Sustainable sports fields are natural turf not synthetic in a time of climate emergency

Moreland Council intends rolling out synthetic turf when evidence points to it being a highly problematic environmental and climate issue and at a substantially greater lifecycle cost even when factoring in a higher usage ratio.

So it seems the ratepayers of Moreland are going to be hit with expensive replacement costs of synthetic fields every 7-10 years, an increase in urban heat island which will result in health impacts to residents especially during extreme heat events which are becoming more common, an increase in microplastics pollution to local waterways and Port Philip Bay, 274 tonnes of landfill every 7-10 years, reduced abundance of birdlife, and extra greenhouse gas emissions (lifecycle emissions range from 500-1505 tonnes CO2e for synthetic turf) that will need mitigation. (See the Literature Review: Synthetic Turf carbon footprint, environmental, health, microplastics and biodiversity impacts)

So what is the alternative to Plastic Grass?

Well constructed natural turf field with a carefully chosen grass cultivar to suit the usage and climate.

I have just read a study that was presented at Australian Water Assocation conference last June - Ozwater20 - by Dr Mick Battam (a soil scientist) and Dr Paul Lambie (an irrigation specialist). The study was on building natural turf fields using industrial grade compost. This improves player carrying capacity to about 35-37 hours per week with minimal wear. Their study is titled: Creating Sustainable Open Spaces - Using Compost to Deliver Liveability, Sustainability, Recreation and Economic Outcomes, and is available from Australian Water Assocation website. The study paper concludes:

"Using compost to amend the soils on sports fields has been shown to improve soil fertility. The amendment of soils also reduces irrigation demand, with benefits to the water industry from water savings and increased resilience to drought. A natural turf field built with a wear tolerant turf cultivar and compost amended soil provides for more liveable cities and gives a superior economic outcome to synthetic turf alternatives."

Use of compost for sporting fields to increase their fertility, usage capacity and drought resilience is part of the circular economy. It could provide an outlet for Moreland's green bin food and organic waste collection after it has been through the industrial scale composting process. This is a no-brainer. Moreland Council should embrace this possible reuse of green waste for improving municipal sporting fields.

Literature Review: Synthetic Turf carbon footprint, environmental, health, microplastics and biodiversity impacts

 

Hosken Reserve: grass oval used for soccer training, informal reacreation, off-lead dog exercise
(Photo by John Englart)

Abstract: 

The conversion of a grass oval to synthetic turf at Hosken Reserve, Coburg North, is about a failure in transparency and consultation with the local community, and poorly framed triple bottom line decision making by Moreland Council. There are questions about the integrity of the triple bottom line decision making embracing the social, environmental and economic impacts, costs and benefits, that was used in the process in the past decade for this site. And there are questions how triple bottom line decision making and weighting of factors will be applied for the current process. 

This literature review provides numerous reasons why conversion of a natural grass oval and open space to a fenced synthetic soccer pitch should not take place. It finds that there are two primary reasons against synthetic turf at Hosken Reserve, and that either reason is significant in itself for the primary project not to go ahead. These two essential reasons are - synthetic turf carbon footprint (up to 1500 CO2e tonnes) in total life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, and synthetic turf increasing waste to landfill contributing to toxic leachates pollution and microplastics pollution. On both these grounds conversion of a shared use natural grass oval to synthetic turf would appear to conflict with existing Council policy and frameworks related to climate change and the climate emergency, and Council’s zero waste to landfill by 2030 target. 

