Edited one planet living report 2014 by Environment Victoria

NAME]

One Planet Living Reducing Victoria’s Ecological Footprint by 25% by 2020

For Environment Victoria Authors Tim Grant, Helene Cruypenninck and Safa El‐Jamal December 2013

Edited by Anne Martinelli and Michele Burton March 2014

Important disclaimer Life Cycle Strategies advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must therefore be made on that information without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. To the extent permitted by law, Life Cycle Strategies (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it.

Table of Contents Executive summary

Section 1 Victoria’s Ecological Footprint

Introduction

The Ecological Footprint

3.1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 23

3.2

Benefits of using the Ecological Footprint ............................................................................. 24

3.3

Limitations to the use of the Ecological Footprint ................................................................ 25

3.4 Summary of effectiveness of the Ecological Footprint as a model for assessing sustainability ...................................................................................................................................... 26 3.5

World comparison ................................................................................................................. 26

Victoria’s Ecological Footprint

4.1

Ecological Footprint calculation ............................................................................................. 29

4.2

Structure of the Ecological Footprint of Victorian residents ................................................. 32

Introduction to Ecological Footprint reduction measures

5.1

Types of reduction measures ................................................................................................ 36

5.2

How to use the reduction measures ..................................................................................... 36

Food consumption at home

6.1

Overview of food consumptions footprint ............................................................................ 38

6.2

Food consumption behaviour ................................................................................................ 41

6.3

Reducing food waste ............................................................................................................. 41

6.4

Balanced diet for reduced impacts ........................................................................................ 46

Housing impacts

7.1

Contributions and drivers ...................................................................................................... 49

7.2

Retrofitting homes to improve energy efficiency ................................................................. 50

7.3

Using solar energy ................................................................................................................. 53

Electricity supply

8.1

Increasing renewables in grid supply .................................................................................... 57

8.2

Closing Hazelwood power station ......................................................................................... 60

8.3

Demand reduction as source of electricity ............................................................................ 63

8.4

Closing Victorian aluminium smelters ................................................................................... 66

Transport

9.1

Contributions and drivers ...................................................................................................... 69

9.2

Environmentally aware driving .............................................................................................. 69

9.3

Increasing car sharing ............................................................................................................ 71

9.4

Other transport measures ..................................................................................................... 73

9.5

Increasing biofuels use .......................................................................................................... 74

Goods and services consumption

Conclusions and recommendations

Glossary

References

Figures Figure 1. Summary of potential reductions to Victoria's Ecological Footprint………….…………………..11 Figure 2 Structure of the land types included in the Ecological Footprint ........................................ 24 Figure 3 Growth in the Ecological Footprint over the past fifty years ............................................... 24 Figure 4 Comparison of Ecological Footprint components based on data from EUREAPA website . 28 Figure 5 Representation of the differences between production and consumption Ecological Footprints ........................................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 6 Methodology for calculating the Victorian Ecological Footprint ......................................... 31 Figure 7 Structure of the Victorian Ecological Footprint and the Australian Ecological Footprint ... 33 Figure 8 Structure of the Victorian Ecological Footprint of expenditure on food consumed at home .................................................................................................................................................. 39 Figure 9 Network diagram showing sources of the Ecological Footprint for food in percentage terms and the Ecological Footprint flow between economic sectors (arrow thickness) for flows above the 5% contribution threshold ................................................................................................ 40 Figure 10 Potential impacts and benefits over a one‐year period of one household buying food more often ......................................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 11 Potential impacts and benefits over a one‐year period of one household using smart storage of food ................................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 12 Potential impacts and benefits over a one‐year period of one household cooking and storing food for reuse ........................................................................................................................ 44 Figure 13 Potential impacts and benefits over a one‐year period of one household cooking and storing food for reuse ........................................................................................................................ 47 Figure 14 Ecological Footprint breakdown between operation and construction and maintenance for typical suburban Melbourne house ....................................................................... 49 Figure 15 Ecological Footprint breakdown for typical suburban Melbourne house ......................... 50 Figure 16 Comparison of the household energy Ecological Footprint with current housing stock and with improvements to the energy star rating for pre‐2005 houses ........................................... 52 Figure 17 The Ecological Footprint benefits of replacing electrical and gas hot water appliances with solar hot water ........................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 18 Contribution of different electricity production types to grid mix and contribution to Ecological Footprint total ................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 19 Ecological Footprint results for different levels of renewable energy supply ................... 59 3

Figure 20 Different scenarios for replacing Hazelwood Power Station (HW) and associated impacts on the Ecological Footprint .................................................................................................. 62 Figure 21 Effects of different reductions in energy demand on the Victorian Ecological Footprint, with and without the inclusion of the MRET .................................................................... 64 Figure 22 Relative impact (in gha per tonne) of closing Point Henry Aluminium Smelter – not for distribution ......................................................................................................................................... 67 Figure 23 Breakdown of the Ecological Footprint for transport ........................................................ 69 Figure 24 Benefits of efficient driving practices on an individual’s private vehicle Ecological Footprint ............................................................................................................................................ 70 Figure 25 Benefits to the Victorian private transport Ecological Footprint associated with an increase in participation in car share schemes to 10% of the current vehicle fleet......................... 72 Figure 26 Comparison of cars using ULP and ethanol from three different sources ........................ 75 Figure 27 Comparison of articulated trucks using diesel (ULS), 20% canola biodiesel blend with conventional diesel and pure canola biodiesel .................................................................................. 76 Figure 28 Correlation between Ecological Footprint and per capita income .................................... 78 Figure 29 Impacts of different ways of spending $1000 dollars ........................................................ 79

Tables Table 1 Summary of benefits and impacts of consumption measures applied to the whole population on the Ecological Footprint (EF) ...................................................................................... 13 Table 2 Summary of benefits and impacts of consumption measures applied to individuals on the Ecological Footprint (EF) .............................................................................................................. 15 Table 3 Summary of benefits and impacts of production measures on the Ecological Footprint (EF) ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 4 Ecological Footprint for selected countries and the world in total in gha per capita .......... 27 Table 5 Direct and ultimate contributions to the Ecological Footprint for selected sectors ............ 34 Table 6 Outline of the four types of Ecological Footprint reduction measures used in the study ... 36 Table 7 Potential actions to reduce food waste at home .................................................................. 41 Table 8 Co‐benefits and risk factors related to measures taken to reduce food waste ................... 44 Table 9 Benefits and impacts of reducing food waste for the modelled scenarios .......................... 45 Table 10 Co‐benefits and risk factors related to reducing meat consumption ................................. 47 Table 11 Summary of the benefits and impacts of reducing meat consumption on the Ecological Footprint ............................................................................................................................................ 47 Table 12 Dwelling stock and associated star rating for Victoria ........................................................ 51 Table 13 Co‐benefits and risk factors related to improving pre‐2005 houses from a 2‐star to a 5‐ star energy rating ............................................................................................................................... 52 Table 14 Co‐benefits and risk factors related to installing solar hot water and photovoltaic electricity ............................................................................................................................................ 55 Table 15 Reduction of the Ecological Footprint based on solar energy actions ............................... 56 Table 16 Reduction in Victorian electricity Ecological Footprint per capita due to increasing renewables in the grid supply ............................................................................................................ 59 Table 17 Co‐benefits and risk factors related to increasing renewable energy ................................ 60 Table 18 The benefits and impacts of increasing renewable energy on the Ecological Footprint .... 60 Table 19 Assumption and derivation of Hazelwood Power Station thermal efficiency .................... 61 Table 20 Co‐benefits and risk factors related to closing Hazelwood Power Station ......................... 62 Table 21 Benefits and impacts of replacing Hazelwood power station and associated impacts on the Ecological Footprint ..................................................................................................................... 63 5

Table 22 Per cent reduction in Ecological Footprint from 2013 to 2020 .......................................... 65 Table 23 Co‐benefits and risk factors related to reducing electricity demand ................................. 66 Table 24 Benefits and impacts of closing Point Henry Aluminium Smelter and associated impacts on the Ecological Footprint .................................................................................................. 68 Table 25 Co‐benefits and risk factors related to efficient driving practices ...................................... 71 Table 26 Benefits of implementing efficient driving practice and associated impacts on the Ecological Footprint ........................................................................................................................... 71 Table 27 Co‐benefits and risk factors related to increasing car share participation in Victoria ....... 72 Table 28 Benefits of increasing car share participation in Victoria and associated impacts on the Ecological Footprint ........................................................................................................................... 73 Table 29 Co‐benefits and risk factors related to increasing biofuels use .......................................... 76 Table 30 Benefits and impacts of increasing biofuels use and associated impacts in the Ecological Footprint ........................................................................................................................... 76

Acknowledgments This report was made possible through funding from Environment Victoria and with the cooperation of the City of Melbourne, who allowed much of their ecological footprint information to be used in the development of this report. Special thanks to Charlie Davie, Mark Wakeham and Kelly O’Shanassy for their support throughout the project.

Executive summary Introduction The Ecological Footprint is a widely used and understood measure of a human population’s demands on the biosphere. Expressed in terms of the productive land and sea area required to produce the resources a population consumes and to absorb the corresponding waste, the Ecological Footprint has been widely embraced as a globally comparable and easily communicable measure of the sustainability of human consumption patterns. Many Australians would therefore be aware that Australia’s per capita Ecological Footprint at 6.59 global hectares (gha) is close to 3 times the global average, and that it would take the productive capacity of more than 3 Earths to enable all the world’s people to live as we do. Environment Victoria has used the Ecological Footprint as a way of defining and communicating the overall goal of its One Planet Living campaign, i.e. that Victorians live within the planet’s limits. As an interim target towards this goal, Environment Victoria has set a target of reducing Victoria’s Ecological Footprint by 25% by 2020. This report has been commissioned to provide guidance to Environment Victoria’s One Planet Living campaign by:   

Exploring the major contributors to the Ecological Footprint of Victorians; Identifying a range of measures to reduce the Ecological Footprint and calculating expected reductions available from each measure; and Examining other benefits and risks associated with each measure.

It is expected that the outcomes of this investigation will be used to inform decisions relating to campaign priorities and resource allocation so as to ensure efforts are directed towards those areas likely to have the maximum impact on campaign objectives.

The Ecological Footprint The Ecological Footprint uses productive land area (defined within six categories – Carbon Land, Cropland, Grazing Land, Forest, Built‐Up Land and Fishing Grounds), as a measure of the amount of the Earth’s productive capacity required to provide the resources and absorb the carbon dioxide associated with a particular lifestyle, expressed in terms of global hectares (gha). Footprint calculations therefore provide a comparative measure of human demand for nature’s services against nature’s supply of biocapacity, and can be undertaken at several scales – from the individual to regional (state) to national level. As with any proxy measure of complex systems, the Ecological Footprint has several limitations that need to be taken into account when using the calculations in policy‐making. Firstly, Ecological Footprint calculations rely on publicly available data on resource production, trade and consumption, and as such are only as reliable as the information on which they are based. Secondly, the only waste product captured in a footprint calculation is carbon dioxide, when in reality there are a multitude of pollutants generated through human activity that need to be 8

absorbed and recycled by natural systems to ensure human survival and wellbeing. Footprint calculations do not capture the depletion of non‐renewable resources or the release of toxic chemicals into the environment, nor do they account for land which is for all practical purposes unavailable for human use (because of topography, climate, wilderness preservation etc). Consequently, it is not necessarily the specific numeric calculations that are most important in a footprint analysis, but rather what the calculations tell us about the relative impacts of various resource consumption patterns, and hence where the best opportunities for impact reduction may lie.

Methodology The approach taken for this study was to firstly calculate the current Ecological Footprint for Victoria, and then assess a range of measures for achieving the target 25% footprint reduction. The current Victorian Ecological Footprint was calculated using an economic input‐output analysis based on expenditure data for every sector of the economy, combined with sector data on greenhouse emissions and land use. This approach is consistent with prior models undertaken for EPA Victoria (EPA Victoria 2008), and followed a 4‐step process: 

Development of a production footprint for Australia, i.e. the total land required for the production of goods and services, food, housing and transportation for the population and its industrial and agricultural activity (including the impacts of making products for export and not including the production of imports);



Development of a consumption footprint for Australia, i.e. the sum of the impacts from the goods and services produced and consumed locally, as well as imported goods and services;



Calculation of footprint intensity factors (global hectares per dollar of production) for each sector, taking into account the impacts of each sector as well as all the impacts of all upstream supplying sectors ‐ alternatively known as an input‐output analysis; and



Calculation of a final consumption Ecological Footprint for Victoria, which was derived from a combination of the EF intensity factors and Victorian households’ consumption data, taking into account estimated government consumption.

