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

Full report available at www.envcomm.act.gov.au

*** No brand endorsement or otherwise implied in this presentation***

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

Item of household consumption

Footprint (gha/capita

)

% of total

Electricity supply 1.07 12Residential building construction 0.56 6Retail trade 0.51 6Hotels, clubs, restaurants, cafes 0.44 5Air and space transport 0.35 4Petrol 0.32 3Other food products 0.29 3Wooden furniture 0.25 3Ownership of dwellings 0.24 3Clothing 0.21 2Electronic equipment 0.20 2Beef cattle 0.17 2Finished cars 0.16 2Education 0.15 2Non-building construction 0.14 2Gas supply 0.14 2Non-residential building construction

0.14 2

Wheat 0.12 1

SUBTOTAL 5.46 59Dey (2010) The 2008-09 ecological footprint of the population of the ACT

The shopping basket

Loaf of bread

Cup of coffee

Tomatoes

Beef

Television set

Paper book

AA batteries

Item of household consumption

Footprint (gha/capita

)

% of total

Electricity supply 1.07 12Residential building construction 0.56 6Retail trade 0.51 6Hotels, clubs, restaurants, cafes 0.44 5Air and space transport 0.35 4Petrol 0.32 3Other food products 0.29 3Wooden furniture 0.25 3Ownership of dwellings 0.24 3Clothing 0.21 2Electronic equipment 0.20 2Beef cattle 0.17 2Finished cars 0.16 2Education 0.15 2Non-building construction 0.14 2Gas supply 0.14 2Non-residential building construction

0.14 2

Wheat 0.12 1

SUBTOTAL 5.46 59

Life cycle analyses Framework: “cradle to grave” “paddock to plate” “farm to fork”

Distribution

Processing and

manufacture Assembling

inputs

Use

WASTE

Disposal

LAND, WATER, ENERGY AND MATERIAL I NPUTS

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

300 m2 farmland each

10,000 ha, =4% ACT

little certified organic production

WASTE

LAND, WATER, ENERGY AND MATERIAL I NPUTS

Home Farm Bulk storage Major

supermarket

Mill

Major bakery

Flour wholesaler

I ndependent supermarket

Convenience store

Fast food

Event

Dining out

I nstitution

Caterers

Retail bakery

FLOUR

BREAD

BREAD life cycle impacts

HotspotsDOCUMENTED Land area Energy use

retail and consumption

baking

SUSPECTED Shopping trip Waste in the home

Energy

Global warm

ing

Human toxicit

y

Terrestr

ial ecotoxicit

y

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Transportation

Retail and consumption

Storage and processing

Pre-farm and farm

Perc

enta

ge c

ontr

ibuti

on

Narayanaswamy et al. (2004) Application of life cycle assessment to enhance eco-efficiency of grains supply chains.

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

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

Tom

atoe

s

Suga

r

Onion

Garlic

Minor

ingr

edie

nts

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Dilution waterRain waterIrrigation water

Wate

r litr

es

575 g jar of Dolmio© pasta sauceRidoutt et al. (2009) Water footprinting at

the product brand level: case study and future challenges.

Fresh TOMATO supply chain

WASTE

LAND, WATER, ENERGY AND MATERIAL I NPUTS

Home

Farm

Supermarket distribution

centre

Major supermarket

Wholesale market

I ndependent supermarket

Fast food

Event

Dining out

I nstitution

Caterers

Local market

Greengrocer

smalltownchutney.com.au

TOMATO transport

Car Articulated truck

Unit

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).

2.656 0.00052 kg CO2e

SCENARIO A. Equivalent distance of transport by truck for the same emissions as car journey.

10 50,630 km

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 kg CO2e

SCENARIO B. Equivalent distance of truck journey for the same emissions as car journey.

