Substituting plastics with alternative materials is likely to result in increased GHG emissions, according to research from the University of Sheffield.
The study by Dr. Fanran Meng from Sheffield’s Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, in collaboration with researchers from the University of Cambridge and the KTH Royal Institute of Technology, has revealed the emissions associated with plastic products compared to their alternatives.
Published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, the study looked at plastics and their replacements across various applications, including packaging, construction, automotive, textiles and consumer durables. These sectors collectively represent a significant portion of global plastic usage.
Findings from the study have revealed that in 15 out of the 16 applications examined, plastic products actually result in lower GHG emissions compared to their alternatives. The reduction in emissions spans from 10 percent to as high as 90 percent across the product life cycle. . . .
Dr. Fanran Meng, Assistant Professor in Sustainable Chemical Engineering at the University of Sheffield, said, “Not all alternative or recycled products are better for the environment than the products they replace. Environmental policymaking needs life cycle assessment guided decision-making to make sure that GHG emissions are not unintentionally increased through a shift to more emission-intensive alternative materials.”
Click to view
New Zealand got rid of so-called single use plastic bags on the strength of children’s letters to then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.
How typical of that government to go with emotion rather than science and do more damage as a result.
Apropos of greenhouse gases, at last science is being applied to developing climate policy around methane:
Rebuilding New Zealand’s economy will rely on the valuable agricultural sector working sustainably towards our climate change goals.
Today, the Climate Change and Agriculture Ministers announced that an independent panel of experts will review agricultural biogenic methane science and targets for consistency with no additional warming.
Agriculture Minister Todd McClay says the coalition Government has been clear in the commitment to maintain a split-gas approach to our domestic climate change targets.
“This independent review which will report back to the Government by the end of the year, will provide evidence-based advice on what our domestic 2050 methane target should be, consistent with the principle of no additional warming,” Mr McClay says. . .
Evidence-based advice will be a much-needed change from emotion-based advocacy which has driven too much policy.
Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says the Terms of Reference for the review, along with appointees to the independent Ministerial advisory panel will be confirmed in the coming months.
“The panel will consist of reputable experts to provide integrity and trust in the process. They will review the latest science on methane’s warming impact and will provide that advice to the Government. . .
“The independent advisory panel’s review will complement the Climate Change Commission’s review of the 2050 targets this year and will provide an input into the Government’s response to the Commission’s advice in 2025,“ Mr Watts says.
Associate Agriculture Minister Andrew Hoggard says agriculture is the backbone of our economy, contributing over 80 per cent of our goods exports to feed an estimated 40 million people worldwide.
“We need to ensure its contribution to the 2050 Climate Change targets are fair and appropriate compared to other parts of the economy.
“It’s important that domestic efforts to cut emissions do not drive a drop in our agricultural production. New Zealand farmers are the world’s most carbon-efficient producers of high-quality food and fibre, and it is in no one’s interest to see this production filled by other countries with higher emissions profiles,” Mr Hoggard says.
Cutting emissions here to increase them elsewhere would be economically and socially costly with no environmental benefit.
Associate Agriculture Minister Mark Patterson says an investment in innovative technology is the key.
“The coalition Government is investing heavily in research and development to provide farmers tools to reduce methane, not productivity. We want to ensure that our farmers remain the best in the world and at the forefront of global methane mitigation efforts.
“We expect a science-led approach is taken to assessing the targets, with the government and sector working towards practical tools and solutions for our farmers,” Mr Patterson says. . .
There’s nothing to be gained and far too much to be lost if policy to reduce emissions is imposed on farmers unless they have practical tools that enable them to comply.
Federated Farmers welcomes the review:
Federated Farmers are welcoming today’s announcement that methane targets will be reviewed as a major win for farmers, fairness, and the New Zealand economy.
“This is a really positive step forward and will be welcomed by farmers and rural communities,” says Federated Farmers president Wayne Langford.
“Methane targets have been a point of contention since they were first introduced because the Government of the day chose to set targets that were highly political instead of scientifically robust.
“They go much further and faster than what is needed to achieve ‘no further warming’ and will come at a huge cost to farmers, rural communities, and the New Zealand economy,” Langford says
“That’s why Federated Farmers have opposed the current targets from day one and have been calling for this independent review for some time now.”
An urgent review of methane targets was one of Federated Farmers’ 12 key policy changes for restoring farmer confidence during last year’s general election.
“All New Zealanders should want climate targets that are scientifically robust, realistic, and fair for our communities,” Langford says.
“We need to be taking a science-led approach to targets that reflects the different impact each gas will have on warming.
“Other parts of the economy are being asked to reach net zero and stop their contribution to further warming by 2050, but farmers are being asked to go much further than that.
“It’s important that this review is given a clear objective of aligning methane targets with what would be required to stop farmers contribution to further warming,” Langford said.
At the best of times it would be stupid to sabotage the country’s biggest export earner. It is even more important to not do that when we’re in recession and debt is so high.
We’ve got a government that understands the importance of farming and it is sensibly seeking the science needed to inform sound policy.
Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.
6 comments:
"First catch your rabbit" **
Before any of the above things are considered we (New Zealand - and, indeed, humans) need to ensure that "climate change" is man-made or even man-affected.
Only then should any measures be considered and then, only considered in the overall picture. i.e. will anything done in New Zealand have any measurable effect on the desirable outcome.
** Mrs Beeton
It was interesting at Question time yesterday, when in answer to a question from Chloe, the Minister said they were reviewing the science around methane emissions. Chloe retorted by asking if they were reviewing the science around gravity also. Just shows how much out of touch the Greens are.
An excellent starting point would be to read the informative contributions from Hon Barry Brill on NZCPR slamming Methane and the alarmist contributions .
Secondly request Hon Barry Brill onto the Methane study to assist in practical analysis from an expert , not just a bureauocrat or academic muddler .
The Methane dishonesty has gone on for too long and needs a short sharp shrift into oblivion.
I’m amused that a concerned Govt would want to create a stand alone ministry for Climate Change. One would assume that its primary function was to stop climate change. The first thing the incoming CC minister may ask himself, what can my ministry do to stop this natural occurrence that can be traced back hundreds of thousands of years? If he had asked himself that question on his way to work, on his very first day, he may have wondered why he had even bothered to bring his own cut lunch.
My unsatnding is that we got rid of palstic bags because they had been seen in lareg numbers floating down rivers in Asia.
You quoted a study saying "Findings from the study have revealed that in 15 out of the 16 applications examined, plastic products actually result in lower GHG emissions compared to their alternatives. The reduction in emissions spans from 10 percent to as high as 90 percent across the product life cycle" Plastics are ending up in our oceans - plastic nets trap fish and other sea creatures. We have to do something with this 'forever' item (global plastic) as it is polluting the world's oceans and rivers. This is not about being 'green'or about'sabotaging the country’s biggest export earner'. If we follow the 'science' well the scientists in chemical industries created plastics and forever chemical and dumped it on us People got by without plastic for most of millena and we will have to again.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.