Sicua Población, Sociedad E Impactos V2.pdf

Población, Sociedad e Impactos

Análisis de Ciclo de Vida & Ecología Industrial Departamento de Ingeniería Química

https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=3PWtaackIJU&feature=youtu.be

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/ campaigns/climate-change/kitkat/

Que consume más? 24 horas de un cargador conectado (sin cargar ningún equipo) 1 hora de un bombillo de 25 W prendido

EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 4 ( 2 0 07 ) 10 9–1 18

a v a i l a b l e a t w w w. s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m

w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e c o l e c o n

ANALYSIS

The water footprint of coffee and tea consumption in the Netherlands Table 9 – Virtual water content of a cup of tea or coffee

EC OLOGIC AL ECONOM I

One cup of tea or coffee Virtual water Dry Real Virtual content of the Department of Water Engineering and Management, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217,7500 AE, Enschede, Netherlands the dry product water water ingredient content content content (g/cup) (l/cup) (l/cup) (m3/kg) AR TIC LE IN FO ABS TR ACT

A.K. Chapagain, A.Y. Hoekstra⁎

Article history: Received 25 January 2006

Coffee —Standard cup 20.4 7 0.125 140 of coffee location. The objective of this study is to assess the global water footprint of the Dutch —Weak coffee 20.4 5 0.125 100 society in relation to its coffee and tea consumption. The calculation is carried out based on —Strong coffee 20.4 10 0.125 200 the crop water requirements in the major coffee and tea exporting countries and the water —Instant coffee 39.4 2 0.125 80 requirements in the subsequent processing steps. In total, the world population requires Tea —Standard cup 11.4 3 0.250 34 about 140 billion cubic metres of water per year in order to be able to drink coffee and tea. of tea The standard cup of coffee and tea in the Netherlands costs about 140 l and 34 l of water —Weak tea 11.4 1.5 0.250 17 A cup of coffee or tea in our hand means manifold consumption of water at the production

140 l/taza

Received in revised form 24 November 2006

Accepted 6 February 2007

Available online 21 March 2007 Keywords: Global water resources

respectively. The largest portions of these volumes are attributable to growing the plants.

The Dutch people account for 2.4% of the world coffee consumption. The total water

ed, or when no (hot) running tap water is Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2009) 1351–1358 ng by hand. 3.2.3. Energy Overall, spray dried soluble coffee is less energy intensive than Contents lists available at ScienceDirect uble coffee compared with drip filter coffee or capsule espresso coffee (Fig. 3a). For each of the threeProduction alternatives, the use phase represents about one half of the Journal of Cleaner (a) the non-renewable primary energy overall non-renewable energy consumption. The time the water or j o u r nthe a l h owater m e p a guse e : w w w . e lcoffee sevier.co l o c a t e /warm j c l e p r o and the number of coffees prepared per global warming score, and (c–e) ism /kept the three alternatives considered. Water use is machine and per day are the two key factors for capsule espresso ferent indicators: (c) only considering nonand drip filter alternatives. A higher frequency of coffee preparation use inventory, (d) using regionalized characleads to less energy per cup of coffee because of the allocation of the Life cycle assessment of spray dried soluble coffee and comparison with r non-turbined freshwater use, and (e) only stand-by energy over more coffees. The excess boiled water or alternatives (drip filter and capsule espresso) freshwater use inventory. Turbined water is wasted coffee are important factors for both spray dried soluble and *, Yves Sebastien Humbert Loerincik, Vincent Rossi, Manuele Margni, Olivier Jolliet for capsule espresso the packaging is r that is turbined from hydropower dams to drip filter coffee, whereas ` rl, PSE-A, EPFL, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland ecointesys – life cycle systems sa

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 30 October 2008 Received in revised form 2 April 2009 Accepted 9 April 2009 Available online 3 May 2009

