Environmental concerns
Quantitative
Microplastics are small pieces of plastic debris in the environment resulting from the disposal and breakdown of consumer products and industrial waste. Does the comment discuss plastics or microplastics or similar?
11 comments were found to be true for the question "Microplastics are small pieces of plastic debris in the environment resulting from the disposal and breakdown of consumer products and industrial waste. Does the comment discuss plastics or microplastics or similar?".
Qualitative
What other environmental issues were raised?
11 comments were used to answer the question "What other environmental issues were raised?".
Response
Based on the analysis of the comments provided, several environmental issues were raised by the respondents in addition to the concerns about microplastics. These include:
-
Embodied Carbon Emissions: Several comments highlighted the high carbon emissions associated with the production and disposal of artificial turf compared to natural grass. The embodied carbon emissions from artificial turf were noted as significantly higher, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.
-
Carbon Sequestration: It was pointed out that unlike natural grass, artificial turf does not sequester carbon, which could otherwise help in reducing atmospheric CO2 levels.
-
Waste Management: Concerns were raised about the disposal of artificial turf, which typically has a short lifespan and ends up in landfills, contributing to waste management issues.
-
Heat Island Effect: One comment mentioned that artificial turf acts as a heat sink, potentially contributing to the urban heat island effect, which can increase local temperatures.
-
Impact on Wildlife and Natural Habitats: Concerns were also raised about the removal of natural grass areas, which serve as habitats and feeding grounds for local wildlife, including birds.
-
Water Management and Runoff: The potential for increased runoff and reduced summer stream flow due to the impervious nature of artificial turf surfaces was mentioned, which could affect local water ecosystems.
These issues reflect a broader concern about the environmental impact of replacing natural grass fields with artificial turf, beyond the release of microplastics.
Summary: From the analysis of 197 comments, 11 explicitly discussed the issue of microplastics related to the proposal of installing an all-weather sports turf. In addition to microplastics, residents raised concerns about several other environmental issues including high embodied carbon emissions, lack of carbon sequestration, challenges in waste management, contribution to the heat island effect, negative impacts on wildlife and natural habitats, and concerns about water management and runoff. These comments reflect a strong community awareness and concern about the broader environmental impacts of installing artificial turf in place of natural grass.
Comments
| Point ID | Name | Option_Selected | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1047.5 | Anna Berthelsen | Option one | 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 | Karen Driver | Option one | 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. |
| 76.3 | Tamara Cartwright | Option one | 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? |
| 785.6 | Tess Cimino | Option one | 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. |
| 894.6 | Hannah Young | Option one | cheaper for everyone and still support the improved drainage work and lighting for sports fields a good middle ground i reckon. Also they can always play futsal or indoor touch or rippa. The short lifespan and massive amount of microplastics from all weather turf are more reasons to not spend council money on that. Turf hurts a lot more than mud to fall on also, really it’s all a bit of fun and connection to papatuanuku and with improved drainage systems fields shouldn’t be too bad too often anyway. And if they are it’s not a subdivision so theres no big cost to fix so its all good really. |
| 56.6 | Alistair Kwan | Option one | Too expensive for current circumstances. We have a lot of large and good sports amenities for quite a small city; let's make do with them for the time being.In addition, what kind of turf is being imagined here? On the surface, I oppose microplastic-generating and other heavy-polluting turf. Traditional grass turf already poses significant problems with soil conservation, pollution and water management as it is, and that warrants a close look at management practices. But maybe a full lifecycle analysis will show that my instincts are wrong here. Please, show us the lifecycle analysis so that we can make better submissions. |
| 946.3 | Jim Sinner | Option one | 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. |
| 162.6 | Trevor James | Option one | It seems that there is relatively low benefit for the cost given that we generally have few times when the fields are too wet. I am concerned about affordability for the users. There are environmental effects: plastic discharge from Astroturf (or equivalent), removal of grassed area that is a good feeding ground for oystercatchers and other birds, higher carbon emissions and the increased area in impervious surface leads to reduced summer stream flow. |
| 923.6 | Patrick Anderson | Option one | Turf is terrible! Adding more plastic into the environment. Once someone skids while sliding playing rugby, that small piece will turn into microplastic. Once it rains, that piece will get moved through the storm drains and then be washed out to the ocean creating more pollution and harm. Everyone will survive with natural grass and they will be better for it in the future. |
| 1379.5 | Amanda Young | Option one | I do not support the turf because of a) the on-going environmental issues associated with the artificial turf (greater carbon emissions, more micro plastics and more waste;b) the amount of money that has already been spent on Nelson sports facilities including Saxton field. There needs to be a better balance towards heritage and the arts. |
| 1198.2 | Nicole Scanes | Option one | 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. |
Category: All-weather sports turf
Issue
Nelson has an opportunity to install an all-weather sports turf in one of its reserves.
Background
Over recent years, we have received feedback from football and rugby sporting codes expressing concern about the availability of quality playing fields to train on. So, in May 2020, Council prepared a feasibility study on the development of an artificial turf. Council considered constructing the artificial turf through the last Long Term Plan in 2021, but decided not to proceed with it at that time. Instead, Council decided on a programme of work to upgrade the existing sports fields as the best approach to improving capacity.
Our proposed approach
We are now proposing to build an all-weather sports turf in 2025/26 and 2026/27 to support our football and rugby sporting codes. An all-weather sports turf would provide an alternative playing and training field for sports codes in wet conditions and help minimise disruption to playing seasons. It is likely to make Nelson a more attractive venue for sports tournaments.
Constructing an all-weather sports turf has an early estimated cost of $2.7 million (this figure is subject to change through further scoping, site selection and design work). The project would only proceed on the basis that sports codes fund 50% of the total construction costs (including the turf and lighting), commit to ongoing fees for use of the turf that would recover 10% of ongoing maintenance costs (estimated at about $36,000 per year) and cover the depreciation costs on the same basis as other similar facilities. The codes would need to come up with their share of the construction funding prior to the project proceeding.
As this project provides additional capacity, Council will cover some of its share of the costs by rephasing and reallocating some existing capital budget earmarked for sports field improvements such as lighting and drainage.