Measures to reduce consumption focussed on food consumption and food waste, housing energy efficiency and options for reducing transport demand, as these categories were found to be the highest contributors to Victoria’s current footprint. Where possible, the measured impacts were extrapolated across the population. In many instances however, the measures could only be calculated for what an individual could achieve because the data for extrapolating across the population was not available. In addition to measures to reduce consumption, a number of measures to reduce the impact of production in Victoria were also tested. These included changes to electricity generation and aluminium smelting. These were chosen specifically because of their large contribution to the footprint and their significance in Environment Victoria’s campaigns and policies. 9

Finally a brief discussion was included on the impact of different ways of spending our disposable income. There has long been a correlation between increased wealth and an increased Ecological Footprint. This section considered various ways to spend money which may reduce the Ecological Footprint.

Results Analysis concluded that Australia’s Ecological Footprint in 2011 was 6.59 gha and Victoria’s was slightly higher at 6.64 gha, predominantly due to Victoria’s heavy reliance on electricity from carbon dioxide intensive brown coal‐fired power stations. Like the rest of Australia, Victoria’s Ecological Footprint is large because the population tends to live in large houses, travel long distances and have substantial disposable incomes. The three consumptions categories that contribute the most to Victoria’s current Ecological Footprint are:   

food: 23% (1.51 gha per Victorian per year) residential energy use: 18% (1.19 gha per Victorian per year) transport: 15% (0.98 gha per Victorian per year).1

The study assessed four types of measures for reducing Victoria’s Ecological Footprint (as outlined in Table 6):    

Consumption strategies applied population wide, eg. Increase proportion of Victorian homes with 5‐star energy ratings; Consumption strategies applied to individual people, eg. Household solar hot water installation; Production strategies applied statewide, eg. Increase proportion of renewable energy in Victorian grid; Production strategies applied to individual products, eg. Buying local rather than interstate fruit and vegetables.

The results of this analysis are summarised in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3. As can be seen in Figure 1 below, the biggest reductions in Victoria’s Ecological Footprint can be achieved by:   

Closing Hazelwood Power Station (reduction of between 2.1 and 12.5% depending on which type of power generation replaces it), Upgrading the energy efficiency of Victoria’s housing to 5 stars (5.0% reduction), and Implementing a 20% Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) (8.7% reduction).

From Figure 6 on page 31 10

Environm ment Victoria aalready working oon issues bellow the arrow

Figure 1. Summary of potential reeductions to Victoria's Ecological E Footprint F

Combiningg the measu ures modelle ed and assuuming 50% of the indivviduals in Vi ctoria took up the individual sstrategies m modelled, th he potentia l Ecological Footprint rreduction w would be 33.6 2 percent. The resultss of the anaalysis of options for speending dispo osal income e showed a high disparrity between th he differentt options. D Driving, flyinng and eatin ng out had vvery high im mpacts compared to education,, health caree and hiringg services. TThe data req quire furthe er analyses tto make an ny firm conclusion ns but it is a promising area for futture researcch.

Conclussions The stronggest levers ffor reducingg the Ecologgical Footprint are redu ucing electrricity deman nd and changing the production technology for elecctricity awaay from brow wn coal. As indicateed by the arrrow in Figu ure 1, these findings co orrelate well with Envirronment Vicctoria’s current priiorities:

% (8.5% + 11.22 ÷ 2 + 16.8%). 11

 

Close Hazelwood and MRET target (Safe Climate Campaign) Residential 5‐star energy rating (One Million Homes Campaign)

While alarming statistics abound on food waste, some level of food waste is inevitable. The results from the report suggest that a range of measures can be employed with little risk that the measure will have higher negative impacts than the reduction. However it may be that large‐scale reduction in food waste is unlikely unless food becomes significantly more expensive. Reducing meat consumption is an effective measure to reduce an individual’s Ecological Footprint. It does need to be taken in the context of current diets and dietary requirements. There are incremental savings to be made with relatively little effort in the transport areas, and it is possible that the scenarios modelled here underestimate the possible benefits. The analysis indicates that biofuel use does not result in an Ecological Footprint reduction, but rather in increase, due to biofuels’ high land use requirements. Future biofuels based on waste materials may improve this situation.

Table 1 Summary of benefits and impacts of consumption measures applied to the whole population on the Ecological Footprint (EF)

Action

EF reduction available

EF increases

Improving pre 2005 houses from 2‐star to 5‐ star energy rating

5.0% reduction in overall Victorian footprint if 100% of pre‐2005 2‐star houses are improved to a 5‐star rating

Impacts of retrofits 5.0% production have not been quantified but are typically very small compared to the energy savings

Energy savings, especially electricity, leads to lower impacts from a wide range of pollutants and trace emissions from power stations. Savings in natural gas can extend the life of this important energy resource

Household demand reduction 1%

0.8%

Household demand reduction 2%

1.5%

Household demand reduction 3%

2.3%

Electricity savings leads to lower impacts from a wide range of pollutants including particulate matter and trace emissions of metals from coal‐fired power stations

Net potential benefit Co‐benefits of the of Victorian EF measure

Other risks and impacts Ventilation rates need to be maintained as houses become more airtight in an effort to reduce heat losses

Action

EF reduction available

EF increases

Net potential benefit Co‐benefits of the of Victorian EF measure

Other risks and impacts

Switch to car share by a city resident

0.3%

Avoided driving is assumed not to be replaced by other modes of transport

0.3%

Substantial improvement in air quality along with reduction in congestion and noise impacts

Risk of a rebound effect with new available road space taken up by other vehicles

Goods and services

Significant savings Unforeseen impacts possible from changes in from alternative use of disposable income consumption patterns

Not quantified

Table 2 Summary of benefits and impacts of consumption measures applied to individuals on the Ecological Footprint (EF)

Action

EF reduction available

EF increases

Net potential benefit Co‐benefits of the measure

Reducing food waste Food consumption through buying food more reduction = 1.14% of EF often

If one additional 4 0.85% km car return trip to the shops per week (52 trips per year), EF increase = +0.29%

Reducing food waste through changes to storage methods

Impacts of the storage method (container, dishwasher and freezer energy consumption) = +0.044%

Food consumption reduction = 1.14% of EF

1.09%

Food savings translate to a potential reduction in a range of issues from agriculture including water use, nitrogen emissions, waterways and resource savings. In the future, if food becomes scarce, it will help alleviate such scarcities

Other risks and impacts Transport increases urban air pollution impacts and congestion Food storage can increase the risk of food sanitation impacts such as illness and death. Nutritional quality can also be affected the longer food is stored. I d hi f

Action

EF reduction available

EF increases

Reducing waste off the plate

Food consumption reduction = 0.41% of EF

3 minute microwave 0.36% and additional refrigeration = +0.05%

Reducing meat consumption by 35%

2.3% reduction in EF of an individual

0.46% increase in EF 1.84% if replaced with other foods

Lower meat intake and any associated reduction in fat and cholesterol intake is known to lower the risk of cancer

Electricity to solar hot water

2.2%

0.08% production of 2.1% solar hot water service

Electricity savings leads to lower impacts from a wide range of pollutants including particulate matter and trace emissions of metals from coal‐fired power stations

Gas to solar hot water

1.8%

0.08% production of 1.7% solar hot water service

Savings in natural gas can extend the life of this important energy resource

Net potential benefit Co‐benefits of the measure

Other risks and impacts

Possible nutritional deficiencies for some individuals. There could also be an increased use of supplements

Action

EF reduction available

EF increases

Net potential benefit Co‐benefits of the measure

1.5 kW solar panel on house

5.6%

0.13% production of 5.5% photovoltaic system

Other risks and impacts

Electricity supplied from renewables will lead to lower impacts from a wide range of pollutants including particulate matter and trace emissions of metals from coal‐fired power stations

Significant impacts from manufacture of silicon wafers used in solar panels

3 kW solar panel on house 11.3

0.27% production of 11.0% photovoltaic system

Implementing efficient driving practices

0.7%

Substantial improvement in air quality along with reduction in congestion and noise impacts

Travel demand management

0.7%

As above

Risk of a rebound effect with new available road space taken up with other transport vehicles

Increased vehicle occupancy

0.7%

As above

Table 3 Summary of benefits and impacts of production measures on the Ecological Footprint (EF) Action

EF reduction available

EF increases

Net potential benefit Co‐benefits of the measure

Other risks and impacts

MRET 20% by 2020

Victorian consumption EF = 4.6%

8.7%

30% RET by 2030

Victorian consumption EF = 7.3%

13.9%

100% RET by 2030

Victorian consumption EF = 26.2%

49.7%

Business demand reduction 1%

1.9%

Business demand reduction 2%

3.7%

Business demand reduction 3%

5.4%

Business demand reduction 1% with MRET

6.4%

Business demand reduction 2% with MRET

7.9%

Business demand reduction 3% with MRET

9.3%

Electricity savings leads to lower impacts from a wide range of pollutants including particulate matter and trace emissions of metals from coal‐fired power stations

Action

EF increases

Net potential benefit Co‐benefits of the measure

Closing Hazelwood Power 2.1% Station and replacing with coal

2.1%

Gas has lower Depletion of high pollutant emissions, quality gas supplies including particulates and trace metal emissions, than coal

Closing Hazelwood Power 3.4% Station and replacing with all other current generators at current shares

3.4%

Hazelwood has the lowest sulphur emissions of all Victorian power stations so sulphur dioxide emissions could rise3

Closing Hazelwood Power 8.1% Station and replacing with gas

8.1%

Hazelwood has the lowest sulphur emissions of all Victorian power stations so sulphur dioxide emissions could rise4

EF reduction available

National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2008, Volume 1 page 25 (Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 2010) ibid. 19 4

Other risks and impacts

Action

EF increases

Net potential benefit Co‐benefits of the measure

Closing Hazelwood Power 12.5% Station and replacing with renewables

12.5%

Electricity supplied from renewables will lead to lower impacts from a wide range of pollutants including particulate matter and trace emissions of metals from coal‐fired power stations

Closure of Point Henry Aluminium Smelter.

2.57%

0.42%

Possible improvements in other brown coal electricity pollutants

EF reduction available

2.99%

Other risks and impacts

Section 1 Victoria’s Ecological Footprint

2 Introduction Environment Victoria’s One Planet Living proposal outlines the campaign to encourage sustainable consumption in Victoria. The ultimate target is for Victorians to live within the planet’s limits, the so‐called “One Planet Living” model. As Victoria progresses towards this outcome, an interim target of reducing the current Victorian Ecological Footprint (EF) by 25% by 2020 is proposed. This report identifies a number of pathways to achieve this sizeable goal. The Ecological Footprint has been identified as a good metric for tracking sustainability due to its simplicity, global comparability and communication value with government and consumers. The objectives of the project were:   

to create a detailed explanation of the Ecological Footprint methodology and results for Victoria and an overview of what activities constitute the major Ecological Footprint impacts to identify a range of measures to reduce the Ecological Footprint, with discussions to include assumptions made, requirements for success and quantification of the expected reduction achievable through each measure to discuss the limitations of the Ecological Footprint as a measure for environmental impacts.

This report focussed on the consumption categories and production areas that have major significance for Victoria’s Ecological Footprint (food, energy use and transport) and the drivers behind these. For each of the identified drivers, the potential for improvement was assessed. This assessment had a number of perspectives.   

Biophysical perspective – what is physically possible, how does action X lead to a reduction in impact Y? Social and economic perspective – will people do it and what are the economic and social consequences? Behavioural change perspective – how could you achieve the change, what is the effort and Ecological Footprint payback from Environment Victoria’s campaign perspective?

This report focussed on the biophysical perspective with some consideration given to the social, economic and behavioural perspectives. The aim here was to first determine what measures would reduce the overall Ecological Footprint prior to Environment Victoria examining in detail the social and economic constraints of the measures.

3 The Ecological Footprint 3.1 Introduction The Ecological Footprint was developed by William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel as a conservative calculation to show that human population is currently using the resources of the world faster than they are being regenerated. The Ecological Footprint measures the exclusive use of land area to provide the resources and absorb the carbon dioxide for all human activities on the planet. Figure 2 shows the different land types included in the Ecological Footprint calculation. Each land type is normalised based on its relative productivity so they can be added and expressed in global hectares (gha)5. The gha number indicates how much of the Earth’s surface is required to sustain our current lifestyles.

