LIFE CYCLE PERFORMANCE OF ALUMINIUM APPLICATIONS•COMMENTARY Carbon footprinting,labelling and life cycle assessment Hans-Jürgen SchmidtReceived:27June2008/Accepted:13December2008/Published online:18March2009#Springer-Verlag20091IntroductionIn the search for system analysis instruments and methods that provide information and help in decision making for environmental improvements,very simplified and supposed-ly easy-to-understand indicators/labels are being increasingly called for.In addition,models that the consumer can take into consideration when making his“environmental”purchasing decisions are being discussed.Consequently,within the framework of the general discussion about climate protection, different approaches are being put forward for the recording and labelling of the carbon footprint(CF)of a product or service.Today,after more than30years of evolution towards sustainable development,the question is being asked whether this approach with single indicators,such as CF, is a backward step with regard to a concept for sustainable production and consumption.Sustainability,according to the global consensus,is comprised of three key constituents—environmental,economic and social.Concepts concerning how to handle this issue must,therefore,take all three elements into account to avoid improving one to the detriment of another.Even when suggestions for improvements are limited to one element,e.g.ecology,this also takes in more environmental aspects or indicators than the greenhouse effect,such as the consumption of resources,noise and also biodiversity.In addition to environmental issues in general, consumers also take other criteria into consideration when making purchasing decisions,such as the price of a product, its functionality or the contribution it makes to their quality of life.In the following,several important aspects and issues, which in fact argue against the concept of single indicators, such as CF,will be explained.It would be appreciated if the criticisms made were taken into account when working out models for CF and labelling or could make a contribution to discussions about the sense and purpose of this kind of approach.Tools used to calculate a CF and deliberations about a label are separate entities and will be considered separately in the following.2Carbon footprintingThe recent demands for methods to measure greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions associated with consumer products (goods and services)and the efforts regarding standardisa-tion were discussed in detail by the SETAC Europe LCA Steering Committee(2008).With the ISO LCA standards 14040and14044,a tool is available for calculating the GHG associated with a product.In principle,there is therefore no need to develop a separate method for calculating the CF(ISO2006a,b).Nevertheless,if one wants to work out an instrument,it must be compatible with the LCA standards or meet these completely.It is not acceptable if a new CF method for one and the same product comes to a different result for the GHG indicator from the LCA method.Otherwise,the work on ISO LCA standardisation,ongoing for almost a decade now,is reduced to the absurd.In addition to this,the SETAC Europe LCA SC demand concerning the nine key require-Int J Life Cycle Assess(2009)14(Suppl1):S6–S9DOI10.1007/s11367-009-0071-yResponsible editor:Gerald Rebitzer and Jörg SchäferSpecial issue“Life Cycle Performance of Aluminium Applications”H.-J.Schmidt(*)Product Ecology,Hydro Aluminium,Rolled Products,Köln,Germanye-mail:hans-juergen.schmidt@hydro.com

Carbon footprinting, labelling and life cycle assessment