Journal of Environmental Management 231 (2019) 962–967

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

Carbon footprint of fertilizer technologies T

a,∗ b b a,∗∗ b a c
K. Chojnacka , Z. Kowalski , J. Kulczycka , A. Dmytryk , H. Górecki , B. Ligas , M. Gramza
a
Department of Advanced Material Technologies, Faculty of Chemistry, Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Wrocław, Smoluchowskiego 25, 50-372, Poland
b
The Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Cracow, Wybickiego 7, 31-261, Poland
c
Grupa Azoty Zakłady Azotowe Kędzierzyn S.A., Kędzierzyn-Koźle, Mostowa 30 A, 47-220, Poland

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The work discussed the necessity to evaluate the environmental effect – i.e. carbon footprint (CF), of N-con-
LCA analysis taining fertilizers when including their production, transportation and use. For that purpose, life cycle assess-
CO2 emission ment (LCA) methodology was involved. The LCA-based CF concerned model fertilizer technology determined
European Union Allowances with the consideration of greenhouse gases assimilation during fertilizer-induced vegetation, as compared to
Crop cultivation
non-treated crops system. According to the available data, the inclusion of CO2 assimilation by plants via
Photosynthesis
photosynthesis in balance sheet offsets 87.6% of the CF from the biomass consumption. Thus, the new approach
to LCA along with the analysis of life cycle costs would provide more reliable determination of the fee amount
charged to European fertilizer manufacturers. The approach might be further developed for various products for
plant treatment. Also, the verification of similar fertilizer technologies in different installations is expected to
identify bottlenecks in terms of the ecological, technical and economic evaluation.

1. European Union position on carbon footprint et al., 2015; Młynarski, 2014).

In the current European economy, when taking the production
profitability into account, the role of various environmental fees is es-
sential. Environmental and economic goals relate to each other, and so
do the policies (Młynarski, 2014). The European Union (EU) aspires to
the leading position in combat with climate change – particularly
greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, for which it competes with USA and
the People's Republic of China (PRC). To mitigate the GHG emission,
the governments enforce carbon pricing. It includes emissions trading
systems and carbon taxes, among others. Being applied in 39 national
and 23 subnational jurisdictions, these two key tools cover 8 and 4% of
the annual global GHG emission, respectively (Kossoy et al., 2015). The
European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) – the first inter-
national implement launched in 2005 – remains the single largest in-
strument for carbon pricing at worldwide level as it accounts for over
75% of the international carbon trading and covers about 45% of the
annual EU GHG emission. The working principle of EU ETS – 'cap and
trade', assumes the purchase or sale of emission allowances (European
Union Emission Allowances, EUEA) for the price regulated by the stock
market (European Commission, 2017a). While for governments carbon
pricing is a revenue source, enterprises and long-term investors use it to
evaluate their actions in environmental and economic terms (Kossoy
Based on the European Commission report, “the overall amount of
carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (…)
associated with a product along its supply-chain, use and end-of-life
recovery and disposal” is designated under the name carbon profile or
carbon footprint (CF) (JRC European Commission, 2009). Originally
conceived by Rees as the concept of ecological footprint (Rees, 1992),
CF is currently a critical environmental indicator (OECD, 2008; Gautam
and Singh, 2010) – one of the environmental footprints (CICER, 2004) –
regulated by ISO 14067 (2013). Besides CO2, CF involves methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and fluorinated gases (ISO/TS 14067:2013).
As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estab-
lished, quantitative determination of CF is referred to global warming
potential (GWP) – the key indicator showing the effect of “the potential
relative climate change per kg of a greenhouse gas over a fixed time
period” (Solomon, 2007). In other words, CF quantifies an individual
contribution to global warming from industrial and human activities,
expressed in CO2 equivalents (CO2-eqv) (Wang et al., 2015).
Although the determination of carbon footprint generally reveals
the environmental impact of the product – meaning both goods and
services (ISO 14040:2006), GHG emissions affect oceanic and atmo-
spheric systems. Hence, an indirect influence on human health might
also be indicated (Barrett et al., 2015).

∗
Corresponding author.
∗∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: katarzyna.chojnacka@pwr.edu.pl (K. Chojnacka), agnieszka.dmytryk@pwr.edu.pl (A. Dmytryk).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.108
Received 31 May 2018; Received in revised form 17 September 2018; Accepted 30 September 2018
Available online 12 November 2018
0301-4797/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Chojnacka et al.
