All-weather sports turf Debate

Environmental Benefits - Waste

Option 1

Residents opposing the installation of an all-weather sports turf primarily highlight the environmental impact of artificial turf, particularly its contribution to microplastic pollution and its relatively short lifespan which necessitates frequent replacement. They express concerns about the embodied carbon emissions associated with the production and disposal of artificial turf, emphasizing that it does not sequester carbon like natural grass and leads to ongoing environmental degradation. Additionally, the disposal process of used turf, which involves landfilling, is criticized for exacerbating microplastic pollution and failing to align with broader environmental sustainability goals.

Table of comments:

Point No	Comment
76.3	https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/350163371/all-weather-turf-aims-boost-nelsons-community-sportThis article is quite hard to believe."FC Nelson’s Phil Thompson, Ngāti Rārua’s Shane Graham, and Rugby Nelson’s Kent Inglis say that an artificial turf at Guppy Park would benefit the entire community. Photo: Max Frethey/Nelson Weekly."This will not benefit our community nor the environment. Missing a few play dates due to sports field grass needing to be repaired is nothing compared to the pollution and damage of adding all this plastic into our environment.Nowhere in this article is there any mention about the downside of using plastic turf to cover a sports field. Why is this considered a good idea?Microplastics, marine litter, riverine litter.  Do we really need to add this mess to our environment? How is this a productive solution in the bigger picture?
142.5	All-weather turf is plastic. It will eventually break down and further contaminate the ground.
886.6	Please don't add more plastic into the environment!
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.
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.
1324.6	If Council decisions are based on reducing carbon emissions, then the question shouldn't even be in this consultation.  The Nelson Tasman Climate Forum's submission details the emissions footprint of artificial turf in comparison to grass.  In addition the leaching of microplastics into the environment from the turf is unacceptable, and again shouldn't even be considered.  The need to landfill the turf is yet another nail in the coffin for this bad proposal. The acts of installing, replacing and then removing the turf will create microplastics, again, a bad decision for the environment.Even if we had this all weather turf, it would not meet the needs of all the sports clubs, and so would still require many games to be played on existing sports grounds.  I think all sports fields should be upgraded to improve their drainage over time, if that is the reason for some fields being worse than others.  Also the issue of sea level rise needs to be considered in terms of best use of investment funds.