Transcript BUYING CHOICES FOR A MORE SUSTAINABLE CANBERRA

BUYING CHOICES FOR A MORE
SUSTAINABLE CANBERRA
Sarah Ryan
SoE Reporting Forum , 4 May 2012
Acknowledgements




Office of the ACT Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment
Alexei Trundle and Sarah Burrows of the Office
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences
ACT NRM Council
*** No brand endorsement or otherwise
implied in this presentation***
Full report available at www.envcomm.act.gov.au
Why?

ACT State of the Environment Report was due end 2011

The ecological footprint of the ACT is high by world standards

Consumer behaviour is a significant driver of footprint

The Challenge: presenting information to consumers that




relates to their lives
in ways they can understand
that might inspire and help them modify their consumption behaviour, and
is based on sound science.
Ecological footprint of the ACT





9.2 global hectares AND
rising
3 million gha (14x land area
of the ACT)
15% higher than the average
Australian footprint
3x the global average
5x the biocapacity of the
earth
Dey (2010) The 2008-09 ecological footprint of the
population of the ACT
Item of household consumption
Footprint
(gha/capita)
% of
total
Electricity supply
1.07
12
Residential building construction
0.56
6
Retail trade
0.51
6
Hotels, clubs, restaurants, cafes
0.44
5
Air and space transport
0.35
4
Petrol
0.32
3
Other food products
0.29
3
Wooden furniture
0.25
3
Ownership of dwellings
0.24
3
Clothing
0.21
2
Electronic equipment
0.20
2
Beef cattle
0.17
2
Finished cars
0.16
2
Education
0.15
2
Non-building construction
0.14
2
Gas supply
0.14
2
Non-residential building
construction
Wheat
0.14
2
0.12
1
5.46
59
SUBTOTAL
The shopping basket
Item of household consumption
Footprint
(gha/capita)
% of
total
Electricity supply
1.07
12
Residential building construction
0.56
6
Retail trade
0.51
6
Loaf of bread
Hotels, clubs, restaurants, cafes
0.44
5
Air and space transport
0.35
4

Cup of coffee
Petrol
0.32
3
Other food products
0.29
3

Tomatoes
Wooden furniture
0.25
3
Ownership of dwellings
0.24
3
Clothing
0.21
2
Electronic equipment
0.20
2
Beef cattle
0.17
2
Television set
Finished cars
0.16
2
Education
0.15
2

Paper book
Non-building construction
0.14
2
Gas supply
0.14
2

AA batteries
Non-residential building
construction
Wheat
0.14
2
0.12
1
5.46
59



Beef
SUBTOTAL
Life cycle analyses

Framework: “cradle to grave” “paddock to plate” “farm to fork”
LAND, WATER, ENERGY AND MATERIAL INPUTS
Assembling
Processing and
inputs
manufacture
Distribution
Use
Disposal
WASTE


Outcomes assessed – eg land, water,
biodiversity, air, toxicity
Methodology for this study:




Develop the supply chain for Canberra
Use the literature to determine the hotspots
Develop ‘buying choices’
Consider social and ethical values

Shortcomings and qualifications

Analyses are usually incomplete, omitting
parts of cycle and/or types of impacts

Industry data are hard to obtain and can
change rapidly

The shopping trip is often excluded from
analyses
BREAD consumption and supply chain


60 kg each pa
60% of market is
supplied by 2
companies
LAND, WATER, ENERGY AND MATERIAL INPUTS
Farm
Major
supermarket
Bulk storage
FLOUR
Mill
Major
bakery
Flour
wholesaler
Independent
supermarket
BREAD
Convenience
store
Retail bakery
Dining out
 300 m2 farmland


each
10,000 ha, =4% ACT
little certified organic
production
Home
Fast food
Event
Caterers
Institution
WASTE
BREAD life cycle impacts
Hotspots
100%
Transportation
Percentage contribution
80%
60%
Retail and
consumption
DOCUMENTED

Land area

Energy use
Storage and
processing
Pre-farm and
farm
40%
20%
0%
Narayanaswamy et al. (2004) Application of life cycle assessment
to enhance eco-efficiency of grains supply chains.

retail and consumption

baking
SUSPECTED

Shopping trip

Waste in the home
BREAD hotspots and buying choices
Buying choices



Relatively little leverage over
production or retail impact
Reduce waste (38% of
household landfill is kitchen
waste)
Shop wisely
Social and ethical
considerations

Concentration of large
bakeries in metro areas

Sustainability credentials of
the major companies

Ownership of major
companies
TOMATOES

Fresh tomatoes




6 kg pa
Mostly grown in Queensland
using natural rain
Mostly sold in supermarkets
160
Processed tomatoes