A global hectare represents one hectare of land with world‐average productivity. 23

Figure 2 Structure of the land types included in the Ecological Footprint Source: Living Planet Report 2012 (Grooten, Almond et al. 2012)

Figure 3 shows the contribution and growth of each land type in the Ecological Footprint over the past 50 years. As this shows the Ecological Footprint for the entire planet, it can be seen that despite the world population almost doubling over this period, many of the land categories have had modest growth. The category that has grown most significantly is the carbon footprint. This represents the intensification of land use permitted by the use of fossil‐based energy inputs. The carbon footprint component of the Ecological Footprint is the only land type that is not represented physically on the Earth’s surface. Instead it is calculated as a proxy to represent the land needed to sequester enough carbon to stabilise the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, at least from anthopogenic emissions6.

Figure 3 Growth in the Ecological Footprint over the past fifty years Source: Living Planet Report 2012 (Grooten, Almond et al. 2012)

This has two implications for reducing the footprint. Firstly, measures addressing the carbon land component of the footprint are likely to be the most effective as the other land use types are relatively fixed. Secondly, strategies to address the carbon footprint cannot be based on expanding the land footprint in the other categories, such as cropping and forest land.

3.2 Benefits of using the Ecological Footprint The Ecological Footprint was identified as a good metric for this project as it allows for calculation of human pressure on the planet at a general level. Competition for land, in particular fertile land, is one of the oldest limiting parameters on the spread and prosperity of human civilisations. While the fossil fuel age has distorted this somewhat by increasing the intensity of land use achievable – we once again return to land‐based pressures for production of food, energy, carbon storage and

The calculation of land takes into account the fact that the oceans absorb approximately 1/3 of carbon dioxide emissions so that land is only required to sequester 2/3 of total carbon dioxide emissions. 24

other commodities as the demand for fossil fuels outstrips supply and climate change makes increasing fossil energy use undesirable. The Ecological Footprint takes into consideration the land area for producing the agricultural resources we consume, the area for housing the buildings and roads, and the ecosystems for absorbing waste emissions such as carbon dioxide. It also measures the supply of nature in detailing how much biologically productive land is available to provide these services. Therefore, this system is able to compare human demand for nature’s services against nature’s supply of biocapacity. Using the Ecological Footprint allows governments to measure a region’s demand on environmental resources and to directly compare this requirement with existing natural capital. Footprint calculations can be undertaken at many different scales – from an individual person up to an entire state or nation. They can also be undertaken for products and organisations. The most effective use of footprints has been as a consumption measure for individuals and populations. According to EPA Victoria, Australia’s Ecological Footprint was 7.8 gha per person in 2005. This is close to three times the average global per capita Ecological Footprint (2.7 gha) and considerably exceeds the level of what the planet can regenerate on an annual basis – an equivalent of about 2.1 gha per person per year. The major contributing factor is our carbon footprint, which accounts for about 50% of Australia’s Ecological Footprint (EPA Victoria 2008). The most recent numbers published by the Global Footprint Network in 2011 (based on data from 2008) have the Australian Ecological Footprint at 6.8 gha per person (Global Footprint Network 2011). Unfortunately we cannot take credit for this reduction, which is mainly the result of calculation changes in the Ecological Footprint and not increased efficiency in the Australian economy. The Ecological Footprint concept quickly became a standard measure of a product or service’s carbon intensity and impact on the environment. The International Standards Organisation (ISO) has recently published a technical standard (TS14067) on the carbon footprint of products. This standard describes a carbon footprint as being the life cycle assessment (LCA) sum of greenhouse gases and removals for a production system expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents (International Organization for Standardization 2013). This is different to greenhouse accounting, which typically only looks at direct greenhouse gas emissions from a facility or organisation and does not follow the impacts along the supply chain. The term footprint has more recently also been adopted for a standard developed by the European Union aimed at establishing a single green market for products in the EU. The standard refers to Product Environmental Footprints, which are a life cycle‐based environmental profile.

3.3 Limitations to the use of the Ecological Footprint There are some limitations to the Ecological Footprint that need to be taken into account when using it as a metric. The Ecological Footprint uses publicly available data on resource production, trade and consumption. Footprint calculations are therefore only as reliable as the information used in the calculations.

The only waste product or pollutant measured by the Ecological Footprint is carbon dioxide. In reality there are many other waste products and pollutants that need to be absorbed and recycled by natural systems for human survival, including methane, water, nitrogen and phosphorus. The Ecological Footprint does not measure the depletion of non‐renewable resources or fundamentally unsustainable processes, such as the release of toxic chemicals into the environment. The calculation of bio‐capacity – the land available to supply the Ecological Footprint, includes all available land. Clearly some land is not available for practical reasons such as: location; slope; climate factors; and land needed for other species and not for extractive utilisation by human populations such as reserves, parks and wilderness.

3.4 Summary of effectiveness of the Ecological Footprint as a model for assessing sustainability Though the Ecological Footprint does not account for all human impacts on the environment, the measure does provide a solid indicator of ‘unsustainability’ by signifying when overall resource use cannot be met by resource supply each year. Furthermore, even though the model cannot prescribe the process to relieve pressure on biodiversity, the Ecological Footprint does provide a clear indication of when a region is consuming more land resources than it has available. Ultimately it is a simple, communicable and globally comparable measure of human consumption. And human consumption and its growth is arguably the predominant trend running against sustainability. Because of these limitations in scope, specific actions aimed at addressing unsustainable levels of consumption identified by the Ecological Footprint should be examined from a broader sustainability perspective using tools such as Life Cycle Assessment, social impact assessment and risk assessment.

3.5 World comparison According to the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Australia’s per capita Ecological Footprint is the seventh largest in the world (6.68 gha per person) when calculated using the Ecological Footprint Data (WWF 2012 ). The nations with the seven largest Ecological Footprints are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Qatar Kuwait United Arab Emirates Denmark United States of America Belgium Australia.

Table 4 Ecological Footprint for selected countries and the world in total in gha per capita

CROPLAND

GRAZING LAND

FOREST LAND

FISHING GROUND

CARBON

BUILT UP LAND

TOTAL EF

CROPLAND

GRAZING LAND

FOREST LAND

FISHING GROUND

BUILT UP LAND

TOTAL BIOCAPACITY

BIOCAPACITY

COUNTRY/REGION

FOOTPRINT

Qatar

0.91

1.12

0.17

0.46

8.91

0.11

11.6

0.03

0.00

1.91

0.11

2.05

Australia

1.61

1.11

1.16

0.10

2.68

0.03

6.68

2.14

6.16

2.55

3.69

0.03

14.5

Italy

1.03

0.4

0.46

0.14

2.39

0.10

4.52

0.62

0.06

0.3

0.06

0.10

1.15

0.87

0.27

0.61

0.13

2.87

0.15

4.89

0.49

0.10

0.11

0.50

0.15

1.34

World

0.59

0.21

0.26

0.10

1.47

0.06

2.70

0.57

0.23

0.76

0.16

0.06

1.78

Source: (Grooten, Almond et al. 2012)

Australia has 14.5 gha per person of bio‐capacity land. The total bio‐capacity land in Australia accounts for 2.6% available in the world. Despite this, Australia has a hefty Ecological Footprint of 6.68 gha. Greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for over 50% of Australia's Ecological Footprint, with WWF estimating the average household emits around 14 tonnes of greenhouse gases each year (WWF 2012 ). If all countries consumed the resources that Australians do, 3.7 earths would be required to provide the bio‐capacity to support this level of consumption7 The range of Ecological Footprints from different countries is very large with Qatar having the highest Ecological Footprint dominated by very high emissions of greenhouse gases. Italy on the other hand has a relatively low Ecological Footprint for a western country, driven by low impacts from cropping, grazing and forested land. Comparing Australia’s and Victoria’s per capita Ecological Footprint to other countries and regions provides a worthwhile context.

consumption (6.68 gha per person / 1.78 gha/person = 3.75 earths). 27

3.5.1 Comparison of Ecological Footprint breakdown – Australia, Italy and the United Kingdom 3.5 Eccological Footprint gha per person

Australian 3.0 United Kingdom 2.5

Italy

2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Housing

Transport

Food

Goods

Services

Other

Figure 4 Comparison of Ecological Footprint components based on data from EUREAPA website

Using data from a 2004 Ecological Footprint study (EUREAPA 2004), the breakdown of the United Kingdom, Italian and Australian Ecological Footprints have been compared and are shown in Figure 4. While nearly all aspects of the Australian Ecological Footprint are larger than Italy and the United Kingdom, the food component is the most significant. This could be due to high beef and dairy consumption in Australia, distances the food is transported and the carbon‐intensive energy sources used in food production processes. The housing footprint of Italy is much lower than the others, which is possibly due to high‐density living in Italy and the absence of sprawling suburban development.

4 Victtoria’ss Ecolo ogical FFootprrint 4.1 Eco ological FFootprintt calculattion The Ecologgical Footprint of Victoria was calcculated by tthe authors for this stu dy and follo owed the land classiffication methodology p provided byy the Global Footprint Network (G Global Footp print Network 2013). This aapproach daates back too the originaal Ecologica al Footprint approach o outlined in Wackernagel and Rees (Wackernaggel and Reess 1995). 1995 by W Before outtlining the ccalculation p process for the footprints it is imp portant to m make a distinction between th he productiion and the consumptiion Ecologiccal Footprin nts for Victooria. Figure 5 5 shows that the prroduction Ecological Fo ootprint inc luded all go oods producced in Victooria regardle ess of where theyy are consu umed. The cconsumptio n Ecological Footprint included al l of the products and services co onsumed in Victoria reggardless of where theyy were prod duced. Typiccally it is easier to determine the producction Ecologgical Footprrint, as it is o observable in industriaal productio on statistics. TThe consum mption Ecolo ogical Footpprint has to be inferred d by inclusioon of imports and exclusion o of exports to the region n.

P Production EEcological FFootprint

Consumptio C on Ecologiccal Footprin nt

Impact of Victorrian producttion of goodds an nd services

Impact of w what Victoriaans consum me

Victorian exports

Victoorian goods con sumed in V Victoria

Viictorian im mports

n of the diffe erences betw ween production and co onsumption EEcological Fo ootprints Figure 5 Representation

The Ecologgical Footprint was calcculated usinng financial and statistical data froom the Austtralian Bureau of SStatistics (A ABS) and physical data on land use e and green nhouse gas eemissions. T This approach is described d in Wiedmaann 2008 annd is in acco ordance witth the Globaal Footprintt Network standards and methodology (Glo obal Footpriint Networkk 2009). more detaile ed descriptioon of data ssources The processs is shown diagrammaatically in Fi gure 6. A m and their in nteractionss is provided d in Appenddix A. The first sttep was the developme ent of a prooduction foo otprint for A Australia. Thhis is the total land required fo or the production of go oods and seervices, food d, housing a and transpoortation for the population n and its ind dustrial and agriculturaal activity (in ncluding the e impacts oof making go oods for export and d not including the production of iimported go oods). This is needed bbecause mo ost of our 29

biophysical data on land use relates to what we produce as a country and not what we consume. Australia was used for the initial calculation of the Ecological Footprint because Victorians consume products and services from all parts of Australia. The data sources for the Australian Ecological Footprint were taken largely from national statistics for energy use (ABARE 2011), from which greenhouse gas emissions were calculated using emission factors (Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 2012). Land use data were sourced from the ABARE‐BRS 2008/09 (ABARE‐BRS 2010). The second step was the development of a consumption Ecological Footprint for Australia. The population’s consumption Ecological Footprint is the sum of impacts from the goods and services that are produced in Australia and are consumed locally, and the goods and services that are imported. Because the origin of imported products is unknown, the analysis assumed that imported goods and services had the same production impacts as if they were made in Australia. The production of exports was excluded from the consumption Ecological Footprint. The third step was to calculate Ecological Footprint intensity factors (global hectares per dollar of production) for each sector. These factors included the impacts of each sector and the impacts from upstream supplying sectors, which are often referred to as tier 1 suppliers. The tier 1 suppliers included the inputs from their supplying sectors, usually tier 2 suppliers. The tier 2 suppliers have their impacts calculated from their suppliers – the tier 3 suppliers. This continues on until the total impact from all tiers is included in the model. This calculation is referred to as an input‐output analysis, a well‐established mathematical technique that is described in Wiedmann (Wiedmann, Wood et al. 2008) and is used by economics and environmental research disciplines. In the fourth and final step the Ecological Footprint intensity factors were combined with Victorian households’ consumption data from 2011. After adding a per capita proportion of government consumption – which is not registered as part of household consumption statistics, a final consumption Ecological Footprint for Victorians was calculated. Note that this number is not directly comparable with to the numbers published by EPA Victoria on their website (6.8 gha per person for 2005) (EPA Victoria 2008) because it did not use the same economic model for its calculation.

