1. Rethink rather than optimize

In a context of dominant design, i.e. when we are interested in a product whose function seems generally accepted by society (e.g. public transport aims to transport X number of people from A to B in a certain time), life cycle assessment is used for optimization purposes only, i.e. the reduction of environmental impacts is achieved only by studying the variation of one (or more) parameters around this design.

In a context of innovation, we need to focus more on the function of the product itself.

So, still citing the example of public transport, why not abandon the old speed-distance paradigm (i.e. transport is "wasted time"), and embrace a whole new concept: that of connecting, active and experiential mobility. Transport would thus have a whole new function: that of being a place for exchange, work, leisure... since time is no longer a key parameter, this opens the door to a whole series of new solutions that could not have been envisaged otherwise. By breaking free from dominant design, Lifecycle Analysis can move mountains. Using creativity at the very beginning of a study, an to rethink the very function of products, is the driving force behind real change.

2. The circular economy, yes, but not without life-cycle thinking

The circular economy aims to optimize resources while eliminating the notion of waste. But does this mean that all materials must be constantly recovered to become products again, and so on, in a closed loop?

It all depends, and that's the importance of life-cycle thinking. Here are 2 examples:

Take rubber tires: the more you increase their recycled content, the more you seem to satisfy the logic of the circular economy... yet the tire's performance decreases when the % of recycled material increases, which increases its environmental impact!

On the other hand, it can sometimes be a good idea to "open the loop": glass can be used in concrete, replacing cement. This choice can be questioned by saying that glass is "enclosed" in concrete, preventing it from becoming a glass product again (bottle, etc.). Cement is such a pollutant that it makes good environmental sense to reduce its production at all costs! Silica (glass), on the other hand, is a relatively abundant material, and less polluting... so it's counterproductive to try to use it in a closed loop at all costs...

3. Don't eliminate packaging, rethink it

Packaging fulfils a host of functions, including protecting the object it contains. When it comes to food, it can also preserve nutritional properties, and guarantee wholesomeness.

For all packaging, there is an optimum quantity, above which we overpack, but below which there is a risk for the product.

Eco-entreprise Quebec offers a tool for optimizing and communicating the performance of your packaging, while integrating life-cycle thinking.

4. Canadian beef from every angle

Canadian beef has just undergone a state-of-the-art LCA (Life Cycle Assessment).

The report was released by the CRSB (Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef). Among the conclusions: the identification of social "hot spots" related to beef production: federal laws concerning the protection of aboriginal populations and immigrant workers, the income of workers at distributors, and the workload and risk of injury among cattlemen.

5. Your children are also part of the solution!

Set up in schools, the Scol'ère carbon exchange enables children to learn about the challenges of climate change and life-cycle thinking, and to take concrete action for the environment.

The first "I'm committed" section includes 5 workshops in which students become investigators, tracking greenhouse gases, energy consumption and waste in a fun way, while gaining a better understanding of product life cycles.

The second section, "I offset", enables them to make commitments and account for the GHG emissions avoided by their responsible behavior.

The carbon credits generated by these commitments enable the project to finance itself...

An excellent approach, to be promoted in schools!