This paper aims to evaluate the environmental burdens associated with spray dried soluble coffee over its entire life cycle and compare it with drip filter coffee and capsule espresso coffee. It particularly aims to identify critical environmental issues and responsibilities along the whole life cycle chain of spray dried coffee. This life cycle assessment (LCA) specifically uses foreground data obtained directly from coffee manufacturers and suppliers. Aside from energy consumption and greenhouse gases emissions, water footprint is also studied in detail, including regionalization of water impacts based on the ecological scarcity method 2006. Other impact categories are screened using the IMPACT 2002þ impact assessment method. The overall LCA results for a 1 dl cup of spray dried soluble coffee amounts approximately to 1 MJ of primary non-renewable energy consumption, to emissions of 0.07 kg of CO2-eq, and between 3 and 10 l of non-turbined water use, depending on whether or not the coffee cultivation is irrigated and wet treated. When considering turbined water, use can be up to 400 l of water per cup. Pouch – and to a lesser extent metal can packaging alternatives – show lower environmental burdens than glass or sticks. On average, about one half of the environmental footprint occurs at a life cycle stage under the control of the coffee producer or its suppliers (i.e., during cultivation, treatment, processing, packaging up to distribution, along with advertising) and the other half at a stage controlled by the user (shopping, appliances manufacturing, use and waste disposal). Key environmental parameters of spray dried soluble coffee are the amount of extra water boiled and the efficiency of cup cleaning during use phase, whether the coffee is irrigated or not, as well as the type and amount of fertilizer used in the coffee field. The packaging contributes to 10% of the overall life cycle impacts. Compared to other coffee alternatives, spray dried soluble coffee uses less energy and has a lower environmental footprint than capsule espresso coffee or drip filter coffee, the latter having the highest environmental impacts on a per cup basis. This study shows that a broad LCA approach is needed to help industry to minimize the environmental burdens directly related to their products. Including all processes of the entire system is necessary i) to get a comprehensive environmental footprint of the product system with respect to sustainable production and consumption, ii) to share stakeholders responsibility along the entire product life cycle, and iii) to avoid problem shifting between different life cycle stages. ! 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Life cycle assessment (LCA) Coffee Spray dried Soluble Roast and ground Drip filter Espresso Water

29 l/taza

•  http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/ interactive-tools/product-gallery/

Que probabilidad existe de encontrar en un vaso de agua potable, de los que tomamos normalmente, una molécula de agua proveniente de la orina de Tutankamon ?

https://www.ted.com/playlists/ 439/what_is_the_anthropocene

nd

ozoic era”. And y acknowledged mankind: “The esses of evolution wards increasing ght, and forms nfluence on their de Chardin and oösphere’ — the mark the growing er in shaping its nt.

concepts

The Anthropocene The Anthropocene could be said to have started in the late eighteenth century, when analyses of air trapped in polar ice showed the beginning of growing global concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane.

ozone-destroying properties of the halogens have been studied since the mid-1970s. If it had turned out that chlorine behaved NATURE | VOL 415 | 3 JANUARY 2002 | ww chemically like bromine, the ozone hole

564785 research-article2015

ANR0010.1177/2053019614564785The Anthropocene ReviewSteffen et al.

Review

The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration

The Anthropocene Review 2015, Vol. 2(1) 81–98 © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/2053019614564785 anr.sagepub.com

Will Steffen,1,2 Wendy Broadgate,3 Lisa Deutsch,1 Owen Gaffney3 and Cornelia Ludwig1

Abstract The ‘Great Acceleration’ graphs, originally published in 2004 to show socio-economic and Earth System trends from 1750 to 2000, have now been updated to 2010. In the graphs of socio-economic trends, where the data permit, the activity of the wealthy (OECD)

Figure 2. Trends from 1750 to 2010 for ten of the socio-economic graphs (excluding primary energy use

al.