On the triple bottom line factors we found the social factors weighed up with some positive and some negative, the environmental factors were mostly against, and the economics didn’t stack up, even after factoring in 2 to 1 equivalence usage factor for synthetic turf. This review investigated peer reviewed science, grey literature and relevant policy documents to ascertain the following issues with synthetic turf::

1. Derived from fossil fuel petrochemical industry
2. Produces greenhouse gas emissions during manufacturing and as it degrades
3. Increases landfill at end of life
4. Produces microplastics pollution
5. Increases urban heat island effect on local residents
6. Replaces natural grass which allows soil organic carbon sequestration, provides oxygen
7. Reduces soil biota, grass seeds and insects with a trophic impact on local biodiversity primarily birdlife.
8. Compacts the soil increasing stormwater runoff
9. Toxic Chemical leachates from rubber infill pollute waterways
10. Results in increased lower extremity injuries in elite players
11. Long term human health impacts uncertain, but vertebrate model confirms toxicity to human health of rubber infill leachates
12. Enhances infection transmission risk. Encourages a microbial community structure primarily defined by anthropic contamination
13. Appears to improve water conservation, but the situation is far more complex when life-cycle assessment and irrigation to reduce heat for playability is taken into account
14. Other issues: increased fire risk, increase in traffic, parking on quiet residential streets
15. Alternative Solutions

• Economic Costs
• Discussion
• Conclusions
• References

The Climate Action Moreland full submission to Moreland Councillors and Hosken Refresh Consultation can be downloaded in PDF format (27 March 2021). This contained extra information regarding Hosken Reserve and Moreland Couuncil.  The version below has extra references and minor updates but focuses on the science.

This document was researched and prepared by John Englart, Convenor of Climate Action Moreland and was subject to peer review by group members and other active members in the Moreland climate community.

Publication Date: 15 April 2021 

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28126.56646

Supplementary: Annotated Bibliography on Synthetic Turf and Climate, health, biodiversity and microplastics pollution issues, https://takvera.blogspot.com/2021/04/annotated-bibliography-synthetic-turf.html 

Update: 9 March 2022, Update on Synthetic turf: risk and impacts associated with floods and bushfires

Suggested Citation: Englart, J (2021), Literature Review on environmental and health impacts of synthetic turf., Climate Action Moreland, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28126.56646

Scientists advise Soil Carbon farming unviable - time to bury the Coalition Direct Action Climate Plan

Latest Scientific advice from University of Melbourne researchers says that The potential for carbon sequestration in Australian agricultural soils is technically and economically limited. This scientific report, published in Nature on 12 July 2013, should truly bury the Liberal National Party reliance on soil carbon sequestration for 60% of their Direct Action climate plan. It simply won't work.

Most of the rest of the Coalition Climate Plan revolves around urban tree planting and reverse auctions to pay polluters to reduce carbon emissions, both of which are also very problematic and costly responses, likely to be ineffective in mitigating emissions by 5% on 2000 levels by 2020. This all adds up to the Coalition Climate Plan being a huge crock. Something to say you are doing when you are actually doing nothing.

Soil Carbon sequestration limited in mitigating fossil fuel emissions say scientists

Rebuilding soils through carbon sequestration and mitigating fossil fuel emissions sounds like a win-win solution all around. A reason the Liberal and National Parties in Australia adopted it as a major part of their 2010 Direct Action climate change policy. But a new international study by Australian and UK scientists said soil carbon programs while important, have many limitations, and provide too much false hope in mitigating emissions from fossil fuels.

"The capacity of terrestrial ecosystems to store carbon is finite and the current sequestration potential primarily reflects depletion due to past land use. Avoiding emissions from land carbon stocks and refilling depleted stocks reduces atmospheric CO2 concentration, but the maximum amount of this reduction is equivalent to only a small fraction of potential fossil fuel emissions." (Untangling the confusion around land carbon science and climate change mitigation policy, Brendan Mackey et al, 2013)

Forest soil carbon release a vicious Global Warming feedback loop say researchers

Global warming is likely to accelerate release of forest soil carbon say researchers. This is another climate feedback loop. Rising temperatures are likely to accelerate forest soil carbon decomposition leading to more CO2 released into the atmosphere, compounding global warming. Rather than these forests acting as a carbon sink, warmer temperatures may make them a major source of greenhouse gas emissions further contributing to global warming warn the researchers.

"Our results suggest that large stores of carbon that built up over the last century as forests recovered will erode with rising temperatures," said Susan Trumbore of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry and University of California at Irvine (UCI), who led the research team.