Figure 6 Methodology for calculating the Victorian Ecological Footprint

4.2 Structure of the Ecological Footprint of Victorian residents The calculated average Australian Ecological Footprint for 2011 was 6.59 gha. For the same year an average Victorian needed 6.64 gha of land to sustain their lifestyle. While the pattern of consumption in Victoria is similar to the national average, there is a significant difference in the area of domestic energy use. This is predominantly due to Victoria’s heavy reliance on electricity from carbon dioxide intensive brown coal‐fired power stations. Like the rest of Australia, Victoria’s Ecological Footprint is large because the population tends to live in large houses, travel long distances and have substantial disposable incomes. Figure 7 shows the structure of the Ecological Footprint of Victoria, aggregated by the expenditure group defined in the household expenditure surveys, which are used to calculate the comsumption footprint. The three consumptions categories that contribute the most to the Ecological Footprint are: 

food: 23% (1.51 gha per Victorian per year)



residential energy use: 18% (1.19 gha per Victorian per year)



transport: 15% (0.98 gha per Victorian per year).

In terms of Ecological Footprint by land type, carbon land is the the largest (and the fastest growing (cf Figure 2, page 15) followed by cropland and pastures. These land types do not correspond directly to consumption categories. For example, the cropland land type provide resources for the food consumption category, as well as many resources for government, services and goods. Built land includes mines, which provide resources for housing, transport and other consumption categories. And demand for carbon land results largely from energy production, which is a major resource not just in residential energy, but in all of the consumption categories. This report focussed on the major consumption categories in food, residential energy and transport along with the way we use and generate energy because electricity is the primary driver of our demand for carbon land.

Figure 7 Strructure of th he Victorian E Ecological Foootprint and d the Australlian Ecologiccal Footprintt

4.2.1 C Consumpttion catego ories and ssource secttors in the Ecologicall Footprintt There are ttwo ways to o view the ““cause” of aa footprint. One is by the categoryy of goods o or services purchased – this is wh hat is descriibed in the cconsumptio on categorie es in Figure 5. The second d is to identtify the secttor that is u ltimately th he source off the impacct. (So while e food is the consum mption cateegory, grazin ng and grainn productio on is the ultimate sourcce of most o of the food footprint.) ows the con ntribution to the ultimaate source o of impacts ccompared w with the con nsuming Table 5 sho sector, e.g. the cumullative impacct of electriccity generation throug gh all of the different caategory mounts to 226%. Howevver, through h the direct purchase o of purchases made by Viictorians am electricity the impact only accounts for 14% % of the Victtorian Ecolo ogical Footpprint.

Table 5 Direct and ultimate contributions to the Ecological Footprint for selected sectors

Economic Sector

Electricity generation

Consuming sector (% of EF attributable to direct purchases in sectors)

Ultimate sector where EF occurs (% of total contribution to Victorian consumption)

14%

26%

Food and beverage services

Retail trade

Meat and meat products

Road transport

Dairy product manufacturing

Air and space transport

Mother vehicles and parts manufacturing

Health care services

Public administration and regulatory services

Gambling

Ownership of dwellings

Residential care and social assistance services

Education and training

Wholesale trade

Sports and recreation

Defence

Sheep, grains, beef and dairy

40%

Forestry and logging

Iron and steel manufacturing

46%

11%

Other

Section 2: Proposed measures to reduce Victoria’s Ecological Footprint

5 Introduction to Ecological Footprint reduction measures 5.1 Types of reduction measures Four different types of measures were assessed in this report. Two of these were consumption based and two were production based. Each of these categories were sometimes applied to the whole population (in the case of consumption Ecological Footprint), to the whole state (in the case of production Ecological Footprint) or sometimes for an individual person or product. The reason for this second type of calculation is because there was not enough data to make an estimate of how many people could implement the strategy across the Victorian population or through the Victorian industry. Table 6 Outline of the four types of Ecological Footprint reduction measures used in the study

Applied to one

Applied to the whole

Consumption Ecological Footprint

Production Ecological Footprint

Consumption strategies applied population wide e.g. – increase fraction of Victorian homes with 5‐star energy ratings

Production strategies applied statewide e.g. – Increase fraction of renewable energy in Victorian grid

Consumption strategies applied to individual people e.g. – what are the benefits of a person installing solar hot water

Production strategies applied to individual products e.g. –The benefits of a buy local rather than Queensland tomatoes

5.2 How to use the reduction measures The late Frank Fisher once said of Ecological Footprint and LCA that it was a fabulous insight to the world, “but I hope no one believes the numbers” (personal comment to report author). The message to take from this is not that the numbers are wrong but that it is the directions and orders of magnitude that should be taken from the information and not the third decimal place. For each measure, where possible, the possible reduction of the overall per capita Ecological Footprint was included. Additional information regarding benefits above and beyond the 36

Ecological Footprint and some potential adverse effects or environmental risks from the measure was also included. Measures providing maximum Ecological Footprint reduction with minimal risk were identified. While measures were designed to be technically possible and practical, it is beyond the scope of this report to examine the cost and the behavioural or technical limitations for implementing the reduction measures.

6 Food consumption at home 6.1 Overview of food consumptions footprint 6.1.1 Introduction This section covers the food directly purchased by households and consumed at home (including take‐away food)8. Food consumed at home represented 1.51 gha/person per year, which is equivalent to 23% of Victoria’s Ecological Footprint.

6.1.2 Contributions and drivers of impacts Figure 8 shows the structure of the Ecological Footprint based on Victoria’s expenditure on food consumed at home. Meat and meat products and dairy products were clearly the largest contributors to the food Ecological Footprint (respectively 26% and 19%). Retail trade (the operation of retail stores) also contributed significantly to the Ecological Footprint (12%). Figure 8 shows both the breakdown of impacts from the first tier of the supply chain, and where the ultimate source of the impact was derived. On farm impacts represented most of the Ecological Footprint. Farm products are used or consumed by the meat and dairy products sectors, as well as by other sectors such as bakery foods and grain and cereal products. Consumption of food has a significant Ecological Footprint. We eat daily but may not comprehend that the food, which is so readily available to us in shops, comes at a significant cost to the environment which is often not reflected in the dollar price. Before transporting from the shops, refrigerating, cooking and eating our food, the initial production, processing, packaging, storage and transport of food items require large amounts of land and energy.

This section does not include food and beverages purchased in hotels, restaurants and cafes. This is because the economic data used to calculate the footprint was based on household expenditure data, which categorises food purchases in hotels and restaurants in a separate category to home food purchases. 38

Figure 8 Strructure of th he Victorian E Ecological Foootprint of e expenditure on food connsumed at ho ome

Figure 9 Network diagram showing sources of the Ecological Footprint for food in percentage terms and the Ecological Footprint flow between economic sectors (arrow thickness) for flows above the 5% contribution threshold

6.2 Food consumption behaviour 6.2.1 Food waste About 14 per cent (by cost) of the food purchased in Victoria is wasted. Wasted food costs more than just the money spent at purchase; it also wastes the water, energy, labour and other resources that contributed towards producing the food. Furthermore, when food waste decomposes in landfill it produces greenhouse gases. According to EPA Victoria, for every kilogram of food waste sent to landfill about one kilogram of greenhouse gas is produced.

6.2.2 Consumption pattern vs. dietary guidelines Investigation has revealed that Australians do not eat to published dietary requirements. Australians consume an average of 46.5 kg of red meat each year (MLA 2011). This is made up of 33.7 kg of beef, 10.8 kg of lamb and 2 kg of mutton. However the recommended dietary guidelines are to consume a maximum of 455 g of red meat per week, which is 23.7 kg per year (Australian National Health and Medical Research Council 2013). This provides the potential for a significant reduction in the food footprint if Victorians reduced their red meat consumption to eat quantities closer to the recommended dietary guidelines.

6.3 Reducing food waste 6.3.1 Description of measure There is no single action for reducing food waste with the possible exception of substantially increasing the cost of food. The current quality of data in the area of food waste is too poor to accurately model population‐wide impacts so this measure is based on changes to a group of typical behaviours. This strategy suggests three possible actions: i) reducing the amount of food purchased, ii) reducing loss of food through spoiling once purchased and iii) improving utilisation or food once it been prepared. Table 7 below lists actions households can take to reduce food waste at home. Table 7 Potential actions to reduce food waste at home

Action

Benefits

Costs

Change shopping habits Buy food more often

This should lead to a better fit More trips to the shops between the consumer need and what is purchased. Food is kept for less time reducing spoilage

Change storage methods Smart storage of food using a mix of methods including airtight containers for some products and freezing of others

Extend the life of food New impacts of the storage products. Maintain the method (container, quality of products purchased packaging, energy consumption of the freezer). Food may go off if stored for too long, even if packaged properly

Reducing waste off the plate Cook once, eat twice or more

Extend the life of food by cooking and storing

Impacts of container use, impact of refrigerating and re‐heating the meal

6.3.2 Type of measure This was a consumption measure based on individual actions.

6.3.3 Status quo in Victoria Food purchased and disposed of by Victorian households equates to:  

about $1000 per household/year (Food Wise 2013) or 14% of money spent on food for the home (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011) about 20% of total food purchased by volume.

Fresh food and leftovers from the plate are the main food types wasted. They make up 60% of food waste. (Food Wise 2013).

6.3.4 Assumptions and calculations The following scenarios were modelled to estimate the potential benefits of food waste reduction. The scenarios were based on author judgement for the purpose of showing the tensions between alternative actions rather than representing an accurate representation of any one person or group behaviour. 1. More frequent shopping was assumed to achieve a 25% reduction in total food waste, which led to a 5% decrease in home food consumption. The additional transport was assumed to be by car based on a 4 km round trip. 2. Changing storage methods cut food waste by 25%, but increased container use (5 per year at 50 g per container). Washing of 5 containers once per week amounted to 20% of a dishwasher load9. It also increased the requirement for freezer storage by 2 litres10.

Dishwasher is assumed to user 245 kWh per year for 365 washes and uses 25 litres of water and 25 g of detergent. Freezer is assumed to be 416 litres using 318 kWh per annum. 42 10

3. Cooked meals were assumed to be stored in a freezer in a container and then reheated. Three meals per week used an additional 3 minutes of microwave11. It also increased the requirement for freezer storage by 2 litres. Food waste from the plate was assumed to be reduced by one third, giving a food waste saving of 9%. There are likely to be savings in cooking energy through not cooking the additional meals however this has not been modelled due to the marginal impact.

6.3.5 Potential Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts Figure 10 shows the potential benefits of buying food more often so as to waste less food. It shows that additional car travel can erode the benefits of buying food more frequently to reduce food waste, however under the scenario used it is still very much worthwhile. Figure 11 shows the potential benefits and impacts of smarter storage of food. The dishwasher was the only part of the operation which had a significant impact but it is still very small compared to the potential benefits of reducing food waste. Figure 12 shows the potential benefits and impacts of cooking, storing and reheating meals. The impact of the microwave is significant but does not override the benefits of avoiding food waste through storage and reheating.