2. Carbon footprint in intensive crop production
The population growth is strongly correlated with agricultural
technology, including fertilizing (IFA, 2009). Nitrogen (N) was the
major limiting nutrient in cropping systems until, in the 1950s, the
development of the Haber-Bosch process started the large-scale pro-
duction of mineral N-containing fertilizers (N fertilizers) (Ma et al.,
2008; Robertson and Vitousek, 2009; Skowrońska and Filipek, 2014;
Zhang et al., 2013). The consumption of those increased 2.5-fold be-
tween 1970 and 2000 in response to the crop farming development
(FAOSTAT, 2000). For the last 20 years, the global agricultural demand
for N has been rising systematically – except a recession observed be-
tween 2007 and 2009 as a result of the spike in commodity prices
worldwide (FAO, 2010, 2011, 2014). Since the decline, fertilizer ni-
trogen use increased by 16.3% reaching 114 Mt with the leading posi-
tion of East Asia – PRC, in particular (FAO, 2015, 2016, 2017). The
European countries contribute about 14% (EU countries – 11%) of N
fertilizer purchase. The average consumption of other primary nutrients
– K2O and P2O5, has been 2.5- and 3.2-fold lower, respectively, within
the accounting period (FAO, 2017; FAOSTAT, 2014b). Agrotechnical
treatments with N fertilizers provide food for 48% of the global popu-
lation (FAO, 2006; Fertilizers Europe, 2017). The further 50–80% in-
crease in agriculture, and hence corresponding demands, by 2050 is
estimated (Huang and Tang, 2010; Müller, 2009).
At the same time, agronomic and economic optimum of nitrogen
application rates has already been exceeded (Chen et al., 2011; Gan
et al., 2012). Among severe environmental effects by N fertilizers, the
major proportion of GHG emission in crop production (Gan et al., 2014)
is of particular interest as it impairs the principles of sustainable de-
velopment (Zhang et al., 2013). The discussion about climate change
directs an attention to enhance crop yielding while decreasing GHG
released from agricultural activity (Grassini and Cassman, 2012; IPCC,
2014).
Since 1970, a high confidence in anthropogenic GHG (CO2) emis-
sion had begun, which finally – in 2010, led to double the results from
previous 220-year long period reaching 49 ± 4.5 Gt CO2-eqv/yr (IPCC,
2014; UNFCCC, 2012). According to IPCC (2014), approximately 78%
of total GHG increase observed in the atmosphere during high con-
fidence was induced by CO2 emission from the combustion of fossil
fuels and industrial process. These two sources are still liable for the
total GHG emission within the food production chain (Wang et al.,
2015). Besides energy production and electricity, agricultural system –
when combined with forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sector – is
one of the main anthropogenic emission source as it releases about 25%
GHG (EEA, 2014; IPCC, 2014; JRC European Commission, 2009;
UNFCCC, 2012).
The agricultural sector itself emitted 5.2 Gt CO2-eqv/yr globally,
divided into 10 sub-domains as shown in Fig. 1 (FAOSTAT, 2014a).
The amount of GHG released from mineral fertilizing reflects the
consumption, hence indirectly the manufacturing, of N-containing
products proving their dominancy within the group (FAOSTAT, 2014a,
2014b). The contribution of the mineral fertilizer use to the total GHG
emission differs depending on the area, and it is about 7% for PRC (Gan
et al., 2014) while below 2% for EU member countries altogether
Fig. 1. Agricultural GHG emission categories (FAOSTAT, 2014a).
963
Journal of Environmental Management 231 (2019) 962–967
(EUROSTAT, 2014; FAOSTAT, 2014a). The values refer to 22 and 19%,
respectively, of the agricultural emission within these regions
(FAOSTAT, 2014a).
In each year beginning from 1970, anthropogenic GHG emissions
includes approximately 25% of non-CO2 gases (UNFCCC, 2012) the
almost sole source of which is AFOLU sector (IPCC, 2014). The great
attention is paid to nitrous oxide (N2O) because of its specific GWP –
about 265–298-fold higher for a 100-year timescale (GWP100) as com-
pared to CO2, and 44% contribution to agricultural GHG emission (EPA,
2017; FAOSTAT, 2014a; Syakila and Kroeze, 2011). Also, agricultural
activity results in above 60% of anthropogenic N2O releases (Syakila
and Kroeze, 2011), mainly during microbial nitrification and deni-
trification of fertilizer residues inefficiently recovered by the plants
(Jensen et al., 2012).
Improvement in management of nitrogen rates in cropping requires
to apply both environmental and economic indicators, including the
product carbon footprint (PCF) and the gross margin (GM), respectively
(Krause and Arora, 2008). Such approach shows significantly positive
influence on the PCF, while its effect on GM is only minor. Yet, the yield
loss by 10% would affect PCF slightly, having however a strong detri-
mental impact on farmers income. The bottleneck of reliable manage-
ment implementation is then dissemination of advanced strategies for
sustainability maintenance which will limit neither volume nor the
profitability of the crop production (Ha et al., 2015). Several agri-
cultural systems have been verified to mitigate GHG emission (Carter
and Ambus, 2006; Hauggaard-Nielsen et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2007;
Robertson et al., 2000), the technologies need to be developed to meet
the efficacy requirements, though.
On the other hand, the fact of efficient CO2 assimilation by crops is
usually neglected in the debate. At the same time, the current en-
terprises pay significant fees for the GHG (CO2) released during ferti-
lizer production – which are expected to increase during the coming
decades. Since GHG emission strongly corresponds to overpopulation
and overconsumption (Barnosky et al., 2016), the actual balance of CO2
in the environment is a very important issue of modern fertilizer in-
dustry. For this purpose, the life cycle assessment (LCA) is the most
suitable tool as it enables reliable evaluation of burdens and improve-
ments corresponded to various environmental issues – ecosystem de-
gradation, resource and ozone depletion, negative human health im-
pacts (Consoli et al., 1993, GHG Protocol for products, 2011; Lindfors
et al., 1995).