20 kg pa (12 kg Australian)
Mostly grown in Victoria using
irrigation & in Italy
Mostly sold in supermarkets and
used in fast food
140
120
Water litres
100
80
60
40
20
Dilution water
Rain water
Irrigation water
0
575 g jar of Dolmio© pasta sauce
Ridoutt et al. (2009) Water footprinting at the product
brand level: case study and future challenges.
Fresh TOMATO supply chain
LAND, WATER, ENERGY AND MATERIAL INPUTS
Supermarket
distribution
centre
Major
supermarket
Farm
Home
Independent
supermarket
Wholesale
market
Greengrocer
Local market
Dining out
Fast food
Event
Caterers
Institution
smalltownchutney.com.au
WASTE
TOMATO transport
Car
SCENARIO A, Emissions from a 10 km car round
shopping trip to buy 1 kg tomatoes and from 1 kg
tomatoes being transported the same distance in
an averagely laden articulated truck (the impact
of its return journey is attributed to the goods it
carries on another averagely laden journey).
Articulated
truck
2.656
0.00052
10
50,630
SCENARIO B, As for A, but in the car journey
the 1 kg tomatoes are part of a larger 10 kg
shopping basket and the footprint of the other
9 kg is assigned to the other items.
0.265
0.00052
SCENARIO B. Equivalent distance of truck
journey for the same emissions as car journey.
10
5,063
SCENARIO A. Equivalent distance of transport
by truck for the same emissions as car journey.
Unit
kg CO2e
km
kg CO2e
km
TOMATO transport
long
distance
freight
100%
90%
80%
70%
shopping,
commuting,
recreating
etc
60%
50%
Articulated trucks
40%
Cars
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total
Total
Number of
emissions distance per vehicles
per year
year
Emissions kg CO2e/km
Emissions for Cbr
tomato footprint
kg CO2e
Car
0.27
2.66
1 kg tomatoes, 10 km trip
Articulated truck
1.47
0.11
1 kg tomatoes, 1200 km trip
Other transport findings

UK – more energy to drive 6.5 km to buy green beans than to fly them from Africa

Victoria – 5.5 km was the distance at which the car shopping trip (each direction)
for fruit and vegetables began to outweigh the emissions of the truck transport
from where they were grown

New Zealand – emissions of NZ lamb consumed in the UK are only ¼ of those
from lamb raised in the UK, despite the long ship journey (18% of NZ lamb total)

USA – at an average freight distance of 1500 miles, only 6% of emissions
associated with food are due to freight transport
All other things being equal, low food miles are better. But
there’s rarely the information to make that judgement, and
the leverage over transport options is small. BEWARE OF
PARTIAL INDICATORS
TOMATOES hotspots & buying choices
Hotspots
Buying choices

Retail and shopping trip

Organic if available

Fertiliser use

Reduce waste

Irrigation (processed
tomatoes)

Shop wisely
Social and ethical

Good regional employment in
Australia

Cheap labour used in Italy
(but economic opportunities
for Albanians and north
Africans)
Sustainability labelling
The footprint of the farm phase is not generally the single largest contributor to the
whole footprint for food.
Should we be focussing on farmers having to document the following, and distributors
having to retain labelling through to retail, or should we focus on retailers and on
consumer behaviour?
Water and Waterways category of on-farm sustainability of vegetable production in Australia – AusVeg
checklist
 Water for irrigation from sources that may cause environmental harm to land and soil, waterways and
sensitive areas is managed or treated to minimise the risk of environmental harm.
 The irrigation schedule is based on: weather predictions; water stress symptoms; actual rainfall using rain
gauges; wetting front detectors or soil moisture probes.
 The irrigation system is: efficient and minimises water use; causes minimal soil erosion, and minimises energy
use.
 Incoming and drainage water in hydroponic systems is monitored for pH and electrical conductivity.
 Water loss is minimised by checking for and repairing leaks on a regular basis.
 Evaporation is minimised from storages and delivery systems.
 Water is recycled where possible.
 Pests are managed in water storages and waterways - including algae, weeds, pest animals and diseases.
 Water discharged from the property is managed or treated to minimise off-site environmental harm.
 Runoff and tail water is channelled into sumps, settling ponds or grassed channels before it goes into storage.
Coffee Roasting Machine
COFFEE
Wikimedia Commons
COFFEE supply chain and hotspots
Emissions embodied in 1 cup of black coffee made at
home in Germany
Cultivation/Farm
Processing
32.4g CO2e
Transport
0.1g CO2e
Milling
0.1g CO2e
Packaging
0.3g CO2e
Overseas Transport
1.2g CO2e
Roasting
1.6g CO2e
Packaging
1.1g CO2e
Distribution
1.2g CO2e
Grinding/Purchasing
2.4g CO2e
Consumption
17.9g CO2e
Disposal
1.2g CO2e
SOURCE
PROCESSING
56%
Here the consumer has
control over 30-50% of the
footprint.
USER
COUNTRY
PROCESSING
7%
CONSUMER
USE
36%
Brommer et al. (2011) Environmental impacts of
different methods of coffee preparation.
COFFEE preparation in the home
50
Use of coffee maker
40
Disposal of filters/capsules/coffee
grounds
CO2e emissions g/cup
30
Disposal of packaging
20
10
0
Production of filters/capsules
Production of packaging
Manufacture of coffee maker
-10
Brommer et al. (2011) Environmental impacts of different methods of coffee preparation.
Wikimedia Commons
COFFEE buying choices