0.040 0.020 ‐

gha

Extra trip to shop

Food waste saving

‐0.020 ‐0.040 ‐0.060 ‐0.080 ‐0.100

Figure 10 Potential impacts and benefits over a one‐year period of one household buying food more often

Microwave assumed to be 1100 W. 43

0.010 ‐ Container

‐0.010

Dishwasher

Freezer

gha

‐0.020

Food waste saving

‐0.030 ‐0.040 ‐0.050 ‐0.060 ‐0.070 ‐0.080

Figure 11 Potential impacts and benefits over a one‐year period of one household using smart storage of food

0.005 ‐

gha

‐0.005

Microwave

Freezer

Food waste saving

‐0.010 ‐0.015 ‐0.020 ‐0.025 ‐0.030

Figure 12 Potential impacts and benefits over a one‐year period of one household cooking and storing food for reuse

6.3.6 Co‐benefits and risk factors outside of the Ecological Footprint Table 8 Co‐benefits and risk factors related to measures taken to reduce food waste

Action

Co‐benefits

Risk factors

Buying food more often

Food savings translate to potential reductions in a range of agricultural issues including water use, nitrogen emissions to waterways and resource savings. In the future, if food becomes scarce, it will help alleviate such scarcities

Transport increases urban air pollution impacts and congestion

Change storage methods Reducing waste 44

Food storage can increase the risk of food sanitation impacts such as illness and death. Nutritional quality can also be affected the longer food is stored. Increasing washing of container increases

off the plate

water use and waste water emissions

6.3.7 Summary of Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts Table 9 shows a summary of benefits and impacts of the three measures for reducing food waste for individual households. Table 9 Benefits and impacts of reducing food waste for the modelled scenarios

Action

EF benefit of measure

EF negative impact of measure

Buying food more often

Food consumption reduction = 1.14% of EF

If one additional 4 km car 0.85% return trip to the shops per week (52 trips per year), EF increase = +0.29%

Change storage methods

Food consumption reduction = 1.14% of EF

Impacts of the storage method (container, dishwasher and freezer energy consumption) = +0.044%

Reducing waste off the plate

Food consumption reduction = 0.41% of EF

3 minute microwave and 0.36% additional refrigeration = +0.05%

Reduction for a household implementing all three scenarios

Net potential benefit

1.09%

2.3%

6.4 Balanced diet for reduced impacts 6.4.1 Description of measure The Australian Government regularly publishes dietary guidelines (Australian National Health and Medical Research Council 2013) to advise Australians on their daily nutritional requirements. This analysis suggested that many Victorians do not have a healthy diet in accordance with dietary guidelines. Victorians on average consume too much red meat, and too much protein overall. In addition to health impacts, this dietary behaviour has ecological impacts borne out in the Victorian Ecological Footprint. According to the Australian Dietary Guidelines, the current level of red meat consumption is twice the recommended level. Victorians’ overall protein intake is also an average of 35% above recommended levels.

6.4.2 Type of measure This was a consumption measure based on individual actions.

6.4.3 Status quo in Victoria Average meat consumption in Australia is currently 110 kg of per person per year (ABARES 2012). In the latest edition, the Dietary Guidelines prescribe an average daily protein intake of 2.5 serves per person per day12, on average across the population (Australian National Health and Medical Research Council 2013). If we assume 85% of the protein is coming from meat, this translates to a recommended meat consumption of 73 kg per year.

6.4.4 Assumptions and calculations It was assumed for the study that a typical Victorian is able to reduce their meat consumption by 40% to match the dietary guidelines. As the total calorie intake in the Australian diet is in excess of requirements, the reduction in protein intake does not necessarily need to be totally compensated by other foods, however in this measure we assumed the meat was replaced by fruit, vegetables, grains and cereals. The reduction in meat was taken to be equally shared across beef, lamb, pork and chicken.

6.4.5 Potential Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts Figure 13 shows that the reduction in meat intake leads to a reduction in the Ecological Footprint of 0.13 gha/person/year. This translates to a reduction in the food Ecological Footprint of 10%. If compensated for with fruit, vegetables, grains and cereals this lead to an increase of 0.3 gha/person/year, which would reduce the overall benefits of the meat reduction to 8% of the food 12

Severs vary depending on the type of protein but for meat is 95g 46

Ecological Footprint. Given that food is 23% of Victoria’s Ecological Footprint the reduction to the overall Ecological Footprint is 1.84% 0.04

EF in gha per person per year

0.02 0 ‐0.02

Reduction of meat consumption

Compenstaion with fruit vegetables, grains and cereals

‐0.04 ‐0.06 ‐0.08 ‐0.1 ‐0.12 ‐0.14 ‐0.16

Figure 13 Potential impacts and benefits over a one‐year period of one household cooking and storing food for reuse

6.4.6 Co‐benefits and risk factors outside of the Ecological Footprint Table 10 Co‐benefits and risk factors related to reducing meat consumption

Action

Co‐benefits

Risk factor

Reduction in meat consumption Improvements in quality of Possible adverse health life and wellbeing and effects for some individuals. protection against chronic diseases. Reduced methane production from sheep and cattle.

6.4.7 Summary of Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts Table 11 Summary of the benefits and impacts of reducing meat consumption on the Ecological Footprint

Action

EF benefit of measure

EF negative impact of measure

Reduction in meat consumption

2.3% reduction in EF of an individual

0.46% increase in EF if 1.84% replaced with other foods

Net potential benefit

7 Housing impacts 7.1 Contributions and drivers Figure 14shows the results of an ecological footprint study into news houses in Melbourne Northern growth corridor (Centre for Design at RMIT and Global Footprint Network 2006). It shows that construction and maintenance of houses is relatively small over the life cycle compared to household energy use. For this reason this section focuses on household energy use and not on housing materials of construction techniques. Figure 15 shows the Ecological Footprint breakdown from the same study for different energy uses in a The main impact for Victorian houses was heating and cooling energy, which accounted for 60% of the energy use Ecological Footprint for the household. House construction and maintenance 10%

House operation 90%

Figure 14 Ecological Footprint breakdown between operation and construction and maintenance for typical suburban Melbourne house

Water heeating ‐ gas 7.6%

Other gas O 0.1%

Ligghting eleectrical 15.0%

Ellectricty for hheating and cooling 12.2%

Other electricaal 17.0% eating Gas ‐ he 48.1 1%

Figure 15 Eccological Foo otprint breakdown for tyypical suburrban Melbou urne house Source: Baseed on Aurora FFootprint Stud dy (Centre forr Design at RM MIT and Global Footprint Neetwork 2006)

7.2 Rettrofittingg homes tto impro ove energgy efficie ency 7.2.1 Descriptio on of measure This measu ure proposeed to increaase the enerrgy perform mance of exiisting Victorrian homes to an average 5‐‐star energyy rating. From 20044–2005, new w dwellings were subjeect to a man ndatory min nimum 5‐staar rating. The low rating for hou uses built be efore 2005 was the ressult of a com mbination oof constructtion features, in ncluding po oor insulatio on of house s as well as their design (e.g. slat w windows, fe ew outdoor blinds and sh hutters).

7.2.2 TType of me easure This was a consumptio on measure e based on population‐‐wide appliccation.

7.2.3 SStatus quo o in Victoriia Most existing Victoriaan houses have poor thhermal efficciency, which means m ore energy is required for heatingg and coolin ng. Heating is the largeest domesticc energy use er in Victoriia. Increasin ng the thermal effficiency of V Victorian ho omes can reesult in sign nificant enerrgy savings,, and Ecologgical Footprint rreductions. 50

Table 12 shows numbers of dwellings in Victoria and their average thermal efficiency rating, often referred to as a star ratings. Table 12 Dwelling stock and associated star rating for Victoria

Dwellings

Quantity (millions) Proportion of Victorian homes

Built before 2005 – star rating 2 or less

1.91

89%

Number of homes which must be raised by 3 stars to reach overall average 5‐star standard

1.46

68%

Built between 2005 and 2012 –5‐star or above.

0.23

11%

Total homes in Victoria

2.14

100%

Source: (Environment Victoria 2012)

7.2.4 Assumptions and calculations Using data from the ATA (Alternative Technology Association 2012), the energy use saving from heating and cooling for a shift from 2‐ to 5‐stars was 54.5%. After accounting for other energy use in the household13 the reduction in total household energy use was taken as 32.3%. This energy reduction was applied to 1.46 million homes, which is the number of homes which must have thermal efficiency improved by three stars, to reach an average 5‐star standard for Victoria.

7.2.5 Potential Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts Figure 16 presents the results of the different scenarios for increasing the energy star ratings of houses in Victoria.

Heating and cooling makes up only 59% of household energy use. (Alternative Technology Association 2012) 51

gha housedold energy EF

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Current

With pre 2005 homes going from 2‐5 star

Figure 16 Comparison of the household energy Ecological Footprint with current housing stock and with improvements to the energy star rating for pre‐2005 houses

7.2.6 Co‐benefits and risk factors outside of the Ecological Footprint Table 13 Co‐benefits and risk factors related to improving pre‐2005 houses from a 2‐star to a 5‐star energy rating

Action

Co‐benefits

Risk factors

Improving pre 2005 houses from 2‐star to 5‐star energy rating

Energy savings, especially of electricity, lead to lower impacts from a wide range of pollutants and trace emissions from power stations. Increasing concern about the impacts of gas extraction

Ventilation rates need to be maintained as houses become more airtight in an effort to reduce heat losses

The floor area of new dwellings in Australia and in Victoria has tended to increase. However, there is a lack of data regarding the area of dwellings built before 2000. Therefore, the change in dwelling size could not be accounted for. This resulted in a slight overestimation of the energy reduction potential, and hence of the Ecological Footprint reduction potential. Moreover, it was assumed that the thermal energy reduction applies to all energy sources (electricity, gas).

7.2.7 Summary of Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts Action

EF benefit of measure

EF impact of measure

Net potential benefit

Improving the star rating of pre‐2005 houses from 2‐ star to 5‐star

5.0% reduction in Victorian overall footprint if Victorian housing stock raised to a 5‐star average

Impacts of retrofits have not been quantified but are typically very small compared to the energy savings

5.0% of Victorian footprint

7.3 Using solar energy 7.3.1 Description of measure This measure looked at the installation of some form of solar energy at the household level. Four options were included:    

switch from gas hot water to solar hot water switch from electric hot water to solar hot water supplementation of household electricity use with electricity from a 1.5 kW photovoltaic system installed at the household supplementation of household electricity use with electricity from a 3 kW photovoltaic system installed at the household.

7.3.2 Type of measure This was a consumption measure based on individual actions.

7.3.3 Status quo in Victoria According to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts 2008), water heating accounted for 23% of the energy consumed by households. Some 50% of the energy consumed by households is electricity, (the remainder being natural gas, LPG or wood). In Victoria, solar hot water is used on approximately 6%, and solar panels are used on 5% of houses. (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011).

7.3.4 Assumptions and calculations Technology switches were modelled with the Australian Greenhouse Calculator (Epa Victoria 2011) to calculate the Ecological Footprint reduction potential of using solar hot water.

The greenhouse gas emission reduction was then converted into gha in order to compare against an individual’s Ecological Footprint. For these simulations, it was assumed that three people occupied a house of between 100 m2 and 150 m2 floor area. The estimate of an individual’s Ecological Footprint reduction when implementing solar panels was based on either a reduction by 35% in electricity purchased with a 1.5 kW solar panel system or a 70% reduction in electricity purchased with a 3 kW solar panel system (Sustainability Victoria 2013). The solar hot water and photovoltaic infrastructure wastaken from the ecoinvent LCI database (Frischknecht, Jungbluth et al. 2007).

7.3.5 Potential Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts Hot water and other energy use Lighting electrical Gas ‐ heating Electricty for heating and cooling

gha household energy EF

3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

Figure 17 The Ecological Footprint benefits of replacing electrical and gas hot water appliances with solar hot water

Natural gas use Electricity use 4

gha household energy EF

3 2 1 0 ‐1 ‐2

Figure 16 The Ecological Footprint benefits of installing 1.5 kW and 3.0 kW solar panels

Figures 15 and 16 show the potential Ecological Footprint reduction of the different solar energy use options at the household level. Installation of solar panels shows greater benefits than the installation of solar hot water systems. This is because solar panels not only replace conventionally generated electricity for hot water production but also for heating and cooling as well as for appliances.

