Share thisDr. Greg Norris talks with Executive Editor Jim Wallace about climate change and how this will have an impact on laboratory animal facility operations.
JW: Why is it now important to consider the impact of human activities on environment, including climate?
GN: It has become very clear to all observers during the past few years that the climate is indeed changing, and almost everyone is in agreement that human-induced atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are a trigger for that. Also, because some modest temperature increases, such as those we are already seeing, can help push other natural processes to release more greenhouse gasses and amplify the changes, and we therefore have a risk of passing a sort of "tipping point." And climate is not the only urgent environmental issue; loss of fresh water reserves through a combination of depletion and contamination is another. I would also add loss of biodiversity due to land use change and premature loss of human life due to exposures to pollution, especially fine particles which we breathe are factors that must be considered.
JW: Why would we want to use less energy and materials?
GN: There are many reasons. Delaying depletion of the finite, non-renewable resource, such as fossil fuels, leaves more for future generations. But perhaps most urgent, combustion of fossil fuels are a major source of greenhouse gases and many other pollutants we are concerned about.
JW: What tools are available to actually measure consumption, energy, etc. in the production and use of the products used in facilities?
GN: Well, on-site measurement of impacts is well-established, for both energy consumption and for pollution released. But we also know from life cycle assessment studies that most of the impacts for most products occur in the supply chain of a production facility, rather than on-site. Specifically, for about 80% of the sectors in the U.S. economy, roughly 80% of their so-called cradle-to-gate pollution impacts on the environment and human health occur in their supply chains, while just the last 20% occur on-site.
JW: You have mentioned different impacts: energy, water use, etc. Can these be somehow added up to get a total environmental score?
GN: Well, they can be, but that doesn't mean that the result is overly meaningful. How do you really add up impacts on human health with impacts on ecosystems? The only way is to express and use pure value judgments. This can be done, but people's values differ. Therefore, it is not possible to claim that such a final overall score is purely objective. A score like that can and will vary from person to person. Whereas, the greenhouse gas emissions in terms of warming potential, for product A versus B, that is something that can be estimated on an empirical basis. For these reasons, the ISO standards for Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) tell us that if we are making a public comparison of products, we need to present the results at the level of the impact categories, not a final score. Anybody reading a report that presents a final overall score might mistakenly assume that a single score from an otherwise scientific study was itself an objective result, but it cannot be.