ew

he trajectory of the

The Anthropocene Review 2015, Vol. 2(1) 81–98 © The Author(s) 2015

nd grasslands to With the beginning of the Holocene ooms, smog, and around 11,600 years ago, an even more progeGEOLOGY ms and estuarfound human alteration of Earth’s surface emblic, mations include had begun: the Neolithic agricultural revolunin-dioxide (CO2), tion (see the figure). Subsequent millennia imatmosphere, and Is a formally designated “Anthropocene” a good idea? ate, ated by the perons, Crutzen and om- we By William these episodes because most of these genhat live in theF. Ruddiman,1 Erle C. Ellis,2 son O. Kaplan,3 Dorian Q. Fuller4 era had survived some 50 previous glacialwhichJedhumans ulinterglacial cycles. Hunting and burning by e dominant envioing uman alterations of Earth’s environrecently arrived humans is the most plau1). les-Many of these ments are pervasive. Visible changes sible explanation of these dramatic and unnce include the built environment, conprecedented collapses. emerged during imversion of forests and grasslands to With the beginning of the Holocene celerated rapidly ing. algal blooms, smog, and around 11,600 years ago, an even more prot, a focus onagriculture, the ging the siltation of dams and estuarfound human alteration of Earth’s surface overlooking perons ies. Less obvious transformations include had begun: the Neolithic agricultural revolutions of Earth’s era increases in ozone, carbon dioxide (CO2), tion (see the figure). Subsequent millennia methane years, and with pro- (CH4) in the atmosphere, and ocean acidification. Motivated by the perosphere, climate, vasiveness of these alterations, Crutzen and Definingdothe epoch we live in saw global-scale changes that include g Stoermer argued in 2000 that we live in the William F. Ruddiman et al. “Does it really sense at riginally favored mestication of the world’s crops after 11,000 Science 348make , 38 (2015); “Anthropocene,” a time in which humans ity 10.1126/science.aaa7297 Anthropocene in nature years and livestock years ago, have replaced as ago the dominant envi- after 9000DOI:

H

“Does it really make sense to define the start of a human-dominated era millennia after most forests in arable regions had been cut for agriculture…?”

om www.sciencemag.org on July 10, 2015

Defining the epoch we live in

Long-term anthropogenic changes Industrial Era

SW Asia

SW Asia

N China

N China

Bomb tests

?

Ocean acidification

?

Atm CH4

?

?

?

Atm CO2

?

?

?

Soil erosion

?

?

?

Forest clearance

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Mass extinction

?

Spread of agriculture S Mexico China Peru

N Trop Africa

Crop and livestock domestication S Mexico N Trop China Peru Africa

Megafauna extinction Neolithic Age

Bronze Age

10,000

Iron Age

5,000

Years ago

? Future “Ages” ? 0

50,000

Future

What’s in a name? The industrial era has been a time of greatly accelerated environmental changes (1, 2), but it was preceded by large and important transformations, including massive large-mammal extinctions in the Americas and major changes associated with the spread of agriculture, including the spread of domesticated crops and livestock (5), land clearance, forest cutting, habitat transformations (6, 9), irrigated rice paddies (7), soil erosion (10, 11), and anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere (8). These anthropogenic changes would not be included if the “Anthropocene” is defined by the first atomic bomb test in 1945 (3). Future changes, e.g., in species extinctions and ocean acidification, are projected to be much larger than those already seen, but are difficult to predict.

all reached globally significant levels mil-

Selecting 1945 as the start of the “An-

low for modifiers appropriate to the specific

516291 research-article2014

ANR0010.1177/2053019613516291The Anthropocene ReviewMalm and Hornborg

Perspectives and controversies

The geology of mankind? A critique of the Anthropocene narrative

The Anthropocene Review 201X, Vol XX(X) 1–8 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/2053019613516291 anr.sagepub.com

Andreas Malm and Alf Hornborg

Abstract The Anthropocene narrative portrays humanity as a species ascending to power over the rest of the Earth System. In the crucial field of climate change, this entails the attribution of fossil fuel combustion to properties acquired during human evolution, notably the ability to manipulate fire. But the fossil economy was not created nor is it upheld by humankind in general. This intervention questions the use of the species category in the Anthropocene narrative and argues