7.3.6 Co‐benefits and risk factors outside of the Ecological Footprint Table 14 Co‐benefits and risk factors related to installing solar hot water and photovoltaic electricity

Action

Co‐benefits

Electricity to solar hot water

Energy savings, especially of electricity, lead to lower impacts from a wide range of pollutants and trace emissions from power stations. Savings in natural gas can extend the life of this important energy resource

Gas to solar hot water

Savings in natural gas can extend the life of this important energy resource

Risk factors

1.5 kW or 3 kW solar panel on house

Electricity supplied from renewables will lead to lower impacts from a wide range of pollutants including particulate matter and trace emissions of metals from coal‐fired power stations

Significant impacts from manufacture of silicon wafers used in solar panels

7.3.7 Summary of Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts Table 15 Reduction of the Ecological Footprint based on solar energy actions

Action

EF benefit of measure

EF negative impact of measure14

Net potential benefit

Electricity to solar hot water

2.2% 0.08% production of solar hot water service

2.1%

Gas to solar hot water

1.8% 0.08% production of solar hot water service

1.7%

1.5 kW solar panel on house

5.6% 0.13% production of photovoltaic system

5.5%

3 kW solar panel on house

11.3 0.27 production of photovoltaic system

11.0%

The production of the solar equipment is spread over expect life. This is a worst case scenario for hot water as the impacts of the avoided conventional appliance is not included. 56

8 Electricity supply Electricity generation is possibly the single most powerful pinch point for dealing with Victoria’s Ecological Footprint and carbon footprint. If Victoria’s brown coal industry and infrastructure did not exist and tomorrow someone proposed burning such a low‐grade fuel as brown coal at the efficiencies currently achieved by Victoria’s generators it would be met with the same opposition as nuclear energy and waste incineration. Processed municipal solid waste typically has a higher energy value than that of brown coal.15 Figure 7 shows that just under a third of Victoria’s Ecological Footprint was a result of the generation of electricity. The Ecological Footprint of electricity is driven by demands right across the economy. The electricity footprint is caused almost entirely by carbon dioxide emissions associated with the combustion of coal. Land for electricity transmission and land for renewables are four orders of magnitude lower than the carbon land footprint.

8.1 Increasing renewables in grid supply 8.1.1 Description of measure The Federal government has an existing renewable energy target (RET), which aims to increase the proportion of renewables in the grid supply to 20% of total generation by 2020. This scenario models the EF impacts of reaching this target, of continuation of this target to 30% by 2030 and finally models the goal of 100% renewable electricity generation.

8.1.2 Type of measure This was a production measure based on statewide application.

8.1.3 Status quo in Victoria The current Victorian grid mix is heavily dominated by brown coal power production. Figure 18 shows that the Ecological Footprint was totally dominated by brown coal generation. Other major grid technologies such as hydro, solar and wind added very little to the Ecological Footprint. The production Ecological Footprint of Victorian electricity is 17.9 million gha which is more than three times the consumption Ecological Footprint of Victoria.

15 Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook has “multiple wastes” at 10.4 MJ as collected with plastics and organic wastes much higher. Victorian brown coal being used for power generation is approximately 10 MJ/kg. 57

100%

% contribution to electricity

90% 80%

Other

70%

Wind

60%

Solar Biogas

50%

Natural gas

40%

Brown Coal

30%

Hydro

20% 10% 0% Percent of grid mix

Percent of EF

Figure 18 Contribution of different electricity production types to grid mix and contribution to Ecological Footprint total

8.1.4 Assumptions and calculations The assumptions were that:    

renewables replacing brown coal were made up of 70% wind, 15% biogas and 15% solar renewables replaced brown coal – with the exception of 100% renewables electricity demand per person stayed constant the evaluation was for impacts in the target year (2020) and not the transition to that year.

Wind power was assumed to occupy 11 m2 per MW of production (Frischknecht, Jungbluth et al. 2007). Solar was mainly assumed to have no land use as it is largely roof mounted in Australia. Biomass included some land use for bagasse production from sugar growing equal to the relative economic value of sugar and bagasse production (Jungbluth, Chudacoff et al. 2007).

8.1.5 Potential Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts Figure 19 shows how increases in renewable energy penetration can lead to a reduction in the overall Ecological Footprint for Victoria. The reduction was in two parts. One part reduced the Ecological Footprint of consumption in Victoria due to lower electricity impacts in the supply chain. The other part reduced the Ecological Footprint of products exported from Victoria. These exports are not normally included in the consumption Ecological Footprint of Victoria. However in this scenario the Ecological Footprint reduction due to changes at the production source was modelled, not at consumption, so in this case the export footprint reduction achieved through changes in electricity generation should be considered. Table 16 shows that the carbon footprint dominated the electricity footprint. The other land types contributed very little to the overall Ecological Footprint. 58

This means that increases in the cropping and forest footprints as a result of increasing renewables had very little impact on the overall Ecological Footprint result. It needs to be noted though that the carbon land is not actual land use, but a proxy for land required to offset the greenhouse gas emissions through sequestration in forest plantations. The land for renewables is real land, and despite being a small area it is often contested land use. 4.00

Exported footprint

Global Hectares per person

3.50 Victorian electricity consumption footprint

3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Current (2011)

MRET 20% by 2020

30% RET by 2030 100% RET by 2030

Figure 19 Ecological Footprint results for different levels of renewable energy supply Table 16 Reduction in Victorian electricity Ecological Footprint per capita due to increasing renewables in the grid supply

EF LAND TYPE – GHA PER CAPITA Carbon land (gha)

CURRENT (2011)

MRET 20% BY 30% RET BY 2020 2030

100% RET BY 2030

3.4

2.8

2.4

0.1

Cropping land (gha)

3.60E‐03

3.61E‐03

3.63E‐03

Grazing land (gha)

2.44E‐03

Forest land (gha)

1.06E‐02

1.07E‐02

1.08E‐02

1.14E‐02

Built up land (gha)

3.39E‐04

3.87E‐04

3.94E‐04

5.40E‐04

Fishing ground (gha)

1.87E‐04

Victorian consumption electricity footprint (gha)

1.78

1.48

1.30

0.06

Exported footprint (gha)

1.59

1.32

1.16

0.06

17%

27%

97%

Per cent reduction in electricity footprint 59

Victorian consumption footprint reduction

Per cent reduction including export reduction

4.6%

7.3%

26.2%

8.7%

13.9%

49.7%

8.1.6 Co‐benefits and risk factors outside of the Ecological Footprint Table 17 Co‐benefits and risk factors related to increasing renewable energy

Action

Co‐benefits

MRET 20% by 2020

Electricity supplied from renewables will Increasing renewables needs to be lead to lower impacts from a wide range managed to match peak demands at of pollutants including particulate matter different times of day and trace emissions of metals from coal‐ fired power stations. Reduced water consumption and impacts on waters ways

30% RET by 2030 100% RET by 2030

Risk factors

8.1.7 Summary of Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts Table 18 The benefits and impacts of increasing renewable energy on the Ecological Footprint

Action

EF benefit of measure

MRET 20% by 2020 30% RET by 2030 100% RET by 2030

EF impact of measure

Net potential benefit

8.70% Renewable production impacts included in calculation of benefits 13.90%

8.70% 13.90%

49.70%

8.2 Closing Hazelwood power station 8.2.1 Description of measure Hazelwood is one of the oldest and least efficient brown coal power stations in Australia. This measure looks at the potential effects of closing Hazelwood on Victoria’s ecological footprint.

8.2.2 Type of measure This was a production measure based on state‐wide application. 60

8.2.3 Status quo in Victoria No specific published data was found for the thermal efficiency (electricity produced per unit of coal used) for Hazelwood power station however Environment Victoria published a carbon footprint of electricity from Hazelwood on 1.53 t CO2e per MWh of electricity produced(Green Enery Markets 2010). To determine the effects of closing Hazelwood it was necessary to determine the thermal efficiency of its electricity production relative to other generators. Table 19 shows the derivation of the thermal efficiency of Hazelwood and other brown coal generators. The main uncertainty was around the split in efficiency between Morwell and Hazelwood because the report authors were unable to locate any published efficiency data. Morwell’s efficiency was assumed to be slightly above that of Hazelwood. Using 23% thermal efficiency for Hazelwood and standard greenhouse gas emission factors the carbon footprint for power generation from Hazelwood is 1.53t per MWh of electricity, the same as quote in the Environment Victoria report. Table 19 Assumption and derivation of Hazelwood Power Station thermal efficiency

PLANT

EFFICIENCY CONTRIBUTION GENERATION (MWH)

Long Yang B

27.3%

17%

8,500

2011 Loy Yang B Power Station Environmental Performance Report 2006

Long Yang A

26.4%

29%

Efficiency and generation quantity quoted 14,925 in Sustainability Report (Loy Yang Power 2011)

Yallourn

24.2%

21%

10,663

Efficiency and generation quantity quoted in Sustainability Report (TRUenergy 2011)

Hazelwood

23.0%

22%

11,000

Generation estimate from Fact Sheet, efficiency calculated by difference

Morwell

24.0%

12%

5,888

Total brown coal

25.1%

88%

50,976

Generate calculated by difference, efficiency estimated Total efficiency and generation from ESAA 2012

8.2.4 Assumptions and calculations If Hazelwood was closed the electricity supply could be taken up by a variety of generators and by increased efficiency leading to a lower power demand. For the purpose of this measure electricity demand was assumed to be stable. The four options for the replacement of power currently supplied by Hazelwood were:    61

replacement by other brown coal generators replacement by all other current generators at current shares replacement by gas turbines



replacement by renewables – wind power used as the example.

8.2.5 Potential Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts Figure 20 shows the reductions in Victoria’s Ecological Footprint that may be possible if Hazelwood Power Station was replaced with an alternative electricity supplier. 20 18 16 Millions gha

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Vic current

Vic HW Vic HW Vic HW Vic HW replace with replace with replace with replace with coal ALL gas renew

Figure 20 Different scenarios for replacing Hazelwood Power Station (HW) and associated impacts on the Ecological Footprint

8.2.6 Co‐benefits and risk factors outside of the Ecological Footprint Table 20 Co‐benefits and risk factors related to closing Hazelwood Power Station

Action

Co‐benefits

Risk factors

Vic HW replace Likely to have lower pollutants such as with coal NOx and particulates and more energy utilisation of coal reserves

Hazelwood has the lowest sulphur emissions of all Victorian power stations so sulphur dioxide emissions could rise16

Vic HW replace Likely to have lower pollutants such as with ALL NOx and particulates and more energy utilisation of coal reserves

Hazelwood has the lowest sulphur emissions of all Victorian power stations so sulphur dioxide emissions could rise17

Vic HW replace Gas has lower pollutant emissions, with gas including particulates and trace metal emissions, than coal

Depletion of high quality gas supplies. Growing concerns about natural gas extraction.

National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2008, Volume 1 page 25 (Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 2010) ibid. 62 17

Vic HW replace Electricity supplied from renewables will with lead to lower impacts from a wide range renewables of pollutants including particulate matter and trace emissions of metals from coal‐ fired power stations

8.2.7 Summary of Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts Table 21 Benefits and impacts of replacing Hazelwood power station and associated impacts on the Ecological Footprint

Action

EF benefit of measure

Vic HW replace with coal

EF impact of measure

Net potential benefit

2.1% Impact of alternative generation source included in calculation of 3.4% benefits

2.1%

Vic HW replace with gas

8.1%

Vic HW replace with renewables

12.5%

Vic HW replace with ALL

3.4%

8.3 Demand reduction as source of electricity 8.3.1 Description of measure Reducing demand can replace the provision of new generation capacity by freeing infrastructure for other uses or retirement of assets. In this scenario a 1%, a 2% and a 3% reduction per annum in electricity demand was modelled with and without the renewable energy targets. The analysis was broken up into consumer electricity demand (12,705 reduction) and business customer demand (30,654 reduction) (Electricity Supply Association of Australia 2012). These two demand pathways combined are substantially lower than total electricity generation because Victoria exports a substantial amount of electricity.

8.3.2 Type of measure For consumer demand: Consumption measure based on population‐wide application. For business demand: Production measure based on statewide application.

8.3.3 SStatus quo o in Victoriia Consumer demand fo or electricityy in Victoria for 2010–2 2011 was 12 2,705 GWh or 2.3 MWh per person. Bu usiness dem mand for electricity in thhe same pe eriod was 30 0,654 GWh..

8.3.4 A Assumptio ons and calculations Demand reeductions w were applied d across thee entire grid d mix, reduccing all suppplies of elecctricity equally. MRET assump ptions were e the same ffor those prresented in section 8.11.4.

8.3.5 Potential EEcological Footprint benefits and impacts Figure 21 aand Table 22 show the results of ddemand red ductions of 1%, 2% andd 3% per annum (PA) up to 20200. With business electriicity use be ing much higher than d domestic usse, the Ecological Footprint rreduction potential of reducing buusiness elecctricity use iis higher. W With a 3% de emand per year in business an reduction p nd domesticc demand, tthe Ecologiccal Footprinnt can be reduced by 7.7% or 133.2% when ccombined w with the MR RET target.