In the current work, a new approach of life cycle assessment to
determine the carbon footprint in production of fertilizers with the
consideration of their further involvement plants vegetation is pre-
sented. The paper discusses the main assumptions of CO2 balance in the
fertilizer industry – taking account of the removal of CO2 from the
environment by plants in the process of photosynthesis.
3. LCA-based methodologies for carbon footprint evaluation
There are various methodologies to estimate CF (Wiedmann and
Minx, 2008), yet, LCA is the most common approach (Peter et al.,
2017). In addition, there are requirements for LCA to gain environ-
mental certificates – especially those issued in Western European
countries. Two international standards – ISO 14040 (2006) and 14044
(2006), specify LCA itself. Since the life cycle is defined as “the con-
secutive and interlinked stages of a product system, from raw material
acquisition, or generation from natural resources, to final disposal” (ISO
14040:2006), its assessment involves detailed statement of material and
energy consumption and related emissions (Consoli et al., 1993). The
execution of such research enables to manage the environmental impact
and provide measurable financial savings – e.g. by identifying the least
efficient operations and then upgrading. The method of LCA works
based on quite complex quantitative data, and thus, it should be com-
plemented with the input-output analysis within the system of interest.
While considering the life cycle of fertilizers, one usually thinks of 3
K. Chojnacka et al.
stages: production-transport and logistics-use (IFA, 2009). At the same
time, emissions from these processes are discussed to share the en-
vironmental burden in agricultural system (Audsley et al., 1997). Fer-
tilizers remain one of the main inputs for crop production – about 8
(along with soil improvers) and 21% of intermediate consumption in
EU and USA, respectively – which affect the outputs as they enhance the
yield (Coyette and Schenk, 2013; EUROSTAT, 2016; FAO, 2015; USDA,
2016). In parallel, crop yielding testifies fertilizer efficiency. The in-
corporation into input-output balance of agricultural industry, as well
as the manner of performance determination, seems to be sensible
reason why plant treatment products would undergo the environmental
impact evaluation extended with the cultivation stage – meaning the
vegetation cycle. The approach also justifies the inclusion of the ferti-
lizer-induced enhancement of plant growth – hence carbon dioxide
metabolism via photosynthesis (CO2 assimilation), in the overall CO2
balance.
The quantification of GHG emission within a production chain is
performed according to different guidelines – GHG Protocols (GHG
Protocol corporate, 2004, 2011; Wiedmann and Minx, 2008), de-
pending on whether product or corporate level is considered (Navarro
et al., 2017). The former is related to ISO 14067, while the latter refers
to ISO 14064 (2006). The Product Standard provides guidelines to
elaborate the inventory of GHG emissions and removals concerning a
specific product throughout its life cycle (Peter et al., 2017). At the
same time, there are three scopes of CF appeared in the Corporate
Standard: “1) direct emissions, 2) indirect emissions from electricity
production and other services, and 3) indirect emissions upstream and/
or downstream on the production chain” (GHG Protocol corporate,
2004, 2011). The application of LCA is recommended for PCF or 3 CCF
evaluation (Navarro et al., 2017).
In the literature, PCF is reported rather than CCF (Navarro et al.,
2017). Regarding crop cultivation, PCF studies commonly involve one
single plant type through one vegetation period. Though, the com-
plexity of such systems poses a challenge to quantify all underlying
material flows during a limited time (Brankatschk and Finkbeiner,
2015; Peter et al., 2017). Since PCF focuses on agricultural activities, it
might be, however, limited to “cradle to farm gate” rather than “cradle
to grave”. The simplification set the system boundaries to end with crop
harvest (“when identical products pass out of the farm gate”). In multi-
function systems, such as agricultural production, there are operational
subsystems interlinked giving rise to the allocation of environmental
impact, hence – difficulties in the final assessment (Audsley et al.,
1997). Considering agricultural processes, some of their key parameters
are still underexamined as depending on inter-related factors, e.g. local
and climate conditions, and farming practice (Audsley et al., 1997;
Cherubini and Strømman, 2011). Thus, the methods of reliable PCF
quantification are still developed.
4. The new concept of product carbon footprint assessment in
fertilizers production with the consideration of plant vegetation
The LCA requires a clear definition of the purpose and scope, as well
as the production system and its boundaries. For the case study, the
analysis of the environmental indicator – i.e. carbon footprint, should
involve two agricultural systems:
a) without the fertilizer input – carrying out a full life cycle inventory
in the plant cultivation;
b) with the fertilizer input – carrying out a full inventory for the life
cycle of these products (see 2nd paragraph of section 3) followed by
their involvement in the plant cultivation (Fig. 2).
In both, the amount of CO2 absorbed by plants in the crop area is
estimated.
As the assessment concerns the typical system, it combines the up-
to-date state of knowledge with published data – such as official
964
Journal of Environmental Management 231 (2019) 962–967
Fig. 2. Simplified diagram of LCA-based CF evaluation for fertilizer; FP – fer-
tilizer production, FT – fertilizer transportation, FU – fertilizer use, CP – crop
production (ending with the crop harvest) (Audsley et al., 1997; YARA, 2010).
statistics, regional averages and best available techniques (BAT). The
calculations would require more precise values if the system was spe-
cific.