654.8 between 1820 and 2010 (Boden et al., 2013), while the former ‘only’ did so by a factor of 6.6 (Maddison, 2006: 241; United Nations, 2011), indicating that another, far more powerful engine must have driven the fires. For recent decades, the correlation has been revealed as outright negative. David Satterthwaite juxtaposed rates of population growth to rates of emissions growth in the quarter-century between 1980 and 2005, and found that numbers tended to rise fastest where emissions grew slowest, and vice versa (Satterthwaite, 2009). The rise of population and the rise of emissions were disconnected from each other, the one mostly happening in places where the other did not – and if a correlation is negative, causation is out of the question. A significant chunk of humanity is not party to the fossil economy at all: hundreds of millions rely on charcoal, firewood or organic waste such as dung for all domestic purposes. Satterthwaite concluded that one-sixth of the human population ‘best not be included in allocations of responsibility for GHG emissions’ (Satterthwaite, 2009: 547–550). Their contribution is close to zero. Moreover, 2 billion people, or nearly one-third of humanity, have no access to electricity, and so, in the words of Vaclav Smil, ‘the difference in modern energy consumption between a subsistence pastoralist in the Sahel and an average Canadian may easily be larger than 1,000-fold’ (Smil, 2008: 259). Depending on the circumstances in which a specimen of Homo sapiens is born, then, her imprint on the atmosphere may vary by a factor of more than 1000 (Satterthwaite, 2009: 564). Given these enormous variations – in space and in time: the present and the past – humanity seems far too slender an abstraction to carry the burden of causality. Now, proponents of the Anthropocene might object that from the standpoint of all other living things, and indeed from the biosphere as a whole, what really matters is that climatic disruption originates from within the human species, even if not all of it is to blame, and so a species-based versies term for the new geological epoch is warranted. A Tuareg pastoralist or a Toronto paymaster, the burner of fossil fuels is, after all, human. This seems to be a compelling argument, providing the Anthropocene concept with a rather solid rationale. It is indicative of the term’s origins in the natuThe Anthropocene Review ral sciences, geologists, meteorologists, biologists and others having detected201X, an overwhelming Vol XX(X) 1–8 human influence on ecosystems, now ranged alongside natural selection, solar©radiation and volThe Author(s) 2014

y of mankind? A

appear in the biography of any other species: beavers and bonobos continue to construct their own Funding micro-environments as they always have, generation upon familiar generation, while a certain may burn woodforfor ten millennia straight and and Spatial then coal the next century.for We human thank thecommunity Swedish Research Council Environment, Agriculture Planning (FORMAS) 4 It has Realising climate change is ‘anthropogenic’ to appreciate thatand it isNatural sociogenic. supporting thethat Lund University Centre of Excellence is forreally Integration of Social Dimensions of arisen as a LUCID, result ofwhich temporally fluid social relations as they materialise Sustainability, has provided us with the opportunity to write thisthrough article. the rest of nature, and once this ontological insight – implicit in the science of climate change – is truly taken onboard, one can no longer treat humankind as merely a species-being determined by its biologiNotes cal evolution. Nor can one write off divisions between human beings as immaterial to the broader 1. By ‘post-Cartesian’, we mean approaches that abandon Cartesian distinctions such as between Society picture, for such divisions have been an integral part of fossil fuel combustion in the first place and Nature or between subject and object. (Hornborg, 2001, 2011). 2. Programme for the conference ‘Thinking the Anthropocene’, Paris, 13–15 November 2013. Following climate science outitself of nature, we should dare to probe the depths of social 3. Nor is the Anthropocene narrative today conducive to democracy, but rather the opposite; cf. hisLeach tory: not relapse into the false certitude of another natural inevitability. The Anthropocene (2013). narrative could here be seen is, as of an course, illogical and ultimately of derive the natural 4. The neologism ‘sociogenic’ means to indicate self-defeating that the drivingforay forces from a science community – responsible for the original discovery of climate change – into thehas specific social structure, rather than a species-wide trait. Similarly, Richard Norgaard (2013) domain human affairs. meteorologists and their not necessarily recentlyofsuggested that weGeologists, think in terms of the ‘Econocene’, in colleagues view of ‘theare 50-fold increase and well-equipped to study the sortactivity of things that take place betweenTwo humans perforce between the globalization of economic during the 20th century’. other (and candidates worth considthem and– both the rest of nature), theintegrate composition rock oraspects the pattern of a‘Technocene’ jet stream being eration proposed to better social of anda natural – are the and the rather different from such phenomena as world-views, property and power. Now that the latter ‘Capitalocene’. layers of earthly existence mould the former, some epistemological confusion is perhaps to be expected. Against this background, ‘the Anthropocene’ resembles an attempt to conceptually References traverse the gap between the natural and the social – already thoroughly fused in reality – Alberts P (2011) towards life in the early Anthropocene. Angelaki: Journalasofitthe Theoretical through the Responsibility construction of a bridge from one side only, leading the traffic, were, in a Humanities 16: 5–17. direction opposite to the actual process: in climate change, social relations determine natural versies conditions; in Anthropocene thinking, natural scientists extend their world-views to society. Needless to say, this re-naturalisation of climate change is as much (if not more) a product of ThetoAnthropocene Review behaviour in the social sciences and humanities, namely the late awakening a warming world. Vol catching XX(X) 1–8 The baton has failed to pass between ‘the two cultures’, and now that the latter201X, is slowly © The Author(s) 2014 Downloaded from anr.sagepub.com at UNIV DE LOS ANDES on July 10, 2015