Figure 21 Efffects of diffferent reducttions in enerrgy demand on the Victo orian Ecologgical Footprin nt, with and without thee inclusion o of the MRET

Table 22 Per cent reduction in Ecological Footprint from 2013 to 2020

REDUCTION SCENARIO (PER ANNUM)

PER CENT ELECTRICITY

PER CENT TOTAL

FOOTPRINT REDUCTION BY

CONSUMPTION FOOTPRINT

2020

REDUCTION BY 2020

Business demand reduction 1%

6.8%

1.9%

Business demand reduction 2%

13.2%

3.7%

Business demand reduction 3%

19.2%

5.4%

Business demand reduction 1% with MRET

22.6%

6.4%

Business demand reduction 2% with MRET

27.9%

7.9%

Business demand reduction 3% with MRET

32.9%

9.3%

Household demand reduction 1%

6.8%

0.8%

Household demand reduction 2%

13.2%

1.5%

Household demand reduction 3%

19.2%

2.3%

Household demand reduction 1% with MRET

22.6%

2.7%

Household demand reduction 2% with MRET

27.9%

3.3%

Household demand reduction 3% with MRET

32.9%

3.9%

Combined demand reduction 1%

6.8%

2.7%

Combined demand reduction 2%

13.2%

5.3%

Combined demand reduction 3%

19.2%

7.7%

Combined demand reduction 1% with MRET

22.6%

9.0%

Combined demand reduction 2% with MRET

27.9%

11.2%

Combined demand reduction 3% with MRET

32.9%

13.2%

8.3.6 Co‐benefits and risk factors outside of the Ecological Footprint Table 23 Co‐benefits and risk factors related to reducing electricity demand

Action

Co‐benefits

Risk factors

Reducing electricity demand

Electricity savings leads to lower impacts from a wide range of pollutants including particulate matter and trace emissions of metals from coal‐fired power stations

8.3.7 Summary of Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts The benefits of reducing electricity demand is shown in Table 22 and if achieved in both the business and domestic section at a rate of 3% a year this would achieve a 13.2% reduction in the ecological footprint.

8.4 Closing Victorian aluminium smelters 8.4.1 Description of measure Aluminium smelting is extremely energy intensive. Victoria has two aluminium smelters, one at Portland in Western Victorian and one at Point Henry, near Geelong. This measure looks at the potential benefits of closing one or both of these smelters and therefore reducing emissions in Victoria. However the measure needs to take into account where the aluminium production is likely to be displaced to because the demand for aluminium was assumed to remain the same for the study.

8.4.2 Type of measure This was a consumption measure based on population‐wide application.

8.4.3 Assumptions and calculations The aluminium currently produced in Victoria was assumed to be replaced by the most competitive producer globally. New aluminium plants require a cheap electricity supply and for this reason the current growth in aluminium production is in the Middle East and is based on electricity production from oil.

The Point Henry smelter has a small black coal power station associated with it. For simplicity this sensitivity assumed that the Point Henry smelter has a production efficiency that is average for Australia and its electricity supply is taken to be average for Victoria18. For the replacement aluminium supply an assumption was made that a Middle Eastern smelter that produces electricity from oil at a 30% energy efficiency, which is low for oil based power generation, produced the replacement aluminium. All other production parameters for aluminium were kept constant, including alumina production and transport for intermediate and final products.

8.4.4 Potential Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts Figure 22 shows the potential benefits of closing the Point Henry aluminium smelter on a per capita basis. The benefit is around 0.05 gha or 0.75% of the average Victorian’s Ecological Footprint. Note that this is based on many assumptions, including the operation of the Portland plant and how newer plants might operate in the Middle East. The results should therefore be seen as indicative only until further research is undertaken. 1.2

Millions gha per year

1 Fishing ground

0.8

Built up land

0.6

Forest land 0.4

Grazing land Cropping land

0.2

Carbon land 0 Aluminium, Aluminium, primary Victoria primary, Middle East

Reduction

Figure 22 Relative impact (in gha per tonne) of closing Point Henry Aluminium Smelter – not for distribution

8.4.5 Co‐benefits and risk factors outside of the Ecological Footprint for closing Point Henry Aluminium Smelter Action

Co‐benefits

Risk factors

According to Alcoa “Anglesea Power Station uses brown coal to provide 41% of the power required for the Point Henry Smelter, the remainder is sourced from the state electricity grid”. 67

Closure of Point Henry Aluminium Smelter

Possible reductions in other brown coal electricity pollutants

8.4.6 Summary of Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts Table 24 Benefits and impacts of closing Point Henry Aluminium Smelter and associated impacts on the Ecological Footprint

Action Closure of Point Henry Aluminium Smelter

EF benefit of measure 2.99%

EF impact of measure 2.57%

Net potential benefit 0.42%

Although the measure reduces Victoria’s Ecological Footprint, and results in marginal reductions to global EF impact, it goes against the spirit of the campaign in that the majority of the impact is exported offshore rather than eliminated.

9 Transportt 9.1 Con ntributions and d drivers The transp port sector ccontributed d 13% of Vicctoria’s Ecollogical Footprint (Figurre 7). As shown FFigure 23, p private vehicle transpo rt (32%) and commerccial road tra nsport (32% %) (i.e. all commerciaal, freight and bus transport) madde up about two‐thirds of the tota l transport consumption footprin nt. Air transport came tthird at 27% % and rail att 3%.

Rail ttransport 3 3.2%

Others 6.5% Air transpo ort 26.6%

Private vehicle transsport 32..0%

Co ommercial road d transport 31.7%

Figure 23 Breakdown o of the Ecological Footprinnt for transp port

In terms off global warrming poten ntial, transpport was the e second largest produucer of gree enhouse gases in Victoria afterr electricity generation,, emitting o over 20 milliion tonnes oof carbon d dioxide every yearr.

9.2 Envvironmen ntally aw ware drivving 9.2.1 Descriptio on of measure Efficient drriving resultts in reduce ed overall fuuel use and emissions ffrom vehiclees. This measure involved a range of acctivities: red ducing weigght of the ve ehicle and itts air drag, maintainingg vehicles at maximu um operatin ng efficiencyy with regul ar servicingg, keeping tyyres at the correct pressure and eliminatingg excessing acceleratio on. Examplees of fuel effficient driving practicess are provid ded at the RACV webssite.

9.2.2 Type of measure This was a consumption measure based on individual actions.

9.2.3 Status quo in Victoria Current average fuel consumption is of 11.0 litres/100 km for petrol passenger vehicle consumption and 12.3 litres/100km for diesel passenger vehicles(Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013).

9.2.4 Assumptions and calculations The data for this measure was taken from the Australian Greenhouse Calculator, which suggests that “Eco‐driving” leads to 15% less fuel use than “Typical driving” (Australian Greenhouse Calculator, 2012).

9.2.5 Potential Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts Figure 24 shows the benefits of fuel efficient driving practices on the private vehicle Ecological Footprint. This benefit of 0.05 gha/person/year translates to a 0.7% reduction in an individual’s total Ecological Footprint.

gha for individual private vehicle EF

0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 ‐ Average driving

Efficient driving

Figure 24 Benefits of efficient driving practices on an individual’s private vehicle Ecological Footprint

9.2.6 Co‐benefits and risk factors outside of the Ecological Footprint Table 25 Co‐benefits and risk factors related to efficient driving practices

Action

Co‐benefits

Risk factors

Implementing Substantial improvements in air quality efficient driving along with reduction in congestion and practices noise impacts

None

9.2.7 Summary of Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts Table 26 Benefits of implementing efficient driving practice and associated impacts on the Ecological Footprint

Action

EF benefit of measure

Implementing efficient driving practices

EF negative impact of measure

0.7%

Net potential benefit for an individual

None

0.7%

9.3 Increasing car sharing 9.3.1 Description of measure This measure aims to increased car share participation from current levels19 up to 10% of the Victorian vehicle population of 4,286,000 cars. This would result in the removal of around 428,600 cars from the roads.

9.3.2 Type of measure This was a consumption measure based on population‐wide application.

9.3.3 Status quo in Victoria Over the last 10 years, car sharing systems such as goget20 or Flexicar21 have been developed in Australia. In Victoria, these car sharing systems are mainly focussed on inner Melbourne (the central business district (CBD) and surrounding suburbs). The care share websites show that goget has approximately 125 cars in Melbourne and Flexicar has approximately 150–200 cars, and Green

Which are likely to be less than 5,000 participants based on data on current car share websites, www.goget.com.au 21 www.flexicar.com.au 71 20

Car Share has approximately 40 cars. Assuming there are 23 members per car, which is a number quoted by goget, this would give something in the order of 10,000 car share members.

9.3.4 Assumptions and calculations According to the goget website, participants in the car share scheme drive 20% less after becoming a car share member(GoGet 2013). There will also be some savings from vehicle manufacture as goget claim that each share car removes 9 cars from the roads. This statistic has not been added to the Ecological Footprint savings due to its high uncertainty and likely small contribution.

9.3.5 Potential Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts

millions gha for private vehicle EF in Victoria

Figure 25 shows the benefits of a 10% uptake of car share schemes in Victoria. The benefits were modest due to the assumption that car share participants only reduce their car use by 20% (GoGet 2013). This reduction could be much larger when combined with other transport demand policies. 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 ‐ Current

With 10% uptake of car sharing

Figure 25 Benefits to the Victorian private transport Ecological Footprint associated with an increase in participation in car share schemes to 10% of the current vehicle fleet

9.3.6 Co‐benefits and risk factors outside of the Ecological Footprint Table 27 Co‐benefits and risk factors related to increasing car share participation in Victoria

Action

Co‐benefits

Risk factors

Individuals equivalent to 10% of Victorian

Substantial improvement in air quality along with reduction in congestion and noise impacts

Risk of a rebound effect with new available road space taken up with other vehicles

vehicle fleet give up their cars and join car share

9.3.7 Summary of Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts Table 28 Benefits of increasing car share participation in Victoria and associated impacts on the Ecological Footprint

Action Individuals equivalent to 10% of Victorian vehicle fleet give up their cars and join car share

EF benefit of measure

EF impact of measure

0.3% Avoided driving is assumed not to be replaced by other modes of transport

Net potential benefit 0.3%

9.4 Other transport measures Other transport impact reduction measures modelled for Environment Victoria included travel demand management, and increased vehicle occupancy. Analyses were limited to the CO2 reductions available by the measures. Footprint reductions available through emissions reductions for each of the measures analysed are summarised below:

9.4.1 Travel demand management Previous research commissioned by Environment Victoria indicated that an annual reduction of 1.43 million tonnes CO2 per year is achievable in ten years. By 2020 (6 years) achievable reductions were assumed to be 60% of this total, so 859,800 tonnes CO2 per year. 22 This converts to an Ecological Footprint reduction of 4.7% in the transport footprint, and a 0.7% reduction in the total Ecological Footprint for Victoria.

9.4.2 Increased vehicle occupancy Previous research commissioned by Environment Victoria indicated that an annual reduction of 868,000 tonnes CO2 per year is achievable in ten years, through increased vehicle occupancy resulting in a 10% reduction in private vehicle use.23

Nous Group, 2007, Turning it around: climate solutions for Victoria; p 38. 73

This converts to an Ecological Footprint reduction of 4.7% in the transport footprint, and a 0.7% reduction in the total Ecological Footprint.

9.5 Increasing biofuels use 9.5.1 Description of measure One response to dwindling oil supplies and concern over climate change has been to substitute conventional fossil fuels with crop based biofuels. These biofuels fall into two main categories:  

ethanol based fuel for use as a petrol substitute in spark ignition engines biodiesel based fuel for use as a diesel substitute in compression ignition engines.

The three main sources of ethanol in Australia are:   

from molasses – as by‐product of the sugar industry from wheat and wheat starch waste products from sorghum grain.

The main source of biodiesel is from canola. It is available as a pure 100% canola‐based biodiesel and a 20% biodiesel blend.

9.5.2 Type of measure This was a consumption measure based on individual use of biofuel.

9.5.3 Status quo in Victoria There is currently very little use of biofuel in Victoria.

9.5.4 Assumptions and calculations Ethanol was assumed to be used as an 85% blend with unleaded petrol. The ethanol blend was compared to the use of pure unleaded petrol. The efficiency of combustion was assumed to be the same for all fuels – that is the conversion of energy in the fuel to energy in the vehicle. The molasses and wheat starch waste were both considered by‐products of sugar and wheat starch production respectively and were allocated the impacts of removing them from their current use. Ethanol production was based on data published by the Australian ethanol producers (Cowman Stoddart Pty Ltd 2008; GHD 2008); (Mitchell 2009) and personal comments from the Dalby plant manager on sorghum based diesel.

ibid 74

It was assumed that diesel and biodiesel were utilised in a heavy truck and again they were assumed to have the same efficiency for each fuel. Data were based on a CSIRO study undertaken for Caltex (Beer, Grant et al. 2007).

