TY - JOUR

T1 - The carbon footprint of different modes of birth in the UK and the Netherlands

T2 - An exploratory study using life cycle assessment

AU - Spil, Nienke A.

AU - van Nieuwenhuizen, Kim E.

AU - Rowe, Rachel

AU - Thornton, Jim G.

AU - Murphy, Elizabeth

AU - Verheijen, Evelyn

AU - Shelton, Clifford L.

AU - Heazell, Alexander E. P.

PY - 2024/4/1

Y1 - 2024/4/1

N2 - AbstractObjectiveTo compare the carbon footprint of caesarean and vaginal birth.DesignLife cycle assessment (LCA).SettingTertiary maternity units and home births in the UK and the Netherlands.PopulationBirthing women.MethodsA cradle‐to‐grave LCA using openLCA software to model the carbon footprint of different modes of delivery in the UK and the Netherlands.Main Outcome Measures‘Carbon footprint’ (in kgCO2 equivalents [kgCO2e]).ResultsExcluding analgesia, the carbon footprint of a caesarean birth in the UK was 31.21 kgCO2e, compared with 12.47 kgCO2e for vaginal birth in hospital and 7.63 kgCO2e at home. In the Netherlands the carbon footprint of a caesarean was higher (32.96 kgCO2e), but lower for vaginal birth in hospital and home (10.74 and 6.27 kgCO2e, respectively). Emissions associated with analgesia for vaginal birth ranged from 0.08 kgCO2e (with opioid analgesia) to 237.33 kgCO2e (nitrous oxide with oxygen). Differences in analgesia use resulted in a lower average carbon footprint for vaginal birth in the Netherlands than the UK (11.64 versus 193.26 kgCO2e).ConclusionThe carbon footprint of a caesarean is higher than for a vaginal birth if analgesia is excluded, but this is very sensitive to the analgesia used; use of nitrous oxide with oxygen multiplies the carbon footprint of vaginal birth 25‐fold. Alternative methods of pain relief or nitrous oxide destruction systems would lead to a substantial improvement in carbon footprint. Although clinical need and maternal choice are paramount, protocols should consider the environmental impact of different choices.

AB - AbstractObjectiveTo compare the carbon footprint of caesarean and vaginal birth.DesignLife cycle assessment (LCA).SettingTertiary maternity units and home births in the UK and the Netherlands.PopulationBirthing women.MethodsA cradle‐to‐grave LCA using openLCA software to model the carbon footprint of different modes of delivery in the UK and the Netherlands.Main Outcome Measures‘Carbon footprint’ (in kgCO2 equivalents [kgCO2e]).ResultsExcluding analgesia, the carbon footprint of a caesarean birth in the UK was 31.21 kgCO2e, compared with 12.47 kgCO2e for vaginal birth in hospital and 7.63 kgCO2e at home. In the Netherlands the carbon footprint of a caesarean was higher (32.96 kgCO2e), but lower for vaginal birth in hospital and home (10.74 and 6.27 kgCO2e, respectively). Emissions associated with analgesia for vaginal birth ranged from 0.08 kgCO2e (with opioid analgesia) to 237.33 kgCO2e (nitrous oxide with oxygen). Differences in analgesia use resulted in a lower average carbon footprint for vaginal birth in the Netherlands than the UK (11.64 versus 193.26 kgCO2e).ConclusionThe carbon footprint of a caesarean is higher than for a vaginal birth if analgesia is excluded, but this is very sensitive to the analgesia used; use of nitrous oxide with oxygen multiplies the carbon footprint of vaginal birth 25‐fold. Alternative methods of pain relief or nitrous oxide destruction systems would lead to a substantial improvement in carbon footprint. Although clinical need and maternal choice are paramount, protocols should consider the environmental impact of different choices.

KW - operating room

KW - net zero

KW - caesarean section

KW - life cycle assessment

KW - vaginal birth

KW - sustainability

U2 - 10.1111/1471-0528.17771

DO - 10.1111/1471-0528.17771

M3 - Journal article

VL - 131

SP - 568

EP - 578

JO - BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

JF - BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

SN - 1470-0328

IS - 5

ER -