Issue link: https://viewer.e-digitaleditions.com/i/131975
greenkeeper Shades of green Jonas bengtsson, a director at Edge Environment, examines some prevalent misconceptions about what's good for the environment. In Australia increased awareness about environmental concerns has led market-leading companies to 'green' their product offerings. While this is resulting in greater consumer choice, it's also triggering an increase in the number of environmental claims by marketers, particularly on product labels, which can potentially mislead the consumer. Typically, these claims refer to one environmental or social impact (such as reduced carbon emissions or increased recyclability) or to the absence of one toxic substance (phosphate-free detergent, for example). The problem with single-attribute claims, though, is a product may perform well in one area but have negative impacts elsewhere. To understand these 'tradeoffs' and to get a complete picture of the environmental impact of a product, it must be analysed across its entire life cycle. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a method of analysing all environmental impacts of a product at every stage, from extraction and production through to transport, storage, use and disposal. LCA examines a range of environmental concerns, including carbon emissions, water consumption, biodiversity, ecotoxicity, toxicity to humans, resources depletion, land occupation and ozone depletion. The environmental impacts are assessed and measured separately and sometimes distilled into a single indicator for comparison with other products. Here, we apply life cycle thinking to challenge popular assumptions about what is green. 1. Organic is better for the environment Many environmentally conscious consumers choose organic products. While organic agriculture undoubtedly has benefits – namely because it doesn't use chemical fertilisers or pesticides or genetically modified organisms – the results of detailed environmental impact assessments do not always favour organic foods over those grown conventionally. When the environmental impacts across the life cycle are considered, two key areas generally stand out: yield (agriculture) and feedstock (livestock). Organic agriculture delivers, on average, 25 per cent lower yield than conventional farming because of the absence of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, which can lead to requirements for more agricultural land and associated land clearing. Organic livestock often live longer, eat more and are given lower-yield organic feed. For example, 83