9.5.5 Potential Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts Figure 26 shows that ethanol provided no benefit to the Ecological Footprint because the cropping land required vastly outweighs the carbon land saving. The wheat starch waste has the lowest footprint of the three sources with the use of the starch by‐product reducing the overall footprint of this source. Figure 27 shows that canola based biodiesel also does not benefit the Ecological Footprint. Despite significant carbon footprint savings, the cropping land required makes the biodiesel footprint 50% higher than conventional diesel. Each biofuel should in future be assessed on its own merit as better feedstocks based on waste products and/or integrated bio refineries, which produce a range of products, show some promise of a better outcome than the current biofuel production systems.

Global Hectares per 1000 car km

0.30

Fishing ground

0.25

Built up land

0.20

Forest land

0.15

Grazing land

0.10

Cropping land Carbon land

0.05 ‐

Figure 26 Comparison of cars using ULP and ethanol from three different sources

Global Hectares per 1000 truck km

0.40

Built up land

0.35 Forest land 0.30 Grazing land

0.25 0.20

Cropping land

0.15

Carbon land

0.10 0.05 ‐

Figure 27 Comparison of articulated trucks using diesel (ULS), 20% canola biodiesel blend with conventional diesel and pure canola biodiesel

9.5.6 Co‐benefits and risk factors outside of the Ecological Footprint Table 29 Co‐benefits and risk factors related to increasing biofuels use

Action

Co‐benefits

Risk factors

Ethanol

Increasing fuel security and development Direct and indirect land use of renewable fuels industry. Lower competition leading to increase in emissions in some vehicles and lower areas required for farming GHG emissions

Biodiesel

9.5.7 Summary of Ecological Footprint benefits and impacts Table 30 Benefits and impacts of increasing biofuels use and associated impacts in the Ecological Footprint

Action

EF benefit of measure

EF impact of measure – increase per unit of biofuel replacement.

Net potential benefit per unit of biofuel replacement

E85 molasses

Benefits are included in calculation of the E85 wheat and impacts. starch waste

20.7%

‐20.7%

3.2%

‐3.2%

E85 sorghum

10.9%

‐10.9%

BD20 canola

4.7%

‐4.7%

BD100 canola

22.9%

‐22.9%

10 Goods and services consumption One of the strongest drivers of ecological footprints is the availability of money, in particular disposable income. This is shown in Figure 28 with the correlation of the Melbourne Ecological Footprint with the annual dollars of income per capita. For many consumption categories it is difficult to achieve net reductions in consumption – everyone needs to be housed, clothed and fed and to get to and from places of employment. However in the goods and services category many purchases are discretionary and individuals are free to make different choices.

Figure 28 Correlation between Ecological Footprint and per capita income Source: (Department of Planning and Community Development 2013)

Using the economic input‐output model developed for this report, the Ecological Footprint of the service sectors of the economy was analysed and is presented in Figure 29. This shows that expenditure on services such as education had a much lower impact than spending on road or air transport. In general, the service‐oriented activities had less impact than material and fuel consuming activities. Food and beverage services could be examined as alternatives to home preparation. It may be that the food‐related impacts of food and beverage services may be just a shift in the Ecological Footprint and not in addition to it. And it may be true that there are efficiencies available in large scale food preparation and cooking in restaurants. The data presented in Figure 29 are not detailed enough to design a sustainability campaign around without further examination. The data does suggest that an important strategy to look at is in promoting dematerialised and decarbonised commodities and services, which have the potential to decouple economic growth from environmental impacts. 78

Road transport Food and beverage services Air and space transport Accommodation Gambling Rail transport Sports and recreation Personal services Automotive repair and maintenance Residential care and social assistance services Heritage, creative and performing arts Motion picture and sound recording Carbon Land

Telecommunication services

Cropping Land

Rental and hiring services (except real estate)

Grazing Land

Health care services

Forest Land

Education and training

Built up land Fishing ground

Other services Library and other Information services Ownership of dwellings Auxiliary finance and insurance services Insurance and superannuation funds Finance ‐

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

gha per $000 of consumer spending

Figure 29 Impacts of different ways of spending $1000 dollars

0.6

11 Conclusions and recommendations The examination of the Victoria Ecological Footprint has revealed that:    



The growth in the Ecological Footprint over time has occurred predominately in the carbon footprint. For Victoria a majority of our carbon Ecological Footprint is from electricity production. The second strongest driver for the Ecological Footprint is income. A doubling of per capita income shows a 50% increase in the Ecological Footprint. The Ecological Footprint for food is dominated by meat and dairy consumption. The household energy use Ecological Footprint is driven primarily by space heating, followed by hot water use and lighting. It is disproportionately high as a result of the carbon intensive nature of Victoria’s brown coal electricity generation, and the thermal inefficiency of Victorian homes. The transport Ecological Footprint is made up mostly of road transport split equally between private vehicle use and commercial traffic.

After examination of the measures for Ecological Footprint reduction it can be concluded that: The strongest levers for reducing Victoria’s Ecological Footprint are to reduce electricity demand and change the production technology for electricity. 

  

While alarming statistics abound on food waste, some level of food waste is inevitable. The results from this report suggest that a range of measures can be employed with little risk that the measure will have higher negative impacts than the reduction. However, large scale reduction in food waste seems unlikely until food becomes significantly more expensive. Reducing meat consumption is an effective measure to reduce an individual’s Ecological Footprint. Diet and dietary recommendations provide an additional incentive and . There are incremental savings to be made with relatively little effort in the transport areas, and it is possible that the scenarios modelled here underestimate the achievable benefits. Current biofuels fare poorly from an Ecological Footprint perspective due to their land use requirements. Future biofuels based on waste materials may improve this situation.

Changing the way disposable income is spent could improve the Ecological Footprint of Victorians, and depending on how it’s done, could improve quality of life. More analysis is required to develop options in this area.

Appendix A A.1 Ecological Footprint data sources and interaction

Glossary Biocapacity – Biological capacity, which is the ability of an ecosystem to create valuable biological materials and to absorb carbon dioxide emissions. Biophysical – The biophysical environment is the biotic and abiotic surroundings of an organism, or population, and includes particularly the factors that have an influence in their survival, development and evolution. Ecological Footprint – The Ecological Footprint measures how much biologically productive land and water a population requires to provide for current levels of consumption and waste production. Global hectare – One hectare (approximately soccer field size) of biologically productive space with world‐average productivity. LCA

Life Cycle Assessment method of calculating the environmental impacts of products and services from cradle to grave.

IO analysis

Input output analysis is a technique which uses economic supply and use table between the different sectors of the economy to calculate the flow on impacts of changes in demand in any given sector.

References ABARE‐BRS (2010). "Land Use of Australia Version 4, 2005‐06." ABARE (2011). "Energy in Australia 2011." Canberra ACT, ABARE, Australian Bureau of Agricultural Reseach Economics. ABARES (2012). "ACS 2012 Meat General Tables." A. B. o. A. a. R. E. a. Sciences. Canberra. Alternative Technology Association (2012). "2.5 billion reasons to invest in efficiency. A report by the Alternative Technology Association for the One Million Homes Alliance. Modelling the impact of improving the energy efficiency of Victoria’s." Melbourne. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011). "4602.2 Household Water, Energy Use and Conservation, Victoria." A. B. o. Statistics. Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011). "Household Expenditure Survey, Australia: Detailed Expenditure Items, 2009‐10." A. B. o. Statistics. Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013). "Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, Australia, 12 months ended 30 June 2012." Canberra, Australian Bureau of Statistics,. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (2013). "Eat for Health, Australian Dietary Guidelines ‐ Summary." Beer, T., T. Grant, et al. (2007). "The greenhouse and air quality emissions of biodiesel blends in Australia. Aspendale, Victoria, Australia, Prepared with financial assistance from the Department of Environment and Water Resources (DEW) for Caltex Pty Ltd." Centre for Design at RMIT and Global Footprint Network (2006). "Ecological Footprint Analysis of Aurora Residential Development ‐ Prepared for EPA Victoria, VicUrban and Building Commission." Cowman Stoddart Pty Ltd (2008). "Proposed ethanol production upgrade including proposed odour reduction and waste water treatment measures for existing Shoalhaven starches operations." Shoalhaven Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (2010). "Australian National Greenhouse Accounts, National Inventory Report 2008 Volume 1." Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia. Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (2012). "National Greenhouse Accounts Factors." Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia. Department of Planning and Community Development (2013) "Sustaining the Environment." Retrieved 07/06/13, 2013, from http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/31163/Melbournes_ecological_footpr int.pdf Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts (2008). "Energy use in the Australian residential sector, 1986‐2020." Electricity Supply Association of Australia (2012). "Electricity Gas Australia 2012." Melbourne,, Electricity Supply Association of Australia. Environment Victoria (2012). "One Million Homes briefing ‐ Current as of 3rd April 2012." EPA Victoria (2008) "Ecological Footprint ‐ Measuring our impact on the environment." from http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/ecologicalfootprint/default.asp. EPA Victoria (2008). "Victoria’s Ecological Footprint." Epa Victoria (2011) "Australian Greenhouse Calculator." Retrieved 6/5/2013, 2013, from http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/agc/home.html. EUREAPA (2004) "Environmental Impact of Ecological Footprint." Retrieved 05/06/13, from https://www.eureapa.net/explore/?region_id=13&footprintgroup_id=0&productgroup_id=0&im pactgroup_id=1. Food Wise (2013) "Fast Facts on Food Waste." Retrieved 24/06/2013, from http://foodwise.com.au/foodwaste/.

Frischknecht, R., N. Jungbluth, et al. (2007). "Life Cycle Inventories of Energy Systems: Results for Current Systems in Switzerland and other UCTE Countries. Ecoinvent data version 2.0, ecoinvent Report No. 5." Dübendorf, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, . GHD (2008). "Report for Ethanol Plant Upgrade Shoalhaven Starches Greenhouse Gas Assessment." Sydney. Global Footprint Network (2009). "Ecological Footprint Standards 2009." Oakland:. 29/01/2013. Global Footprint Network (2011). "National Footprint Accounts, Australia, 2008." Global Footprint Network (2013) "Ecological Footprint ‐ Methodology and Sources." from http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/methodology/. GoGet (2013) "Environmental benefits of GoGet." Retrieved 12 September 2013, 2013, from http://www.goget.com.au/environmental‐benefits/. Green Enery Markets (2010). "Fast‐tracking Victoria’s clean energy future to replace Hazelwood Power Station." Melbourne, Environment Victoria. Grooten, M., R. Almond, et al. (2012). "Living Planet Report 2012." Gland, Switzerland, WWF–World Wide Fund For Nature. International Organization for Standardization (2013). "Technical Specification, ISO/TS 14067:2013, Greenhouse gases — Carbon footprint of products — Requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication." Switzerland, ISO. Jungbluth, N., M. Chudacoff, et al. (2007). "ecoinvent data version 2.0, Life Cycle Inventrories of Bioenergy, v2.0 ‐ ecoinvent report No. 8." Zurich, Ecoinvent Centre. Loy Yang Power (2011). "Sustainabilty Report 2011 ‐ Loy Yang Power." Traralgon. Mitchell, D. (2009). "Life Cycle Analysis Model of Fuel Ethanol Production ‐ Executive Summary." Sydney, Energetics. MLA (2011) "Industry overview." Retrieved 25/06/2013, from http://www.mla.com.au/Cattle‐sheep‐and‐ goat‐industries/Industry‐overview. Sustainability Victoria (2013). "Solar photovoltaic (PV) systems." Save on your electricity bill with solar PV panels. TRUenergy (2011). "TRUenergy Yallourn Social and Environmental Performance Summary 2011." Yallourne. Wackernagel, M. and W. Rees (1995). "Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers." Philadelphia, PA. Wiedmann, T., R. Wood, et al. (2008). "The Ecological Footprint of consumption in Victoria." Victorian Environment Protection Authority. WWF (2012 )"The Footprint Calculator." Retrieved 15/05/2013, from http://www.wwf.org.au/our_work/people_and_the_environment/human_footprint/footprint_c alculator/