The functional unit would be 1 tonne of plant biomass produced as a
result of fertilizer application referring to non-treated crops. Such ap-
proach enables to compare the individual CF, between the systems.
Despite GHG emissions from the production, transportation and use of
fertilizers, optimal treatment might improve CO2 assimilation – because
of the increase in crop productivity, by 4–5-fold over non-fertilized
cultivation.
For the production of a given fertilizer, material and energy balance
need to be performed to calculate the amount of GHG – as CO2
equivalents, released in both direct and indirect emissions related to the
energy, process and waste or wastewater (Fischedick et al., 2014). The
balance sheet should contain entries regarding individual fertilizer
production unit; to select the data source (i.e. expertise, report for the
region), one relies upon the operational efficiency. It is assumed that
the natural gas plays a role of the main energy source and, in the case of
N fertilizers, primary raw material.
Although fertilizers are provided to the consumer by various means
of transport, average regional volumes of GHG emission for transpor-
tation are relevant for the indicator determination.
Besides CO2 emitted from the machinery, fertilizer application
contributes to N2O release via microbial transformation of nitrogen
introduced into the soil. Indicators of this issue are preferably calcu-
lated by using BAT data. Depending on the guidelines chosen for
GWP100, emission of 1 kg of N2O provides up to 298 kg CO2-eqv (EPA,
2017).
5. Perspectives
The new concept of LCA-based carbon footprint evaluation was
applied by the European leader in fertilizer production – YARA, on the
most commonly used nitrogen source for agricultural systems in Europe
– ammonium nitrate (AN) (IFA, 2014). The study focused on showing
the big picture of the performance delivered by the agricultural system
with fertilizer input (Yara, 2010). According to the balance sheet
published by the company in 2010, the results were as follows:
a) the total CF of AN production, based on BAT data, 3.6 kg CO2-eqv
per kg N – then verified with calculation tool developed by
Fertilizers Europe (FE) (Yara, 2015a),
b) the European average GHG emission during fertilizer transportation
0.1 kg CO2-eqv per kg N,
c) the average CF for AN use 5.6 kg CO2-eqv per kg N,
d) the total PCF of crop production −75 kg CO2-eqv per kg N – con-
sidering yield of 8 t/ha at the AN application of 170 kg N/ha and
12.8 t CO2/ha carbon assimilation by growing plants (Yara, 2010).
Summing up, the resultant CF of the exemplary product would be
−65.7 kg CO2-eqv per kg N within “cradle to farm gate” system (see
section 3). At the same time, CO2 assimilation by crops does not affect
the global GHG emission long enough to term it the saving since the
K. Chojnacka et al.
majority of cultivated biomass undergoes further processing for food or
feed. The analysis performed by YARA showed, however, that AN-in-
duced crop production – when including emissions from fertilizer input,
could remove atmospheric CO2 equivalent to 87.6% of the CF of the
biomass consumption (75 kg CO2-eqv per kg N) (Yara, 2010).
For non-treated cultivation, there are no emissions listed under
points a)-c) shown above. Yet, long-term lack of treatment would lead
to only 14% reduction of the carbon footprint calculated per unit mass
of biomass cultivated while 75–80% decrease in crop production, as
compared to fertilized system. The necessity of high agricultural pro-
ductivity is followed by extension of arable lands (acreage conversion)
which results in the leakage of carbon – in the CO2 form, stored in the
soil (Smith et al., 2014; Yara, 2017). Taking EU premises into account,
the release of soil carbon at the level of 0.1% is estimated to even the
annual GHG emissions from 100 million cars (European Commission,
2017b). Globally, the land-use change activities contribute to 9–11% of
total anthropogenic GHG emissions (Smith et al., 2014) – similar to
agriculture share.
Besides efficient land management, it is the fertilizer use what re-
quires major improvements as accounting for 60% of the input.
Intensive farming help to protect forests termed as “carbon sinks”,
though. In European Union, forests absorb the equivalent of about 10%
of the total annual EU GHG emissions (European Commission, 2017b;
Yara, 2017). A study based on 1965–2005 data, performed at Stanford
University, showed the mineral fertilizer input to prevent CO2 release of
up to 590 Gt (Burney et al., 2010).
Considering the above, European fertilizer manufacturers face the
inequitable settlement for their alleged environmental impact – which
is not as strongly negative as it is reported. The divergency in metho-
dology causes large differences, and thus harmonized approach should
be set. The further restrictions referring to GHG emissions are im-
plemented instead.
Between 2014 and 2016, European Commission load back 900
million allowances to reduce the supply of such on the carbon market.
On May 2017, nearly 1.7 billion allowances circulated on the European
carbon market (European Commission, 2017d). Contrariwise, 6.1 bil-
lion allowances were traded through the EU ETS in 2014 (Thomson
Reuters, 2015).
