Synthetics get a free pass on methane
Specialist technology is detecting leaks of methane from fossil fuel plants all around the world.
Non-profit organisation Clean Air Task Force is using a special infrared camera to detect leaks of methane from gas and oil installations in Europe and, according to a recent report from Bloomberg, has so far found 70 leaks.
It quoted geoanalytics firm Kayrros as saying there had been thousands of leaks from fossil fuel facilities around the world, some emitting as much as 5 tonnes of methane per hour.
Kayrros said there had been about a dozen of these major leaks in Europe in the last two years, but more than 2,000 globally. It also said that these leaks account for no more than 15% of total methane pollution from the fossil fuel industry, with the rest coming from smaller leaks.
Reacting to this, founder and chief executive of plant-based material developer Natural Fiber Welding, Dr Luke Haverhals, said leaks of methane from the petrochemical industry had been happening for decades.
Dr Haverhals is a long-time critic of the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) and its Higg Materials Sustainability Index for the easy ride it appears to give to materials sourced from fossil fuels. Following the Bloomberg report, he pointed out that lifecycle assessment (LCA) for plastics and for fossil fuel-derived synthetic fibres take no account of “this massive emissions problem”.
He called on the SAC to start reflecting emissions data, “described in scientific reports coming from all over the world”, in the index.
Methane emissions from these leaks are an unintended consequence of fossil fuel production. SAC places no share of the burden of these emissions further downstream on polyester, nylon, polyvinyl chloride, polyurethane or other synthetic fibres.
Likewise, methane emissions from cattle are an unintended consequence of livestock farming and the meat and dairy industries. However, more often than not, upstream greenhouse gas emissions do form part of the calculations further downstream of leather’s carbon footprint.
In 2020, leather industry bodies joined forces to ask the SAC to suspend the score it gives to leather in the Higg Materials Sustainability Index. One of their objections related to upstream greenhouse gas emissions. They complained that the SAC’s assessment of leather included methane emissions but did not take account “the short-lived and circular nature of methane emissions from cattle”.
They insisted that, as a consequence of the unfair Higg score, finished product manufacturers were “deselecting leather in favour of fossil fuel-derived, unsustainable synthetic products”.
A clear example of this has emerged in recent statements from footwear brand Veja. In its widely publicised calculations of the carbon footprint of its shoes, it attributed around 70% of the total to its raw materials. Almost all of this, 97% of the 70%, is down to leather, according to Veja. And it calculates that 70% of the carbon footprint it attributes to leather occurs upstream in the supply chain.
As a result of these calculations, Veja has taken the decision to reduce the number of styles in which it uses leather. Emphasising Dr Haverhals’ point, it does not include any similar calculation for synthetic fibres; those materials get a free pass on upstream methane emissions.
Image: Wikipedia.