10 5,063 km

TOMATO transport

Tota

l em

issions

per

yea

r

Tota

l dist

ance

per

yea

r

Numbe

r of v

ehicl

es0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Articulated trucksCars

long distance freight

shopping, commuting, recreating etc

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 Retail and shopping

trip Fertiliser use Irrigation (processed

tomatoes)

Buying choices Organic if available Reduce waste Shop wisely

Social and ethical Good regional

employment in Australia Cheap labour used in

Italy (but economic opportunities for Albanians and north Africans)

Sustainability labellingThe 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

Wikimedia Commons

COFFEE

COFFEE supply chain and hotspots

SOURCE

PROCESSI NG

56%

USER

COUNTRY

PROCESSI NG

7%

CONSUMER

USE

36%

Transport

Cultivation/ Farm

Processing

Milling

Packaging

Overseas Transport

Packaging

Roasting

Distribution

Grinding/ Purchasing

Consumption

Disposal

32.4g CO2e

17.9g CO2e

0.1g CO2e

0.1g CO2e

0.3g CO2e

1.2g CO2e

1.6g CO2e

1.1g CO2e

1.2g CO2e

2.4g CO2e

1.2g CO2e

Brommer et al. (2011) Environmental impacts of different methods of coffee preparation.

Emissions embodied in 1 cup of black coffee made at home in Germany

Here the consumer has control over 30-50% of the footprint.

COFFEE preparation in the home

Plunger

Filter d

rip

Espresso m

achine

Pad filter m

achine

Capsule machine

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Use of coffee maker

Disposal of filters/capsules/coffee grounds

Disposal of packaging

Production of filters/capsules

Production of packaging

Manufacture of coffee maker

CO

2e e

mis

sio

ns g

/cup

Wikimedia Commons

Brommer et al. (2011) Environmental impacts of different methods of coffee preparation.

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 65% Butchers 27% Markets & delis 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

WASTE

LAND, WATER, ENERGY AND MATERIAL I NPUTS

Home Farm Feedlot Major

supermarket

Abattoir Saleyard

Meat manufacturer

Wholesaler

I ndependent supermarket

Butcher shop

Fast food

Event

Dining out

I nstitution

Caterers

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 and10% of Australia’s total emissions

dynamicscience.com.au

Emissions from 1/2lb of each product expressed in equivalents to a car journey

BEEF buying choices

Buying choices Eat less beef /less

meat Reduce waste Shop wisely

Social and ethical 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

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

Contain glass, plastic, copper, iron, aluminium, steel and other metals and minerals

TELEVISION SETS hotspots Buying choices

LCD over plasma Minimise size Reduce stand-by Use renewable electricity

CRTPDP

LCD

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Power consumption in use

Display production

Display materials

Electronic parts

Material production

Gre

enhoue g

as e

mis

sio

ns C

O2e k

g/s

et

Stages that were assessed but whose emissions were small were:- assembly of the set- transportation- consumables- disposal/recycling.

Wikimedia Commons

Social and ethical Working conditions in countries

supplying raw materials and recycling e-waste

PAPER BOOKS > 4 new books

each pa

WASTE

LAND, WATER, ENERGY AND MATERIAL I NPUTS

Home Forest

Pulp and paper mill

Printer and bookbinder

Landfill

Book distributor

Bookshop

I nk factory

Paper recycler

PAPER BOOKS

PAPER BOOKS hotspots Waste biomass in

the forest (USA data)

The shopping trip (3km = rest of emissions, Swedish data)

Difficult to quantify – the biodiversity impact

Loss

of b

iom

ass

Woo

d ha

rves

t & tr

ansp

ort

Met

hane

releas

e

Pape

r pro

duct

ion

Publish

ing

Printin

g

Distrib

ution

& reta

il0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Pro

port

ion o

f to

tal C

O2e

Green Press Initiative (2008) Reducing Climate Impacts: A Guide for the Book and Newspaper

Industries.

PAPER BOOKS or an E-BOOK?

worldgreen.org

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

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?

Wikimedia Commons

CO2e emissions to produce 1kWh in use

alkaline (834) nil rechargeable (18 NiMH)~ 7 MJ

CO2e emissions/battery in retailing alkaline 110 MJ rechargeable 2 MJ

AA BATTERIES alkaline or rechargeable?

Parsons D (2007) The environmental impact of disposable versus re-chargeable batteries for consumer use.

Comparative factors for environmental damage of alkaline batteries compared to

recharger+rechargeable batteries

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 youwww.envcomm.act.gov.au