A potential increase in the fees resulted from EUEA – €8/t CO2
(Thomson Reuters, 2015), will challenge the profitability of European
production of fertilizers for a reason of hampered prices. Since the AN
production requires about 19 MMBtu natural gas/t and the average EU
gas price is €5/MMBtu, the cost of raw materials for manufacturing 1
tonne of the fertilizer reaches about €95 constituting 50–70% of the
final product price (Blue, Johnson & Associates, 2010; Blue, Johnson &
Associates and Yara, 2017; EFMA, 2008; European Commission, 2017c;
Jones, 2017; Kenkel, 2015; PotashCorp, 2017; Yara, 2015b).
The carbon pricing also affects the competitiveness – hence, the
development, of the fertilizer segment because of asymmetric regula-
tions. The risk of shifting the outputs and future investments (short- and
long-term competitiveness, respectively) to countries where emission
costs remain low or none (“pollution heavens”) is quite real (Ederington
et al., 2005; Levinson, 2010; Levinson and Taylor, 2008). The carbon
leakage following the relocation through competitiveness, or fossil fuels
pricing channel, poses a huge challenge for policy makers and en-
vironmentalists around the world to introduce carbon pricing success-
fully (Kossoy et al., 2015; Reinaud, 2008).
In parallel, limitation of agricultural treatments would indirectly
reduce CO2 assimilation when lowering crop yield, and thus adversely
affecting the environmental level of carbon dioxide. Since modification
in agricultural systems is not considered a quite sufficient solution, it is
crucial to develop and implement a methodology for the quantification
of GHG (especially CO2) emissions and absorption based on detailed
model assessments for manufacturing, transportation and application of
products for plant treatment. Based on the LCA, a comprehensive eco-
nomic evaluation of the whole life cycle of fertilizer might be
965
Journal of Environmental Management 231 (2019) 962–967
conducted. The determination of life cycle costs in the production
system will be followed by objective assessment of the effects of man-
ufacturing processes.
The approach shown in the current work for N fertilizers might be
adapted for products obtained from various raw materials. Analysis of
similar fertilizer technologies in different fertilizer installations will
create an opportunity to compare the environmental, technical and
economic indicators of the applied and dependent nodes or unit op-
erations required upgradation. Finally, a library of balance sheets
would be created enabling to estimate CF of fertilizers performing
significant improvement in composition and technology or, in the fu-
ture, before placing on the market.
6. Conclusions
The concept for the main assumptions of CO2 balance in the ferti-
lizer industry was discussed, with emphasize on the matter of CO2 as-
similation by cultivated plants. The view widening would substantiate
the arguments of fertilizer companies to reduce the fees for CO2 emis-
sion and confirm the validity of detailed LCA analysis as the useful tool
for that purpose. The crops take up CO2 in an amount which exceeds, by
a few-fold, PCF determined during production, transportation and use
of fertilizers plants are treated with. At the same time, increase in de-
mand/consumption for crop biomass will not cease to be an issue in the
near term. Nor arable land limitations will. There is also no large-scale
solution showing cost-to-performance ratio comparable to fertilizing.
Thus, although the reduction of fertilizer use arises as the simplest re-
sponse to the emission restriction, the agricultural industry has no ca-
pacity to handle such solution, yet. Agricultural practice and nutrient
management need to be developed instead. The fertilizing optimization
requires, however, considerable financial outlays. The trade of emission
allowances affects GHG released to the environment without long-term
solution involved. In that situation, shifting the interest on innovative
farming techniques is expected to provide more benefits to en-
trepreneurs on the both sides – fertilizer and crop production. The LCA-
based approach shown in the current paper would support sustainable
development of agriculture industrial branch.
Acknowledgement
This paper is financed in the frame of Wrocław Centre of
Biotechnology, programme The Leading National Research Centre
(KNOW) for years 2014–2018, and grant entitled “Crop plants and
natural products as a source of biologically active substances for the
manufacture of cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements”
(BIOSTRATEG2/298205/9/NCBR/2016) attributed by The National
Centre for Research and Development in Poland.
References
Audsley, E., Albert, S., Clift, R., Cowell, S., Crettaz, P., Gaillard, G., Hausheer, J., Jolliet,
O., Kleijn, R., Mortensen, B., Pearce, D., Roger, E., Teulon, H., Weidema, B., Van
Zeustsh, H., 1997. Harmonisation of Environmental Life Cycle Assessment for
Agriculture. Final Report Concerted Action AIR3-CT94-2028. European Commission
DG VI, Brussels.
Barnosky, A.D., Ehrlich, P.R., Hadly, E.A., 2016. Avoiding collapse: grand challenges for
science and society to solve by 2050. Elementa 4, 1–9.
Barrett, B., Charles, J.W., Temte, J.L., 2015. Climate change, human health, and epide-
miological transition. Prev. Med. 70, 69–75.
Blue, Johnson & Associates, 2010. Nitrogen outlook. In: The Fertilizer Institute Fertilizer
Outlook and Technology Conference, 16-18 November 2010, Savannah, USA.
Blue, Johnson & Associates, Yara, 2017. Ammonia and Urea Cash Cost Calculator. http://
yara.com/tools/cashcost.html, Accessed date: 29 December 2017.