Production impacts – buy an accredited brand

Consumption impacts

Don’t use electric machines at home,
especially capsules

Shop wisely (including visiting cafes)
BEEF


4o kg each pa
Two-thirds is bought from retail outlets





Supermarkets
Butchers
Markets & delis
65%
27%
8%
One-third is eaten out of the home
US data suggests 30% of meat bought for the home is never
eaten
Waste is environmentally costly because all the
upstream impact has already happened.
BEEF supply chain
LAND, WATER, ENERGY AND MATERIAL INPUTS
Farm
Major
supermarket
Feedlot
Saleyard
Home
Abattoir
Independent
supermarket
Meat
manufacturer
Butcher shop
Wholesaler
Dining out
Fast food
Event
Caterers
Institution
WASTE
BEEF hotspots

Land area


ACT beef consumption requires 210,000 ha grazing land (equivalent to 90%
area of the ACT) OR combination of grazing and grain growing land
Methane emissions



Fermentation in ruminants eating poor quality forage
Methane has 25x the warming impact of CO2
Cattle and sheep contribute 70% of Australia’s agriculture CO2e emissions and
10% of Australia’s total emissions
Emissions from 1/2lb of each product
expressed in equivalents to a car journey
dynamicscience.com.au
BEEF buying choices
Buying choices
Social and ethical

Eat less beef /less meat


Reduce waste


Shop wisely


Animal welfare
Ethics of eating animals
Regional economy
Health benefits of eating
less meat
Reducing meat consumption has a high leverage
over footprint
TELEVISION SETS






We own 1 each
Used 5-8 hrs per day
Lifespan is now ~ 7
years
Contain glass, plastic, copper, iron, aluminium, steel
and other metals and minerals
Raw materials
sourced from around
the world
Parts largely
manufactured in
Korea and Taiwan
Assembled in China
Environment Protection and Heritage Council (2009) Decision
Regulatory Impact Statement: Televisions and Computers
TELEVISION SETS hotspots

Greenhoue gas emissions CO2e kg/set
1600
1400
Power consumption in
use
Display production
1200
Display materials
Electronic parts
1000
Buying choices





Social and ethical

800
600
400
Stages that were
assessed but whose
emissions were small
were:
- assembly of the set
- transportation
- consumables
- disposal/recycling.
LCD over plasma
Minimise size
Reduce stand-by
Use renewable electricity
Working conditions in countries
supplying raw materials and
recycling e-waste
200
0
Wikimedia Commons
PAPER BOOKS

> 4 new books each pa
LAND, WATER, ENERGY AND MATERIAL INPUTS
Book
distributor
Forest
Pulp and
paper mill
Printer and
bookbinder
Bookshop
Paper recycler
Ink factory
WASTE
Home
Landfill
PAPER BOOKS
PAPER BOOKS hotspots

Waste biomass in the
forest (USA data)
50%


The shopping trip
(3km = rest of
emissions, Swedish
data)
Difficult to quantify –
the biodiversity
impact
Proportion of total CO2e
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Green Press Initiative (2008) Reducing Climate Impacts: A Guide for
the Book and Newspaper Industries.
PAPER BOOKS or an E-BOOK?



CO2e emissions
 1 paper book
1-6 kg
 1 e-book
170 kg
60 paper books = 1 e-book
~30% of e-book emissions are in
its use
Buying choices

Reduce new book purchases by
sharing, using library etc

Shop wisely

Buy an e-book if you read a lot,
and buy renewable energy to
recharge it
worldgreen.org
AA BATTERIES



11 AA or AAA alkaline batteries
each per year
One option is to buy a recharger and
use re rechargeable batteries.
Which option has the lower
footprint?
CO2e emissions to produce 1kWh in use
 alkaline (834)
nil
 rechargeable (18 NiMH)~ 7 MJ
Wikimedia Commons
CO2e emissions/battery in retailing
 alkaline
110 MJ
 rechargeable
2 MJ
AA BATTERIES alkaline or rechargeable?
Comparative factors for environmental damage of alkaline
batteries compared to recharger+rechargeable batteries
Parsons D (2007) The environmental impact of disposable versus re-chargeable
batteries for consumer use.
Buying choice

Rechargeable
Conclusions

Food and fibre products tend to have more impacts in their agricultural/forestry
phase; manufactured goods often have more impact in their use phase.

The generally low contribution of freight transport to individual footprints of the
products analysed suggests that the location of Canberra away from major food
and manufacturing locations is not a very significant component of our overall
impact.

Food miles are a relatively poor stand-alone indicator of the footprint of a
product, unless all other things are equal.

Within the transport footprint however, the shopping trip to purchase goods is
often significant, particularly for food products that must be bought regularly.

Packaging was rarely a hotspot for impact for the products studied.

Very generally, around a half of the footprint of these products is under the
control of the consumer.
Thank you
www.envcomm.act.gov.au