Transitioning to sustainable and resilient energy systems requires navigating complex and interdependent trade-offs across environmental, social, and resource dimensions. Neglecting these trade-offs can lead to unintended consequences across sectors. However, existing assessments often evaluate emerging energy pathways and their impacts in silos, overlooking critical interactions such as regional resource competition and cumulative impacts. We present an integrated modeling framework that couples agent-based modeling and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to simulate how energy transition pathways interact with regional resource competition, ecological constraints, and community-level burdens. We apply the model to a case study in Southern California. The results demonstrate how integrated and multiscale decision making can shape energy pathway deployment and reveal spatially explicit trade-offs under scenario-driven constraints. This modeling framework can further support more adaptive and resilient energy transition planning on spatial and institutional scales.

Purpose: Artificial intelligence (AI), and in particular large language models (LLMs), are increasingly being explored as tools to support life cycle assessment (LCA). While demonstrations exist across environmental and social domains, systematic evidence on their reliability, robustness, and usability remains limited. This study provides the first expert-grounded benchmark of LLMs in LCA, addressing the absence of standardized evaluation frameworks in a field where no clear ground truth or consensus protocols exist. Methods: We evaluated eleven general-purpose LLMs, spanning both commercial and open-source families, across 22 LCA-related tasks. Seventeen experienced practitioners reviewed model outputs against criteria directly relevant to LCA practice, including scientific accuracy, explanation quality, robustness, verifiability, and adherence to instructions. We collected 168 expert reviews. Results: Experts judged 37% of responses to contain inaccurate or misleading information. Ratings of accuracy and quality of explanation were generally rated average or good on many models even smaller models, and format adherence was generally rated favourably. Hallucination rates varied significantly, with some models producing hallucinated citations at rates of up to 40%. There was no clear-cut distinction between ratings on open-weight versus closed-weight LLMs, with open-weight models outperforming or competing on par with closed-weight models on criteria such as accuracy and quality of explanation. Conclusion: These findings highlight the risks of applying LLMs naïvely in LCA, such as when LLMs are treated as free-form oracles, while also showing benefits especially around quality of explanation and alleviating labour intensiveness of simple tasks. The use of general-purpose LLMs without grounding mechanisms presents ...

As organizations face increasing pressure to understand their corporate and products' carbon footprints, artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted calculation systems for footprinting are proliferating, but with widely varying levels of rigor and transparency. Standards and guidance have not kept pace with the technology; evaluation datasets are nascent; and statistical approaches to uncertainty analysis are not yet practical to apply to scaled systems. We present a set of criteria to validate AI-assisted systems that calculate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for products and materials. We implement a three-step approach: (1) Identification of needs and constraints, (2) Draft criteria development and (3) Refinements through pilots. The process identifies three use cases of AI applications: Case 1 focuses on AI-assisted mapping to existing datasets for corporate GHG accounting and product hotspotting, automating repetitive manual tasks while maintaining mapping quality. Case 2 addresses AI systems that generate complete product models for corporate decision-making, which require comprehensive validation of both component tasks and end-to-end performance. We discuss the outlook for Case 3 applications, systems that generate standards-compliant models. We find that credible AI systems can be built and that they should be validated using system-level evaluations rather than line-item review, with metrics such as benchmark performance, indications of data quality and uncertainty, and transparent documentation. This approach may be used as a foundation for practitioners, auditors, and standards bodies to evaluate AI-assisted environmental assessment tools. By establishing evaluation criteria that balance scalability with credibility requirements, our approach contributes to the field's efforts to develop appropriate standards for AI-assisted carbon footprinting systems.

Research on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is being conducted in various sectors, from analyzing building materials and components to comprehensive evaluations of entire structures. However, reviews of the existing literature have been unable to provide a comprehensive overview of research in this field, leaving scholars without a definitive guideline for future investigations. This paper aims to fill this gap, mapping more than twenty years of research. Using an innovative methodology that combines social network analysis and text mining, the paper examined 8024 scientific abstracts. The authors identified seven key thematic groups, building and sustainability clusters (BSCs). To assess their significance in the broader discourse on building and sustainability, the semantic brand score (SBS) indicator was applied. Additionally, building and sustainability trends were tracked, focusing on the LCA concept. The major research topics mainly relate to building materials and energy efficiency. In addition to presenting an innovative approach to reviewing extensive literature domains, the article also provides insights into emerging and underdeveloped themes, outlining crucial future research directions.

In the past ten years artificial intelligence has encountered such dramatic progress that it is seen now as a tool of choice to solve environmental issues and in the first place greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). At the same time the deep learning community began to realize that training models with more and more parameters required a lot of energy and as a consequence GHG emissions. To our knowledge, questioning the complete environmental impacts of AI methods for environment ("AI for green"), and not only GHG, has never been addressed directly. In this article we propose to study the possible negative impact of "AI for green" 1) by reviewing first the different types of AI impacts 2) by presenting the different methodologies used to assess those impacts, in particular life cycle assessment and 3) by discussing how to assess the environmental usefulness of a general AI service.