Brankatschk, G., Finkbeiner, M., 2015. Modeling crop rotation in agricultural LCAs –
challenges and potential solutions. Agric. Syst. 138, 66–76.
Burney, J.A., Davis, S.J., Lobell, D.B., 2010. Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural
intensification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107, 12052–12057.
Carter, M.S., Ambus, P., 2006. Biologically fixed N2 as a source for N2O production in a
grass-clover mixture, measured by 15N2. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 74, 13–26.
Chen, J., Huang, Y., Tang, Y.H., 2011. Quantifying economically and ecologically
K. Chojnacka et al.
optimum nitrogen rates for rice production in south-eastern China. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 143, 195–204.
Cherubini, F., Strømman, A.H., 2011. Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: state of
the art and future challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 437–451.
Consoli, F., Allen, D., Boustead, I., Fava, J., Franklin, W., Jensen, A.A., de Oude, N.,
Parrish, R., Perriman, R., Postlethwaite, D., Quay, B., Séguin, J., Vigon, B. (Eds.),
1993. Guidelines for Life-cycle Assessment: a ‘Code of Practice’. Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Workshop, Sesimbra.
Coyette, C., Schenk, H., 2013. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Statistics 2013 Edition.
European Union, Luxemburg.
Ederington, J., Levinson, A., Minier, J., 2005. Footloose and pollution-free. Rev. Econ.
Stat. 87, 92–99.
European Environment Agency (EEA), 2014. Annual European Union Greenhouse Gas
Inventory 1990-2012 and Inventory Report 2014. Technical report No. 09/2014.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-union-greenhouse-gas-inventory-
2014#tab-datareferences, Accessed date: 10 May 2017.
Earth Fertilizer Manufacturers Association (EFMA), 2008. Annual Report: Modern
Agriculture Feeds the World and Helps Protect the Environment. Yara 2015. www.
efma.org.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2017. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Understanding Global Warming Potentials. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/
understanding-global-warming-potentials, Accessed date: 31 December 2017.
European Commission, 2017. The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). https://ec.
europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en, Accessed date: 27 December 2017.
European Commission, 2017. Forests and Agriculture. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/
policies/forests_pl, Accessed date: 27 December 2017.
European Commission, 2017. Quarterly report on European gas markets. Market ob-
servatory for energy. DG Energy. 10 (3) third quarter of 2017. https://ec.europa.eu/
energy/sites/ener/files/documents/quarterly_report_on_european_gas_markets_q3_
2017_final_20171221finalcover.pdf, Accessed date: 29 December 2017.
European Commission, 2017. Emissions Trading: Emissions Fall in 2016. https://ec.
europa.eu/clima/news/emissions-trading-emissions-fall-2016_en, Accessed date: 29
December 2017.
EUROSTAT, 2014. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Source Sector (Source: EEA). http://
appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_air_gge&lang=en,
Accessed date: 30 December 2017.
EUROSTAT, 2016. Agricultural Accounts and Prices. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
statistics-explained/index.php/Agricultural_accounts_and_prices, Accessed date: 30
December 2017.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2006. Livestock's Long
Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. FAO, Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2010. Current World
Fertilizer Trends and Outlook to 2014. FAO, Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2011. Current World
Fertilizer Trends and Outlook to 2015. FAO, Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2014. Fertilizer con-
sumption (kilograms per hectare of arable land). Electronic files in the World Band
Data. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.CON.FERT.ZS, Accessed date: 13
December 2017.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2015. World Fertilizer
Trends and Outlook to 2018. Summary Report. FAO, Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2016. World Fertilizer
Trends and Outlook to 2019. Summary Report. FAO, Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2017. World Fertilizer
Trends and Outlook to 2020. Summary Report. FAO, Rome.
FAOSTAT, 2000. Fertilizers Archives. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RA,
Accessed date: 13 December 2017.
FAOSTAT, 2014a. Agriculture Total. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GT,
Accessed date: 12 December 2017.
FAOSTAT, 2014b. Fertilizers. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RF, Accessed date:
13 December 2017.
Fertilizers Europe, 2017. Feeding Life. http://www.fertilizerseurope.com/get-to-know-
us/key-messages/feeding-life/, Accessed date: 13 December 2017.
Fischedick, M., Roy, J., Abdel-Aziz, A., Acquaye, A., Allwood, J.M., Ceron, J.-P., Geng, Y.,
Kheshgi, H., Lanza, A., Perczyk, D., Price, L., Santalla, E., Sheinbaum, C., Tanaka, K.,
2014. Industry. In: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E.,
Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., Kriemann, B.,
Savolainen, J., Schlömer, S., von Stechow, C., Zwickel, T., Minx, J.C. (Eds.), Climate
Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, pp. 739–810.
Gan, Y., Liang, C., May, W., Malhi, S.S., Niu, J., Wang, X., 2012. Carbon footprint of
spring barley in relation to preceding oilseeds and N fertilization. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 17, 635–645.
Gan, Y., Liang, C., Chai, Q., Lemke, R.L., Campbell, C.A., Zentner, R.P., 2014. Improving
farming practices reduces the carbon footprint of spring wheat production. Nat.
Commun. 5, 5012–5024.
