materials selection when design-ing energy-efficiency measures. Some of these leverage points can be elabo-rated in the Netherlands’ new waste policy, while others are already being exploited in other policy areas.

This is an exploratory study and the results are not suitable for detailed analy-ses or conclusions. The Environment ministry, VROM, for which the report was prepared, sees it more as an initial step in further elaboration of the coun-try’s waste policy.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Environmental indices for the Dutch packaging tax]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/environmental_indices_for_the_dutch_packaging_tax/724</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/environmental_indices_for_the_dutch_packaging_tax/724</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[On 1 January 2008 a packaging tax is to be introduced in the Netherlands. In line with wider government policy objectives, tariffs for the new tax are to be indexed to the environmental burden of the packaging material in question. In an earlier study, CE Delft concluded that the climate impact of the packaging chain (cradle to grave) is a good and relatively simple measure of overall environmental impact. This report examines existing data on the greenhouse gas emissions of the various packaging materials in each of the key steps of the chain: raw materials extraction, primary materials production, packaging shaping, recycling and waste disposal. 

In discussion with the packaging materials industry, environmental indices for the various materials have been established which in CE’s assessment can serve as a reasonably robust ranking basis for introducing a packaging charge in the short term, in 2008.

For the 2009 tax year it is recommended to refine the ranking by:Incorporating environmental differences in the use phase between different types of packaging (in particular, differences in product spoilage and cooling requirements).Incorporating additional environmental themes (particularly land use and biodiversity), especially to improve coverage of paper recycling.Incorporating differences between production sites (primary production and shaping) in more detail, as well as environmental differences between sites.Further refinement of tariffs for specific submaterials (individual grades of cardboard and plastics) and incorporation of current recycling rates.After this date, an update every two years would be useful to encourage ongoing innovation.

]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Nappy waste disposal]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/nappy_waste_disposal/562</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/nappy_waste_disposal/562</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This study, an update of a study from 2003, analyses the environmental impacts, costs and hygiene pros and cons of various means of nappy waste disposal. Four routes were examined:collection with the ‘residual’ fraction of household waste and incineration in a municipal waste incinerator;collection with the ‘green waste’ fraction, with subsequent composting;collection as ‘green waste’, with subsequent bio-digestion;separate collection and processing using the Knowaste process.The study concludes that the first route, municipal incinerator, is the most attractive. In the composting and bio-digestion routes the presence of super-absorbent polymers (SAPs) and faeces are a problem. Separate nappy collection and processing causes by far the highest greenhouse gas emissions, owing to the high energy consumption of the processes.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Impact of an ecotax on cans and bottles]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/impact_of_an_ecotax_on_cans_and_bottles/394</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/impact_of_an_ecotax_on_cans_and_bottles/394</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The end of 2005 sees the expiry of the 3rd Packaging Agreement, one of the aims of which was to reduce the number of beverage cans and bottles in street litter by 80% compared with 2001. If this target is not met, the Environment secretary may opt to introduce a compulsory financial deposit on beverage packaging.

One alternative to compulsory deposits would be a flexible ecotax/deposit system under which producers or retailers would have a choice of either imposing a fixed charge per beverage packaging or introducing a deposit. CE has assessed the impact of two ecotax variants: € 0.10 and € 0.25 per can or bottle. An ecotax/deposit system is less of a burden to industry than compulsory deposits and industry support for this option is therefore likely to be greater than for compulsory deposits.

The impact of an ecotax will depend on the exact response of producers, retailers and consumers, and the scope for interaction between them makes it difficult to predict with any precision. In this study an attempt was nonetheless made and it was estimated that an ecotax of € 0.10 could lead to a 20-60% reduction in the number of cans and bottles in street litter and a € 0.25 charge to a 40-80% reduction. Under a compulsory deposit system, an 80% reduction might be achieved. With the two ecotax options, the impact depends very much on the response of the various parties. If deposit scheme meets  with strategic resistance, it will probably be less effective than calculations of economic optimisation would suggest. A compulsory deposit scheme is far less susceptible to strategic response of whatever kind. 

Finally, it should be noted that a generalised policy for all types of litter, not just for bottles and cans, is also an option. This broader approach appears fairly promising, too, and the report sketches some of the possibilities in this direction.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Trends in bottles and cans in Dutch street litter: The 2001 – 2005 dataset]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/trends_in_bottles_and_cans_in_dutch_street_litter%3A_the_2001_%96_2005_dataset/414</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/trends_in_bottles_and_cans_in_dutch_street_litter%3A_the_2001_%96_2005_dataset/414</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Under the terms of the 3rd Packaging Agreement the Dutch beverage industry pledged to ensure, by 2005 at the latest, that the quantity of bottles and cans ending up as street litter would be reduced by at least 80% compared with the year 2001. By combining data from various studies that in themselves left this question unresolved, CE has attempted to assess trends in the number of bottles and cans in Dutch litter between 2001 and 2005, to provide a basis for answering the question whether the target has been met. 

The ultimate conclusion of this CE study is that no reliable pro-nouncement can be made as to whether the number of bottles and cans in Dutch litter has indeed fallen by 80% during the period 2001-2005. The research findings available are at odds with the definitions of the Packaging Agreement, comprise too few data or are subject to too great statistical uncertainty. 
	
Although it appears that the 80% reduction target for the period 2001-2005 will not have been met, there are insufficient reliable data available to underpin this conclusion. 
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
			</channel>
</rss>
