Livestock production systems currently occupy around 28% of the land surface of the European Union (equivalent to 65% of the agricultural land). In conjunction with other human activities, livestock production systems affect water, air and soil quality, global climate and biodiversity, altering the biogeochemical cycles of nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon. Here, we quantify the contribution of European livestock production to these major impacts. For each environmental effect, the contribution of livestock is expressed as shares of the emitted compounds and land used, as compared to the whole agricultural sector. The results show that the livestock sector contributes significantly to agricultural environmental impacts. This contribution is 78% for terrestrial biodiversity loss, 80% for soil acidification and air pollution (ammonia and nitrogen oxides emissions), 81% for global warming, and 73% for water pollution (both N and P). The agriculture sector itself is one of the major contributors to these environmental impacts, ranging between 12% for global warming and 59% for N water quality impact. Significant progress in mitigating these environmental impacts in Europe will only be possible through a combination of technological measures reducing livestock emissions, improved food choices and reduced food waste of European citizens.

/pdf/impacts-of-european-livestock-production-nitrogen-sulphur-3b3skv9aam.pdf

Impacts of European livestock production: nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorus and greenhouse gas emissions, land-use, water eutrophication and biodiversity

Towards a Green Economy Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication, Conclusion

Linkage analysis for the water–energy nexus of city

Technology review and data analysis for cost assessment of water treatment systems

https://escholarship.org/content/qt7bz829ph/qt7bz829ph.pdf?t=qsoiux

Brackish water desalination using reverse osmosis and capacitive deionization at the water-energy nexus.

As population and water demand increase, there is a growing need for alternative water supplies from water reuse and desalination systems. These systems are beneficial to water augmentation; however, there are concerns related to their carbon footprint. This study compiles the reported carbon footprint of these systems from existing literature, recognizes general trends of carbon footprint of water reuse and desalination, and identifies challenges associated with comparing the carbon footprint. Furthermore, limitations, challenges, knowledge gaps, and recommendations associated with carbon footprint estimation tools are presented. Reverse osmosis (RO) technologies were found to have lower CO 2 emissions than thermal desalination technologies and the estimated carbon footprint of seawater RO desalination (0.4–6.7 kg CO 2 eq/m 3 ) is generally larger than brackish water RO desalination (0.4–2.5 kg CO 2 eq/m 3 ) and water reuse systems (0.1–2.4 kg CO 2 eq/m 3 ). The large range of reported values is due to variability in location, technologies, life cycle stages, parameters considered and estimation tools, which were identified as major challenges to making accurate comparisons. Carbon footprint estimation tools could be improved by separating emissions by unit process, direct and indirect emissions, and considering the offset potential of various resource recovery strategies.

Carbon footprint of water reuse and desalination: a review of greenhouse gas emissions and estimation tools

Urban water treatment plants rely on energy intensive processes to provide safe, reliable water to users. Changes in influent water quality may alter the operation of a water treatment plant and its associated energy use or embodied energy. Therefore the objective of this study is to estimate the effect of influent water quality on the operational embodied energy of drinking water, using the city of Tampa, Florida as a case study. Water quality and water treatment data were obtained from the David L Tippin Water Treatment Facility (Tippin WTF). Life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) was conducted to calculate treatment chemical embodied energy values. Statistical methods including Pearson's correlation, linear regression, and relative importance were used to determine the influence of water quality on treatment plant operation and subsequently, embodied energy. Results showed that influent water quality was responsible for about 14.5% of the total operational embodied energy, mainly due to changes in treatment chemical dosages. The method used in this study can be applied to other urban drinking water contexts to determine if drinking water source quality control or modification of treatment processes will significantly minimize drinking water treatment embodied energy.

Mark V. E. Santana

Papers

Carbon footprint of water reuse and desalination: a review of greenhouse gas emissions and estimation tools

Influence of Water Quality on the Embodied Energy of Drinking Water Treatment

Could smart growth lower the operational energy of water supply? A scenario analysis in Tampa, Florida, USA