All-weather sports turf Debate

Community Wellbeing - Health

Option 1

Residents supporting Option 1 express significant concerns about the environmental and health impacts of artificial turf, specifically highlighting the release of microplastics and the potential for these particles to contaminate waterways and be inhaled by humans. They also raise issues about artificial turf being a hormone disruptor and its contribution to the heat island effect, which could adversely affect community comfort and health. Additionally, the embodied carbon emissions associated with the production and disposal of artificial turf are noted as significant, with a preference for natural grass that can sequester carbon and has a lower environmental impact.

Table of comments:

Point No	Comment
785.6	Turf is plastic. Plastic is one of the most polluting and terrible things for the environment as it takes 500 years to decompose. In addition, the weather, wear and tear, and general build of plastic releases microplastic which are even more dangerous to humans, animals, and the land. With the turf being so close to the water, this would directly pour those microscopic particles closer to the ocean to be eaten by fish which then would be eaten by us. In addition, plastic is a hormone disruptor and can greatly impact human health. Sliding, falling, and being around this will only be worse for all of us. Also, it doesn't look pretty. Please don't choose turf and fight for the environment and the local community.
946.3	Isupport Option 1: Continue to upgrade our existing sports fields. Nelson should not install an artificial turf sports field because of the embodied carbon emissions and the release of microplastics. Plastic turf has a lifetime of only 8-10 years, so the council would be contributing to on-going carbon emissions if it installs a plastic turf. In addition, artificial turf releases microplastic particles into the air and water. This generates runoff of microplastics into stormwater systems and the potential for inhalation by players and spectators. Let’s improve drainage on our existing sports fields.
1001.7	6All weather turf: Opposed, I support Option 1. The materials used are likely to result in huge volumes of man-made micro fibres entering local waterways and the bodies of users. There is already too much of it.
1047.5	I consider that Nelson should not install an artificial turf sports field because of the embodied carbon emissions and the release of microplastics. Embodied carbonNelson needs to look for all opportunities to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and certainly should not be adding new sources of emissions that are not essential. The report Council commissioned from RSL in May 2020 calculated the embodied carbon emissions of plastic turf: 29 kg of C02-e per square metre per year, compared to 1 kg for natural turf.  For a 10,000m2 field that is 290,000kg (290 tonnes) of C02 every year, the equivalent embodied carbon in 707m3 of concrete. Furthermore, artificial turf doesn’t sequester any carbon, whereas a natural grass field of that size will sequester over 7 tonnes of CO2. Installing an artificial turf will also create an expectation by the sports clubs that the turf will be replaced at the end of its life (typically only 8-10 years). The used turf will need to be disposed of in landfill (at high cost) while the new turf would generate still more embodied carbon emissions and microplastics into the environment. MicroplasticsPlastic turf releases microplastic particles into the air and water[5]. This generates runoff of microplastics into stormwater systems and the potential for inhalation by players and spectators. This has led the European Union and some other jurisdictions to ban some uses of microplastics in artificial turf[6]. These actions reflect rising concern about microplastics in every part of the environment, including our food. Two of NZ’s leading cancer researchers are seeking funding to investigate a potential link between microplastics and a documented rise in bowel cancer. Nelson should not be replacing natural turf with a plastic surface that will generate adverse effects on people and the environment for years to come.
1198.2	I do not support artificial turf as it is both a heat sink (creator of the heat island effect) and sheds micro plastics into waterways and the environment.  Where sports fields are implemented use living grasses.