{"id":4723,"date":"2016-04-02T20:47:03","date_gmt":"2016-04-02T09:47:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/edgeenvironment.com\/?p=4723"},"modified":"2019-09-27T13:58:36","modified_gmt":"2019-09-27T03:58:36","slug":"australian-made-is-always-better-for-the-environment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/edgeenvironment.com\/cl\/2016\/04\/02\/australian-made-is-always-better-for-the-environment\/","title":{"rendered":"Investigation – Is Australian made always better for the environment?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Australian manufacturers, farmers, and fishermen make some of the best products in the world and when you buy these products, you are keeping your local family members and friends employed.<\/strong><\/p>\n

But what about the environment? We all try to do the right thing, but sometimes we rely on simplistic measures and rules of thumb such as minimising food miles<\/em> as proxies for a better environmental choice. These are not \u00a0always correct. Here are two examples to illustrate the fallacy of using\u00a0country of origin as reliable indicators for environmental performance:<\/p>\n

\"sp7yj7zw-1414132877\"Beef\u00a0<\/strong>has its highest environmental impacts in the farm and feedlot phase, not in transport. For example, imported meat from Brazil can have an environmental impact up to 25 times that of Australian meat due to clearing of rainforest for pasture[2]<\/a>. When exporting Australian meat to the US, transportation contributes only up to 5% of its total impacts in greenhouse gas emissions, water usage and land footprint[1]<\/a><\/span>. If you\u2019re eating meat, either in Australia or overseas, Australian beef\u00a0may be the right environmental choice[2]<\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

Aluminium<\/strong> smelters are very energy intensive. In Iceland all aluminium smelters rely wholly on hydroelectric and geothermal power.\u00a0 The carbon footprint of power from these sources is almost non-existent compared to the footprints of smelters that rely on coal-fired power stations, such as those in Australia. Even when shipped 12,000 miles (the distance from Iceland to Australia), aluminium produced using renewable energy sources can have a lower carbon footprint than aluminium produced from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n

Even when shipped 12,000 miles, aluminium from Iceland can have a lower carbon footprint than that produced in Australia<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In summary, we shouldn\u2019t choose products simply based on where they are made. Consumers need to evaluate environmental performance based on comprehensive methods, such as independent ISO compliant eco-labels and environmental product declarations.<\/strong><\/p>\n