A Swedish comment on ‘review: the availability of life-cycle studies in Sweden’

The article entitled ‘Review: the availability of life-cycle studies in Sweden’ by Croft and colleagues (January 2019, volume 24, issue 1, pages 6–11) has puzzled many researchers in Sweden. The stated purpose of the article is to review the availability of water and carbon footprinting studies and life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies in Sweden. Despite its title and purpose suggesting otherwise, the article appears to be about the accessibility of life-cycle case studies from Sweden in South Africa. It is problematic that the article claims to be a review in the title and text, but is presented by the journal as a commentary. We believe that the article’s method is unclear and that its title and results are misleading. The authors of the article found only 12 academic papers, 10 academic theses, 8 company reports, and 1 presentation. This result significantly underestimates the actual production and availability of Swedish LCA case studies

Trafikverket p\ue5 kollisionskurs med klimatm\ue5len

Trafikverket r\ue4knar med en kraftig \uf6kning av trafiken f\uf6r b\ue5de personbilar och lastbilar i sin nya infrastrukturplan, detta trots att Sveriges klimatm\ue5l kr\ue4ver raka motsatsen. Det finns anledning f\uf6r regeringen att snarast ge Trafikverket tydliga direktiv att i sin planering utg\ue5 fr\ue5n att klimatm\ue5len ska n\ue5s, skriver en l\ue5ng rad professorer och forskare

Trafikverket p\ue5 kollisionskurs med klimatm\ue5len

Trafikverket r\ue4knar med en kraftig \uf6kning av trafiken f\uf6r b\ue5de personbilar och lastbilar i sin nya infrastrukturplan, detta trots att Sveriges klimatm\ue5l kr\ue4ver raka motsatsen. Det finns anledning f\uf6r regeringen att snarast ge Trafikverket tydliga direktiv att i sin planering utg\ue5 fr\ue5n att klimatm\ue5len ska n\ue5s, skriver en l\ue5ng rad professorer och forskare

The zinc paradox – a problem for USEtox-based indicators of national chemical footprints?

Considering the immense problem of chemical pollution worldwide, there is a great need for methods that can be used to calculate indicators of chemical footprints. Such indicators can be calculated for products and services using life cycle assessment (LCA), but also for whole nations. Indicators of national chemical footprints may include emissions within the nation’s borders only, or also emissions related to consumption (thus having a life cycle perspective). A limited number of studies (50% of the toxicity impacts for both ecotoxicity and human toxicity. For ecotoxicity, this is not unreasonable considering the notable toxicity of zinc to aquatic organisms. For human toxicity, this result is more surprising. Zinc is an essential trace element for humans that many take as a dietary supplement to prevent zinc deficiency. Non-LCA sources describe zinc as “relatively harmless” to human health. The World Health Organisation (WHO) does not list zinc among the top ten chemicals of major public health concern, although there are other metals on the list (mercury, lead, cadmium and arsenic). These contradictory claims about zinc’s health impact seem to constitute a paradox. We present a review of existing studies assessing indicators of national chemical footprints, and of toxicological research related to zinc. We further discuss potential causes of this zinc paradox, as well as implications for assessments of indicators of national chemical footprints with USEtox