Gautam, R., Singh, A., 2010. Critical environmental indicators used to assess environ-
mental performance of business. IJGBMR 2, 224–236.
GHG Protocol corporate, 2004. A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. World
Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development1-
56973-568-9.
GHG Protocol corporate, 2011. Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and
Reporting Standard. World Resources Institute and World Business Council for
Sustainable Development978-1-56973-772-9.
GHG Protocol for products, 2011. Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard.
966
Journal of Environmental Management 231 (2019) 962–967
World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable
Development978-1-56973-773-6.
Grassini, P., Cassman, K.G., 2012. High-yield maize with large net energy yield and small
global warming intensity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 1074–1079.
Ha, N., Feike, T., Back, H., Xiao, H., Bahrs, E., 2015. The effect of simple nitrogen fer-
tilizer recommendation strategies on product carbon footprint and gross margin of
wheat and maize production in the North China. J. Environ. Manag. 163, 146–154.
Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Lachouani, P., Trydeman Knudsen, M., Ambus, P., Boelt, B.,
Gislum, R., 2016. Productivity and carbon footprint of perennial grass-forage legume
intercropping strategies with high or low nitrogen fertilizer. Sci. Total Environ. 541,
1339–1347.
Huang, Y., Tang, Y.H., 2010. An estimate of greenhouse gas (N2O and CO2) mitigation
potential under various scenarios of nitrogen use efficiency in Chinese croplands.
Glob. Change Biol. 16, 2958–2970.
International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA), 2009. Fertilizers, Climate Change and
Enhancing Agricultural Productivity Sustainably. IFA, Paris.
International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA), 2014. Nitrogen Fertilizer Application
by Region and Products. Yara, following 2017.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014. Summary for policy makers.
In: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth,
K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., Kriemann, B., Savolainen, J.,
Schlömer, S., von Stechow, C., Zwickel, T., Minx, J.C. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014:
Mitigation of Climate Change Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge and New York, pp. 1–32.
ISO 14040, 2006. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and
Framework (ISO 14040:2006). International Standard. International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva.
ISO 14044, 2006. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements
and Guidelines (ISO 14044:2006). International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva.
ISO 14064, 2006. Greenhouse Gases – Part 1: Specification with Guidance at the
Organization Level for Quantification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Removals (ISO 14064-1:2006). International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva.
ISO 14067, 2013. Greenhouse Gases – Carbon Footprint of Products – Requirements and
Guidelines for Quantification and Communication (ISO/TS 14067:2013).
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
Jensen, E.S., Peoples, M.B., Boddey, R.M., Gresshoff, P.M., Hauggaard-Nielsen, H.,
Morrison, M.J., 2012. Legumes for mitigation of climate change and the provision of
feedstock for biofuels and biorefineries. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 32, 329–364.
Jones, A., 2017. A look at nitrogen fertilizer cost drivers and production flow. In:
Agricultural Fertilizer Industry: Your Comprehensive Overview, . http://editors.aws.
marketrealist.com/2017/01/overview-nitrogen-fertilizer-cost-drivers-production-
flow/, Accessed date: 29 December 2017.
Joint Research Centre (JRC) European Commission, 2009. Carbon Footprint: what it Is
and How to Measure it. http://www.envirocentre.ie/includes/documents/Carbon_
Footprint-what_it_is_and_how_to_measure_it-JRC_IES-Feb09-b%5B1%5D.pdf,
Accessed date: 10 May 2017.
Kenkel, P., 2015. Causes of Fertilizer Price Volatility. http://articles.extension.org/
pages/72692/causes-of-fertilizer-price-volatility, Accessed date: 29 December 2017.
Kossoy, A., Peszko, G., Oppermann, K., Prytz, N., Klein, N., Blok, K., Lam, L., Wong, L.,
Borkent, B., 2015. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing. International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington.
Krause, H., Arora, D., 2008. Controlling-kennzahlen-key Performance Indicators.
Oldenbourg Verlag, München.
Levinson, A., 2010. Offshoring pollution: is the United States increasingly importing
polluting goods? Rev. Environ. Econ. Pol. 4, 63–83.
Levinson, A., Taylor, M.S., 2008. Unmasking the pollution haven effect. Int. Econ. Rev.
49, 223–254.
Lindfors, L.G., Christiansen, K., Hoffmann, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V., Hanssen, O.J.,
Rønning, A., Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G., 1995. Nordic Guidelines on Life-cycle
Assessment. Nord 1995:20. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen.
Ma, W.Q., Li, J.H., Ma, L., Wang, F.H., Sisak, I., Cushman, G., Zhang, F.S., 2008. Nitrogen
flow and use efficiency in production and utilization of wheat, rice, and maize in
China. Agric. Syst. 99, 53–63.
Müller, A., 2009. Climate Change Mitigation: Unleashing the Potential of Agriculture.
Presentation Made to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Chang
(UNFCCC) Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action. Bonn,
Germany, 4 April 2009.
Młynarski, T., 2014. European union emissions trading system. Between the ecology and
economy. Kultura i Polityka 15, 98–108 (in Polish).
