‘A really damaging narrative’: the study disputing how wool’s carbon footprint is ranked worse than synthetics

According to some international frameworks, wool is up to 33 times worse for the environmental than acrylic, nylon and polyester combined. But a recent study that examines the wool production of Australian operations is aiming to reset the narrative and highlight that outdated accounting systems are unfairly penalising natural fibres. “A Biogenic Life Cycle Approach Towards Estimating The Carbon Intensity Of Wool Production: Evidence From Six Australian Case Studies, by Sydney consultant Paul Swan and South Africa’s James Blignaut and Lemuel Blignaut, was published in Agricultural Systems in December. Dr Swan said the study found wool’s emissions had been overstated, which could have severe flow-on effects as consumers became more concerned with the environmental impacts of products. “This study exists to try and challenge a really damaging narrative, a misrepresentation of the sustainability or the ecological impact of the products from our grazing farms,” he said. The current problem Not all carbon is created equal, but much of the accounting framework traditionally used to estimate emissions does not recognise this, and it is often not reflective of what happens on farm. Dr Swan said it was important to differentiate between fossil carbon, or carbon that was stored in oil and gas deposits and extracted via mining, and biogenic carbon. Synthetic fabrics like nylon or polyester were derived from fossil carbon, whereas biogenic carbon, or carbon recycled as part of a biological system, was associated with natural fibres, such as wool. “Photosynthetic plants, so trees, grasses, crops, harvest carbon from the atmosphere - they hoover up carbon dioxide,” he said. “They utilise light energy, which would otherwise be reflected or heat the soil. They utilise that to create biomass carbon. “It’s different to fossil carbon because it’s been recycled. “It’s not new carbon to the atmosphere. It’s really, really important to understand the difference.” Dr Swan said the global accounting system that estimated emissions, the life cycle analysis (LCA), was developed in the 1990s. The modelling made some basic assumptions about farming and had several limitations. “If you just apply the standard accounting, the natural fibres have much worse environmental footprints than fossil carbon-based fibres,” he said. “The European Union’s product environmental footprint, as it currently stands, wool has an 11 to 33 times worse environmental footprint, or higher environmental damage score, than acrylic, nylon and polyester combined. “It’s extraordinary. It’s why I use the word ‘misrepresent’. “There are some serious flaws in the way the accounting is done because it fails to distinguish properly or adequately between a biological system, which acts to recycle carbon and provide a planetary service while doing it, from a simple, extractive, like a mining, fossil carbon approach, which is adding carbon to the atmosphere.” Dr Swan said the standards had evolved so biogenic carbon could be separated from fossil carbon when it came to LCA environmental footprinting, with the international standard ISO 14067 released in 2018. “But the sad thing is . . . there hasn’t been before ours, a single carbon footprinting study published in the scientific literature, where it applies that standard to wool. Ours is the first,” he said. What the study found Although the standards had been updated, Dr Swan said existing inventories and models that characterised fibres were still based off old data. This meant wool, as a natural fibre, was still being penalised. “It’s not representative of the real world biology to model an environmental system that way,” he said. “It’s convenient and it’s the standard... But it’s actually not biologically realistic.” Dr Swan said the study was the first to map the carbon flows around and through Australian sheep enterprises. The authors used an existing LCA for Australian wool before adapting it to include biogenic carbon in the cycle. Factoring in the cyclical nature of a production system had a big influence on results, Dr Swan said. A sheep’s urine and manure returning to the soil, air breathed in by stock and then exhaled, and mortalities being buried were accounted for as recycled carbon, rather than new carbon being added into the atmosphere. “Just doing those basic couple of return flows or recylic flows, substantially reduced the calculated emissions intensity of raw wool,” he said. “The standard model would have you believe that each sheep, to produce a standard fleece in Western Australia, which is about 4 to 5 kilograms, that you’d be producing roughly 24 to 25 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions per kilogram of fleece. “They’d have you believe that that ewe is producing nearly 100kg of greenhouse gas emissions, C02 equivalents, for the whole fleece in the year, in addition to her meat production. “In a lifetime, that’s that’s massive. “If the sheep stays on your farm for six or seven years. That’s probably 600 to 700kg of carbon dioxide emissions just from her wool. “It doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make biological sense. But it does make accounting sense.” Assessments that did not account for biogenic carbon were very likely to be overstating the carbon footprint of wool, he said. The study generated the first estimated of the biogenic carbon content of the average greasy kilogram of Australian fleece. “It’s about 1.7kg of biogenic carbon dioxide equivalents per greasy kilogram,” he said. “A typical wool bale, let’s say in WA, is about 300kg of biogenic CO2 equivalence embodied in that in that bale.” The bigger picture Dr Swan said the next steps were to publish follow-up papers that extended the model to whole-farm systems. There had been good support from downstream processors and international investors who had backed the study. “There are 32 case studies either under way, completed or in planning, in preparation around the world,” he said. Consumers were becoming more aware of the environmental impacts of their purchases, but Dr Swan said agricultural industries had been slow to react to misinformation and the siloed nature of the different sectors did no hep when it came to working to change a narrative. “In this whole area of environmental accounting we’ve been so slow out of the gate, and we’re fragmented,” he said. “In this space, that really doesn’t help us. We’re up against massive, extremely well-funded industries who are going to try and defend their environmental license — their licence to pollute. “For us, a real challenge is to view this area as a strategic opportunity, not a threat. “The more we get into this space, the more we will, I think, end up with a more fair and equitable system of assessments of our ecological footprint. “But also, we’ll be ready with answers and systems and relative information for when consumers start to wake up.” Current carbon offset schemes for properties were also based off the old modelling, he said. While those systems had a place, Dr Swan said it was important for growers to recognise that it was not the only way to assess if their operation was sustainable. “For the farmers, in Western Australia and elsewhere, this is a really important language to speak,” he said. “To learn what biogenic carbon is, how it’s different from fossil carbon, how it matters. “And also to understand that the existing standard carbon accounting or carbon footprinting, which tends to get applied to farms, makes farmers out to be environmental villains.” He urged brands to encourage their supply chain partners to provide information about the biogenic carbon content of their products, and for consumers and policy-makers to be aware of environmental claims. What it means for farmers Woolproducers director Edward Brand said the study marked an important time for growers and recognised that the environmental performance of grazing operations had been understated for a long time. Mr Brand hoped the findings would help reset the narrative around wool’s carbon footprint. The next step was to ensure the findings were recognised in the LCA tools and sustainability frameworks used by brands, regulators, and rating agencies. “Wool has often been compared to synthetics using accounting methods that didn’t reflect its biological reality,” he said. “Once you correctly include biogenic carbon flows, wool looks very different and far more favourable. “It positions wool as a genuinely low‑warming, circular fibre at a time when brands and consumers are actively looking for natural, renewable materials. “And it highlights the contrast with synthetics, which are entirely fossil‑derived and add carbon to the atmosphere permanently.” The study also formed part of the International Wool Textile Organisation’s Green Book, a resource on wool’s environmental credentials that would be launched this year. The resource is designed to provide brands and retailers with verified data to support product claims. Mr Brand said WoolProducers and other bodies would be working with supply-chain partners and policymakers to ensure wool was assessed accurately. “This is a turning point for the industry,” he said. “It doesn’t just tidy up a technical issue, it strengthens wool’s position in global markets and gives growers confidence that their environmental stewardship is being properly recognised. “It’s a chance for the industry to tell a more accurate and compelling sustainability story, backed by robust science.”