y of mankind? A

A ZOTE

changes could onment of tion to a new detrimental or umankind (23). caused by c CO2, is the these limits. only limit that ed about. In of scientists ugh the Centre has ey processes in which they feel ugh by human bility of the 3). The graphic e nine Earth eral of these h as climate ation, and hese can be own” in their the nine are sses which

Planetary Boundaries: the nine red wedges represent an estimate of the current position of each boundary. The inner green shading represents the proposed safe operating space.

Figure 4: The Stockholm Resilience Centre’s Planetary Boundaries Framework identifies nine key Earth processes which serve as a sort of set of safety gauges for the Earth System.

UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service (GEAS) Taking the pulse of the planet; connecting science with policy E-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.unep.org/geas

June 2012

Home

Subscribe

Archive

Contact

“Earthrise” taken on 24 December 1968 by Apollo astronauts. NASA

Thematic Focus: Environmental Governance, Resource Efficiency

One Planet, How Many People? A Review of Earth’s Carrying Capacity A discussion paper for the year of RIO+20

Figure 2: Estimates of Earth’s carrying capacity vary dramatically as this survey of 65 different estimates shows.

Many other studies have assumed a single constraining factor to estimate population limits (11), such as the maximum population that could be supported by the available food. These estimates could only be as valid (or invalid) as that assumption of a single constraining factor and the method of calculating limits of that assumed constraint (e.g. food supply). A more sophisticated variation of this method assumed a set of multiple possible constraints (say food, water and fuel), and whichever of these was in shortest supply would set the limit o population (11). This allowed for differen constraints to be limiting in different locations, as in water in deserts or land area on an island. A still more sophisticated approach identifies several constraining factors and also takes account of the interdependence of these variables (11) This is the approach of dynamic system modeling which develops a set of defined relationships for multiple facto reflecting their influence on each other and ultimately on the limits of populati (11). The degree to which humankind can change its interaction with the environment through technology canno be foreseen. For example, availability of fossil fuels impacts food production through fertilizer production, pumping irrigation water, use of farm machinery and so on. Current manufacturing

DESARROLLO SOSTENIBLE ES AQUEL QUE PERMITE: “…SATISFACER LAS NECESIDADES DE LAS GENERACIONES ACTUALES SIN COMPROMETER LAS NECESIDADES DE LAS GENERACIONES FUTURAS…” ONU INFORME BRUNDTLAND

http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabels/

Futuro?

Evolución/Revolución?

Deevey graph, 1960 http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/population-growth-technology-and-tricky-graphs