Navarro, A., Puiga, R., Fullana- Palmer, P., 2017. Product vs corporate carbon footprint:
some methodological issues. A case study and review on the wine sector. Sci. Total
Environ. 581–582, 722–733.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2004. Center for International Climate
and Environmental Research (CICER) – Oslo. Carbon Footprints of Nations. http://
carbonfootprintofnations.com/content/environmental_footprint_of_nations/,
Accessed date: 3 June 2017.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate, 2008.
OECD key Environmental Indicators. https://www.oecd.org/env/indicators-
modelling-outlooks/37551205.pdf, Accessed date: 3 June 2017.
Peter, C., Helming, K., Nendel, C., 2017. Do greenhouse gas emission calculations from
energy crop cultivation reflect actual agricultural management practices? – A review
of carbon footprint calculators. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67, 461–476.
PotashCorp, 2017. Nitrogen. In: Overview of PotashCorp and its Industry, . http://www.
K. Chojnacka et al.
potashcorp.com/overview/resources/nitrogen, Accessed date: 29 December 2017.
Rees, W.E., 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban
economics leaves out. Environ. Urban. 4, 121–130.
Reinaud, J., 2008. Issues behind Competitiveness and Carbon Leakage: Focus on Heavy
Industry. International Energy Agency OECD/IEA, Paris.
Robertson, G.P., Vitousek, P.M., 2009. Nitrogen in agriculture: balancing the cost of an
essential resource. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34, 97–125.
Robertson, G.P., Paul, E.A., Harwood, R.R., 2000. Greenhouse gases in intensive agri-
culture: contributions of individual gases to the radiative forcing of the atmosphere.
Science 289, 1922–1925.
Skowrońska, M., Filipek, T., 2014. Life cycle assessment of fertilizers: a review. Int.
Agrophys. 28, 101–110.
Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H., Kumar, P., McCarl, B., Ogle, S.,
O'Mara, F., Rice, C., Scholes, B., Sirotenko, O., 2007. Agriculture. In: Metz, B.,
Davidson, O.R., Bosch, P.R., Dave, R., Meyer, L.A. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007:
Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
and New York, pp. 497–540.
Smith, P., Bustamante, M., Ahammad, H., Clark, H., Dong, H., Elsiddig, E.A., Haberl, H.,
Harper, R., House, J., Jafari, M., Masera, O., Mbow, C., Ravindranath, N.H., Rice,
C.W., Robledo Abad, C., Romanovskaya, A., Sperling, F., Tubiello, F., 2014.
Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga,
R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S.,
Eickemeier, P., Kriemann, B., Savolainen, J., Schlömer, S., von Stechow, C., Zwickel,
T., Minx, J.C. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
and New York, pp. 811–922.
Solomon, S. (Ed.), 2007. Climate Change 2007-the Physical Science Basis: Working Group
I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, vol. 4 Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge and New York.
967
Journal of Environmental Management 231 (2019) 962–967
Syakila, A., Kroeze, C., 2011. The global nitrous oxide budget revisited. Greenh. Gas
Meas. Manag. 1, 17–26.
Thomson Reuters, 2015. Carbon Market Monitor – Big Emitters Promise Cuts, but Pledges
Are Hard to Compare. following: Kossoy et al. (2015).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2012. GHG
emission Profiles. http://unfccc.int/ghgdata/ghgdataunfccc/ghgprofiles/items/
3954.php, Accessed date: 2 June 2017.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2016. Cost-of-production Forecasts.
following: Yara 2017.
Wang, Z.B., Wen, X.Y., Zhang, H.L., Lu, X.H., Chen, F., 2015. Net energy yield and carbon
footprint of summer corn under different N fertilizer rates in the North China Plain. J.
Integr. Agric. 14, 1534–1541.
Wiedmann, T., Minx, J., 2008. A definition of ‘carbon footprint’. In: Pertsova, C.C. (Ed.),
Ecological Economics. Research Trends. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York, pp.
1–11.
Yara, 2010. The Carbon Footprint of Fertilizers. http://yara.com/doc/29413_Yara_
carbon_life_cycle.pdf, Accessed date: 7 December 2017.
Yara, 2015a. Verification Statement. Carbon Footprint – Fertilizer Products. http://yara.
com/doc/228707_Yara_Carbon_footprint_verification%20statement_06_11_2015%
20(1).pdf, Accessed date: 7 December 2017.
Yara, 2015b. Pure Nutrient #5 – Are Nitrogen Fertilizer Prices Still Predictable? Yara
International. http://yara.com/doc/199037_YA_md_factsheet-N5_UK_12-0-BD.pdf,
Accessed date: 30 December 2017.
Yara, 2017. Fertilizer Industry Handbook. Yara International. http://yara.com/doc/
245620_Fertilizer_Industry_Handbook_2017_with_notes.pdf, Accessed date: 30
December 2017.
Zhang, W.F., Dou, Z.X., He, P., Ju, X.T., Powlson, D., Chadwick, D., Norse, D., Lu, Y.L.,
Zhang, Y., Wu, L., Chen, X.P., Cassman, K.G., Zhang, F.S., 2013. New technologies
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogenous fertilizer in China. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. 110, 8375–8380.