tal, health, and cost results. The Army Environmental
Policy Institute (AEPI 2009) report, Green Chemistry
and Engineering Opportunity, clearly describes ‘green
chemistry’ is premised on a life cycle approach to re-
duce hazards. The report highlights opportunities for
employing these principles in designing and selecting
appropriate remediation technologies. AEPI has also
assessed managing risk from nanomaterials using a
life cycle framework (Lloyd and Scanlon 2009). Addi-
tionally, life cycle assessment is mandated for all new
DOD construction (Robyn 2010).
This is not to suggest conducting an LCA gives
decision makers the “perfect” response. There will al-
ways be uncertainty in data surrounding the inputs
to an assessment. Additionally, there will always be
tradeoffs to be made— the least polluting option may
be the most water intensive, for example— hence de-
cision makers will still face difficult choices. Granted
its limitations, LCA presents a valuable tool and Fava
et al. (2009) report growth in LCA is only expected to
continue, with emphases on “the integration of life
cycle approaches into greener buildings, the develop-
ment of life cycle-based carbon footprint protocols,
and the rapid development of requirements (often
referred to as private requirements) from retail com-
panies demanding environmental performance of
consumer goods” (491). This is good news for the mil-
itary because there may be an existing LCA which the
DOD can consult in making procurement decisions
for anything from uniforms to solar panels.
While LCA tools and techniques are already well-
established, the DOD still has much to offer, especially
in assessing military specific materials and products.
Additionally, there is potential for DOD to take a lead
in broader applications of LCA to incorporate more
sharon
(sharon)
#1